Settlement Planning for North
Norfolk
A report of work based on travel to
work analysis to inform the RSS and
LDF
FINAL VERSION
Prepared for the North Norfolk
District Council
by
Land Use Consultants
October 2005
14 Great George Street
Bristol BS1 15RH
Tel: 01179 291 997
Fax: 01179 291 998
luc@bristol.landuse.co.uk
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 5
2. Policy Context ..................................................................................... 6
National Planning Policy ............................................................................................................................ 6
Regional Policy............................................................................................................................................. 7
County Context........................................................................................................................................11
Local Policy.................................................................................................................................................13
Summary .....................................................................................................................................................13
3. Travel to Work Analysis.................................................................. 15
Population and Economic Activity ........................................................................................................15
Travel to Work .........................................................................................................................................18
Patterns of travel to work ......................................................................................................................24
Towns outside the District.....................................................................................................................24
Towns and Selected Villages in North Norfolk .................................................................................33
Selected Villages in North Norfolk.......................................................................................................46
4. Discussion .......................................................................................... 56
Recommendations for the RSS ..............................................................................................................56
Recommendations for the North Norfolk LDF ................................................................................57
Method and data used ............................................................................ 61
Integrity of the data ................................................................................ 62
Conclusions .............................................................................................. 66
TABLES
Table 1 Population and economic activity in the towns ................................................... 16
Table 2 Economic activity and inactivity in the towns....................................................... 17
Table 3 Trips into and out of the towns for work............................................................. 21
Table 4 Mode and average distance to work ...................................................................... 23
Table 5 Main flows in and out of Norwich for work......................................................... 24
Table 6 Main flows in and out of King’s Lynn for work .................................................... 26
Table 7 Main flows in and out of Great Yarmouth for work .......................................... 29
Table 8 Main flows in and out of Dereham for work........................................................ 30
Table 9 Main flows in and out of Aylsham for work.......................................................... 32
Table 10 Major flows in and out of Fakenham for work .................................................. 34
Table 11 Main flows in and out of Wells-next-the-Sea for work ................................... 35
Table 12 Major flows in and out of North Walsham for work....................................... 37
Table 13 Main flows in and out of Stalham for work......................................................... 38
Table 14 Major flows in and out of Cromer for work...................................................... 40
Table 15 Main flows in and out of Sheringham for work ................................................. 41
Table 16 Main flows in and out of Holt for work .............................................................. 44
Table 17 Population of selected villages ............................................................................... 46
Table 18 Self-containment and commuting flows to and from selected villages ......... 47
FIGURES
Figure 1 The East of England region and proposed sub-regions / sub-areas...................9
Figure 2 Self-containment and trips out of Norwich for work ....................................... 25
Figure 3 Trips into Norwich for work.................................................................................. 25
Figure 4 Self-containment and trips out of King’s Lynn for work................................... 27
Figure 5 Trips into King’s Lynn for work ............................................................................. 27
Figure 6 Self-containment and trips out of Great Yarmouth for work ......................... 29
Figure 7 Trips into Great Yarmouth for work.................................................................... 29
Figure 8 Self-containment and trips out of Dereham for work ...................................... 31
Figure 9 Trips into Dereham for work................................................................................. 31
Figure 10 Self-containment and trips out of Aylsham for work...................................... 32
Figure 11 Trips into Aylsham for work ................................................................................ 32
Figure 12 Place of residence for those working within one of the towns.................... 33
Figure 13 Place of residence for those working outside the towns............................... 33
Figure 14 Self-containment and trips out of Fakenham for work................................... 34
Figure 15 Trips into Fakenham for work.............................................................................. 34
Figure 16 Self-containment and trips out of Wells-next-the-Sea for work.................. 36
Figure 17 Trips into Wells-next-the-Sea for work ............................................................ 36
Figure 18 Self-containment and trips out of North Walsham for work ....................... 38
Figure 19 Trips into North Walsham for work.................................................................. 38
Figure 20 Self-containment and trips out of Stalham for work ....................................... 39
Figure 21 Trips into Stalham for work.................................................................................. 39
Figure 22 Self-containment and trips out of Cromer for work ...................................... 40
Figure 23 Trips into Cromer for work................................................................................. 40
Figure 24 Self-containment and trips out of Sheringham for work ................................ 42
Figure 25 Trips into Sheringham for work........................................................................... 42
Figure 26 Self-containment and trips out of Holt for work ............................................. 44
Figure 27 Trips into Holt for work........................................................................................ 44
Figure 28 Villages selected for analysis.................................................................................. 46
Figure 29 Self-containment and trips out of Coltishall air-base for work..................... 49
Figure 30 Trips into Coltishall air-base for work ............................................................... 49
Figure 31 Self-containment and trip out of Hoveton / Wroxham for work................ 50
Figure 32 Trips into Hoveton / Wroxham for work......................................................... 50
Figure 33 Self-containment and trips out of Ludham for work....................................... 51
Figure 34 Self-containment and trips out of Happisburgh and Mundesley for work.. 52
Figure 35 Self-containment and trips out of Briston / Melton Constable for work ... 53
APPENDICES
Methodology for travel to work mapping
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
This report presents an analysis of travel to work from and to settlements in and
adjacent to the North Norfolk District. The analysis has been commissioned by the
North Norfolk District Council in order to assist the future strategic planning of the
District. It uses GIS techniques developed by Land Use Consultants which map the
origin and destination of travel to work and clearly illustrates how towns and smaller
settlements function and interrelate as places of residence and employment1.
1.2.
The purpose of the analysis is primarily to inform the production of the development
plan in the District which will comprise of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and
Local Development Framework (LDF). East of England Draft RSS to 2021 is about to
go through an Examination in Public (due to commence in November 2005) and
work has begun to collect the evidence base for the North Norfolk LDF. Key
objectives of these plans are to match housing and employment and reduce the need
to travel by car. Hence the interest in this travel to work analysis.
1.3.
Past planning policy has generally assumed that long distance commuting by car will
be reduced by placing housing close to employment and/or where there is public
transport available. But past research undertaken by LUC2 has found that this is not
always the case, especially in rural areas. The travel to work analysis therefore looks
at how towns and settlements function as residential and employment centres, and
from this infers which settlements have more or less sustainable travel to work
patterns and networks. These can then be joined with other data such as
environmental and infrastructure capacity, housing needs assessment etc to identify
the more sustainable locations for development.
1
2
The full set of data here refered to is on a CD-ROM held by the North Norfolk District Council
East Riding, High Weald, Sustainable Rural Settlements
5
2.
POLICY CONTEXT
2.1.
North Norfolk sits within the East of England region – a relatively new region that
was previously divided between East Anglia and the South East. In accordance with
the new planning system3, a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) is being prepared for the
East of England and a Local Development Framework is in the early stages of being
prepared for the North Norfolk District. Until these are adopted, planning in North
Norfolk will adhere to the policies in the existing Local Plan (adopted 1998) and this
plus the Draft RSS are summarised below. The Norfolk County Structure Plan, which
has become redundant under the planning reforms, is also summarised as part of a
context for current policy development.
2.2.
When considering planning policies, it is important to have an appreciation of some
key characteristics of the largely rural North Norfolk District. The District has a
population of 99,400 people4. It has 45 miles of North Sea coastline and areas of its
landscape are recognised as being of either County or national importance. Within
the District, over half the population live in villages, hamlets and scattered dwellings.
Parts of the District, particularly along its coastline, are also recognised as being of
national or international importance for landscape and nature conservation. These
characteristics make it an attractive place to live and the District has been subject to
in-migration which have forced up house prices and, together with a reduction in
social housing provision, has led to shortages in affordable housing5. The protection
of the environment and provision of affordable housing are key issues for planning
policy to address.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
2.3.
The broad approach to rural settlement planning in England is set out in the Rural
White Paper ‘Our Countryside Our Future: The future, a fair deal for Rural England’ (2000,
and review in 20046) and brought forward in Planning Policy Statements and
Guidance notes: PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004), PPG3 Housing
(2000) and PPG13 Transport (2002). Outside of urban areas, all of these documents
support focussing development in settlements that act as ‘service centres’ or ‘local
service centres’, defined in PPS7 as:
“where employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can
be provided close together. This should help to ensure these facilities are served by public
transport and provide improved opportunities for access by walking and cycling. These
centres (which might be a country town or a large village or a group of villages) should be
identified in the development plan as the preferred location for such development.”
2.4.
This notion of ‘local service centres’ is quite simplistic and does not distinguish
between different types of centre that may provide very different types and qualities
of service, housing and jobs, and so may function in very different ways.
3
As defined by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, see www.odpm.gov.uk/planning
Estimated population mid-2003, ONS neighbourhood statistics
5
North Norfolk Local Plan (1998)
4
6
http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/ruralwp/default.htm
6
2.5.
Outside of these local service centres, PPS7 restricts development to that which will
“meet local business and community needs and help to maintain the viability of these
communities.”
2.6.
Planning policies are more generally more supportive of development in rural
settlements providing affordable housing or a service function, as these are widely
agreed to be priorities for rural communities in national policy7.
2.7.
PPG3 Housing allows planning authorities to specify that a proportion of market
housing is affordable housing, even on the smallest development sites. The Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has now issued further amendments to PPG3
which further extend the powers of planning authorities to use the rural exception
policy to allow planning permission on land that would not otherwise be released for
general market housing, to be used solely for affordable housing8.
REGIONAL POLICY
2.8.
The Draft RSS is in the process of being endorsed, but the East of England Regional
Assembly has suspended its endorsement of the Plan due to lack of central
government funding for essential infrastructure and the Examination in Public has
been postponed to commence in November 2005.
2.9.
The Plan contains both generic spatial policies (the ‘core strategy’) and sub-regional
or sub-area policies. The first generic spatial policy is ‘achieving sustainable
development’ (Policy SS1) for which the Plan sets the headline targets to achieve
regional economic aspirations set out in the Regional Economic Strategy, meet the
housing needs of all sections of the community and increase the provision of
affordable housing. The strategy states that in general terms, this will mean that:
2.10.
7
8
•
no area will have a rate of growth lower than present RSS rates
•
most areas, especially those identified in the Government’s Sustainable
Communities Plan as potential growth areas, will accommodate higher growth
rates than at present
•
positive action is needed to address the needs of priority regeneration areas
(Thames Gateway/South Essex, Bedford/Kempston, Luton / Dunstable /
Houghton Regis, Harlow and the Lee Valley, parts of the Haven Gateway, Great
Yarmouth / Lowerstoft) and other areas with regionally significant regeneration
needs
•
overall, the strong relationship, particularly in the south of the region, with
London and the South East, needs to be recognized.
The policy “requires a sequential approach to the location of major development” and “in
most instances development will be focused in or adjacent to major urban areas where there
is good public transport accessibility and where strategic networks (rail, road, bus) connect.
In more rural reas, development will be focused on market towns which have good public
Rural White Paper review, http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/rwpreview/default.htm
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n=2316&l=1
7
transport accessibility to key urban areas. By locating housing, jobs and services in close
proximity the need for long-distance commuting will be reduced.” [para 4.13]
2.11.
The overall approach to the spatial strategy identifies Key Centres in which
development and change will be focused and Sub-regions and Sub-areas which are
covered by more specific policies in order to ensure that they are planned for with
respect to the hinterlands of the towns and infrastructure requirements of the subregion or sub-area. Some areas that do not fall into either of these catagories are
covered under policies for ‘development in and adjoining urban areas’ and ‘development
in rural areas’. All areas are covered by a set of generic policies that are laid out in the
Core Spatial Strategy. These generic policies include:
•
use of previously developed land and buildings – that “at least 60% of all
new development in the region will take place in or using previously used land or
buildings” (policy SS4)
•
transport – to “reduce the need, and hence demand, for travel; improve range of
public transport to, from and within Regional Interchange Centres … encourage walking
and cycling… maintenance, management and improvement of a multi-modal strategic
transport network” (policy SS6)
•
green belt – “the broad extent of which are to be maintained” (policy SS7)
•
development and flood risk – “the priority is to defend existing properties from
flooding, and where possible locate new development in locations with little or no risk of
flooding” (policy SS14)
and
•
2.12.
overall housing provision – that “affordable housing must constitute at least 30%
of housing supply in all local authority areas, though the overall aspiration is to secure at
least 40% where housing stress warrants higher provision” (policy SS13)
The North Norfolk District is wholly a rural area with market towns and coastal
areas. The generic spatial policies for these areas are:
•
town centres – “ thriving, vibrant and attractive town centres are fundamental to the
sustainable development of the East of England, they will continue to be the focus for
investment, environmental enhancement and regeneration” (policy SS5)
•
rural areas – development should be “focussed in market towns and thereafter in
key service centres … with consideration of the need to accommodate additional
housing, employment growth and economic diversification; enhance the environment of
the town centre; improve the accessibility of the towns by public transport from
surrounding rural areas; extend the provision of shopping facilities and services in the
towns centre; improve access to high-speed communications technology” and to
provide for a range of rural needs including to “manage development pressures in
rural settlements … encourage change and enabling diversification of the economy,
usually in remote areas with poor access to jobs and services and pockets of
deprivation” (policy SS9)
8
•
2.13.
coastal areas – “to achieve regeneration of coastal towns and communities; the
conservation of the environment of the coast and coastal waters.” LDDs will adopt
policies to “support the restructuring of the coastal economy; … ensure region’s
coastal resorts continue to provide for local and visitor needs; … facilitate beneficial
inter-relationships and linkages between town centres and leisure areas”. (policy SS15)
None of the Key Centres9 are within the North Norfolk District, but parts of the
District fall within the Sub-regions of Norwich and King’s Lynn and will be required
to undertake joint or cooperative working on local development plan documents.
The Draft RSS proposed sub-regions and sub-areas are shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 The East of England region and proposed sub-regions / sub-areas
Source: East of England Draft RSS
9
(in alphebetical order): Basildon, Bedford, Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge, Chelmsford, Colchester, Great
Yarmouth, Harlow, Hemel Hempstead, Ipswich, King’s Lynn, Lowestoft, Luton/Dunstable, Norwich,
Peterborough, Southend-on-Sea, Stansted/M11 corridor towns (as set out in Stansted/M11 sub-regional
strategy), Stevenage, Thurrock, Watford
9
2.14.
Within the Norwich sub-region are market towns that are broadly within 30
minutes drive time of Norwich i.e. the area broadly encompassing Dereham,
Aylsham, North Walsham, Stalham, Harleston, Diss, Attleborough, Wymondham. It
includes the Norwich Policy Area which is defined as the urban area, the first ring of
surrounding villages and the market town of Wymondham and excludes the Great
Yarmouth Lowestoft sub-region. The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads also overlap into
part of the sub-region.
2.15.
Within this sub-region, Norwich is recognized as exerting a powerful economic,
social and cultural influence over a wide area. Many of the market towns and villages
are recognised as attractive and vibrant with their own identities but with strong
economic and cultural links to Norwich. At the same time, the plan notes the high
levels of deprivation within Norwich and in rural pockets and the sub-regional
strategy is therefore aimed at encouraging investment and growth and distributing
investment more equitably throughout the region and the sub-region.
2.16.
The total amount of housing development allocated within this sub-region (Policy
NSR 4) is 45,500 net additional dwellings up to 2021to be distributed in the subregion and the Norwich Policy Area as follows:
District within sub-region of which in the Norwich Policy Area
Within sub-region
of which in the Norwich Policy Area
Breckland
11,500
–
Broadland
12,200
10,500
Norwich
10,600
10,600
North Norfolk
1,000 min
–
South Norfolk
11,200
8,400
Total
46,500
29,500
2.17.
The market towns of Diss, Wymondham, Dereham and Attleborough are are
identified as key towns for housing development because they are located on
strategic transport routes, have a good range of services and are best placed for
employment growth. Within the North Norfolk District, North Walsham is also
identified as a key town although the plan states that it is less well located than the
other key towns such that “significant housing growth will be dependent on successful
regeneration, improvement to transport links and job growth. For this reason housing
provision for the North Norfolk element of the subregion is expressed as an achievable
minimum” [para 5.66]. The remaining market towns of Aylsham, Loddon, Stalham and
Harleston are noted as village service centres that will serve local needs and in which
development will be at a scale compatible with prospects for employment and service
provision.
2.18.
The King’s Lynn sub-region encompasses adjoining parts of the counties of
Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, and parts of the Districts of Breckland and North
Norfolk, including the towns of Long Sutton/Sutton Bridge, Wisbech, Swaffham and
Fakenham. The area that lies within the East of England region includes areas that are
a priority for both regeneration and growth and the policies apply for that part of the
sub-region located within the East of England. The Draft RSS states that
10
“This sub-region’s economy is characterised by low unemployment with skill shortages and
recruitment difficulties but a dependence on sectors that have shown little growth in recent
years. This is reflected in relatively low average earnings and low skill levels. Key constraints
on the local economy are therefore skills and consequent spending powers of the labour
force and the ability to attract high-level staff, rather than the availability of employment.
The sub-region focuses very strongly on King’s Lynn as a service and employment centre.”
The distribution of development to settlements within the King’s Lynn sub-region is
not specified.
2.19.
Subsequent policies seek to support the traditional and rural based employment
sectors; attract investment in sectors of the economy that have a particular scope for
expansion; support regeneration in rural areas; improve access to local-based further
and higher education facilities and harness opportunities for attracting investment
presented by growth and the selective management of the economy in the
neighbouring Cambridge sub-region. The Draft RSS goes on to state that:
“For the sub-region’s economy to flourish… a focus for this must be the role of King’s Lynn
as a driver of the local economy and the service centre for its sub-region … however, it is
also important that the potential of the wider sub-region is also maximised, particularly to
stimulate regeneration in the rural areas.”
2.20.
The overall allocations in the Draft RSS for Norfolk County are then as follows [para
7.1]
East of England
Norfolk
Breckland
Broadland
Great Yarmouth
King's Lynn and
West Norfolk
North Norfolk
Norwich
South Norfolk
Annual average
23,900
3,630
760
610
300
550
total
478,000
72,600
15,200
12,200
6,000
11,000
320
530
560
6,400
10,600
11,200
COUNTY CONTEXT
2.21.
Under the planning reforms, the Norfolk County Structure Plans (adopted 1999) has
become redundant but is part of the context in which regional and local policy is now
developing. The Structure Plan states that in the Norfolk context
“there is an overriding priority to protect the environmental assets of the County while
encouraging the County’s economy to prosper in a sustainable manner. The two objectives
are interlinked: without a prosperous economy there is not the investment in both people
and the environment; and without a high quality environment Norfolk would be less able to
attract investment in the form of employers or income.”
11
2.22.
The plan adopts an urban concentration strategy with smaller towns providing for
rural areas. The location of development then follows a simple heirachal structure
where:
•
•
•
major new housing, employment and commercial development will be located in
the Norwich Policy Area and at Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn, Thetford and
Dereham (policy CS.2)
”Thetford and Dereham have potential for further growth and have been selected on
the basis of their potential to become more self-contained settlement … outside the
main urban areas these two towns have the largest number of jobs and substantial
existing employment land allocations.”
the towns of Diss, Downham Market, Fakenham and North Walsham will
provide for housing, employment and commercial development on a scale that
will support their functions as rural centres (Policy CS.3)
”The four towns … are well located to function as rural centres with reasonable
balance of employment and housing”.
the towns of Attleborough, Aylsham, Cromer, Harleston, Holt, Hunstanton,
Loddon, Sheringham, Stalham, Swaffham, Watton and Wells will provide for
employment and service development which will support their function as rural
market towns but only provide for housing which improves the balance with jobs
and services locally (policy CS.4)
and for areas outside of these towns:
•
•
2.23.
“the other towns have an important function as local market centres with a range of
services which is important to maintain” (para 3.13)
“the role of villages as self-contained communities will be promoted by encouraging
development only where it will improve community facilities or lead to local employment
opportunities” (policy CS6)
The provisions for the County are then:
Breckland
Broadland
Great Yarmouth
King’s Lynn & West Norfolk
North Norfolk
Norwich
South Norfolk
(Norwich Policy Area)
County
2.24.
Total allowance 1993 - 2011
11,000
9,400
4,700
11,000
7,300
7,400
10,200
(21,500*)
61,000
In the North Norfolk District, this equates to an annual development of ~400
dwellings, over 25% higher than the District annual allocations in the Draft RSS to
2021.
12
LOCAL POLICY
2.25.
As in the County Structure Plan, the North Norfolk Local Plan places a particular
emphasis on protecting the environment. Comparing the objectives of the Local Plan
against the Draft RSS objectives it can be seen that while both plans cover the same
broad issues, the Local Plan contains more specific objectives relating to the
environment and does not include objectives relating regeneration or social inclusion
and access that are referred to in the Draft RSS objectives. It also includes an
objective to “minimise the provision for housing in excess of the Structure Plan requirement
of about 8,700 new dwellings in North Norfolk in the period of 1988 to 2006”.
2.26.
The Local Plan development strategy adopts a hierarchal structure to settlements
where
• growth is generally directed to the Growth Towns of Fakenham and North
Walsham - “both strategically placed to serve extensive rural hinterlands… [and] are
generally less constrained by environmental considerations” [para. 3.7]
• development is permitted where compatible with existing character in the Small
Towns of Cromer, Holt, Sheringham, Stalham and Wells-nest-the-Sea which have
environmental constraints
and
• development is limited to individual dwellings or small groups of houses which
enhance the character of the Large Villages of Briston/Melton Constable,
Hoveton and Mundesley.
2.27.
The allocation of housing does not specify how much development will go to each of
these settlements and does not include criterion for identifying locations for
development. The housing strategy is that “severe development restraint will be
employed to ensure that the excess provision for housing in relation to the requirement in
the Structure Plan” and “provision for new dwellings will be restrained by restricting
permissions for residential development to locations in accordance with the development
strategy”[policy 53].
2.28.
With regard to affordable housing provision in the District, the Local Plan proposes
negotiating a cross-subsidy with housing developers for affordable housing10 on large
development sites, but does not specify a target for the proportion to be achieved.
In the more rural areas, affordable housing can be provided on exception sites
provided that it meets a list of criteria such as genuine local need that can not be met
through market housing and that it adjoins to the boundary of a large village or
selected small settlement and will not have a significant adverse effect on the
character of the village.
SUMMARY
2.29. A hierarchal approach to planning for rural settlements is common across the tiers
of the relevant planning policy. Settlements are identified for development for
reasons such as employment provision, public transport accessibility from rural
hinterlands and environmental sensitivity and are presented as ‘key service centres’,
10
defined as both low-cost market and subsidised housing that will be available to people who cannot afford to
rent or buy houses generally available on the open market.
13
‘key towns’, ‘key rural centres’ or ‘rural centres’ in the regional, county and local
plans.
2.30.
The relative inaccessibility of settlements in the North Norfolk District means that,
unlike most other areas in the region, the Draft RSS proposes a lower allocation of
housing the District (320 dwellings per annum) than was proposed in the superseded
County Structure Plan (400 dwelling per annum), the distribution of which is to be
guided to ‘key service centres’. Parts of the District fall within the Norwich and
King’s Lynn Sub-regions and are subject to sub-regional policy. Within the Norwich
Sub-region, North Walsham is referred to as a ‘key town’ and Stalham as a ‘village
service centre’. Fakenham is considered part of the King’s Lynn sub-region and
development in this sub-region focuses on the role of King’s Lynn as a driver of the
local economy and service centre for this sub-region.
2.31.
Within the Structure Plan and Local Plan, North Walsham and Fakenham are
identified as the towns to accommodate the highest levels of growth in the District.
A more restricted amount of development is then permitted in the other towns of
Cromer, Holt, Sheringham, Stalham and Wells-next-the-Sea. All of these towns are
assumed to function as rural centres.
2.32.
There is a clear difference between the approach taken in the structure and local
plans (which deal with individual settlements in isolation) and the approach taken in
the emerging Draft RSS (which identifies parts of the District as sitting within subregions that extend beyond the District boundary). This is then the key challenge for
this work – to bring greater clarity to the most effective spatial strategy for the
future of the District.
14
3.
TRAVEL TO WORK ANALYSIS
3.1.
Travel to work data has been analysed for towns11 and a selection of villages12 in the
District and also a few towns that are adjacent to the District13 for sub-regional
context. The following analysis of travel to work data looks at the towns and villages
individually to ascertain their employment functions and interrelationships. Statistics
on the overall distance travelled to work and main mode of transport also indicate
the sustainability of travel to work patterns. Additional data on the populations and
economic activity levels in the towns has been collected to provide a context for the
travel to work analysis.
A fuller description of the methodology used is contained in Appendix 1.
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
3.2.
Table 1 below shows that the largest town in the District in terms of resident
population is North Walsham with ~12,000 residents. Sheringham, Fakenham and
Cromer each have 7 - 9,000 residents and Stalham, Holt and Wells-next-to-Sea have
2 - 4,000 residents. Resident economic activity levels in the towns are generally
between 55% and 65%. This will be in part due to the high proportion of retired
residents in North Norfolk as a whole (21.8% compared to 14% in East of England
and 13.6% in England and Wales) and particularly within the towns in the District
(23.6%). Resident economic activity is particularly low in Holt (47.7%) which is
explained by its high proportion of retired residents (31.2%) and economically
inactive students (7.1%).
11
Cromer, Fakenham, Holt, North Walsham, Sheringham, Stalham and Wells-next-to-Sea
Mundesley, Briston/Melton Constable, Hoveton, Caltishamm, Happisburgh and Ludham
13
Aylsham, East Dereham, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn and Norwich
12
15
Table 1 Population and economic activity in the towns
Town
Population
(2001)
Aylsham
Cromer
East Dereham
Fakenham
Great
Yarmouth
Holt
King’s Lynn
North
Walsham
Norwich
Sheringham
Stalham
Wells-next-tosea
Population
aged 16-74
Poportion of
population
aged 16-74 economically
active
65.1%
58.3%
69.4%
65.6%
62.72%
Poportion of
population
aged 16-74 economically
inactive
34.9%
41.8%
30.6%
34.4%
37.26%
5,504
8,836
17,779
7,730
66788
3,917
6,212
12,421
5,596
47,245
3,550
40,921
11,845
2,321
29,211
8,278
47.7%
67.5%
64.5%
52.4%
32.5%
35.5%
174,047
7,143
3,870
2,451
143,314
4,889
2,813
1,740
66.0%
56.1%
65.0%
59.7%
34.0%
43.9%
35.1%
40.3%
Source: Census 2001
3.3.
Across the North Norfolk District, the level of full-time employment is lower than
the average for the East of England or England and Wales (32.9% compared to 42.6%
in East of England and 40.6% in England and Wales) but unemployment is also
marginally lower. This means that there are significant proportions of residents in
part-time employment. Considering only the towns in the District, the average across
these is close to the District average, but there is significant variation between the
towns. Rates of full-time employment are close to the regional and national average
in Fakenham (39.2%), North Walsham (38.2%) and Stalham (38%). Rates of
unemployment are particularly low in Holt (1.72%).
16
Table 2 Economic activity and inactivity in the towns
All
people
aged 1674
Aylsham
Cromer
East Dereham
Fakenham
Great Yarmouth
Holt (North Norfolk)
King's Lynn
North Walsham
Norwich Urban Area
Sheringham
Stalham
Wells-next-the-Sea
North Norfolk
East of England
England and Wales
3,917
6,212
12,421
5,596
47,245
2,321
29,211
8,278
143,314
4,889
2,813
1,740
Percentage of people aged 16-74 who are
economically active
PartFullSelfUnemp Full-time
time
time
employ loyed
student
ed
14.60
12.48
14.15
13.87
13.93
11.72
13.81
13.26
13.14
12.74
13.83
14.31
Percentage of people aged 16-74: Economically
inactive
Retired Student
Looking Perman
Other
after
ently
home/fa sick/dis
mily
abled
35.95
30.76
42.85
39.17
33.77
24.95
41.68
38.16
39.74
26.84
37.97
28.91
10.34
10.53
7.43
7.84
7.07
8.01
6.22
8.35
6.88
12.54
8.18
13.05
2.22
3.06
3.04
2.72
6.05
1.72
3.29
3.01
3.30
2.31
2.63
2.53
1.94
1.34
1.92
2.00
1.90
1.25
2.45
1.70
2.97
1.64
2.35
0.86
20.42
23.82
15.82
19.62
16.09
31.24
14.06
19.40
14.43
27.74
19.20
24.08
2.60
1.59
2.26
2.34
2.45
7.07
2.41
2.26
5.80
2.56
2.56
1.95
5.59
5.96
5.76
5.41
8.02
6.72
6.62
7.02
6.07
5.89
6.29
6.09
4.31
7.39
4.54
4.84
7.27
5.34
6.37
4.78
4.97
4.97
4.59
5.11
32.88
42.61
40.55
11.72
9.28
8.28
2.57
2.60
3.35
1.48
2.32
2.57
21.82
13.99
13.61
2.32
3.61
4.70
6.63
6.74
6.51
5.27
2.46
3.91
2.50
5.32
3.12
Source: Census 2001
17
2.02
3.07
2.23
2.18
3.45
1.98
3.08
2.05
2.70
2.78
2.42
3.10
TRAVEL TO WORK
Summary Statistics
3.4.
Table 3 below shows key statistics on travel to work: flows into and out of the towns
for work and ‘self-containment’ of the towns indicated firstly by the proportion of
working residents of a town who also work there and secondly by the proportion of
employees in a town who also live there.
Table 3 Trips into and out of the towns for work
Settlement
Aylsham
Cromer
East
Dereham
Fakenham
Great
Yarmouth
Holt
King's Lynn
North
Walsham
Norwich
Sheringham
Stalham
Wells next
the Sea
Trips
originating
at study
settlement
2490
3473
Trips
terminating
at study
settlement
2150
3557
% of trips
originating
in
settlement
that are
contained
within the
settlement
41.8%
53.5%
8310
7739
49.4%
53.1%
-571
-6.9%
3498
4844
61.7%
44.5%
1346
38.5%
26477
31416
76.1%
64.2%
4939
18.7%
1055
18951
1998
27176
55.5%
77.5%
29.3%
54.0%
943
8225
89.4%
43.4%
5079
4882
50.5%
52.6%
-197
-3.9%
89792
2596
1706
116146
2250
1182
80.7%
51.9%
35.7%
62.4%
59.9%
51.6%
26355
-346
-524
29.7%
-13.3%
-30.7%
980
759
55.5%
71.7%
-221
-22.6%
% of
employees
in the
settlement
who live in
the
settlement
48.1%
52.2%
Net flow
of
employees
-340
84
Net flow of
employees
as
proportion
of working
residents
-13.7%
0.02%
Source: Census 2001
3.5.
Norwich clearly stands out as the biggest employment centre and employs a high
proportion of its resident working population while also attracting 26,355 net
employees. King’s Lynn and Great Yarmouth also attract large numbers of employees
and employ over 75% of their working residents. The net inflow of 8,225 employees
to King’s Lynn is almost half the total number of employees in the towns. Dereham
and Aylsham are both net exporters of employees.
3.6.
The towns in the District have far smaller populations and flows in and out for
employment as they are smaller settlements. North Walsham and Fakenham are the
biggest employment centres in the District but while the in-flow and out-flow to
North Walsham almost balance, the net in-flow to Fakenham is equivalent to 38.5%
of its resident working population. Holt also appears to be a strong employment
centre relative to its size as the net in-low of employees is equivalent to 89.4% of its
resident working population. Cromer appears balanced.
18
3.7.
The remaining towns of Stalham and the seaside towns of Sheringham and Wellsnext-to-Sea experience a net loss of employees and are therefore predominantly
residential or dormitory towns. However, there is an important caveat to the data
as it is sampled at the end of April and therefore does not capture the important
seasonal variations in employment for places such as Sheringham, Wells-next-the-Sea
and Cromer. There is no available data on how many more jobs there are in these
resorts over the main part of the season, but it may be a significant increase.
3.8.
Table 6 below then gives the proportion of working residents that work from home
and modal split and average distance of travel to work. In all the towns, 50-65% of
trips to work are predominantly made by car and 15-30% are made by bike or on
foot. Averaging these figures for the towns within the District and then for the other
towns studied shows that while in all towns most people travel to work by car and
few use public transport, the proportion of residents travelling by car in the towns in
the District is ~6% lower and proportion travelling by bike or on foot ~6% higher
than from the towns outside of the District.
3.9.
The average travel to work distances can be compared to averages for Great Britain
during 1999 to 2001: 14
• Rural residents (settlement popn. < 3000) travelled 17.1 km to work
• Residents of small urban areas (popn. 3,000 – 25,000) travelled 15.8 km
• Residents of medium urban areas (popn. 25,000 – 250,000) travelled 13.8 km.
3.10.
Wells -next-the-Sea has a population of <3,000 and its average travel to work
distance (25.9km) is significantly further than the average for residents in a settlement
of this size. The other towns in the District all have populations of 3,000 – 25,000
and the average distance travelled to work from these (16.47km) is closer, but still
above, the national average for settlements of their size (15.8km).
3.11.
The specific inter-relationships between the towns for travel to work are explored
below.
14
Office of National Statistics and Department for Transport (2003) Travel in urban and rural areas of Great
Britain. Personal Travel Factsheet 11, Jan 2003. Data are averages for 1999-2001.
19
Table 4 Mode and average distance to work
All people
aged 16 - 74
in
employment
Aylsham
Cromer
East Dereham
Great Yarmouth
Fakenham
Holt
King's Lynn
North Walsham
Norwich Urban Area
Sheringham
Stalham
Wells-next-the-Sea
2,452
3,416
8,214
26,592
3,508
1,064
18,651
5,076
89,291
2,625
1,752
992
work
mainly
at or
from
home
11.95
11.91
8.64
8.03
8.81
10.34
7.33
8.83
7.23
13.10
7.76
13.71
Percentage of people aged 16 - 74 in
employment who usually travel to work by:
Train
Bus
Car (driver Bicycle Other
mini
/
/ on
bus or passenger) foot
coach
0.49
0.94
0.23
0.73
0.11
0.47
0.60
1.42
0.73
1.10
0.74
0.30
3.79
6.29
4.18
8.21
2.32
2.26
3.79
3.07
8.51
3.24
2.34
2.12
20
65.50
55.50
67.46
59.25
63.6
54.60
65.13
62.21
57.56
58.97
69.41
52.22
16.36
22.57
17.91
19.43
23.83
30.07
20.77
21.94
23.25
21.53
16.89
29.84
Average
distance
(km)
traveled
to fixed
place of
work
0.53
16.71
1.20
15.73
0.39
17.41
2.28
16.48
1.33
13.73
0.85
15.27
0.38
10.81
0.77
15.17
0.54
11.38
1.03
15.86
0.57
18.40
0.71
25.88
Source: Census 2001
TRAVEL TO WORK
Summary Statistics
3.12.
Table 5 below shows key statistics on travel to work: flows into and out of the towns
for work and ‘self-containment’ of the towns indicated firstly by the proportion of
working residents of a town who also work there and secondly by the proportion of
employees in a town who also live there.
Table 5 Trips into and out of the towns for work
Settlement
Aylsham
Cromer
East
Dereham
Fakenham
Great
Yarmouth
Holt
Trips
originating
at study
settlement
2490
3473
Trips
terminating
at study
settlement
2150
3557
% of trips
from
settlement
that are
contained
within the
settlement
41.57%
53.50%
% of
employees
in the
settlement
who live in
the
settlement
48.14%
52.24%
Net flow
of
employees
-340
84
8310
3498
7739
4844
49.42%
61.66%
53.07%
44.53%
-571
1346
26477
1055
31416
1998
76.11%
55.45%
64.15%
29.28%
4939
943
King's Lynn
North
Walsham
Norwich
Sheringham
Stalham
18951
27176
77.45%
54.01%
8225
5079
89792
2596
1706
4882
116146
2250
1182
50.52%
80.70%
51.89%
35.76%
52.56%
62.39%
59.87%
51.61%
-197
26355
-346
-524
Wells next
the Sea
980
759
55.51%
71.67%
Net flow of
employees
as
proportion
of working
residents
-13.7%
0.02%
-6.9%
38.5%
18.7%
89.4%
43.4%
-3.9%
29.7%
-13.3%
-30.7%
-22.6%
-221
Source: Census 2001
3.13.
Norwich clearly stands out as the biggest employment centre and employs a high
proportion of its resident working population while also attracting 26,355 net
employees. King’s Lynn and Great Yarmouth also attract large numbers of employees
and employ over 75% of their working residents. The net inflow of 8,225 employees
to King’s Lynn is almost half the total number of employees in the towns. Dereham
and Aylsham are both net exporters of employees.
3.14.
The towns in the District have far smaller populations and flows in and out for
employment as they are smaller settlements. North Walsham and Fakenham are the
biggest employment centres in the District but while the in-flow and out-flow to
North Walsham almost balance, the net in-flow to Fakenham is equivalent to 38.5%
of its resident working population. Holt also appears to be a strong employment
centre relative to its size as the net in-low of employees is equivalent to 89.4% of its
resident working population. Cromer appears balanced.
21
3.15.
The remaining towns of Stalham and the seaside towns of Sheringham and Wellsnext-to-Sea experience a net loss of employees and are therefore predominantly
residential or dormitory towns. However, there is an important caveat to the data
as it is sampled at the end of April and therefore does not capture the important
seasonal variations in employment for places such as Sheringham, Wells-next-the-Sea
and Cromer. There is no available data on how many more jobs there are in these
resorts over the main part of the season, but it may be a significant increase.
3.16.
Table 6 below then gives the proportion of working residents that work from home
and modal split and average distance of travel to work. In all the towns, 50-65% of
trips to work are predominantly made by car and 15-30% are made by bike or on
foot. Averaging these figures for the towns within the District and then for the other
towns studied shows that while in all towns most people travel to work by car and
few use public transport, the proportion of residents travelling by car in the towns in
the District is ~6% lower and proportion travelling by bike or on foot ~6% higher
than from the towns outside of the District.
3.17.
The average travel to work distances can be compared to averages for Great Britain
during 1999 to 2001: 15
• Rural residents (settlement popn. < 3000) travelled 17.1 km to work
• Residents of small urban areas (popn. 3,000 – 25,000) travelled 15.8 km
• Residents of medium urban areas (popn. 25,000 – 250,000) travelled 13.8 km.
3.18.
Wells -next-the-Sea has a population of <3,000 and its average travel to work
distance (25.9km) is significantly further than the average for residents in a settlement
of this size. The other towns in the District all have populations of 3,000 – 25,000
and the average distance travelled to work from these (16.47km) is closer, but still
above, the national average for settlements of their size (15.8km).
3.19.
The specific inter-relationships between the towns for travel to work are explored
below.
15
Office of National Statistics and Department for Transport (2003) Travel in urban and rural areas of Great
Britain. Personal Travel Factsheet 11, Jan 2003. Data are averages for 1999-2001.
22
Table 6 Mode and average distance to work from the towns
Aylsham
Cromer
East Dereham
Great Yarmouth
Fakenham
Holt
King's Lynn
North Walsham
Norwich Urban Area
Sheringham
Stalham
Wells-next-the-Sea
All people
aged 16 - 74
in
employment
work
mainly
at or
from
home
2,452
3,416
8,214
26,592
3,508
1,064
18,651
5,076
89,291
2,625
1,752
992
11.95
11.91
8.64
8.03
8.81
10.34
7.33
8.83
7.23
13.10
7.76
13.71
Percentage of people aged 16 - 74 in
employment who usually travel to work by:
Train
Bus
Car (driver Bicycle Other
mini
/
/ on
bus or passenger) foot
coach
0.49
0.94
0.23
0.73
0.11
0.47
0.60
1.42
0.73
1.10
0.74
0.30
3.79
6.29
4.18
8.21
2.32
2.26
3.79
3.07
8.51
3.24
2.34
2.12
23
65.50
55.50
67.46
59.25
63.6
54.60
65.13
62.21
57.56
58.97
69.41
52.22
16.36
22.57
17.91
19.43
23.83
30.07
20.77
21.94
23.25
21.53
16.89
29.84
0.53
1.20
0.39
2.28
1.33
0.85
0.38
0.77
0.54
1.03
0.57
0.71
Average
distance
(km)
traveled
to fixed
place of
work
16.71
15.73
17.41
16.48
13.73
15.27
10.81
15.17
11.38
15.86
18.40
25.88
PATTERNS OF TRAVEL TO WORK
Towns outside the District
3.20.
An analysis of travel to work patterns has been undertaken for five towns outside the
District - Norwich, King’s Lynn, Great Yarmouth, Dereham and Alysham. The
purpose of including these towns is firstly to question their relationships with towns
in the District (as proposed in Draft RSS sub-regional policies) and secondly to
question the assumptions in the Draft RSS as to which settlements have the more
sustainable commuting patterns and are therefore suitable for higher levels of
development.
3.21.
Each of these towns is considered in turn below.
Norwich
3.22.
Norwich is the only city in the county and is by far the largest settlement. The
patterns of travel to work for residents of Norwich are more sustainable than many
of the towns considered in this analysis – a reflection of its size - a characteristic also
found in other rural areas. The city has a particularly high level of self-containment of
its resident working population (80.7%) and the average distance travelled to work is
lower than the Great Britain average for a settlement of this size (11.4km compared
to a Great Britain average of 13.8km). While more than half of trips to work are
made by car, a relatively high proportion of residents also walk or bike to work
(23.3%).
3.23. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show patterns of travel both into and out of Norwich and
Table 7 tabulates the main in- and out-flows.
Table 7 Main flows in and out of Norwich for work
Main out-flow
Great Yarmouth
Urban Area
Greater London
Urban Area
elsewhere
3.24.
Volume of out-flow
954
810
15,568
Main in-flow
Wymondham
Great Yarmouth
Urban Area
Brundall
Spixworth
East Dereham
Poringland
Lowestoft
elsewhere
Volume of in-flow
1655
1553
1291
1271
1270
1138
1105
39,188
Norwich clearly draws employees from many settlements and seems to command a
large hinterland in the county. The largest in-flow is from Wymondham (~15km,
1,688 employees), followed by Great Yarmouth (~30km, 1,553 employees) and then
many of smaller settlements that are on the outskirts of Norwich, such as Brundall,
Spixworth, Horsfield and Poringland (5-10km, 1,000-1,300 employees from each).
1270 employees from East Dereham (~23km) also travel to Norwich for work. On
24
this scale, commuting flows from the North Norfolk District to Norwich are
insignificant.
3.25.
The main flows out of Norwich for work are to Great Yarmouth and London, but
this constitutes only 5.5% and 4.7% of the total trips out respectively and many more
people live in Great Yarmouth and commute into Norwich. Great Yarmouth is
~30km from Norwich and there is a direct train service between them (~30 mins,
hourly) but less than 4% of commuting trips along this route are by train. London is
~220 km away and the direct train service to London (~2hrs, every half hour) is used
by 34.8% of people doing this commute.
Figure 2 Self-containment and trips out Figure 3 Trips into Norwich for work
of Norwich for work
King’s Lynn
3.26.
The average distance travelled to work from King’s Lynn is shorter than from any of
the other towns in this study and 2km shorter than the Great Britain average for a
town of this size (10.8km compared to a Great Britain average of 13.8km). It also has
a high self-containment of its resident working population (77.5%) and attracts a net
in-flow of 8,225 employees.
25
3.27.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show that King’s Lynn has strong employment links with
settlements within a 20km radius, particularly as a destination for trips to work.
Table 8 gives the volumes of out- and in-flows and shows that the main out-flows
from King’s Lynn for work are to Wisbech (19km), Downham Market (17km) and
Hunstanton (18km) – settlements that are slightly further away than the main in-flows
from Dersingham (12km), Hunstanton (18km) and Terrington (10km). There do not
appear to be strong flows to or from King’s Lynn to any larger settlements for work.
Compared to the pattern of trips into Norwich for work (Figure 3), in-commuting to
King’s Lynn is more localised and their ‘hinterlands’ do not overlap.
Table 8 Main flows in and out of King’s Lynn for work
Main out-flow
Wisbech/Emneth
Downham
Market/Denver
Hunstanton/Heacha
m
Norwich Urban Area
elsewhere
3.28.
Volume of out-flow
300
219
207
207
3340
Main in-flow
Dersingham
Hunstanton/Heacha
m
Terrington St.
Clement
elsewhere
Volume of in-flow
667
640
600
10,021
The Draft RSS considers Fakenham to be part of the King’s Lynn Sub-region, but
there are not strong flows between the two for work (96 people travel from
Fakenham to King’s Lynn, 139 people travel in the opposite direction).
26
Figure 4 Self-containment and trips out Figure 5 Trips into King’s Lynn for
of King’s Lynn for work
work
Great Yarmouth
3.29.
Great Yarmouth is a net employment centre with a high level of self-containment of
its resident working population (76.1%). The average travel to work distance
(16.5km) is further than the Great Britain average (13.8km) and compared to the
other towns studied, fewer people travel to work by bike or on foot (19.4%) but
slightly more travel to work by bus (8.2%).
3.30. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show that patterns of travel to work into and out of Great
Yarmouth are predominantly to and from Norwich (in Norwich’s favour) and the
coastal towns of Lowestoft (15km) and Hemsby (10km) (both in favour of Great
Yarmouth). Other than the commuting flows between Great Yarmouth and Norwich
and flows out of both settlements to London, their travel to work patterns show
limited overlap and they do not draw significant numbers of employees from the
same settlements.
27
Table 9 Main flows in and out of Great Yarmouth for work
Main out-flow
Norwich Urban Area
Lowestoft
Halesworth
Hemsby
elsewhere
Volume of out-flow
1553
1277
286
213
3,396
Main in-flow
Lowestoft
Belton
Norwich Urban Area
Hemsby
elsewhere
Volume of in-flow
2334
1074
954
771
38,554
Figure 6 Self-containment and trips out Figure 7 Trips into Great Yarmouth for
work
of Great Yarmouth for work
28
Dereham
3.31.
Dereham has a large working resident population (9,310) and a high proportion of
economically active residents in full time employment (40.9%). However, the towns is
the place of work for only 49.4% of these residents and has a net outflow of 571
resident employees.
3.32.
Figure 8 shows the strong commuting flows from Dereham to Norwich. Travel to
Norwich accounts for 30% of all trips out for work and less than half the number of
people commute in the opposite direction (Figure 1, Table 10). The small settlement
of Lenwade also employs 179 residents from East Dereham. Except for this, flows
into and out of Dereham for work are scattered and employees travel to and from a
range of smaller settlements for work. The average commuting distance (17.4km) is
further than from most of the settlements studied and a high proportion of trips to
work are made by car (67.5%).
Table 10 Main flows in and out of Dereham for work
Main out-flows
Norwich Urban Area
33UCGZ0004
(Lenwade)
Watton/Saham
Toney
Volume of out-flow
1270
Main in-flows
Norwich Urban Area
Volume of in-flow
471
179
Mattishall
179
165
Shipdham
North
Elmham/Swanton
Morley Airfield
Watton/Saham
Toney
Swaffham
elsewhere
176
King's Lynn
108
Fakenham
102
elsewhere
2379
29
153
124
102
2427
Figure 8 Self-containment and trips out Figure 9 Trips into Dereham for work
of Dereham for work
30
Aylsham
3.33.
There are large commuting flows both in and out of Aylsham but the town employs
only 41.6% of its working resident population. A particularly high proportion of
Aylsham residents work in Norwich (45% of all trips out for work) whereas people
travel into Aylsham from many different settlements for work. The town is a net
exporter of 340 employees and is therefore primarily a residential town with a weak
local employment role.
Table 11 Main flows in and out of Aylsham for work
Main out-flows
Norwich Urban Area
North Walsham
Cromer
Volume of out-flow
649
76
69
Main in-flows
Norwich Urban Area
North Walsham
Volume of in-flow
135
55
925
elsewhere
661
elsewhere
Figure 11 Trips into Aylsham for work
Figure 10 Self-containment and trips
out of Aylsham for work
31
Towns and Selected Villages in North Norfolk
3.34.
In 2001, 46% of those living in the District lived within one of the towns and 51% of
working residents worked within one of the towns - leaving a high proportion of the
population living in villages, hamlets or scattered dwellings and working outside of the
towns. The analysis has considered all of the towns in the District and a selection of
villages that are all relatively large and offer some employment and also represent a
geographical spread across the District.
3.35.
However, the district as a whole in net terms loses nearly 4000 employees a day, as
it employs 38,048 but has an economically active population of 41,99116. Thus, as the
towns show a net gain of employment, this overall loss of employment is focused
outside the towns, in the villages, hamlets and open countryside.
3.36.
Figure 12 and Figure 13 below show the general spread of where people come from
to work within or outside the towns. 60-65% of jobs within or outside the towns are
taken by people who also live within or outside of the towns respectively. The
proportion of jobs in the towns taken by people living outside the towns (24.5%) is
higher than the inverse situation (13.1%), but the difference between these figures is
not large enough to conclude that the towns function as a dominant employment
centres for their rural hinterlands.
Figure 13 Place of residence for those
working outside the towns
Figure 12 Place of residence for those
working within one of the towns
3.37.
16
Within one of the
tow ns
Within one of the
tow ns
Elsew here w ithin the
District
Elsew here w ithin the
District
Outside the District
Outside the District
Each individual town and selected village is considered in turn below.
All data derived from Census 2001 dataset W301
32
Fakenham
3.38.
Fakenham employs ~4,800 people and has a net inflow of 1,346 employees. A high
proportion of economically active residents in Fakenham are in full-time employment
(39.2%) and the towns employs a higher proportion of its working resident
population than the other town in the District (61.7%). The average distance
travelled to work (13.7km) is lower than in the other towns in the District.
3.39.
As shown in Figure 14and Figure 15 show that patterns of travel into and out of
Fakenham are scattered with people commuting to/from many different settlements.
Table 12 shows that the heaviest flows of travel to work, in both directions, are
to/from Norwich (36km) and approximately equal numbers of people travel in either
direction. Slightly more people travel from Fakenham to King’s Lynn (30km) for work
and more people travel into Fakenham from East Dereham (18km) and Well-next-toSea (14km) for work.
Table 12 Major flows in and out of Fakenham for work
Main out-flows
Norwich Urban Area
King's Lynn
elsewhere
3.40.
Volume of out-flow Main in-flows
168 Norwich Urban Area
139 East Dereham
King's Lynn
Wells-next-the-Sea
2255 elsewhere
Volume of in-flow
141
102
96
93
1034
Fakenham evidently functions mainly as a stand-alone local employment centre with
no particularly strong links to other towns for employment.
33
Figure 15 Trips into Fakenham for
work
Figure 14 Self-containment and trips
out of Fakenham for work
Wells-next-the-Sea
3.41.
Wells-next-the-Sea is the smallest town considered in this study and has a working
population of 992 people. As a coastal town, it is likely to experience seasonal
variation in employment, and figures used for resident employment need to be
treated with caution. Using these figures however it appears that the town is a net
exporter of employees, the town does employ 55.5% of its working resident
population and 71.7% of people who work there also live there. This explains why a
high proportion (29.8%) of residents usually travel to work by bike or on foot and
overall fewer trips are made by car than in any of the other settlements (52.2%).
There is also a higher proportion of people working from home in Wells-next-theSea (13.7%) than in the other towns studied.
3.42.
Wells-next-the-Sea is 14km from Fakenham on B roads. Fakenham is the main
destination of travel to work out of the town (21% of trips for work). A small
proportion of residents travel to destinations further afield such as Norwich and this
brings the average distance travelled to work up to 25.9km – significantly further than
the Great Britain average for a town of this size (17.1km).
34
Table 13 Main flows in and out of Wells-next-the-Sea for work
Main out-flows
Fakenham
elsewhere
Volume of out-flow
93
343
Main in-flows
Fakenham
elsewhere
Volume of in-flow
24
191
Figure 17 Trips into Wells-next-theSea for work
Figure 16 Self-containment and trips
out of Wells-next-the-Sea for work
35
North Walsham
3.43.
North Walsham employs more people than the other towns in the District (4882
employees) but only around half of its working residents also work there and it is a
net exporter of 197 employees.
3.44.
Figure 18and Figure 19 show the particularly strong flow of working residents to
Norwich (794 people or 31.6% of all trips out for work) and less than half this
number travel in the opposite direction. There is a direct train route between North
Walsham and Norwich which runs roughly hourly and takes ~25 minutes, but only 42
of the 794 trips from North Walsham to Norfolk and 15 of the 333 trips in the
opposite direction are usually made by train.
Table 14 Major flows in and out of North Walsham for work
Main out-flows
Norwich Urban Area
Cromer
Coltishall Airfield
Wroxham/Hoveton
elsewhere
3.45.
Volume of out-flow
794
173
120
113
1313
Main in-flows
Norwich Urban Area
Cromer
Mundesley
elsewhere
Volume of in-flow
333
127
116
1740
Except for flows to/from Norfolk, the patterns of commuting into and out of North
Walsham are dispersed to many settlements. Generally, commuting into North
Walsham is from within the District but some commuting out of North Walsham is
further and out of the District. There is a reciprocal flow of employees to/from
Cromer, but this is only a small proportion of the working populations in either
settlement.
36
Figure 19 Trips into North Walsham
for work
Figure 18 Self-containment and trips
out of North Walsham for work
Stalham
3.46.
The net out-flow of employees from Stalham (524 people) is high when compared to
the working resident population (30.7%) and the town employs only 35.8% of this
working resident population. The average distance to work (18.4km) is further than
the Great Britain average for a town of this size (15.8km) and a very high proportion
of these trips are made by car (69.4%)
3.47.
There are A roads from Stalham to Norwich (21km), North Walsham (8km) and
Great Yarmouth (26km) and the main flows into and out of Stalham for work are to /
from these towns. Of those commuting out of Stalham for work, almost 30% travel
to work in Norwich. There is also a one-way flow out of Stalham to
Wroxham/Hoverton for work (9.6% of all trips out of Stalham).
Table 15 Main flows in and out of Stalham for work
Main out-flows
Norwich Urban Area
Wroxham/Hoveton
North Walsham
Great Yarmouth
Urban Area
elsewhere
Volume of out-flow
327
106
82
75
506
37
Main in-flows
Norwich Urban Area
elsewhere
Volume of in-flow
90
482
Figure 21 Trips into Stalham for work
Figure 20 Self-containment and trips
out of Stalham for work
Cromer
3.48.
Cromer offers a significant amount of employment but retains only around half of the
working resident population and flows into and out of Cromer for work are almost
equal. Employment figures for this coastal town need to be treat with caution
however as the town is likely to experience seasonal variation.
3.49.
Overall, a higher proportion of trips to work from Cromer are by public transport
than from the other towns in the District and the proportion travelling to work by
car is amongst the lowest in the District (55.5%).
3.50.
Cromer is 33km along an A-road from Norwich and this is the main destination of
travel to work out of Cromer (297 people or 8.3% of total trips out). There is a train
service from Cromer to Norwich (~hourly service, 45 mins) but this accounts for
only 6 of the 297 trips there for work. There are reciprocal flows between Cromer
and Sheringham (6km, 8-10% of total trips into or out of Cromer) and between
Cromer and North Walsham (13km, 3-6% of total trips into or out of Cromer).
38
Table 16 Major flows in and out of Cromer for work
Main out-flows
Norwich Urban Area
Sheringham
North Walsham
Beeston Regis
elsewhere
Volume of out-flow
297
217
127
112
862
Main in-flows
Sheringham
North Walsham
elsewhere
Volume of in-flow
231
173
1295
Figure 23 Trips into Cromer for work
Figure 22 Self-containment and trips
out of Cromer for work
39
Sheringham
3.51.
Sheringham appears to be a net exporter of employees and therefore principally a
residential or dormitory settlement. Again however the employment figures need to
be treat with caution as this coastal town is likely to experience seasonal variation.
3.52.
Over half of the working resident population of Sheringham work within the town
and there is a higher proportion of people working from home in Sheringham (13.1%)
than in many of the other towns. Most out-commuting is to other towns such as
Cromer (6km, 18% of trips out), Norwich (34km, 18% of trips out) and Holt (27km,
13.9% of trips out) but the pattern of commuting into Sheringham is more dispersed.
There is an almost equal reciprocal flow of employees between Sheringham and
Cromer.
Table 17 Main flows in and out of Sheringham for work
Main out-flows
Cromer
Norwich Urban
Area
Holt
elsewhere
Volume of outflow
231
228
174
616
40
Main in-flows
Cromer
elsewhere
Volume of in-flow
217
686
Figure 25 Trips into Sheringham for
work
Figure 24 Self-containment and trips
out of Sheringham for work
Holt
3.53.
Holt has a high proportion of economically inactive residents and a particularly high
proportion of retired residents (31.2%). Relative to its working resident population
however it appears to be an unusually strong employment centre and the net flow of
employees into Holt is almost equal to its resident working population. It employs
55.5% of its working residential population which helps to explain why a relatively
high proportion of trips to work are usually made by bike or on foot (30.1%).
3.54.
The 470 working residents that travel outside Holt for work mainly travel to the
other towns and mainly to Norwich (32km, 14% of total trips out) and Cromer
(14km, 12% of total trips out) – as shown in. Holt is 18km from Fakenham but few
people travel between these towns for work.
3.55.
Figure 26 shows that the pattern of travel into Holt for work is more dispersed and
it attracts employees from a range of towns and smaller settlements within the
District with the strongest in-flows from Sheringham, Briston and Cromer. A level of
cross-commuting between Holt, Sheringham and Cromer stands out from the
analyses of each of these towns and shows a level of networking between them. This
has been analysed below.
41
Table 18 Main flows in and out of Holt for work
Main out-flows
Norwich Urban Area
Cromer
Volume of out-flow
66
56
elsewhere
348
Main in-flows
Sheringham
Briston
Cromer
elsewhere
Volume of in-flow
174
100
61
1078
Figure 27 Trips into Holt for work
Figure 26 Self-containment and trips
out of Holt for work
Cromer, Sheringham and Holt as a network
3.56.
Although there are significant commuting flows from Cromer, Sheringham and Holt
to Norwich, the above analysis shows that there are also strong flows of employees
between them – a functional network.
3.57.
Travel to work figures for Cromer, Sheringham and Holt have been combined in
Table 19 below which shows that 63.5% of all trips to work from the settlements are
contained within the network – a higher level of self-containment than Fakenham.
42
The network attracts a net inflow of 681 employees – equivalent to 9.5% of its total
working population.
Table 19 Trips into and out of the network for work
Settlements
in network
Cromer, Holt
and
Sheringham
Trips
originating
within
network
Trips
terminating
within
network
% of trips
from
settlement
that are
contained
within the
network
7124
7805
63.5%
43
% of
employees
in the
network
who live in
the
network
Net flow
of
employees
Net flow of
employees
as
proportion
of working
residents
45.0%
+681
9.5%
Selected Villages in North Norfolk
3.58.
The villages selected are the larger villages in the District that offer some
employment. They are geographically spread throughout the District (as shown in
Figure 28) and are therefore likely to relate to a range of towns. The populations of
the villages are given in Table 2017
Figure 28 Villages selected for analysis
Table 20 Population of selected villages18
Village
Briston / Melton Constable
Coltishall air base
Happisburgh
Hoveton / Wroxham
Ludham
Mundesley
Population
2539
2161
382
2802
976
2695
Economically active
population (as
percentage of total
population)
1169 (46%)
1309 (60%)
155 (40%)
1162 (41%)
533 (36%)
921 (34%)
Source: Census 2001
17
Population data for small settlements such as these can be derived in a number of ways. For travel to work
analysis it is for the collection of census output areas best representing the settlement.
18
These population figures are based upon the output areas that LUC, in discussion with the North Norfolk
District Council, identified with the chosen settlements. Output areas are a poor fit with settlements of this
size and so there will inevitably be inaccuracies in these figures and they may not fit with population estimates
made using parish figures.
44
3.59.
The economic activity levels in all villages except Coltishall are significantly lower than
in the towns in the District. Data was not collected on the subdivisions of
economically active and inactive residents, but it is likely that low economic activity
levels are partly due to high proportions of retired residents in the villages. For
residents who travel to work, Table 21 gives key statistics on self-containment and
commuting flows in and out and Table 22gives the modal split of main mode of
transport to work from each of the villages.
Table 21 Self-containment and commuting flows to and from selected villages
Village
% selfcontainment
(proportion of
resident working
population
working within
village)
37.4%
Net flow
(equivalent
percentage of
resident working
population)
Main out-flows
Main in-flows
-573 (49.0%)
Fakenham (21)
Norwich (12)
Coltishall air base
60.5%
+469 (26.4%)
Holt (145)
Norwich (108)
Fakenham (64)
Neatishead (191)
Norwich (102)
Happisburgh
37.6%
-86 (54.8%)
Hoveton /
Wroxham
39.8%
+919 (79.0%)
Ludham
33.2%
-158 (29.6%)
Mundesley
35.2%
-431 (46.8%)
Briston / Melton
Constable
45
North Walsham
(19)
Norwich (15)
Norwich (367)
Norwich (90)
Hoveton/Wroxham
(49)
Great Yarmouth
(42)
North Walsham
(116)
Norwich (114)
Cromer (51)
Norwich (311)
North Walsham
(120)
Aylsham (47)
none
Norwich (352)
North Walsham
(113)
Stalham (106)
Norwich (21)
Great Yarmouth
(21)
North Walsham
(21)
Table 22 Mode and average distance to work from the villages
All
people
aged 16 74 in
employm
ent
Mundesley
Coltishall
Briston/Melton
Constable
Happisburgh
Hoveton/Wroxham
Ludham
Average across
villages
work
mainly
at or
from
home
Percentage of people aged 16 - 74 in
employment who usually travel to work by:
Train
Bus
Car
Bicycl Other
mini
(driver / e / on
bus or passeng foot
coach
er)
Average
distance
(km)
traveled to
fixed place
of work
923
951
13.6
14
1.3
0.3
2.9
4.9
64.7
68.5
13.9
10.3
3.8
2
22
17.3
1160
167
1011
371
12.8
21
12.1
15
0.5
0
2.3
0.7
1.9
0
3.1
3.2
74.9
67.1
64
70.5
8
6.6
15.3
7.9
2
5.4
3.1
2.6
16.9
25.9
16.5
25.9
N/A
13.4
1.1
3.1
68
11.6
2.8
19.1
Source: Census 2001 KS15
3.60.
The proportion of residents working from home in the villages is generally higher
than in the towns (see Table 6) but lower than in other settlements of a similar size
in other areas of England19 except in Happisburgh where 21% of working residents
work mainly at or from home. As with the towns, most people travel to work by car
and train and bus use is marginal (maximum 5.4%). Compared to the towns, ~10%
more travel by car and ~10% fewer travel to work by bike or on foot. The average
distance travelled to work from the villages is 19.1km - ~3km further than the
average across the towns.
3.61.
Coltishall air base and Hoveton / Wroxham clearly stand out of as being net
employment centres - Table 21. Colishall has a particularly high level of selfcontainment – over 60% of its resident working population also work within the
Coltishall air base and the heaviest flows are to Neatishead. There are also strong
reciprocal flows between Coltishall air-base and Norwich for work. Comparing this
with Figure 30 shows that people commute further into Coltishall air-base and from
more different settlements. There are plans to close Coltishall air base within the
next 5 years and this will have dramatic effects on the commuting patterns from the
village.
19
‘The Identification of Local Service Centres in the East Riding of Yorkshire’, Final Report, July 2005; ‘Sustainable
Settlements in the High Weald AONB’, LUC, in progress, work for Cornwall County Council and Horsham and North
Norfolk District Councils, LUC, in progress
46
Figure 29 Self-containment and trips
out of Coltishall air-base for work
Figure 30 Trips into Coltishall air-base
for work
3.62.
The level of self-containment in Hoveton / Wroxham appears to be close to that of
other villages and travel to work is more sustainable than from the other settlements
with fewer people travelling to work by car and over 15% travelling to work by bike
or on foot. The average distance travelled to work is also shorter than from any of
the other sample villages. However, this data needs to be viewed with the same
perspective as the coastal towns, as employment in Hoveton / Wroxham is likely to
experience significant seasonal variation as it is a gateway to the Broads and
therefore a tourist centre.
3.63.
As might be expected, Figure 31 and Figure 32 show that the patterns of travel into
and out of Hoveton / Wroxham are very different such that while most residents of
the village travel to work in the towns of Norwich or North Walsham, people travel
into Hoveton / Wroxham for work from many settlements, including smaller
settlements within a ~10km radius. There is almost a balanced flow of people
commuting from Hoveton / Wroxham to Norwich and vice-versa.
47
Figure 31 Self-containment and trip
out of Hoveton / Wroxham for work
Figure 32 Trips into Hoveton /
Wroxham for work
3.64.
The other villages studied all experience a net loss of employees and are therefore
primarily residential or dormitory settlements. Levels of self-containment are
between 30% and 40% - about 20% less than self-containment in most of the towns in
the District.
3.65.
Ludham is close to Hoveton / Wroxham (9km) and roughly equidistant from
Norwich and Great Yarmouth (17-20km). Norwich exerts a much stronger
employment pull, however, and twice as many residents of Ludham travel to
Norwich as to either Hoveton / Wroxham or Great Yarmouth for work. The
average distance travelled to work from Ludham is 25.9km – further than from the
other sample villages except Happisburgh, and 70.5% of trips to work are made by
car.
48
Figure 33 Self-containment and trips out of Ludham for work
3.66.
The other villages in the analysis are further from Norwich. Happisburgh and
Mundesley are coastal villages and again likely to experience seasonal variation. The
Census data indicates that net out-flows from these settlements equate to almost
50% of their resident working populations. They are both less than 10km from North
Walsham and 25-30km from Norwich but almost equal numbers of residents travel
from either village to Norwich as to North Walsham for work. Although a higher
proportion of residents usually work from home in Happisburgh, the average distance
travelled to work is 25.9km – further than from the other villages except Ludham,
and the average distance to work from Mundesley is 22.0km.
49
Figure 34 Self-containment and trips out of Happisburgh and Mundesley
for work
3.67.
Briston / Melton Constable shows a greater ‘attachment’ to its closest town of Holt
than do the other villages studied, but again there is also a significant commuting flow
to Norwich (30km). A particularly high proportion of trips to work from Briston /
Melton Constable are made by car (74.9%).
50
Figure 35 Self-containment and trips out of Briston / Melton Constable for
work
3.68.
The villages thus appear generally to be less ‘attached’ to their closest town and
more drawn by Norwich. There are however limitations with the analysis due to
likely seasonal variation of employment levels in Hoveton / Wroxham, Happisburgh
and Mundesley.
51
SUMMARY
3.69.
The travel to work data shows that amongst the net employment centres and net
dormitory settlements there are examples of several different commuting patterns:
•
•
•
commuting patterns with overall strongest flows to Norwich;
commuting patterns that are mainly self-contained or localised - but may also be
strongly influenced by flows to Norwich; and
commuting patterns that indicate local networks
3.70.
The analysis also shows that patterns of commuting to/from settlements that are well
connected to the strategic network, or where there is good public transport to key
urban centres, are not necessarily more sustainable as some of these settlements
become dormitory settlements. It also shows that settlements that provide both
housing and employment do not necessarily display more localised patterns of travel
to work (as implied and supported by the Draft RSS). These findings are discussed in
turn below.
3.71.
The strength of pull towards Norwich for work may come as no surprise given its
large population and provision of employment. The towns itself displays sustainable
patterns of high self-containment of resident employees (80.7%), short average
commuting distances (11.4km) and high levels of walking / biking to work (23.3%).
3.72.
What is less sustainable are the patterns of travel into Norwich from some of the
other settlements studied, such as Dereham, Aylsham, Stalham and North
Walsham. from which 15-26% of the working resident populations commute to
Norwich, the majority of which is by car. Working residents of Hoveton /
Wroxham and Ludham are also strongly drawn to Norwich, and Norwich is a
main destination for travel to work from almost all of the towns and villages studied.
3.73.
Despite the number of people commuting to Norwich, few trips are made by public
transport. There is a direct train line between North Walsham and Norwich (25
minutes, hourly service), but ~5% of commuting trips between these towns are made
by train. Self containment in these towns is lower than in the other towns studied,
particularly in Stalham (36%). From the towns, the average commuting distance is a
few kms further and the overall proportion of trips to work by bike or on foot is
~5% lower than the average across the towns studied.
3.74.
The low levels of self-containment in these settlements mean that they do not serve
as strong employment centres for their resident populations but Dereham and North
Walsham and the village of Hoveton / Wroxham do provide employment and act as
employment centres for nearby settlements with patterns of in-commuting being
relatively localised. North Walsham is a place of work for residents of Stalham,
Cromer and the villages of Happisburgh and Mundesley.
3.75.
Other towns stand out more strongly as local employment centres and, with
higher levels of self-containment, are also essentially stand alone towns. King’s
Lynn is the strongest example of this as it has high self-containment (77.5%) and its
strongest employment flows, both in and out, are to/from smaller settlements within
10-20kms of King’s Lynn. The average commuting distance from the town is shorter
52
than from any of the other towns studied (10.8km) and shorter than the Great
Britain average (13.8km).
3.76.
Fakenham and Great Yarmouth are also predominantly stand-alone settlements
as they have high levels of self-containment. Fakenham also serves as an employment
centre for residents of Wells-next-the-Sea from which 21% of out-commuting is
to Fakenham. But there are also relatively high levels of commuting between
Fakenham and Norwich and Great Yarmouth and Norwich (in the favour of Norwich
in both cases). The numbers of people commuting from Great Yarmouth to Norwich
are several times the numbers commuting from Fakenham to Norwich, but in both
cases these flows account for ~5% of the total number of working residents in these
towns of origin. In terms of average distance travelled and modal split, travel to work
from Fakenham is more sustainable than travel to work from Great Yarmouth.
3.77.
Coltishall air-base stands out as the only village where the level of self-containment
is greater than 50%. It is clearly a strong employment base and has reciprocal
commuting flows to/from Norwich.
3.78.
‘Local networks’ are clusters of towns or villages that display strong interdependancies and a level of local networking appears to be taking place between
Cromer, Sheringham and Holt. There are two-way flows between Cromer and
Sheringham and Holt and Cromer, and there are one-way flows from Holt to
Cromer. This local network is however compromised by commuting to Norwich
which is dominant from all of these towns. Levels of self-containment in these towns
is between 50% and 55%. The pattern of commuting into Holt is also relatively
localised and it therefore appears to act as an employment centre for other nearby
settlements, such as the village of Briston / Melton Constable.
3.79.
The next chapter discusses what these findings contribute to the development of the
RSS and District LDF.
53
4.
DISCUSSION
4.1.
This analysis of travel to work patterns does not address all aspects of settlement
functionality but it does offer valuable insight into how the settlements function and
interrelate as places of residence and employment. In this way it contains strong
messages for the Draft RSS on what are likely to be the most sustainable locations
for development and is an important piece of evidence base for the North Norfolk
LDF.
4.2.
Previous studies undertaken by LUC have looked at travel patterns for both work
and services and found that patterns are broadly similar (i.e. where residents work
outside of their settlement they also regularly go for services) but that people
generally travel further for work, and to a greater range of destinations. Travel to
work analysis is therefore a good surrogate for travel patterns in general, and tends
to show a ‘worst case’ scenario.
Recommendations for the RSS
4.3.
To recap, the Draft RSS proposes that
“in most instances development will be focused in or adjacent to major urban areas where
there is good public transport accessibility and where strategic networks (rail, road, bus)
connect. In more rural areas, development will be focused on market towns which have good
public transport accessibility to key urban areas. By locating housing, jobs and services in
close proximity the need for long-distance commuting will be reduced.” [para 4.13]
4.4.
Reducing commuting distances (particularly by car) appears a central objective of
strategic planning policy and the Draft RSS proposes that this can be achieved by
locating housing and jobs close to each other and where there are strategic network
connections to key urban areas. In rural areas, there is an added emphasis on public
transport accessibility.
4.5.
The travel to work analysis contradicts the proposals of the Draft RSS as it finds that
long-distance car-based travel to work is more common in towns such as Dereham,
Aylsham, Stalham and North Walsham which are well connected to Norwich.
Those towns with the best transport connections to the key urban centres are more
likely to be ‘captured’ by the key urban centres. The Draft RSS allocates less
development to North Walsham than to Dereham because North Walsham is “less
well located” and proposes that “significant housing growth will be dependant on …
improvement to transport links” [para 5.66] – the analysis indicates that such
improvements would actually increase commuting flows to Norwich. In counterpoint,
Fakenham, which is less well-connected to Norwich, shows a higher level of selfcontainment and more localised, more sustainable, travel to work patterns.
It may be that elsewhere in the region towns located on strategic links to larger
urban areas are the most sustainable locations for development, but this is not the
case in North Norfolk – a rural District atypical of the region as a whole.
54
4.6.
Further, the emphasis on public transport accessibility in rural areas has its
foundations in sustainability principles, but appears to be challenged in North
Norwich where public transport, where available, is used for only a small proportion
of total trips (less than 7.5%). The direct train link from North Walsham to Norwich
is used for only 5% of those commuting in either direction. A more dominant mode
of travel in the District is by bike or on foot (15-30%) – especially within the towns the importance of which is not acknowledged in the current Draft RSS policy.
4.7.
Also important is that the Draft RSS does not acknowledge the possible existence of
local functional networks between towns and villages which may offer a real
opportunity for localised work patterns, and hence greater sustainability. Such a
network exists between Cromer, Sheringham and Holt, although this is party
compromised by pull of employees to Norwich.
4.8.
The Draft RSS sub-regional policy places Dereham, North Walsham, Aylsham and
Stalham in the Norwich sub-region and the analysis shows that there are strong
commuting flows from these towns to Norwich. However there is a real strategic
challenge here given the dominance of Norwich and relative unsustainablility of the
high levels of long-distance car-based commuting between them. Great Yarmouth is
not considered part of the Norwich sub-region and the analysis shows that, although
there are relatively strong reciprocal commuting flows between Great Yarmouth and
Norwich, there is little overlap in commuting patterns in and out to other
settlements.
4.9.
There is also little overlap between the commuting flows to and from Norwich and
King’s Lynn and they therefore appear to command separate sub-regions. However,
the analysis does not find evidence of a link between Fakenham and King’s Lynn as
Fakenham appears to be a largely stand-alone settlement with stronger commuting
flows to Norwich than to King’s Lynn.
4.10.
The Draft RSS covers a diverse area and North Norfolk is the most peripheral
District within the region. The findings strongly suggest that the Draft RSS has failed
to grasp that North Norfolk is functionally not like other parts of the region.
This is essentially a question of detail and suggests that in strategic terms, North
Norfolk needs to be recognised as different from other rural areas in the region. This
also calls into question the wisdom of the RSS seeking to reduce the rate of housing
development in the District, as development in the right places might well increase
strategic sustainability. These are just not the places the RSS anticipated.
Recommendations for the North Norfolk LDF
4.11.
The Local Development Framework will need to fill in a greater level of detail on the
distribution of development throughout the District and, with the existing local plan
as a starting point, has a new challenge of better reflecting the roles and functions of
settlements in the District.
4.12. The approach discussed above for the Draft RSS holds for the District – that the real
world is more complex than past policy has assumed and wishes it would be. People,
particularly in rural settlements, lead complex and highly mobile lives, and
interrelationships between settlements are therefore inevitable and occasionally
55
dominant over their relationship with their home settlement. This means that
individual settlements can not be seen in isolation and that, in general, planning for a
particular settlements needs to consider:
•
firstly, the ‘big geography’ – where the settlement sits in relation to large
urban area and major infrastructure
•
secondly, the ‘local geography’ – which other settlements are nearby that may
have strong links to the settlement in question
•
and thirdly, the nature of the settlement itself and how this might affect its
functions.
4.13.
From a travel to work perspective, Fakenham appears to offer the greatest
opportunities for sustainable development to build upon its high level of selfcontainment and role as an employment centre for surrounding settlements. The
local network between Cromer, Sheringham and Holt also seems to have
potential, but commuting to Norwich from these towns also needs to be
acknowledged.
4.14.
For both Fakenham and the network of Cromer, Sheringham and Holt new
development offers the opportunity to reinforce and extent the existing
relative localisation of travel to work. But it could also fuel longer distance
commuting. Thus new development needs to be ‘purposeful development’, with a
clear expectation of the spatial outcomes it would produce.
4.15.
The high proportion of trips to work made by bike or on foot in the towns is a
sustainability strength of the District and should be encouraged by adding the right
development to towns with existing high self-containment, and appropriate
supporting transport policies.
4.16.
The sustainability of North Walsham is compromised by the strong links to
Norwich, but these should not entirely overshadow its significance as an employment
centre for neighbouring local settlements. Thus development here could also assist
the sustainability of the town were its clear purpose again to be to reinforce and
extent local of travel to work, and avoid fuelling commuting. But this will be more
challenging than in Fakenham and the network of Cromer, Sheringham and Holt.
4.17.
Stalham offers less opportunity to promote sustainability through new
development as its is already heavily functionally linked to Norwich and new
development will be unable to change this. Development there should be to meet
existing local needs only.
4.18.
Wells also appears to be functionally weak, but it is a resort settlement and as
such this work has been unable to capture the significance of its summer employment
role. The same is true of Cromer and Sheringham (although in April their roles
were strong in any case) and also Happisburgh and Mundesley. Whereas we
cannot conclude that Wells is a location where development can increase
sustainability on the basis of our findings but suggest that further tailored
research is needed to better understand how seasonality affects the local
56
economies of towns and villages on the coast, and therefore how they might be
planned for to further sustainability in this context.
4.19.
The remaining North Norfolk settlements examined in this study – the villages –
have an essential strategic function as dormitories. Their employment roles are
significantly weaker than those of the towns, and their travel to work performance is
noticeably less sustainable. On this basis we cannot recommend them as sustainable
locations for employment development. Also, most sorts of housing development
there would also lead to direct increases in car use for travel to work. Thus for these
settlements we recommend only modest development to meet existing local
needs (such as for affordable housing).
4.20.
Across a wide range of recent work we have come to the firm conclusion that new
development can rarely assist the sustainability of smaller rural
settlements where their existing functionality is relatively unsustainable. If
the people currently living in these settlements are unable to make them sustainable,
how would the addition of new people change this? The new people would have to
behave quite differently from their neighbours, which is unlikely.
57
APPENDIX 1
METHODOLOGY FOR TRAVEL TO WORK MAPPING
58
METHOD AND DATA USED
The maps were produced using data gathered from the 2001 Census.
Each Census respondent details their place of residence and also their place of
employment and this enables the Office of National Statistics (ONS) to generate
table W301 which lists all of the trips to work made across the country at output
area level. Trip details for all working members of the household are included.
As this information is gathered at output area level it is necessary to aggregate data
for relevant output areas in order to represent individual settlements in the data.
ONS provides a definition for each settlement made up of those output areas that
constitute that settlement20. We have aggregated data from these groups of output
areas to present totals for each settlement.
The maps were produced from this data using Arc Map software and converted to
Arc Reader format for distribution.
20
these are split between ‘urban areas’ and ‘smaller settlements’. The cut-off between the two is a population
of 1,500. For the ‘smaller settlements’ the fit of the selected census output areas to the built extent of the
settlements can be poor.
INTEGRITY OF THE DATA
It is important to note that the data presented in these maps cannot be relied on as
being completely accurate. Possible sources of error are:
•
trip modes being mis-recorded
•
the ONS method of suppression of data at the lowest end of the range in the
data set.
Both potential sources of error introduce only very small inaccuracies insignificant to
the mapping of spatial patterns revealed by the data. Nonetheless they are described
below and do need to be taken into account if this methodology is applied to
assessing the functional performance of smaller settlements.
Mis-recorded trips - the accuracy of the data is dependent upon the Census
respondents providing truthful and accurate responses to the questions relating to
the location of their place of work and the mode of transport they use to get there.
The Census question makes it clear that, in the case of multi-modal trips, the mode
forming the longer part of the trip should be recorded. Potentially inaccurate data
occurs when the wrong part of these trips is recorded (ie recording the mode as
walking [to the station] for an overall travel distance of 50 miles, where 49.5 miles is
made by train). The extent to which multi-mode trips are not properly recorded is
unknown. But obviously ‘wrong’ foot and bicycle trips occur in only a very small
number of cases.
Data suppression - an apparently more significant issue relates to the overall
reliability of the data set used, due to an adjustment process applied to the data by
the ONS. In order to protect against disclosure of information relating to individuals,
a Small Cell Adjustment Method (SCAM) has been applied to the dataset. This means
that a small count appearing in a table cell is adjusted - basically any value of 1, 2, or 3
is adjusted to become either a 0, or a 3. The overall sum total for the data is
maintained by the adjustment method.
Given the fine grain of data used in this study (output area level), this adjustment
applies to a relatively high proportion of the table cells within the data. This data is
then aggregated which could potentially compound inaccuracies.
The Office of National Statistics (ONS) states “This adjustment has a greater effect on
the variability of the published Origin-Destination data because of the large number of small
counts in the Origin-Destination Statistics compared to the standard Census tables” (see
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/od_d_paper.asp).
To try and understand the significance of this issue we have consulted published
advice on this topic and have also carried out some analysis based on the data
gathered. The 2004 SASPAC training manual includes a section on the use of such
‘double geography’ datasets and discusses use of the Origin-Destination datasets. On
page 117 the manual concludes that:
“Because of this SCAMming, it has been found that the OA level matrices are unreliable,
and must be used with great caution. The use of OAs as building blocks is therefore not
advised for this dataset.”
This clearly sounds a note of caution and questions the reliability of data aggregated
from Output Areas as we have done in this report.
However, this commentary does not discuss the extent of any unreliability. This
specific point has been examined by the ONS in their “Analysis of Statistical
Disclosure Control in Census 2001 Origin-Destination Tables” paper. This paper
together with a summary of the findings can be obtained from
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/od_d_paper.asp. This summary
acknowledges that “The adjustments made to the data to protect confidentiality mean that
many counts in the Origin-Destination Matrices will differ from the underlying 'true' counts”.
However it also acknowledges that the values have been adjusted in such a way that
loss of data is minimized (which is also noted in the SASPAC training manual).
In order to quantify the extent of possible variance in this data, the ONS carried out
a detailed investigation, using statistical regression analysis, of two Origin-Destination
tables (tables MG201and W206). This analysis allowed the calculation of a 90 percent
perturbation interval for each table. For any total produced by adding together
entries in the table, the 90 percent perturbation interval is the range in which we can
be 90 per cent confident that the underlying value occurs. The results for a range of
summed values for table W206 are given below:
90 per cent perturbation interval for specified perturbed totals from
W206
Prediction Interval
Perturbed Total
Lower Bound
5
Prediction Interval
Upper Bound
Perturbed Total
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
0
9
500
477
530
10
3
15
550
527
582
20
12
27
600
576
633
30
21
38
650
625
684
40
30
49
700
675
735
50
39
60
750
724
786
60
48
71
800
774
838
70
58
82
850
823
889
80
67
93
900
873
940
90
77
104
950
922
991
100
86
114
1,000
972
1,042
120
106
136
1,250
1,220
1,296
140
125
157
1,500
1,468
1,550
160
144
178
1,750
1,716
1,804
180
164
199
2,000
1,965
2,057
200
183
220
2,250
2,214
2,311
220
202
241
2,500
2,462
2,564
240
222
262
2,750
2,711
2,816
260
242
282
3,000
2,960
3,069
280
261
303
3,500
3,458
3,574
300
281
324
4,000
3,956
4,079
320
300
345
4,500
4,455
4,583
340
320
365
5,000
4,953
5,087
360
340
386
5,500
5,452
5,591
380
359
407
6,000
5,950
6,095
400
379
427
6,500
6,449
6,599
420
399
448
7,000
6,948
7,102
440
418
468
7,500
7,447
7,606
460
438
489
8,000
7,946
8,109
480
458
510
9,000
8,944
9,115
As an example, the above table shows that for a total of 750 trips (obtained from
summing trips selected from table W206) we can be 90 percent certain that the true
value is between 724 and 786. Thus for very small aggregations of data significant
inaccuracies are possible, but for aggregations above 240 errors are less than 10%,
less than 5% or aggregations of over 1,000, and less than 2% for aggregations of over
4,000.
Perturbation intervals have not been calculated for table W301 as used in our report
so we are only able to refer to the above ONS analysis as a guide.
ONS advice is that “the variability in the aggregated totals can be minimised by using the
highest level geography possible - for example, deriving results for a Government Office
Region by aggregating counts for local authorities rather than Output Areas”. However, a
reasonable fit to settlement geographies and detection of trips to smaller individual
settlements can only be achieved by use of output area level data.
Additional analysis by LUC - comparisons were carried out between data
gathered from the Origin-Destination statistics and equivalent data from the Census
Key Statistics for urban areas in England and Wales.
The following table compares the numbers recorded as economically active within
the Census Key Statistics (including part-time, full-time, full-time student and self
employed from table KS09a) with the numbers recorded as travelling into the same
geographical unit for work or study using the origin-destination data set. The base
data for the two calculations is the same (Census 2001) and therefore without the
SCAMing they should match exactly.
Variable
Settlement
Total
Census statistics for Economically Active individuals
Bristol Urban
Area
267,142
Trips to work from Bristol Urban Area in study
Bristol Urban
Area
266,306
Census statistics for Economically Active individuals
Plymouth
109,002
Trips to work from Plymouth in study
Plymouth
107,728
Census statistics for Economically Active
Truro
9,171
Trips to work recorded from Truro in study
Truro
8,922
Census statistics for Economically Active individuals
Ashburton
1,454
Trips to work recorded from Ashburton in study
Ashburton
1,344
The margins of error produced in using the origin-destination data are 0.3% for
Bristol, 1.2% for Plymouth, 2.8% for Truro and 8.2% for Ashburton. So for larger
settlements we conclude that our approach is highly reliable. For smaller settlements
the larger error level has to be borne in mind, but as the principle value of the data
analysis is in identifying the larger, more strategically significant flows of trips, the
approach remains highly useful.
CONCLUSIONS
There is undoubtedly a need to treat the data presented in the Origin-Destination
analysis with a degree of caution. The published commentary on this dataset makes it
clear that there is the potential for the adjusted data to vary to a significant degree
from the true values, particularly for smaller settlements.
However, the commentary also suggests that the extent of this variance has been
minimised by the statistical method applied during the SCAM process. The published
perturbation intervals for the Ward level data indicate that the variance is arguably
unlikely to mask the general pattern within the aggregated data, even if the exact
values cannot be relied upon.
Furthermore the comparison carried out by LUC between the Origin-Destination
data and the Census Key Statistics adds weight to the argument that the statistical
modelling applied has minimised the loss of data. Whereas there has been
understandable concern that the data has the potential to generate significant
errors in use, our work with the data suggests that this does not occur in the use we
have made of it.
On this basis, we are confident that the mapping produced by the data can be relied
on as a valuable tool for strategic planning. It clearly reveals important patterns of
travel to work, and the situation of individual settlements within them. For larger
settlements it is likely to be very accurate. For the smallest settlements it appears
that up to 20% of the trips may be misrepresented, but this still means that 80% are
not.
For the purposes of spatial and transport planning it is the strategically significant
flows of trips that are valuable. Used with awareness of the small shortcomings of the
data, LUC has found the approach a powerful tool in regional and local strategic
planning work.
A last important point to remember is that, whilst the maps give great clarity to the
situation for one settlement, or a group of settlements, these settlements exist in a
mosaic of thousands of journeys to and from work for all other nearby settlements.
The overall picture therefore is a ‘messy’ pattern of great complexity and often high
mobility. The patterns of travel to work for one settlement often overlay patterns
generated by other settlements.
To understand the true strategic picture, all these patterns and their
interrelationships, need to be considered. What often emerges then is settlements
forming strategically significant networks. If this is the functional reality, simply
looking for ‘central settlement’ and ‘hinterland’ relationships may be misguided.