North East Rural Evidence Base Part 1

8/7/2019 North East Rural Evidence Base Part 1

1/66

Rural Policy Support

One North East

Working Paper 1

The Evidence BaseSection A - Overview

June 2009


2/66

Contents1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................................... 12 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 103 STRATEGIC CONTEXT............................................................................................................................................................. 124 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................................................... 165 BUSINESS AND ECONOMY....................................................................................................................................................... 246 EMPLOYMENT AND SKILLS...................................................................................................................................................... 367 SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND ACCESS ............................................................................................................................................ 428 QUALITY OF LIFE AND PROMOTION ........................................................................................................................................ 509 PLACE.................................................................................................................................................................................... 5310 SWOT ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................................................... 5711 ANNEX A INDICATOR LIST.................................................................................................................................................... 60


3/66


4/66

2Rural Policy Support Working Paper 1, June 2009

Strategic context (Section 3)1.6 This research comes during a period of considerable change,

both in terms of national rural policy, as well as regional andsub-regional governance structures and approaches to

economic development. This project specifically takes note

of the following contextual factors:

mainstreaming of rural issues across governmentactivity, addressed by the development of policy tools to

ensure effective mainstreaming in the Agency the creation of new integrated regional strategies and

the associated shift of regional planning responsibilities

jointly to RDAs and Local Authorities, requiring the

evidence base to extend beyond a purely economic

overview of rural performance

the City Region agenda, requiring the evidence base toconsider factors where interdependency between urban

and rural areas is strong, such as housing and

commuting patterns

the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE),which will deliver 7.2m of support to the rural North

East each year to 2013

Methodology (Section 4)1.7 This assignment is being overseen by a cross-agency

Steering Group of representatives from One Northeast and

NERIP. The Steering Group ensures that the relevant agency

departments are fully involved in the decisions and thinking

that underpin this research. This is crucial for the

subsequent buy-in of the agency to the concept of rural

mainstreaming.

Data selection1.8 The selection of the data sets for the evidence base went

through a series of iterations. The final list of indicators used

was selected and agreed with the Steering Group based on

the following principles:

level of detail: where possible, data has been used at thesmallest spatial level Lower Super Output Area (LSOA)

to provide as detailed a picture of rural areas as

possible

reliability: notwithstanding the need for detail, somedata was collected at a higher spatial level in order to

provide a reliable statistical picture; in particular, figures

for Gross Value Added (GVA) have been collected at

county (NUTS3) level

breadth of coverage: given the limited amount of dataavailable at LSOA level, substantial evidence was also

collected at Local Authority District (LAD) level to

provide a wide range of data coverage.

comparison with other rural regions: key data sets wereanalysed across the rural areas of Englands regions to

understand the relative performance of the rural North

East


5/66


repeatability: data has primarily been sourced fromreadily accessible and regularly updated sources to

allow retrospective analysis of trends and subsequent

updating of the evidence in the future

1.9 The data set encompasses a wide range of factors which arebroadly categorised in this paper under four main headings:

Business and economy: productivity; enterprise;business characteristics; industry sectors; demographics

Employment and skills: travel flows; qualifications;employment patterns

Social exclusion and access: deprivation; housing;economic activity and benefits

Quality of life and promotion: environmental quality;land use; tourism

Definitions1.10Two recognised and accepted rural definitions have been

used to analyse the rural North East:

at LSOA level, the 2004 rural typology used by theOffice for National Statistics (ONS) based on settlement

type and population density

at Local Authority level, Defras 2009 classification based on the ONS typology, but applied at district level

1.11District level analysis of rural areas is recognised as havinglimitations, in that it delivers a generalised picture at quite a

high spatial level. However, the volume of information

available at district level argues for its inclusion in the

evidence base. Where possible, we highlight the spatial level

at which information is being analysed.

Analysis1.12 In analysing the evidence, we have focused on answering the

following key questions:

How do the rural areas of the North East perform,relative to the region as a whole, other rural regions,

and rural England?

What differences are there in the performance of theNorth Easts rural areas that deserve to be brought to

the attention of regional policymakers?

Consequently, what are the rural regions strengths,weaknesses, opportunities and threats?

1.13Where possible, the analysis seeks to identify the differencesbetween rural areas in the region, highlighting the variety

within them. This includes a consideration of the

performance of the regions rural Uplands, as well as the

main market towns.

1.14For ease of use, the analysis and evidence base in thisWorking Paper have been divided into two separate sections.

Section A contains the analysis and findings; Section B the

evidence base itself.


6/66


7/66


8/66


region. The deprivation tends to be less concentrated, and

less evident as a result, but no less important.

1.23There are some specific characteristics of rural deprivation inthe North East:

Lack of opportunity: areas of rural deprivation can oftenbe seen adjacent to successful and affluent areas. Much

of the remote Upland area is experiencing consistently

high levels of deprivation, but these are most likely

related to limited local opportunities for employment in

low skilled and low wage economies.

The decoupling of wider deprivation and crime: this isparticularly the case in the more sparsely populated

areas, where general deprivation does not necessarily

lead to a rise in crime.

Deprivation within and around rural towns:notwithstanding the general picture of affluence in

some rural commuter towns such as Morpeth, there is

evidence of economic deprivation, most likely linked to

a reliance on the local economy for opportunities.

The variety within rural places1.24The rural North East is not homogeneous it offers a wide

variety of settlements and areas. These will be explored in

through this assignments forthcoming typology work, but

the following are easily identifiable from the evidence base:

Proximity and stagnation: the former coalfield areas,especially Sedgefield and Easington, have long term

issues with deprivation and benefits dependency.

Despite their geographic proximity to the City Regioncore, these areas still feel isolated, with their low car

ownership and a relatively small outward flow of

commuters. They also demonstrate less variation

between resident and workplace wage levels, confirming

a greater reliance on the limited opportunities in the

local economy. There is something that holds theseareas back from connecting to the potential

opportunities available in nearby urban areas.

Proximity and prosperity: rural towns such as Alnwick,Hexham and Tynedale are close to the City Region core

and demonstrate high commuter flows. They have

higher proportions of senior and professionaloccupations among their residents; have higher rates of

car ownership; and exhibit greater differences between

workplace and residential wages. Housing affordability

is a major challenge, especially for those residents

reliant on local employment opportunities. Inward

migration is likely to increase the pressures.


9/66


Isolation and deprivation: the most remote communitiesare the most isolated from the opportunities available in

the regions urban core. This remoteness may breed an

economic self-sufficiency which comes through fromthe data: high levels of self-employment, low wages,

but limited claims on state benefits.

The pros and cons of a high quality environment1.25The quality of the North East rural environment is a

significant asset, both for the visitor economy, and the Cityregion. The environment has a strong influence on people

relocating to the region, even if they live in the urban areas.

1.26However, the environment may also be something of aconstraint. The extent of the National Park and other

sensitive environmental sites may limit economic

development through planning regulations.

1.27 It is also important to remember that living in rural areas alsocomes with an environmental impact. It tends to involve

higher energy use for domestic fuel and transport, although

consumption levels tend to be related more strongly to

income levels, car ownership and the size and type of house

rather than rurality per se. Living in a rural area does tend to

mean a greater need for travel, and houses in rural areas are

more likely to be hard to heat.

SWOT (Section 10)StrengthsAspects of strong rural economic performance Productivity in Northumberland exceeds the regional

average, both as a whole and in the business and

financial services sectors. Both rural counties exceed

regional productivity in construction

Economic activity and employment rates are higher inrural districts than for the region as a whole

The robustness of remote rural communities, whereisolation seems to breed economic self-reliance,

characterised by self-employment, part time work and

less reliance on state benefits

Stronger local levels of economic activity in Alnwick,Morpeth and Hexham

Rural areas well-connected to the City Region core Prosperous rural areas with good connections to the

opportunities available in the conurbations

An important source of senior and professional labourto the regional economy

Greater incidence of enterprise activity and betterbusiness survival rates


10/66


A high quality rural environment Very high levels of quality environment, including the

Heritage Coast; Northumberland National Park; and the

North Pennines AONB. These are significant attractions

for visitors and residents alike

WeaknessesThe declining trend in rural productivity performance The existence of low wage rural economies, more

distant from the major urban areas, which lack the scale

to grow and develop

Limited evidence of enterprise activity of a scalesufficient to impact noticeably on regional economic

performance

Fewer people in rural areas with high levelqualifications, and the local employment opportunities

to suit their skills

Lack of access to opportunity Those in the more sparse and remote rural areas do not

have access to the same opportunities as those who live

closer to urban areas

Some areas, especially in the Durham coalfields, areclose to the urban centres, but do not seem to exploit

the opportunities that this affords. The reasons for this

are not clear

Deprivation within and around rural towns Deprivation tends to be clustered around rural towns,

even the more prosperous ones

OpportunitiesSector strengths for the future Manufacturing remains a major rural employer. With a

weak Pound, the sector might be able to exploit the

healthy exchange rate to boost sales and exports, as

and when the country moves out of recession

The tourism sector is also an important rural employer.The general economic situation may persuade Britons to

take holidays in the UK, as might the weak Pound. The

latter may also attract foreign tourists

Exploitation of new technologies Rural businesses could make more of the new

technological developments on offer to grow and

develop


11/66


New employment patterns The nature of rural home working has yet to be

explored in this research. However, given the increase

of e-business and teleworking and employment

flexibility in recent years, there should be more

opportunities for home working. With a high quality

environment on offer for those who locate to the rural

region, this could be a real selling point for rural

economies

ThreatsAn older population The regions rural areas are seeing a marked increase in

the population of a pensionable age, and a decrease in

the working age population, with a consequent impacton the size of the local rural labour market

Housing affordability and employment opportunities arelikely to be driving young people from rural areas into

the conurbations, a pattern witnessed in other parts of

the country

Employment diversification The rural region is reliant for its employment on a few

large sectors, such as construction and manufacturing

and therefore potentially more at risk from economic

shocks. The public sector is also a major employer.

Given the likely future squeeze on public sector

spending resulting from the need to spend public

money now in the recession, employment levels (and

investment) may be affected

Development controls The rural North East is a high quality environment, and

should be protected. But development controls could

have a negative impact on the ability of the rural region

to develop economically


12/66


13/66


Objectives for this paper2.4 This paper represents the first substantive output from the

assignment. Its aims are threefold:

to provide an evidence-based picture of the regionsrural areas, drawing on an extensive evidence base ofindicators and datasets; indicators were selected and

agreed by a Steering Group comprising key stakeholders

from One Northeast and the North East Regional

Information Partnership (NERIP) to make comparisons of rural performance and

perspectives at varying spatial levels, for example bybenchmarking the rural North East region with England

or other regions, and rural districts with their urban

counterparts within the North East

to highlight specific strengths, weaknesses,opportunities and threats within the regions rural areasas a prelude to further analysis and policy tool

development in the next phases of this assignment

Report structure2.5 This report is divided into two sections to make it less

unwieldy and easier to read. This first section provides the

overview to the research, analysis and key findings. The

second section provides charts, tables and key messages

from the indicators for those who have more time, and are

interested to find out more about the information that

underpins our thinking.

2.6 The remainder of Section A is structured as follows: Section Three provides the current and future strategic

context which underpins the need for, and focus of, this

research

Section Four outlines our methodology for the researchto date

Sections Five to Nine provide analysis across five broadthemes: Business and the Economy Employment and Skills Social Exclusion and Access Access to Services and Quality of Life Place, specifically the Uplands and rural towns

Section Ten draws together the evidence from theprevious sections and delivers a SWOT (Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis.


14/66


15/66


for this research, the RSS notes the diversity of landscape and

settlement, need and opportunity that exists within the rural

North East and the importance of not treating it as a

homogenous entity. It defines four key challenges facing theNorth East in particular respect of its rural areas:

Accessibility: the need for improved communications tofacilitate better access to services and economic

opportunities (markets and jobs)

Diversification: the importance of encouraging andfacilitating rural economic diversification away from the

traditional and declining employment and business

sectors

Housing: the lack of decent and affordable housingopportunities for rural residents, especially young

people

Migration: the unsustainable shift of the populationfrom urban to rural settlements

City Regions and the Northern Way3.8 The City Region agenda is a fundamental driver of regional

strategic planning, and underpins the Northern Way Growth

Strategy across the North East, North West, and Yorkshire and

Humber regions. The North East has two City Regions

centred on Tyne and Wear and Teesside (Figure 1).

Figure 1: North East City Regions mapped at ward level (NERIP)


16/66


17/66


Integrated Regional Strategy: the new IntegratedRegional Strategy will replace and build on the RES and

RSS. With its development, and the associated shift of

the regional planning role to a joint board of RDA andLocal Authority leaders, One Northeasts strategic

responsibilities will broaden considerably. It is

therefore important that the rural evidence base extends

beyond providing an economic picture, but also

considers spatial characteristics

Local Authority economic assessment duty: theeconomic assessment duty placed on lead authorities

will require them to develop their own evidence-based

picture of performance. For the two new unitary

authorities of Durham and Northumberland, this will

include an assessment of the regions rural areas. This

evidence base may help to support these assessments;at the very least, we should ensure they are providing a

common picture


18/66


4 METHODOLOGYIntroduction

4.1 In this section, we set out the methodology used for theresearch and analysis provided in this Working Paper. It is

divided into several sub-sections:

Steering Group oversight Selecting the data sets Spatial and rural definitions The treatment of GVA Benchmarking Analysis and communication of key messages

Steering Group oversight4.2 This project is overseen by a cross-agency Steering Group of

representatives from One Northeast and NERIP. They include

individuals covering a range of themes including rural policy

and RDPE, transport, strategy and policy development,

business and enterprise, and economic analysis.

4.3 The Steering Group ensures that the relevant agencydepartments are fully involved in the decisions and thinking

that underpin this research. This is crucial for the

subsequent buy-in of the agency to the policy tools that will

eventually be developed.

Selecting the data sets4.4 The first objective for this research was to identify a

commonly-agreed set of indicators that would best represent

the information required to understand the regions rural

areas. Led by the Steering Group, development of the data

sets went through three conceptual stages:

Competitiveness: the original proposal was to use theCompetitiveness Index (Huggins Associates), which

provides a model for the comparative performance ofregions and smaller spatial areas using a basket of

relevant economic indicators. Following the start of the

research, the Steering Group decided that this approach

would not provide a sufficiently robust picture of

regional rural performance. In particular, there were

concerns about the suggested use of experimental

ward-level calculations of GVA (the difficulties of

measuring GVA are discussed later in this report).

Drivers of productivity: the next framework consideredwas productivity and its drivers (Investment, Innovation,

Skills, Enterprise and Competition, plus Employment).

This was primarily rejected by the Steering Group on the

grounds that it was difficult to identify reliable data sets

to measure innovation and competition. In addition this

approach did not encompass all elements of the rural

region that were of interest and potentially relevant to

an economically focused analysis (e.g. quality of place

and environment).


19/66


Final data set: the final data set agreed by the SteeringGroup is one that was developed in several iterations. It

has sought to cover all the key indicators across the

three broad economic development themes ofbusiness, people and place. It includes indicators that

sit in behind the Competitiveness Index, and also help

to understand rural productivity and its drivers. But it

goes much further in examining issues such as

deprivation and environmental quality as part of the

relevant context for the development of the evidencebase.

4.5 The final set of indicators were gathered based on thefollowing requirements:

Relevance: only using those indicators that wereessential to the portrayal and understanding of rural

areas in a way that would help future strategy and policy

development

Repeatability: a focus on readily accessible, andfrequently updated indicators, both to allow

retrospective analysis of trends, and future updating of

the evidence base as required

Comparability: use of indicators that would allowcomparisons to be made at a range of spatial levels

(more detail later in this section)

4.6 The full list of indicators used for this research over 80 inall - can be found at Annex A.

Spatial and rural definitionsThe challenge of defining rural

4.7 To understand the value and contribution of the regionsrural areas to the regions economic growth and quality of

life, they must first be defined, mapped and quantified.

4.8 Rural definitions often vary depending on the spatial level atwhich information is being collected and analysed. The

fundamental principle of this research has been to gather

information at the lowest spatial level available to provide as

detailed and precise a picture as possible. However, not all

data is available at the most detailed level, so we have

therefore focused on obtaining data at three levels, which

have different rural definitions. In descending order of

detail, they are:

Lower Super Output Areas, using the Office for NationalStatistics (ONS) 2004 rural typology

Local Authority Districts, using Defras rural typology NUTS3 county areas, for GVA only, using Defras rural

typology

4.9 Figure 2 overleaf provides an overview of these three levels ofdata, followed by a more detailed explanation of each in turn.


20/66


Figure 2: Spatial levels for data analysis Lower Super Output Area4.10ONS introduced a rural definition in 2004 based on analysis

at LSOA level. Output Areas are classified by settlement type

and population density to provide an eight-way typology, as

outlined in Figure 3, six of which refer to rural areas.

Figure 3: ONS 2004 rural typology (ONS)High levelsettlement Population density

Low levelsettlement

SparseUrban (10,000+population) Less Sparse

(None)

Small town and

fringe

VillageSparse

Dispersed (hamlets

and isolateddwellings)

Small town and

fringe

Village

Rural

Less SparseDispersed (hamlets

and isolated

dwellings)

4.11In the North East, there are 1,656 LSOAs, 307 of which fallinto the various rural definitions used in the ONS typology.

This provides the most detailed spatial picture of the rural

region. However, the amount of detail available at this level

Lower Super Output Area:- mean population of 1,500

- smaller than wards and districts

- 307 rural LSOAs in the North East,

from a total of 1,656

- provides most detail, but not all data

are collected at this level

Local Authority District:- lower tier of two-tier local government

structure in Durham and Northumberland

prior to April 2009 changes

- 14 rural districts in the North East

- a broad definition of rural which does

not account for significant variationwithin districts, but a rich source of data

NUTS3:- statistical EU reference for sub regions- two NUTS3 rural counties in the North

East: Durham and Northumberland

- authoritative source of GVA data

Most detail

Least detail


21/66


is relatively limited. Key data sets include:

Annual Business Inquiry (ABI), which providesinformation on employment and workplaces by industry

sector

Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), providing variousdeprivation measures

2001 Census, for travel to work patterns Some benefits information, such as Job Seekers

Allowance and Incapacity Benefit claimant data

4.12The added benefit of using LSOA data is that it can bemapped to show detailed analysis spatially. Figure 4 shows

the extent of the rural region using the ONS definition, with

the urban areas shaded. Upland Areas are a sub-set of the

rural region, and are explained later in this section.

Figure 4: The rural North East using ONS 2004 typology


22/66


Local Authority Districts4.13 In 2005, Defra developed a rural classification for use at Local

Authority District (LAD) level. With the changes to localgovernment structures in April 2009, Defra changed both the

definition and classification of LADs1. Their current

classification of urban and rural areas is outlined in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Defra 2009 rural definition for districtsClassification DefinitionMajor UrbanDistricts (MU)

An urban area with more than 750,000

population

Large UrbanDistricts (LU)

An urban area with a population of

between 250,000 and 750,000

Other UrbanDistricts (OU)

Less than 26% of population in areas

classified as rural, and not part of a major

or large urban area

SignificantRural (SR)

26% and 50% of the population in areas

classified as rural

Rural 50 (R50) 50% to 80% of the population in areasclassified as rural

Rural 80 (R80)at least 80% of the population in areas

classified as rural

1http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/ruralstats/rural-definition.htm

4.14The April 2009 changes to local government structuresresulted in the 13 former district authorities of

Northumberland and County Durham being brought together

into two new, county-wide unitary authorities. The olddistricts now take the urban/rural classification of their

parent (unitary authority) area. In both cases, this means that

all the districts of Northumberland and County Durham are

now defined as Rural 50. Redcar and Cleveland also

becomes Significant Rural in the new classification.

4.15For the sake of consistency with the new Defra approach, wehave used the new, post-2009 classification. However, this

does impact on the relevance of district level data in rural

terms. For example, the districts of Durham City and

Chester-le-Street become Rural 50, the same classification

as for the most remotest rural areas such as Tynedale. Figure

6 and Figure 7 summarise how the changes have affecteddistrict classifications.

4.16Notwithstanding these issues, data has been collected andanalysed at LAD level because of the volume and reliability of

information available. However, it comes with the health

warning that it can only provide a very generalised picture of

activity at district level.


23/66


Figure 6: Pre-April 2009 Defra rural classification (NERIP) Figure 7: Post-April 2009 Defra rural classification (NERIP)


24/66


25/66


Benchmarking4.23An important part of this research is to understand the

relativecharacter and performance of the North Easts ruralareas. This involves benchmarking evidence against other

areas. Comparators and benchmarks were agreed in advance

of the analysis, and focus on the following:

Country: at regional level, the North East isbenchmarked against England, to provide a sense of

how different the North East is to the country as awhole, and to what extent the rural region has to make

up any gaps, such as in terms of economic performance

Other regions: the North East is also benchmarkedagainst other regions to measure performance against a

similar spatial area. This includes looking at the relative

performance of rural regions against rural England andeach other, either using rural LSOA (ONS typology) or

district (Defra classification) data

Intra-region - urban vs. rural: within the North East,rural and urban areas are compared across a range of

data to get a sense of the differences and

commonalities between the two broad settlement types,and also to understand their linkages and dependencies

Intra-region - rural vs. rural: comparisons betweenvarious rural areas in the North East, again to draw out

differences and similarities

Next sections4.24The following sections consider the key issues resulting from

the analysis of the evidence base. The page numbers in

parentheses at the end of paragraphs relate to the relevant

charts and analysis in Section B of this working paper.


26/66


5 BUSINESS AND ECONOMYGVA and productivity

5.1 GVA is a key economic indicator for regional developmentwhich measures the value of goods and services produced by

an economy. Because different regions have different

populations and economies, the use of GVA per capita (head

of population) is used as a common reference point for

comparison.

5.2 Labour productivity measures the amount of GVA producedper worker, which in turn enables the measurement of an

economys efficiency and competitiveness. It is therefore

crucial to understand how the rural North East performs

against these metrics.

5.3 Analysis based on GVA figures must be qualified from theoutset. Information is only available at NUTS3 level, i.e. the

counties of Durham and Northumberland. This includes

some urban areas (such as central Morpeth and Durham City),

and excludes some rural areas, especially in Redcar and

Cleveland.

Low and falling - GVA contribution from the rural region5.4 At 38bn in 2006, the North East has the lowest GVA output

of any English region. The regions two rural counties

contribute 25% to the North East GVA output, the second

lowest rural proportion of any region (22% in Yorkshire and

the Humber). [page 4]

5.5 The rural North East is the only rural region to have seen itsGVA contribution to the regional total drop from 2002 to

2006, suggesting that rural GVA performance hasunderperformed relative to the North Easts urban areas over

the time period. Figure 4 shows the comparative

contributions for the three Northern Way regions. [page 4]

Figure 8: Rural GVA contribution to the region (ONS NUTS3)

27%

34%

22%25%

35%

22%

NorthEast NorthWest YorkshireandtheHumber

2002 2006

Rural productivity is broadly in line with the region...5.6 Productivity (GVA per employee) in the North East was

37,000 in 2006, 85% of the England figure. At 35,000,

County Durhams productivity was 94% of the regional figure.


27/66


In Northumberland, productivity was slightly higher than for

the region as a whole (102%). [page 6]

...but declining over time5.7 Between 2002 and 2006, productivity performance across

rural England has fallen relative to the country as a whole.

The North East has seen the sharpest drop, from 103% of

regional productivity in 2002 to 97% in 2006, with both rural

counties showing similar declines. Figure 9 shows the

comparative figures for the three Northern Way regions[page 6]

Figure 9: Rural GVA per employee compared with regionalperformance (ONS NUTS3)

103%105%

103%

97%

103% 103%

NorthEast NorthWest YorkshireandtheHumber

2002 2006

Strong rural productivity in construction, business services5.8 GVA and productivity are split into six industry sectors,

meaning detailed analysis of performance at sub-sector level

and its implications is not possible. However, productivityperformance in the regions rural counties does clearly vary

between industry sectors. Relative to regional performance,

both rural counties have higher productivity rates than the

region in construction (over 56,000 per employee in

Northumberland and Durham, compared to 49,000 in the

North East as a whole), while the performance of businessservices and finance in Northumberland is very strong

(61,000 compared to a regional figure of 52,000). [page 5]

Lower productivity in production, public sector, distribution5.9 GVA per worker is low in the production and public

administration sectors of Northumberland, relative to theregion. Likewise, productivity is lower than the region in

County Durham among the production and distribution

sectors. [page 5]

Workplace productivity will underplay the rural contribution5.10Productivity calculations are based on the location of the

workplace, rather than the residence of the worker. So

productivity performance for the regions two rural counties

will exclude the contribution made by rural residents who

work in the regions urban areas.

5.11Evidence of high commuter flows from rural to urban areas


28/66


would suggest that a lot of labour productivity value shifts

from rural residential to urban workplace within the regional

economy. [page 68]

5.12This picture is reinforced by the pattern of resident andworkplace weekly earnings: the gap is more than 50 a week

in Chester-le-Street, Alnwick, Castle Morpeth and Tynedale

areas which are also characterised by high commuter flows.

[page 129]

Rural GVA per capita lags regional performance5.13Despite relatively strong growth this decade, the North East

has the lowest GVA per capita of any English region, and its

rural counties lag overall regional performance. Recent GVA

per capita growth in the North East has not been matched by

its rural counties, so County Durham and Northumberland are

slipping further behind. [page 7]

5.14On this economic performance measure, the two ruralcounties show a wider divergence with the region than on

productivity. In County Durham, GVA per capita is 72% of the

regional figure; in Northumberland it is 82%. In a ranking of

Englands 39 rural counties, this places Durham at 35 and

Northumberland at 29. [page 8]

Rural GVA per capita and rural productivity a bigger gap5.15There is clearly a discrepancy between rural GVA per

employee (productivity) and per capita, relative to regional

performance. This can be partially explained by the following

people factors, which are explored later in this report:

the rural North East has a smaller proportion of itspopulation of a working age [page 96]

high commuting levels into urban areas [page 70] some rural worklessness hotspots [page 141]

Industry sectorsRural employment is reliant on a few sectors...

5.16The rural region is reliant on four private sector industriesfor 53% of its workplace-based employment (LSOA data -

Figure 10 overleaf); each comprises at least 10% of total rural

employment: real estate, renting and business activities;

wholesale and retail trade; construction; and manufacturing.

The public sector adds a further 23%). [page 37]

...positive and negative implications5.17The rural North East is more reliant on construction and

manufacturing than rural England or the North East as a

whole. The public sector is also a significant employer. This

could prove a challenge in the current economic climate, with

the contracting of the construction sector, and the likely

future squeeze on public sector spending.


29/66


Figure 10: Key rural employment sectors, 2007 (ABI LSOA)

16%

10%

12%

14%

4%

8%

10%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

%oftotalrural

employment2007

Manufacturing

Construction

Wholesale&retailtradeRealestate,renting&businessPublicadministration(Public Sector)Education(Public Sector)Health&socialwork(Public Sector)Allothersectors

Employment in business services, construction has risen5.18Notwithstanding their current importance in terms of

employment, recent years have seen the proportion of

employment in the manufacturing and public administrationsectors decline in the rural North East. At the same time,

three sectors have posted significant increases in

employment: real estate, renting and business activities;

construction; and financial intermediation (although the latter

still employs less than 2% of the rural workforce). [page 39]

Agriculture a small sector...5.19Agricultural employment is based on 2001 Census figures

because of gaps in ABI calculations for this sector. As with

ABI, the data is available at LSOA level. The figures also

include employment within the forestry, hunting and fishing

sub-sectors.

5.20Agriculture is a small employment sector in the North East.Excluding London, the region has the lowest number of

people employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing of all

English regions: some 12,000 people. Of this total, 7,500

work in rural areas (the second lowest of all rural regions). It

is not clear from the data why more than one third of sectoral

employment should be located in urban areas. [page 44]

5.21Only in Northumberland is the agriculture, forestry andfishing sector worth more than 1% of total GVA (3.3% in

2006). The GVA contribution from this sector across the


30/66


31/66


32/66


33/66


as Alnwick, Morpeth and Hexham in Northumberland. More

generally, employment levels are quite low. With the former

district authorities in Northumberland and County Durham

being replaced by county-wide Unitary Authorities from

2009, there is perhaps a risk of reduced public

administration employment away from the main council

headquarters (Morpeth and Durham) as employment and

services are rationalised. [page 65]

Other services - on the decline?5.42This sector (Other community, social and personal services)

employs around 6,500 people in the rural North East 4.5%

of the total rural workforce which is similar in proportion to

the region as a whole (4.8%). The sector has seen quite a

dramatic fall in employment between 2003 and 2007 of

19.7% (a 12.5% decline across the North East). The reasons

for this are not clear. [page 67]

5.43There is quite a broad distribution of the sectors ruralemployment. The Uplands of Northumberland appears to be

a particular concentration, as are parts of Easington and

Sedgefield. [page 68]

5.44The decline in sector employment over time has also beenbroadly distributed,. [page 68]

Enterprise and business characteristicsBusiness density higher in rural areas...

5.45Rural business density (measured here as workplace units per1,000 of working age population) is higher in the rural areas

of all English regions outside of London than in their

respective regions as a whole. [page 13]

...lowest in the North East5.46Notwithstanding this general trend, the North East has the

lowest business density numbers of all regions, both rurally

and regionally. [page 14]

5.47Higher levels of rural business density appear in or aroundthe edges of rural towns, such as Hexham, Alnwick and

Wooler, or around the conurbations. They are likely to reflect

the locations of business concentrations, such as industrial

estates or business parks. [page 13]

Less business churn in rural areas as a whole...5.48Rural districts in the North East have lower VAT registration

and deregistration rates (as a percentage of the total business

stock) than the region and England as a whole. [page 27]

...but business growth is evident5.49Some rural districts, especially in County Durham, have seen

strong growth in their business stock to 2007, exceeding


34/66


35/66


36/66

i ll th i f th ki


37/66


Demographics: especially the size of the working agepopulation, which is of particular significance to GVA

per capita performance

The picture is incomplete...5.69The picture of business activity in the rural North East is likely

to be incomplete at this stage of the research. Rural areas

tend to have higher numbers of businesses below the VAT

threshold. These do not appear on official statistics, which

consequently will underplay the extent and volume of

business growth and/or decline. There may also be a link

with the higher incidence of micro businesses in rural areas,

although this cannot be confirmed through the data. These

issues will be explored through regional consultations.

Figure 11: Ward level travel to work patterns, 2001 (NERIP)


38/66

36Rural Policy Support Working Paper 1, May 2009

6 EMPLOYMENT AND SKILLSEmployment flowsA growing trend of long distance commuting...

6.1 Research undertaken by NERIP from 2004 to 2006 highlightsthe significant rise of inter-district travel flows between

1991 and 2001 (based on Census data), as a function of

increased economic activity in urban areas, and peoples

willingness to commute further. The largest employment

centres in the region (predominantly located in its

conurbations) draw a larger than average proportion of their

workforce from further afield. For Tyne and Wear, this means

rural Northumberland, especially to the north, and flows to

Durham come from its surrounding districts.

6.2

Figure 11 shows commuting patterns at ward level, based onthe 2001 Census. Grey represents urban ward according to

the ONS 2004 classification; rural is in green. The light green

wards represent the rural fringes, where 50% or more

commuters travel to urban areas to work. In the dark green

wards, fewer than 50% travel to urban areas. This is a

simplified and striking representation of the relationship

between the urban/City Region cores of the North East and

its rural commuting residents.


39/66

districts), and these rural districts have some of the lowest employment rate of nearly 17%, while the three former


40/66


rates of Income Support in the region. [page 77]

Employment patternsHome working is more common in rural areas

6.9 Rural areas tend to have higher rates of home working. Allthe rural regions of England exceed their respective regional

averages for home working. The highest levels are seen in

the rural South West, where 16% of the workforce worked at

home in 2001, compared to 11% across that region as a

whole. At 13% (regional total 8%), the North East has the

lowest incidence of rural home working of any rural region in

England. [page 78]

6.10The proportion of home working in rural areas exceeded 14%of the workforce in 2001 in Teesdale, Berwick-upon-Tweed,

Tynedale and Alnwick a significant proportion of the total

workforce. [page 76]

High rates of rural self employment relative to the region...6.11While rates of self employment across the North East are

lower than the England average, rural districts show the

highest levels in the region, averaging more than 7% of the

working age population and reflecting the importance of self

employment in rural economies. [page 80]

6.12This relatively strong performance masks high variationbetween rural districts. Berwick-upon-Tweed has a self

districts (Wansbeck, Redcar and Cleveland, and Durham) have

rates of less than 5%. [page 81]

...but low in comparison to other rural regions6.13Notwithstanding the variance within the North East, the rural

region demonstrates the lowest incidence of self-

employment of any rural region (7%, compared to 10% for

Yorkshire and the Humber, the next nearest rural region).

[page 82]

Pockets of high rates of part time working6.14Around 23% of people in employment work part time, both in

the region and England as a whole. Three rural districts

display significantly higher rates of part time working: in

excess of 25% of those employed in Teesdale, Sedgefield,

Berwick-upon-Tweed and Tynedale work part time.

Conversely, other rural districts have lower than average part

time rates, notably Easington, Wansbeck, Castle Morpeth and

Blyth Valley. [page 84]

Education and skillsStrong GCSE performance...

6.15Regional GCSE performance has exceeded the Englishaverage over the last three years for which data is available.

Seven rural districts outperform the regional average, in


41/66


42/66

Rural differences in employment patterns... A complex picture of skills performance


43/66


6.27The rural North East has higher levels of home working, selfemployment and part time working compared to the region

as a whole. There may be important linkages here between

rural employment patterns and issues of access and location.

6.28Lack of access to opportunities may breed a self-sufficiencythat exhibits itself through home working or self

employment, for example. More needs to be known about

the character of rural home working, which can encompass a

diverse range of occupations including farmers, artists and

professionals. Likewise, self employment may just as easily

be an agricultural contractor as an accountant.

6.29Part time working is less likely to be linked to longer distancecommuting as the wages earned are unlikely to make the

journeys worthwhile or cost effective.

...but at much lower rates than rural England6.30What is perhaps surprising from the evidence is that for two

of the three common characteristics of rural employment

higher rates of home working and self employment the

North East ranks bottom among all of Englands rural

regions. The region as a whole underperforms here relativeto other regions and England, but the differential between

rural and other areas is less pronounced than in England as a

whole. The reasons for this are not clear, and will be

explored through the consultations.

6.31The pattern of education and skills performance across ruralareas is a complex one. Teesdale, Derwentside, Alnwick and

Wansbeck, for example, show strong GCSE and Level 2+

performance, but this is not translated into significantly

higher Level 4+ performance. This may be linked to

availability of higher knowledge intensive businesses, and the

need to improve skills beyond Level 2. On the other hand,

Castle Morpeth has some of the highest proportion of Level

4+ qualified people, but is performing comparatively badly

on GCSE scores. This may be highlighting the inconsistencies

within the population around Morpeth an affluent,

professional commuter base and a local, non-commuting

community with wider deprivation issues. Availability of

Further and Higher Education places of learning may also be

a factor in rural areas where provision is likely to be limited

by distance or scale.


44/66


45/66

be seen in rural towns such as, Alnwick, Amble, Barnard

Castle, Berwick on Tweed Hexham and Morpeth. [page 148]

towns where levels of deprivation seem to be on the

periphery.


46/66


Castle, Berwick on Tweed Hexham and Morpeth. [page 148]

Deprivation7.12The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is collated by the

Department for Communities and Local Government. It

combines a number of indicators, chosen to cover a range of

economic, social and housing issues, into a single deprivation

score for each LSOA in England. This allows each area to be

ranked relative to one another according to their level of

deprivation.

A deprived region urban and rural7.13The North East is statistically one of the most deprived

regions in England, as measured by the IMD. Mapping the

overall IMD result demonstrates how the cumulative impact

of deprivation hits the urban areas of the region

comparatively harder than the rural areas, although there is

significant variation at local level (Figure 12). [page 106]

7.14Whilst the regions urban areas are generally the mostdeprived, it is important to note that levels of overall

deprivation are higher in the upland areas than in the

accessible rural areas closer to the conurbations. High levels

of deprivation are also evident in the former coalfields and

along the coast from Wansbeck all the way to Redcar. Whilst

levels of deprivation appear to be highest in the centre of

urban areas, this is not the case in the more accessible rural

periphery.

7.15All rural regions of England are less deprived than their urbancounterparts, using the IMD index. However, the levels of

rural deprivation in the North East are considerably higher

than in any other region: 31% of the North Easts rural

population live in the 30% most deprived localities, compared

to the next highest Yorkshire and the Humber at 10%.

[page 108]

Figure 12: Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (NERIP) Patterns of income, employment and skills deprivation7 16 Rural income deprivation shows a similar pattern to overall


47/66


7.16Rural income deprivation shows a similar pattern to overallIMD deprivation, with the highest incidence in rural areas

amongst the former coalfields (especially Easington and

Wansbeck), along the coast in the far north and to the east of

Redcar. More generally the upland areas have higher levels

of income deprivation than the accessible rural areas, with

income deprivation increasing in the more western areas.

[page 109]

7.17Rural employment deprivation is heaviest along the coast,with extremes in the former coalfields around Ashington and

Blyth to the north of Newcastle and from Seaham, through

Easington and along to Hartlepool further south. There are

high levels in the rural area to the south of Redcar, and in a

broad ring around Durham City (extending from the coast to

the uplands). Rural towns are also centres of employment

deprivation, including Haltwhistle, Barnard Castle, Alnwick

and Morpeth. [page 110]

7.18Rural education and skills deprivation shows a strongcorrelation with the patterns of employment and income

deprivation, especially along the coast, through the

coalfields, and around Durham City and Redcar. There are

also spikes of deprivation around towns such as Amble,

Alnwick, Barnard Castle, Haltwhistle and Wooler which are

consistent with those found for employment and income

deprivation. There does not appear to be a correlation with

the employment deprivation surrounding Morpeth. There


48/66


49/66


50/66


51/66


52/66


53/66

based in these areas, and is also reflected in their much

higher consumption of fuel. [pages 154 and 156]

sensitive environmental sites may limit economic

development.


54/66


8.13There is no good indicator to use to make comparisons ofnon-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, but it is likely that

farms produce higher levels of other greenhouse gases than

many other industries.

8.14The North East has the lowest energy consumption of anyregion, which is likely to reflect its smaller population. The

highest levels of petroleum use tend to be in rural districts is

in Tynedale, Sedgefield, Durham and Redcar & Cleveland.

Other relatively high consumers include Easington and

Berwick upon Tweed. [pages 158 and 159]

ConclusionsHigh quality rural environment as an asset....

8.15The quality of the North East rural environment is asignificant asset, as demonstrated by visitor economy figures,

and the sizeable employment volumes in the rural hospitality

sector. It is also likely to be a major influencing factor for

people relocating to the region, even if they live in the urban

areas.

...and a constraint8.16The quality and type of environment may also be something

of a constraint. Land quality limits the growing of high value

crops, while the extent of the National Park and other

8.17 It is interesting to note that despite the apparent suitability ofthe regions Uplands for the generation of renewable energy,

mapping by the British Wind Energy Association (2008)3

shows that only one of the seven operational wind farms is in

any way related to the Uplands. The remainder are located

along the coast (south of Amble) and to the south of

Gateshead.

The environmental impact of rural living8.18Residence in a rural area involves higher energy use for

domestic fuel and transport. However consumption tends to

be related more strongly to income levels, car ownership and

the size and type of house than rurality per se. Living in a

rural area does tend to mean a greater need for travel, and

houses in rural areas are more likely to be hard to heat (dueto construction and lack of access to mains gas), but higher

domestic carbon emissions are also linked to higher

consumption resulting from greater disposable income.

3 State of the Countryside, Commission for Rural Communities, 2008


55/66


56/66


57/66

this. There is little commuting beyond the district, and it

appears to have a relatively self-sufficient, but low wage

economy, with high levels of self employment and home


58/66


eco o y, t g e e s o se e p oy e t a d o e

working. The respective districts for Haltwhistle and Barnard

Castle also show high levels of self employment and homeworking. These may be linked to the patterns of employment

in the agricultural sector, but this is not clear from the data.

9.21These three towns also suffer from deprivation at levelshigher than their rural peripheries, with the exception of

access to services. For their rural hinterlands, these towns

are clearly important points for access to services, as well aseconomic opportunities.

10 SWOT ANALYSIS10.1 In this section, we highlight a small number of key strengths,

Greater incidence of enterprise activity and betterbusiness survival rates

Stronger local levels of economic activity in Alnwick


59/66


g g y g

weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) from the

evidence base. These will help to shape discussions in thefollowing phases of our research with key partners and

stakeholders from across the region.

StrengthsAspects of strong rural economic performance Productivity in Northumberland exceeds the regional

average, both as a whole and in the business and

financial services sectors. Both rural counties exceed

regional productivity in construction

Economic activity and employment rates are higher inrural districts than for the region as a whole

The robustness of remote rural communities, whereisolation seems to breed economic self-reliance,

characterised by self-employment, part time work and

less reliance on state benefits

Rural areas well-connected to the City Region core Prosperous rural areas with good connections to the

opportunities available in the conurbations

An important source of senior and professional labourto the regional economy

Stronger local levels of economic activity in Alnwick,Morpeth and Hexham

A high quality rural environment Very high levels of quality environment, including the

Heritage Coast; Northumberland National Park; and the

North Pennines AONB. These are significant attractions

for visitors and residents alike

WeaknessesThe declining trend in rural productivity performance The existence of low wage rural economies, more

distant from the major urban areas, which lack the scale

to grow and develop Limited evidence of enterprise activity of a scale

sufficient to impact noticeably on regional economic

performance

Fewer people in rural areas with high levelqualifications, and the local employment opportunities

to suit their skills

Lack of access to opportunity Those in the more sparse and remote rural areas do not

have access to the same opportunities as those who live

Exploitation of new technologies Rural businesses could make more of the new

technological developments on offer to grow and


60/66


a e access to t e sa e oppo tu t es as t ose o e

closer to urban areas

Some areas, while close to the urban centres, do notseem to exploit the opportunities that this affords. The

reasons for this are not clear

Deprivation within and around rural towns Deprivation tends to be clustered around rural towns,

even the more prosperous ones

OpportunitiesSector strengths for the future Manufacturing remains a major rural employer. With a

weak Pound, the sector might be able to exploit thehealthy exchange rate to boost sales and exports, as

and when the country moves out of recession

The tourism sector is also an important rural employer.The general economic situation may persuade Britons to

take holidays in the UK, as might the weak Pound. The

latter may also attract foreign tourists

tec o og ca de e op e ts o o e to g o a d

develop

New employment patterns The nature of rural home working has yet to be

explored in this research. However, given the increase

of e-business and teleworking and employment

flexibility in recent years, there should be more

opportunities for home working. With a high qualityenvironment on offer for those who locate to the rural

region, this could be a real selling point for rural

economies

ThreatsAn older population The regions rural areas are seeing a marked increase in

the population of a pensionable age, and a decrease in

the working age population, with a consequent impact

on the size of the local rural labour market

Housing affordability and employment opportunities arelikely to be driving young people from rural areas into

the conurbations, a pattern witnessed in other parts of

the country

Employment diversification The rural region is reliant for its employment on a few

large sectors, such as construction and manufacturing


61/66


g , g

and therefore potentially more at risk from economic

shocks. The public sector is also a major employer.Given the likely future squeeze on public sector

spending resulting from the need to spend public

money now in the recession, employment levels (and

investment) may be affected

Development controls The rural North East is a high quality environment, and

should be protected. But development controls could

have a negative impact on the ability of the rural region

to develop economically

11 ANNEX A INDICATOR LISTDataset Measure Source


62/66


Headline GVA increase in GVA over time ONS

Productivity GVA per employee by sector ONS/ABI

GVA Per Capita workplace GVA by resident population ONS

GVA Distribution by Sector per cent by sector: workplace base ONS

GVA change by Sector change over time ONS

Competitiveness Index Index by NE district Huggins Associates

Competitiveness Index Change in ranking over time Huggins Associates

Business Density rates per 1,000 population ABI

Business Stock Proportion by employee size band ABIBusiness Survival Rates Months survival rate DBERR/Nomis

VAT Registration/Deregistration Rates Per Cent Rates per Stock DBERR/Nomis

Business sectors VAT registered business stock by sector ABI

Growth in business stock VAT registered business stock change over time Nomis

Business formation rates VAT registrations per 10,000 population Nomis, ONS

Floorspace volume Area: m2- by type Neighbourhood Statistics

Floorspace value : m2- by type Neighbourhood Statistics

Knowledge Intensive Employment % of employment base in KIBs ABI

Occupation Profiles % of employment by broad occupation ONS

Broadband connectivity Availability and take up One NE

Business turnover Annual turnover s BERR

Industry sector employment 17 SIC categories, 2003-07 ABI

Industry sector employment comparisons LQ - rural: region: England ABIResidence vs workplace employment Difference ABI and APS

Employment - Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing % of workforce 2001 ONS

Farm type as proportion of all farms 2007 Defra

Farm size as proportion of all farms 2008 Defra

Farm tenancy as proportion of all farms 2009 Defra

Dataset Measure SourceFarm Business Income 2003/04 - 2007/08 Defra

Net Farm Income per 2006 sample farm Defra

Disaggregated emplo ment across 8 sectors 2007 proportions and change o er time 2003 07 ABI


63/66


Disaggregated employment across 8 sectors 2007 proportions and change over time 2003-07 ABI

Disaggregated employment within manufacturing 2007 proportion of sector ABI

Disaggregated employment within public admin 2007 proportion of sector ABI

Living and working in same district Proportion of residents 2001 ONS

Net commuter flows Net flows in numbers, 2001 ONS

Distance travelled to work By rurality, 2001 ONS

Mode of transport 2001 ONS

Car ownership Proportion without a car, 2001 ONS

Self employment Proportion of working age, 2004-08 APSHome working Proportion of workforce, 2001 ONS

Employment and gender Male and female, 2004-08 APS

Part time working Proportion of employed, 2007/08 APS

Unskilled No qualifications APS

Education % of popn with GCSE 5 A-C APS

Level 2+ Qualifications % of WA popn with Level 2+ Qualifications APS

Level 4+ Qualifications % of WA population with Level 4+ Qualifications APS

Training Rates % of WA population receiving training APS

Population Mid-year 2007 estimates ONS

Population Distribution per cent by age-band ONS

Population Distribution change by age bands: working and pensionable age ONS

Internal migration Inflow/outflow of migrants ONS

Overall deprivation IMD index 2007 CLG

20% most deprived IMD index 2007 CLG

Income deprivation IMD index 2007 CLG

Employment deprivation IMD index 2007 CLG

Health deprivation and disability IMD index 2007 CLG

Education, skills and training deprivation IMD index 2007 CLG

Dataset Measure SourceBarriers to Housing and Services (IMD) IMD index 2007 CLG

Crime deprivation IMD index 2007 CLG

Living environment (IMD) IMD index 2008 CLG


64/66


Living environment (IMD) IMD index 2008 CLG

Access to Services Distance to services CRC

House Prices Average prices and change Land Registry

Housing Affordability Lower Quartile House Price/Income Ratios DCLG

Housing Affordability Median house price/income ratios DCLG

Housing Start/Completion Rates: 2001/02-2007/08 Change over time DCLG

Household type Household makeup ONS

Barriers to Housing (owner occupation & homelessness) average scores: housing sub-domain values CLG

FT Male & Female Wages % difference in average median gross weekly wages: ASHEFT Workplace & Residence Wages average median gross weekly wages: ASHE

Median Taxpayer Income 01/02 06/07 06/07 and change over time Revenue & Customs

Median Taxpayer Income 2006/07 Self Employed; Employed and Pensioner Revenue & Customs

Household income Mean household income Inland Revenue

Economic activity rate 2004-08 APS

Employment rate 2004-08 APS

Unemployment rate 2004-08 APS

Economic inactivity rate 2004-08 APS

Incapacity Benefit Claimants 2008 and 4 year average DWP

Incapacity Benefit Claimants Long term (2+ years) DWP

Income Support Claimants 2008 totals DWP

Working Age Benefit Claimants 2008 DWP/Nomis

Job Seekers Allowance Claimants Current and change in year, plus by gender DWP

Ecological Footprint footprint estimates WWF

End User Carbon Emissions tonnes & per cent distribution: Defra

Final Energy Consumption GWh & Per Cent Distribution: Defra

Non-Gas, Electricity, Road Transport Fuel Use tonnes 000 oil equivalent & per cent distribution: DBERR

Non-Gas, Electricity, Road Transport Fuel Use distribution by industry/commerce & domestic DBERR

Dataset Measure SourceSSSI Status % distribution across areas by type Defra

Tourism: Volume & Spend 2005 Visits: Million, Spend: bn & Per Visit STEAM

River Water Quality Mean Per Cent: Defra


65/66


River Water Quality Mean Per Cent: Defra


66/66


Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	matthew-terry
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

North East Rural Evidence Base Part 1

Documents