1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186 
Less gold in the triangle as South Yorks shines
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE 'GOLDEN TRIANGLE' the distribution heartland for many UK operators is losing its appeal, according to research which shows that businesses are now opting to base themselves in other locations including Doncaster and Peterborough.
A lack of land and difficulties finding LGV drivers in places such as Birmingham and Northampton have forced companies to consider moving to sites outside the traditional area bordered by the Ml. M69 and M6.
Surveyors and property consultants Gerald Eve report that between 1998 and 2005 a total of 16 moves were completed to units of 500,000ft= (46,500m2) and above in South Yorkshire and the south-west Midlands, compared with seven to units in the 'Golden Triangle'.
Gerald Eve's 'attractiveness index' places South Yorkshire at the top of the national and regional distribution tables,citing -excellent labour markets and transport access, and a highly permissive planning environment-. It says 75% of the planning applications within this region during 2005 were approved, equating to 4.2 million square feet (390.000n) of new distribution warehousing.
The Scottish central belt and Kent were at the bottom of the table, due to their geographical remoteness.
Chris Kershaw, partner at Gerald Eye, says Scotland scores highly in terms of labour costs, planning and above average rental growth, hut Kent suffers from poor transport connections, high employment costs and relatively little development interest.