Agenda item

To note the Uttlesford Employment Needs & Economic Development Evidence.

The Planning Policy Officer said that the report looked at the economic growth and employment need of the district, and that it followed on from 3 working papers presented earlier in the year.   She said it looked at the employment structure of the district, a commercial market review, a business survey, the growth of Stansted Airport, the employment land supply and floor space required.

Matt Kingham from Iceni Projects presented the report.          

Councillor Caton asked what the skills and income levels would be at the Northside development as he was concerned that although it would provide jobs, the majority of employees would not be able to afford to live in the district.  He was concerned about the additional pressure on affordable housing stock. 

Mr Kingham said that it was likely to be low skill and low wage jobs with some managerial positions.  He said he could circulate income details on projects of a similar style. 

Members were concerned about Live/Work spaces as mentioned in the report as these had been unsuccessful in the past. 

Mr Kingham said he could provide details of some successful schemes in North London, but agreed to revisit that emphasis in the report.  

Councillor Light asked about Chesterford Retail Park (CRP) and the statement made that it was a key economic driver, she thought there was no real evidence behind this.  She asked how many local people were employed at CRP and how much it contributed to the local economy.

The Chair asked the Planning Policy Officer to circulate some statistics after the meeting. 

Councillor Pavitt said that apart from CRP there was nowhere else in the district that would benefit from the life sciences and bio tech companies’ sector.  He was concerned that this was because of the Council’s interest in the research park. 

The Local Plans and New Communities Manager said that CRP had a great deal of capacity for further growth.  He said that the companies worked closely together and would benefit from the conglomeration. 

The Chair said that the rationale for why other areas were not being considered needed to be clear within the report.

Councillor Reeve said that there was a good argument for start-up hubs to be built throughout the district not only for the life science industry but also for others including the emerging green economy.  He said a second CRP should be considered, 

In reply to a question from Councillor Reeve, the Local Plan and New Communities Manager said that there would be further work on establishing the need for extra housing in terms of the growth of jobs in the district, but the paper on housing requirements that came to the group in the Spring/Summer did start to cover this. 

Councillor Merifield raised the large number of mobile businesses within the report and said if this increased there would be a lot of cars on the road. She said that CRP needed to encourage apprenticeships within the district.  She said it was the whole district that was a draw for the visitor economy.

Mr Kingham said there was likely to be more of an emphasis on people working from home within the district which was driven by the pandemic and would be likely to continue and increase.   He said that it was a good idea for CRP to link with local schools and Essex universities and the Southeast Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP).

Councillor Sutton said that the majority of jobs that were forecast were likely to be focused on the bigger sites like Stansted Airport and CRP and that should be taken into consideration when deciding where to build new houses.

Councillor Tayler said that more people were building home offices in the garden, and this would continue to increase.  He said that the high levels of growth in science and bio tech companies in Cambridge would have an effect on the Uttlesford area and this needed to be considered and the opportunities that this brought to the district recognised. 

Councillor Evans said that there was potential for the Northside development to have some scientific workspaces built. 

The Planning Policy Officer said that the issue with building science laboratories was the large difference in cost as they would need to be of a high specification and only suitable for certain locations. 

The Group noted the report.