Background Paper
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment
October 2016
BOLTON MANCHESTER ROCHDALE STOCKPORT TRAFFORD BURY OLDHAM SALFORD TAMESIDE WIGAN
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment
October 2016
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
Chapter 2: Policy Background ...... 3
Chapter 3: Defining the Housing Market Area ...... 8
Chapter 4: Characteristics of the Housing Market Area ...... 19
Chapter 5: Market signals ...... 82
Chapter 6: Housing Needs of Particular Groups ...... 133
Chapter 7: Affordable Housing Need ...... 161
Chapter 8: Objectively Assessed Housing Need ...... 172
Chapter 9: Need for different sizes of homes ...... 189
Chapter 10: Future Housing Land Supply Targets ...... 202
Appendix 1: Relationships between area Characteristics of the Housing Market Area variables ...... 208
Appendix 2: Private rent tables ...... 226
Appendix 3: LPEG recommendations affordable housing uplift ...... 232
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background and Objectives
1.1 This strategic housing market assessment has been produced for the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The purpose of the SHMA is to develop a robust understanding of housing market dynamics, to provide an assessment of future needs for both market and affordable housing and the housing needs of different groups within the population over the period 2015-2035. It is being published alongside the consultation draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
1.2 It assesses the existing housing market, recent changes, and future needs. In doing so, it draws on information from a wide range of sources, including nationally collated statistics, projections and forecasts, local surveys and studies, development monitoring, and published research.
1.3 This SHMA sets out the overall housing requirement for Greater Manchester (GM1) and also for the individual ten local authorities and provides an objective assessment of the need for housing within Greater Manchester. It also provides judgements regarding future housing policy decisions which the GMCA will take through the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework local plan making process. These will need to be informed by the SHMA but will also take into account a range of other evidence, including those relating to land supply; green belt; other development constraints (such as flooding, and areas of environmental protection etc.) and infrastructure.
1.4 This SHMA responds to and is compliant with the requirements of both the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF2) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG3). This study reflects the content of the PPG as it stood in September 2016. It provides an assessment of the future need for housing, with the intention that this will inform future development of planning policies. According to the PPG paragraph 3 (ID: 2a-003-20140306), housing need:
“refers to the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that is likely to be needed in the housing market area over the plan period – and should cater for the housing demand of the area and identify the scale of housing supply necessary to meet that demand.”
1 Greater Manchester is comprised of the following unitary authorities: Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and, Wigan, 2 National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), March 2012 3 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), first published in March 2014 and subject to on-going updates.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 1
1.5 The most recent previous comprehensive assessment for Greater Manchester was produced in 2008, with a subsequent review in 2010. This SHMA supersedes those previous documents and therefore presents the most up to date picture in respect of housing need across Greater Manchester. It takes account of up to date population figures available at the time of writing, most notably the 2014 Sub- National Population Projections (SNPP) published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in 2016 and 2014 based Household Projections, published by Communities and Local Government in 2016.
1.6 This SHMA represents the most up to date analysis of the Greater Manchester housing market. It is a live document, and will be updated to reflect significant new information, as and when that becomes available.
Figure 1: Greater Manchester Districts
Source: Mappinggm.org.uk
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 2
Chapter 2: Policy Background
2.1 National policies for plan-making are set out within the NPPF. This sets out key policies against which development plans will be assessed at examination and with which they must comply.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
2.2 The NPPF was published in March 2012. Paragraph 14 of the Framework sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development whereby Local Plans should meet objectively assessed development needs, with sufficient flexibility to respond to rapid change, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole or specific policies within the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
2.3 In regard to housing mix, paragraph 50 of the NPPF sets out that local authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community. Planning authorities should identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations reflecting local demand. Where there is an identified affordable housing need, policies should be set to meet this need and these policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.
2.4 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF states that each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence, about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals.
2.5 Paragraph 159 of the NPPF highlights the SHMA as a key piece of evidence in determining housing needs. The paragraph sets out that local planning authorities should “prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which:
“Meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change; Addresses the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community; and caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand.”
2.6 Paragraph 159 further states that local authorities should prepare Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs) to “establish realistic assumptions about
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 3
the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land” to meet the OAN for the plan period.
2.7 Paragraph 178 sets out that “public bodies have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities set out in paragraph 156 (which includes homes). The Government expects joint working on areas of common interest to be diligently undertaken for the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities.”
2.8 Paragraph 181 sets out that Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross- boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination. This highlights the importance of collaborative working and engaging constructively with neighbouring authorities, as required by Section 33A of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. Housing provision is an important cross-boundary issue.
Planning Practice Guidance
2.9 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was issued by Government in March 2014 and contains guidance on ‘Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessments’. This is relevant to this SHMA in that it provides clarity on how key elements of the NPPF should be interpreted, including the approach to deriving an objective assessment housing need. The approach in this report takes account of the PPG.
2.10 Paragraph 5, ID: 2a-005-20140306, states that there is no one methodological approach or use of a particular dataset(s) that will provide a definitive assessment of development need. But the use of this standard methodology set out in this guidance is strongly recommended because it will ensure that the assessment findings are transparently prepared.
2.11 Local planning authorities may consider departing from the methodology, but they should explain why their particular local circumstances have led them to adopt a different approach where this is the case. The assessment should be thorough but proportionate, building where possible on existing information sources outlined within the guidance.
2.12 Paragraph 7, ID: 2a-007-20150320, states that local planning authorities should assess their development needs working with the other local authorities in the relevant housing market area or functional economic market area in line with the duty to cooperate. This is because such needs are rarely constrained precisely by local authority administrative boundaries.
2.13 Paragraph 3, ID: 2a-003-20140306, defines “need” as referring to ‘the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that is likely to be needed in the housing market area over the plan period – and should cater for the housing demand of the area and identify the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this need.”
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 4
2.14 It sets out that the assessment of need should be proportionate and should be based on future scenarios that could be reasonably expected to occur. It should not take account of supply-side factors or development constraints.
2.15 PPG paragraph 4, ID: 2a-004-20140306 sets out that:
“plan makers should not apply constraints to the overall assessment of need, such as limitations imposed by the supply of land for new development, historical under performance, infrastructure or environmental constraints. However, these considerations will need to be addressed when bringing evidence bases together to identify specific policies within development plans.”
2.16 Paragraph 14, ID: 2a-014-20140306, outlines that estimating future need is not an exact science and that there is no one methodological approach or dataset which will provide a definitive assessment of need. However, Paragraph 15, ID: 2a-015- 20140306, sets out that the starting point for establishing the need for housing should be the latest household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). At the time of preparation of this report the latest projections were the 2014 based Household Projections.
2.17 It sets out that there may be instances where these national projections require adjustment to take account of factors affecting local demography or household formation rates, including where there is evidence that household formation rates are or have been constrained by supply. It suggests that proportional adjustments should be made where the market signals point to supply being constrained relative to long-term trends or to other areas in order to improve affordability.
2.18 Evidence of affordable housing needs is also relevant, with PPG Paragraph 29, ID: 2a-029-20140306, suggesting that the total affordable housing need should be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing. In some instances, it suggests this may provide a case for increasing the level of overall housing provision.
2.19 In regard to employment trends, Paragraph 18, ID: 2a-018-20140306, indicates that job growth trends and/or economic forecasts should be considered having regard to the growth in working-age population in the housing market area. It sets out that:
“where the supply of working age population that is economically active (labour force supply) is less than the projected job growth, this could result in unsustainable commuting patterns (depending on public transport accessibility and other sustainable options such as walking and cycling) and could reduce the resilience of local businesses. In such circumstances, plan makers will need to consider how the location of new housing and infrastructure development could help to address these problems.”
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 5
2.20 Paragraph 19, ID: 2a-019- -20140306, states that:
“The housing need number suggested by household projections (the starting point) should be adjusted to reflect appropriate market signals”.
2.21 Market signals include land prices, house prices, rents, affordability, rate of development and overcrowding. Paragraph 20, ID:2a-020 -20140306, sets out that a worsening trend (against appropriate comparisons) in any of these indicators will require upward adjustment to planned housing numbers compared to ones based solely on household projections.
2.22 Paragraph 21, ID: 2a-021-20150326, indicates that the assessment should consider the need for different types of housing and the needs of different groups, including private rented sector, self-build and custom housebuilding, family housing, housing for older people, and households with specific needs and students.
2.23 This SHMA provides an assessment of overall housing need. In interpreting the findings, it is important to recognise the distinction between housing need and housing targets. Mr Justice Hickinbottom makes clear this distinction in the case of Gallagher Homes Limited and Lioncourt Homes Limited v Solihull Metropolitan District Council [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin) at [37]4 . In this he makes a distinction between household projections, the full objective assessment of need for housing and a housing requirement as follows:
Household projections: These are demographic, trend-based projections indicating the likely number and type of future households if the underlying trends and demographic assumptions are realised. Full Objective Assessment of Need for Housing: This is the objectively assessed need for housing in an area, leaving aside policy considerations. It is therefore closely linked to the relevant household projection; but is not necessarily the same. An objective assessment of housing need may result in a different figure from that based on purely demographics if, for example, the assessor considers that the household projection fails properly to take into account the effects of a major downturn (or upturn) in the economy that will affect future housing needs in an area. Nevertheless, where there are no such factors, objective assessment of need may be – and sometimes is – taken as being the same as the relevant household projection. Housing Requirement: This is the figure which reflects, not only the assessed need for housing, but also any policy considerations that might require that figure to be manipulated to determine the actual housing target for an area. For example, built development in an area might be constrained by the extent of land which is the subject of policy protection, such as Green Belt or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Or it might be decided, as a matter of policy, to encourage or discourage particular migration reflected in demographic trends. Once these policy considerations have been applied to the figure for full objectively assessed need for housing in an area, the result is a “policy on” figure for housing requirement. Subject to it being
4 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/1283.html
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 6
determined by a proper process, the housing requirement figure will be the target against which housing supply will normally be measured.
2.24 The High Court judgement in the Gallagher Homes Limited and Lioncourt Homes Limited v Solihull Metropolitan District Council [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin) at [37]5 case is clear that figures for Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing should “leave aside policy considerations”. This is also set out in Paragraph 4 of the PPG, ID: 2a-004-20140306. It is clear that such policy considerations include policy factors or designations which may restrict development, including green belt, as well as land availability and infrastructure provision.
2.25 Based on the above, the flow diagram below summarises the approach we have used to establish the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for Housing in each of the Greater Manchester districts.
5 ibid
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 7
Chapter 3: Defining the Housing Market Area
3.1 This chapter has two primary purposes:
To identify the appropriate areas of assessment for determining the need/demand for housing and employment floorspace that should be planned for through the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework; and To consider the implications of those areas of assessment for translating the geography of need/demand into district requirements for housing and employment floorspace in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
National guidance
3.2 The National Planning Policy Framework states that “local planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework” (paragraph 12). The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) explains that:
“Need for housing in the context of the guidance refers to the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that is likely to be needed in the housing market area over the plan period – and should cater for the housing demand of the area and identify the scale of housing supply necessary to meet that demand.” (paragraph 2a-004-20140306)
3.3 The PPG defines a housing market area as follows:
“A housing market area is a geographical area defined by household demand and preferences for all types of housing, reflecting the key functional linkages between places where people live and work. It might be the case that housing market areas overlap. The extent of the housing market areas identified will vary, and many will in practice cut across various local planning authority administrative boundaries. Local planning authorities should work with all the other constituent authorities under the duty to cooperate.” (paragraph 2a-011-20140306)
3.4 The PPG states that:
“Housing market areas can be broadly defined by using three different sources of information as follows.
House prices and rates of change in house prices Housing market areas can be identified by assessing patterns in the relationship between housing demand and supply across different locations. This analysis uses house prices to provide a ‘market-based’ reflection of housing market area boundaries. It enables the identification of areas which have clearly different price levels compared to surrounding
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 8
areas. The findings provide information about differences across the area in terms of the price people pay for similar housing, market ‘hotspots’, low demand areas and volatility. … Household migration and search patterns Migration flows and housing search patterns reflect preferences and the trade-offs made when choosing housing with different characteristics. Analysis of migration flow patterns can help to identify these relationships and the extent to which people move house within an area. The findings can identify the areas within which a relatively high proportion of household moves (typically 70 per cent) are contained. This excludes long distance moves (e.g. those due to a change of lifestyle or retirement), reflecting the fact that most people move relatively short distances due to connections to families, friends, jobs, and schools.
Contextual data (for example travel to work area boundaries, retail and school catchment areas) Travel to work areas can provide information about commuting flows and the spatial structure of the labour market, which will influence household price and location. They can also provide information about the areas within which people move without changing other aspects of their lives (e.g. work or service use).” (paragraph 2a-011-20140306)
3.5 In June 2014, the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) published guidance on objectively assessed housing need, which includes an extensive consideration of how to identify housing market areas, with a second edition published in July 2015. This guidance seeks to implement the approach outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework and the PPG.
3.6 Given this advice, and the fact that some of the evidence recommended for analysis is the same for both housing market areas and functional economic areas, such as the use of travel to work data, this report considers both types of area.
3.7 This chapter considers in turn and summarises the key factors identified in the PPG, with a particular focus on migration and commuting.
Migration and housing market areas
3.8 A wide range of factors influence decisions regarding migration and the precise location of where to live, including:
Availability of suitable housing Price Location of family Location of friends Cultural communities Education of children Commuting times/routes to work Access to shops, facilities, etc. Lifestyle Identity and familiarity
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 9
Environmental quality Crime levels
3.9 The relative importance of these factors can vary significantly between different households, and some may generally be more important for particular household types and age groups than others.
3.10 The use of migration data in the identification of housing market areas tends to focus on determining when self-containment levels reach a particular threshold, such as 70% as referred to in the Planning Practice Guidance. Migration data for Greater Manchester from the 2011 Census suggests that previous definitions of housing market areas from the regional and sub-regional housing market assessments of 2008 represent a gross over-simplification of the way in which the housing market functions within Greater Manchester. The notion of largely self- contained housing markets may make sense in some parts of the country, but in a large, integrated conurbation such as Greater Manchester it does not appear to offer an appropriate or helpful description of reality. Data from the last two censuses indicates that self-containment levels are decreasing; suggesting housing markets are gradually becoming more and more integrated.
3.11 In practice, most migration is over a relatively short distance. This is likely to be due to the relative importance of some of the above factors relating to family, friends, and familiarity with an area. Generally, moves to and from individual places occur in all directions, irrespective of any identified housing market area boundaries. Each neighbourhood is effectively at the centre of its own housing market area, with such areas collectively forming a series of overlapping markets that cover the whole of Greater Manchester. Some areas may face more towards one direction than another, and this will often be a function of geographical factors such as the proximity to other neighbourhoods, the quality of transport connections, and the location of the nearest major employment, retail and/or leisure destination. The directions of the most important links may vary depending on whether the source or destination of migration is being considered, as different locations perform different functions within the wider market. For example, the city centre area draws in people from a very wide catchment, extending well beyond Greater Manchester, and then out-migration is to a less extensive though still significant area, with a moderate bias towards the south. In contrast, some of the areas with higher house prices attract people from surrounding areas, irrespective of prevailing house prices within them, but then see outward moves over a wider area with a greater emphasis on locations with similar characteristics. Although there are exceptions, generally, proximity appears to be far more important than price in terms of an influence on the level of migration between areas.
3.12 Overall, Greater Manchester as a whole has a very high level of self-containment, both in terms of the proportion of people moving from an address in Greater Manchester who remain within the sub-region, and the proportion of people moving to an address in Greater Manchester who already lived within the sub-region, exceeding 80% on both measures (as a proportion of all their moves within England and Wales). The most important external migration flows for each district in Greater Manchester are generally with their immediately adjoining districts that also lie within Greater Manchester, and links to adjoining districts outside the sub-region
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 10
are usually more limited. However, individual settlements outside Greater Manchester that are located very close to its border, particularly where they lie on a key transport connection such as a railway, can have quite strong links to adjoining districts within the sub-region. Some nearby parts of Cheshire East, High Peak and Rossendale may partly have a role as locations to which Greater Manchester residents move, but in all cases there are also quite significant though usually lesser flows in the opposite direction. Some parts of High Peak appear to have a wider catchment within Greater Manchester than might be expected from the general patterns described above, with modest flows from the city centre and south Manchester.
3.13 Data from the censuses and ONS indicates that Manchester and Salford have a quite distinctive role within Greater Manchester. The two cities effectively accounted for all of the net in-migration to Greater Manchester over the period 2002-2012 (over 4,650 people per annum, with the other eight districts collectively seeing net out-migration at over 650 people per annum), due to them seeing very high levels of net international in-migration, although Manchester does have considerable net out- migration to other parts of the country. The role of Manchester and Salford appears to have evolved between the last two censuses, with a major increase in net in- migration, particularly net migration to Manchester from outside Greater Manchester, whereas most other parts of the sub-region have seen a significant increase in net out-migration. Flows between the two cities have also become far more important, more than doubling between 2001 and 2011.
3.14 Manchester and Salford attract more migrants from outside Greater Manchester (but within England and Wales) than any of the other eight districts in the sub- region. Only around one-third of in-migrants to Manchester come from elsewhere in Greater Manchester, demonstrating its ability to attract people from a wide area. The top ten net inflows to Manchester are from other cities in the North and Midlands, reflecting its role and relative importance, and Salford shares some similarities in this regard. Manchester and Salford are the only Greater Manchester districts for which locations within England and Wales outside Greater Manchester make up a higher proportion of the sources of all migrants than they do the proportion of the destination of all migrants, again highlighting their role as entrance points to the sub-region from which there is then some redistribution to other parts of the conurbation.
3.15 The location of the city centre and Salford Quays within Manchester and Salford is likely to be a key factor in explaining this role of the two cities. The two wards covering those areas have a very broad reach, particularly in terms of the source of migrants, drawing people from a very wide catchment and then redistributing them across a broad area of Greater Manchester. The main sources and destinations for the City Centre ward in Manchester appear to have quite a strong southward bias, whereas this is less pronounced for the Ordsall ward covering Salford Quays and the western part of the city centre. Manchester is by far the most important external migration source and destination for several districts within the sub-region, always with net outflows from Manchester, and is particularly significant in the case of Salford, Stockport and Trafford, again suggesting a southward focus to the city’s relationships. The outflow rates from Manchester to Salford and Trafford, and the
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 11
inflow rates from them, are very high relative to the size of the population of those two districts, and are the most significant in Greater Manchester.
3.16 There is other evidence of differences between the northern and southern parts of Greater Manchester, though Bury is often different to other parts of the north of the sub-region. For example, although the previous definitions of housing market areas within Greater Manchester are clearly problematic, it is notable that the two northern areas (North West and North East) have high levels of self-containment, whereas the two southern areas (Central and South) have lower self-containment below the 70% threshold. This picture is further reinforced by the significant flows between the Central and South HMAs, particularly in terms of those moving from the Central HMA to the South HMA. The more northern districts of Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside all individually have high levels of self-containment, close to or exceeding 70%, though self-containment is much lower in Bury. The North West and North East HMAs also have a higher proportion of their moves contained within Greater Manchester than the Central and South HMAs. The analysis of ward-level data reinforces this picture, with the clusters of low self-containment generally focused in the south of the conurbation, particularly in terms of the source of migrants, which all indicates that locations in the centre and south quite often have a broader reach than places in the north. Manchester, Stockport and Trafford generally have lower levels of containment, but this should still be seen within the overall picture of most moves being over relatively short distances. The absolute flows to and from the northern part of Cheshire East are reasonably significant, particularly for Stockport, reflecting the proximity of neighbourhoods. South Trafford has a particularly low level of containment, which may partly be a function of the high house prices. Some of the areas of high self-containment in the north are due to particular concentrations of ethnic groups.
3.17 There is also some evidence of differences between the west and east of Greater Manchester. The four eastern districts of Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Tameside collectively saw net out-migration of more than 1,500 people per annum over the period 2002-2012, whereas the four western districts of Bolton, Salford, Trafford and Wigan had net in-migration of more than 2,200 people per annum. Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside have the highest proportion of their migrants coming from within Greater Manchester. Although there are some links with High Peak, the east of Greater Manchester generally has very limited migration connections to its east, particularly to Calderdale and Kirklees. Oldham and Rochdale stand out on some measures, having the highest net out-migration over the period 2002-2012, and the highest self-containment within Greater Manchester, both individually and together.
3.18 In considering housing markets within Greater Manchester, it would therefore seem advisable to avoid seeking to define distinct housing market areas, but instead to focus on the roles of different places and the interactions between them. Although there are some migration links to settlements just outside the sub-region, Greater Manchester generally appears to be an appropriate starting point for analysis, supplemented by assessment of individual districts. The generally short-distance nature of most migration moves will be an important consideration, as will be the apparent increasing integration of housing markets.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 12
3.19 Overall, there appears to be little evidence that differences in house prices are a major determinant of migration patterns. Proximity appears to be the key issue, largely irrespective of whether areas have similar or different average house prices. The primary issue associated with house prices may be that households with lower incomes typically appear to move over shorter distances, which could suggest that their location choices are more limited than those who can afford higher house prices.
Commuting
3.20 Almost 88% of commuters who live in Greater Manchester also work in the sub- region, and more than 85% of commuters who work in Greater Manchester also live in the sub-region. These high levels of commuting self-containment are perhaps unsurprising given the size of the area involved, but suggest that Greater Manchester is reasonably self-sufficient both in terms of the provision of employment opportunities and the supply of labour. Overall, there is net in- commuting to Greater Manchester from the rest of England and Wales of 28,316, which could be considered very low given that more than 1,000,000 people commute to a location within the sub-region. Greater Manchester is a very important source of jobs for High Peak and Rossendale, accounting for more than 30% of their commuters, but the largest absolute commuting flows are with Cheshire East.
3.21 Manchester, Salford and Trafford all draw in a large number of workers from outside their districts, often from each other, and have net in-commuting and low worker self-containment. Manchester has a dominant role, with very high levels of net in- commuting exceeding 100,000, whereas the levels for Salford and Trafford are much more modest. The other seven Greater Manchester districts have quite significant net out-commuting. Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale appear to have quite localised commuting, with relatively high self-containment both in terms of workers and commuters. Bury, Stockport and Tameside have lower commuter self- containment rates. Wigan is quite distinctive, having the highest worker self- containment in Greater Manchester but low numbers of commuters coming from other parts of the sub-region, the lowest proportion by far of its residents working in Greater Manchester, the highest net out-commuting of any Greater Manchester district, and being the only district in the sub-region for which Manchester is not the most important external commuting destination (it is only the fifth).
3.22 Overall, similar to migration, the pattern of commuting flows is reasonably predictable based on the size and location of employment areas relative to the main areas of population. The primary sources of commuters are always the immediately surrounding areas, but the extent of an employment area’s influence and the average length of commuting journeys will vary depending on its function within the sub-region. Although they are very important within the districts in which they are located, the eight major town centres in Greater Manchester have a relatively localised commuting catchment, with the main flows for each being from the district that they are located within, together with modest flows from adjoining districts, the size of which typically reflects the proximity of the main residential neighbourhoods, the quality of transport connections and the availability of other areas of major employment opportunities. Significant industrial areas such as Kingsway appear to
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 13
have similarly localised catchments. Wigan Town Centre stands out as having a very high proportion of commuters from within the district (75%), and the proportions for Bolton and Rochdale Town Centre are also high (more than 65%). Stockport Town Centre appears to have a broader reach than most of the other major town centres in Greater Manchester, with significant flows from Manchester and Tameside in particular, though those from Cheshire East and Trafford are also quite considerable.
3.23 The major employment areas at the core of the conurbation (the city centre, Salford Quays and Trafford Park) have a significantly broader reach, drawing a lower proportion of workers from the immediate area, and having longer average travel to work distances (with median commuting distances of 14-16km compared to 7-9km for the town centres). Manchester, Salford and Trafford collectively still provide more than half of the workers for each of these employment areas, but there are also major flows from the other Greater Manchester districts to the city centre. The districts in the north of Greater Manchester generally provide fewer workers for the city centre than does the south of the sub-region and, equally, the city centre is less significant as a source of jobs for the districts in the north, in both cases with the exception of Bury. Oldham and Rochdale are relatively disconnected from Salford Quays and Trafford Park, and Bolton and Wigan send the fewest people to the city centre from within Greater Manchester. This southward bias of commuting appears to extend into adjoining districts, with the largest inward flows to the core employment areas generally being from Cheshire East, Warrington and High Peak. The flows from Rossendale show that the employment opportunities in the core are relatively important to that district, and it is notable that Rossendale lies immediate to the north of Bury, which is the part of the north of Greater Manchester that supplies the most commuters for the core areas despite having the smallest population.
3.24 In the same way that Greater Manchester has a series of overlapping housing market areas, the majority of employment areas in Greater Manchester appear to lie at the centre of modest sized commuting catchments, with those catchments overlapping each other rather than being distinct travel to work areas. There is some skewing of this, including due to geographical factors (for example with Rochdale having little influence to its east in West Yorkshire) or the proximity of the city centre (for example with Bury largely drawing in people from the north but not the south, and Tameside from the east rather than the west).
3.25 However, overlaying these localised catchments are the broader catchments for the employment areas at the core of the conurbation, and the city centre in particular appears to have a distorting effect. Although it draws in very large numbers of commuters from nearby, the city centre’s broad reach influences commuting patterns across Greater Manchester, and over 57,000 of its workers travel more than 10km. In the case of Salford, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford, Manchester as a whole provides employment for more than 20% of their commuters, and these four districts also had the highest proportions of their migration flows accounted for by Manchester.
3.26 As noted above, there is some evidence that the north-west (Bolton and Wigan) and north-east (Oldham and Rochdale) are less connected to some of the employment
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 14
opportunities within the core than other parts of the conurbation, but there are still quite significant commuting flows from those districts, for example with Wigan being the fifth most important source of commuters for both Salford Quays and Trafford Park. Furthermore, the ONS definition of travel to work areas (TTWAs) identified separate Bolton and Rochdale & Oldham TTWAs in 2001, but these were subsumed into the Manchester TTWA in 2011, suggesting increasing functional integration of different parts of Greater Manchester. It is possible that new and improved transport infrastructure, such as the Metrolink line to Oldham and Rochdale, could lead to further changes in these patterns in the future.
3.27 Nevertheless, proximity is still a vital component, and it is not necessarily the size and role of Manchester that draws people in from outside Greater Manchester, for example with Wigan and Bolton being more important for Chorley commuters, Rochdale and Bury being more important for Rossendale commuters, and Stockport and Tameside being equally as important as Manchester for High Peak commuters.
Retail catchments
3.28 There is a significant overlap of the principal retail catchments of the city centre and eight main town centres, particularly on the eastern side of Greater Manchester. This reflects the integrated nature of the conurbation, but the individual town centres still retain strong identities and influence over their surrounding communities. The lack of a main town centre in Salford reduces the catchment overlap on the western side of Greater Manchester, although the Trafford Centre’s influence will be stronger there, and the largely discrete nature of Wigan’s principal catchment reinforces some of the patterns seen in relation to migration and commuting. There are similarities between the commuting patterns and retail catchments of the town centres, in terms of their size and geography.
Conclusions on the area of assessment
3.29 Greater Manchester has very high levels of self-containment, both in terms of migration and commuting. This reflects both its size and the fact that there are large areas of open land separating the conurbation from many of the nearest settlements. Greater Manchester is also an important administrative unit, for example having its own Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership. It is also a recognised area of search for many businesses when looking for premises. On this basis, it provides an appropriate starting point for considering housing and employment floorspace requirements.
3.30 However, the evidence on both migration and commuting suggests that there are important connections with areas adjoining Greater Manchester that need to be taken into account. The nature of these connections varies depending on the proximity of settlements within and outside Greater Manchester, the location and relative strength of key employment areas, and the availability of direct transport connections. Many of the interactions are localised, contained around the boundaries of the sub-region, but the strength of the city centre as an employment location is felt across a much broader area. Some migration and commuting flows
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 15
are skewed in one particular direction, whereas others are more even with low net flows masking high absolute flows. In some cases the importance of the interactions may be more important to the districts adjoining Greater Manchester but of less significance to Greater Manchester and the districts within it, due to the differing size of the areas involved and the availability of alternative sources of employment and labour. The implications of emerging housing and employment floorspace requirements and proposals, both within and outside Greater Manchester, will therefore need to be carefully considered as work on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework progresses, so as to ensure that there is an appropriate balance of housing and jobs across the wider area.
3.31 Most people migrate over relatively small distances, resulting in a series of overlapping markets rather than relatively discrete housing market areas. Migration patterns are generally quite predictable, based on issues such as proximity, transport connections, employment opportunities and local identity, rather than reflecting previously identified housing market areas. Similarly, most employment areas see people commuting to them primarily from quite nearby, again leading to overlapping catchments. However, the major concentration of employment opportunities at the core of the conurbation, focused around the city centre, has a distorting effect, drawing people in from longer distances and limiting the commuting catchment of some of the other employment areas within Greater Manchester.
3.32 There are also other broader patterns that are discernible, such as higher levels of migration self-containment in the north of Greater Manchester, a generally more fluid market in the south, typically lower self-containment for those moving from more prosperous areas, net in-migration in the west and net out-migration in the east, and a very extensive in-migration catchment for the core of the conurbation that is then redistributed to some extent to surrounding areas. Wigan tends to have weaker connections to the rest of Greater Manchester than the other nine districts in the sub-region, both in terms of migration and commuting, as might be expected given its location. There is some evidence that migration is more contained within districts than if it were purely a function of distance and transport links. Familiarity with, and proximity to, particular town centres, as reflected in the geography of their core catchments, along with other aspects of local identity, could potentially explain this.
3.33 This complex functioning of housing and labour markets within Greater Manchester means that there is no simple way of subdividing the sub-region into identifiable housing market areas or functional economic areas. Any boundaries would essentially be arbitrary, and risk masking important relationships, as has been seen with the housing market areas that have previously been identified. Given these problems, together with the relatively small distances involved in most migration and commuting, the issues of district identity, and the availability of population and household projection data, it is considered that the most appropriate unit of analysis below the Greater Manchester level is the individual districts. This would be expected to enable a greater level of analysis, taking into account a better understanding of the relationships between different places, than would the combination of districts into larger sub-areas. However, even a district-based analysis could mask significant cross-boundary connections, and it will be important
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 16
to have regard to the analysis in this report and supplementary data when interpreting assessments of demand and need for individual districts. For example, an ongoing ‘Deep Dives’ analysis of the economic issues and opportunities across Greater Manchester will provide a more thorough understanding of economic activity at a sub-district level.
Distribution of housing and employment floorspace requirements
3.34 Although the analysis of 2011 Census migration data suggests that most moves are over a relatively short distance, and many moves are likely to be constrained by links to family and friends, a comparison of past population projections with actual change indicates that the cumulative impact of migration can result in reasonably significant changes over time compared to those that have been forecast. Over a period of 20 years, this could easily lead to household growth being several thousand higher or lower than projected in any district, even if the Greater Manchester total is as forecast. Consequently, there would appear to be considerable scope for household growth to be redistributed around the sub-region if that were considered to be an appropriate strategy. For example, if a more sustainable pattern of household growth could be identified than that which is forecast, in terms of minimising the need to travel and the impact of residential development on the environment, then it would appear realistic to work towards it provided that appropriate measures could be put in place to ensure that locations identified for higher than forecast growth could attract any available migration.
3.35 The 1993-based population projections show that any additional population and household growth within the sub-region could realistically be focused on a small number of districts, as the higher than forecast growth in the following 20 years was focused solely in Manchester, Salford and Trafford, but again this would only be likely to be achieved in practice if such locations were sufficiently attractive in terms of access to employment, lifestyle, housing quality, etc. The overall spatial strategy for accommodating household growth is therefore influenced by the forecast pattern of household change across Greater Manchester, but is not completely set by it, and there is significant potential to move at least part of that household growth to other locations.
3.36 Overall, the high migration inflows relative to population size for Manchester and Salford mean that these two cities are likely to have the greatest potential for their population levels to deviate from those forecast in the ONS 2012-based projections, either due to deliberate policy interventions or changing circumstances. Trafford, and to a lesser extent Bury, also have above average projected migration inflows relative to their population size, and so could also possibly see significant redistribution of growth both within and outside Greater Manchester. In contrast, the migration inflow rates are projected to be quite low for Wigan, Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside, with Oldham and Rochdale having relatively high natural change. Consequently, there may be more limited scope to move the projected population growth of these districts into surrounding areas, particularly given that three of the districts adjoin each other on the north-east side of Greater Manchester, and have seen relatively modest population growth over the last few decades compared to some other parts of the sub-region and also have relatively high migration self- containment rates.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 17
3.37 The commuting analysis highlights a series of issues that will need to be taken into account when determining the desirable distribution of population growth relative to the distribution of employment opportunities, and vice versa. Patterns of development that are likely to result in longer average journey distances will probably only be appropriate if there is very considerable investment in transport networks, and a significant modal shift away from the private car. The fact that commuting flows to the major employment areas at the conurbation core are generally lower from the northern districts (with the exception of Bury) than from the south does not necessarily mean that such areas should provide less of the housing to accommodate an increase in workers in the core. The lower commuting levels may be due to a variety of issues, such as the type of dwellings and residential environments that are currently available in such locations, skill levels and health, as well as the quality of transport links. Similarly, regard will need to be had to the fact that Wigan is generally less integrated with the rest of Greater Manchester than the other nine districts, but actions to address this could potentially have significant economic and social benefits.
3.38 A full report on the area of assessment can be found in the GMSF 2015 Options Background Papers: “Area of Assessment” in the following web link: http://gmsf- consult.objective.co.uk/portal/options_consultation/aoa
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 18
Chapter 4: Characteristics of the Housing Market Area
Housing
Number of dwellings
4.1 The 2011 Census reveals that Greater Manchester is the largest of the English metropolitan counties (excluding Greater London) in terms of the number of dwellings, with 1.17 million residential properties. Manchester is by far the largest district within Greater Manchester, accounting for more than 18.2% of the sub- region’s dwellings. The smallest districts in terms of the number of dwellings are Bury, Rochdale and Oldham in the north and north-east of Greater Manchester. Manchester extends further to the south than the north of the conurbation and the relatively limited number of dwellings in the nearest parts of the adjoining districts to the north and east of Greater Manchester means that housing provision is slightly skewed towards the central, western and southern areas. There are likely to be both historical and topographical reasons for this.
Recent changes in dwelling numbers
4.2 Just over 65,000 net additional dwellings were delivered in Greater Manchester over the period 2004-2014 according to district development monitoring. Just over one third of the increase in dwellings was located in Manchester, with Salford, Wigan and Bolton each providing more than 10% of the increase. The two north- eastern districts of Oldham and Rochdale saw the lowest levels of provision over this period and the figure for Bury was also relatively low. There was a slightly higher delivery of additional dwellings in the south-east districts of Tameside and Stockport, although together they still provided fewer than Salford. DCLG live table 125 records a higher level of net additions for Greater Manchester over this period of just under 74,000, which was an increase of 6.7%. The spatial distribution of this increase between the ten districts is broadly similar to that identified by the development monitoring, with the main differences being that Wigan has the second highest increase just ahead of Salford and Stockport has the second lowest increase ahead of Oldham but lower than Rochdale.
4.3 The timing of housing delivery across Greater Manchester over this ten-year period, as recorded by district development monitoring, clearly reflects the prevailing economic conditions, peaking at over 13,600 net additional dwellings in 2007-2008 (around 21% of total provision over the period 2004-2014), before declining to between 3,100 and 4,200 per annum in 2009-2010. 2006-2007 was the only other year when more than 10,000 net additional dwellings were delivered in Greater Manchester. The timing of the increase in dwellings is very similar in DCLG live table 125 but with the figures typically about 1,000 higher for each year.
4.4 Detailed data at ward level is only available for the shorter period of 2006-2014 and for gross completions rather than net additions. Ordsall ward in Salford, which
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 19
neighbours with Manchester’s City Centre ward and also includes part of Salford Quays, had by far the highest level of gross dwelling completions at just under 4,300, or around 7% of the Greater Manchester total. Next highest was the City Centre ward at more than 2,700 gross completions. The following seven highest figures were also all wards in Manchester and Salford and either immediately adjoining or very close to the city centre. Collectively these nine wards delivered more than 18,400 new dwellings or 29% of the Greater Manchester total. Some of the other wards with high completions were also near the centre of the conurbation such as Weaste and Seedley ward and Eccles ward both in Salford and Moss Side, Chorlton and Gorton South all in Manchester.
4.5 The only ward outside this central area that accounted for more than 1% of Greater Manchester’s gross completions was Broadheath in Trafford. Parts of Wigan and Bolton had relatively high completions compared to other suburban areas, whereas most parts of Bury, Rochdale, Oldham and Trafford saw very limited new housing provision. Four of the seven wards with the lowest gross completions were in Trafford, each providing 25 or fewer dwellings.
Recent changes in occupied dwellings
4.6 The above figures relate to net and gross completions but it is also informative to consider the change in the number of occupied dwellings as this potentially provides a better indication of the total increase in households and where they have been accommodated.
4.7 Over the period 2004-2014, there was an increase in occupied dwellings in Greater Manchester of just under 88,000, which is just over one-third more than the net change in the number of dwellings recorded by district monitoring and 19% higher than that shown in DCLG live table 125. The change in occupied dwellings was more even between years than the net increase in dwellings, with a peak around 2006-2009 when the annual increases were between around 10,400 and 11,500 and a more sustained increase in the following years typically around 9,000 per annum. This suggests that the increase in demand for housing was more even than the response of new housing development to meeting it, which has significant peaks and troughs. The difference between net dwelling additions and the number of occupied properties resulted in a decrease in the vacancy rate in Greater Manchester from a peak of around 5% in 2008, immediately after the highest levels of dwelling completions and was an increase from 4.4% in 2004, to just under 3% in 2014.
4.8 Manchester accounted for an even higher proportion of the increase in occupied dwellings than it did for net additional dwellings, at just over 40%. Salford and Wigan again had the next highest increases, at more than 10% but on this measure Bolton was responsible for only 5% of the Greater Manchester increase. Oldham and Stockport saw the smallest increases in their number of occupied dwellings, each accounting for just 3% of the sub-regional growth, with Bury and Rochdale also below 5% of the Greater Manchester increase.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 20
Type of housing6
Detached housing
4.9 Greater Manchester has a relatively low proportion of dwellings that are detached, considerably below the national average and indeed no individual district has a higher proportion of household spaces in detached dwellings than the England average. In contrast, the districts adjoining Greater Manchester collectively have a slightly higher proportion of dwellings that are detached than England has. Stockport accounts for the highest proportion of Greater Manchester’s detached homes, followed by Wigan and Bolton in the north-west of the sub-region, with these three districts together having 45% of Greater Manchester’s detached housing.
4.10 The percentage of detached dwellings is particularly low throughout most of the central area of the conurbation, with all but one ward of Manchester having fewer than 10% detached housing and several having less than 3%. There are also low proportions in east Salford, north-east Trafford and in and around some of the main town centres such as Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale and Stockport. More generally, the percentage of household spaces in detached dwellings is quite low throughout most of Oldham and Tameside, with those two districts having the lowest proportions of detached houses after Manchester and Salford.
4.11 The proportion of detached dwellings in Stockport is just below the national average, with the highest concentrations in the south and east of the district, particularly around Bramhall, Marple and Cheadle, which form part of a much larger area with significant proportions of detached housing that extends into the southern part of Trafford, in Hale and Bowdon and throughout the northern areas of Cheshire East and parts of High Peak. There are also relatively large areas of Bury, Bolton and Wigan, along with north-west Rochdale around Bamford and Norden where the proportions of detached dwellings are reasonably high. There is a particular concentration in Heaton and Lostock in Bolton. The neighbouring parts of Rossendale, Blackburn with Darwen, Chorley and especially West Lancashire also have relatively high proportions of detached dwellings.
Semi-detached housing
4.12 Greater Manchester has a relatively high proportion of semi-detached dwellings, above the national and regional averages as well as the levels seen in adjoining districts, offsetting to a large extent the lower levels of detached housing. Overall, the proportion of detached or semi-detached dwellings in Greater Manchester is over 50%, a little below the national average. Manchester is the only district in Greater Manchester that does not exceed the England average proportion of semi- detached dwellings but it is only marginally below the national rate. The size of the city means that it actually has the most semi-detached dwellings of all the Greater
6 All data on housing type is from ONS Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 21
Manchester districts - just greater than the total in Wigan. Bury, Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside have the lowest numbers of semi-detached housing across Greater Manchester.
4.13 The area within and around the city centre has the lowest proportions of semi- detached dwellings, slightly less so towards the south, with low levels also in some of the central parts of the main towns especially Bolton and Oldham. There are also relatively modest proportions of semi-detached housing in the wards surrounding Greater Manchester to the north, south and east.
4.14 Parts of the west of Greater Manchester, extending into neighbouring St Helens and Warrington, have high proportions of semi-detached housing, particularly throughout much of Wigan, north Trafford and west Salford. However, there are several other concentrations of such housing in other parts of Greater Manchester and there is a broad ring of wards with high proportions of semi-detached dwellings that circles the inner areas of the conurbation.
4.15 When looking at the combined percentages of detached or semi-detached dwellings, the central part of Greater Manchester stands out as having a high concentration of wards with low provision, together with the areas in and around Bolton and Oldham town centres. The south half of Stockport provides a high concentration of such housing and the southern and western areas, both within and outside Greater Manchester, generally have relatively high proportions of detached and semi-detached dwellings. Although there are some concentrations elsewhere, particularly in Bury and north-west Rochdale, the proportion of detached and semi- detached housing is noticeably lower in the northern and eastern areas, again extending into surrounding districts.
Terraced housing
4.16 Greater Manchester and the North West have relatively high proportions of dwellings that are terraced compared to the national average and indeed the overall percentage in the districts adjoining Greater Manchester is higher than that for the sub-region itself. The two southern districts of Stockport and Trafford are the only districts in Greater Manchester with a lower proportion of terraced housing than England as a whole. Manchester has by far the most terraced homes, with 18% of the Greater Manchester total, with Bolton, Wigan and Oldham each providing more than 10%.
4.17 There is a reasonably clear spatial pattern of provision, with the highest proportions in the northern and eastern areas both within Greater Manchester and extending into neighbouring districts. More than 40% of dwellings in Oldham are terraced and there is a significant cluster throughout the central part of the district with four wards having more than 50% terraced housing. Parts of Bolton, Rochdale and Tameside also have quite significant areas with high proportions of terraced dwellings. Elsewhere, there are high proportions of terraced housing in some of the wards near to the city centre, particularly to its east but with the highest levels in Moss Side to the south.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 22
4.18 It is typically the more suburban areas that have the lowest proportion of terraced housing. The largest area of low provision of terraced housing extends through the south of Greater Manchester, with smaller clusters in parts of Wigan and west Salford. Manchester’s City Centre ward has the lowest proportion of terraced housing.
Apartments
4.19 Although the proportion of household spaces that are apartments is higher in Greater Manchester than the North West as a whole, it is lower than the national average. The proportion of apartments in the districts adjoining Greater Manchester is particularly low, with each of them being below the regional average and collectively being around half the national average. Just under a third of all of Greater Manchester’s apartments are located in Manchester, with a further 14% in Salford, whereas Bury, Oldham and Rochdale each provide less than 6% of the Greater Manchester total.
4.20 There is a very clear spatial pattern to the distribution of apartments within Greater Manchester, with a very strong focus on the city centre and surrounding areas but extending outwards to Eccles in the west and Didsbury in the south. This results in Manchester and Salford having by far the highest proportions of household spaces in apartments, more than one-third and one-quarter respectively, followed by Trafford. Over 98% of dwellings in the City Centre ward are apartments and more than three-quarters of those in the neighbouring wards of Ordsall in Salford and Hulme in Manchester. All of the other wards in the top twenty in terms of the proportion of household spaces in apartments are located broadly around the city centre, apart from Brinnington and Central which includes much of Stockport Town Centre and Central Rochdale which includes part of Rochdale Town Centre. There are more moderate levels of apartment provision stretching further south throughout most of Manchester and large parts of Trafford, north-west to Bolton and Bury town centres and eastwards to Ashton-under-Lyne.
4.21 Wigan is generally typified by low proportions of apartments, with six of the seven wards with the lowest rates of apartment provision being in that district and having less than 10% of its household spaces in apartments overall. There are also large areas around the western, northern and eastern edges of Greater Manchester that have low provision of apartments, as do nearby wards of neighbouring districts.
Tenure of housing7
Owner-occupied housing
4.22 Greater Manchester has a slightly lower level of owner-occupation than the national and regional averages, though it still exceeds 60%. Seven of the districts actually have higher proportions of households in owner-occupied dwellings than England as a whole and it is the low figure of 38% for Manchester that reduces the overall average for the sub-region. Owner-occupation is more prevalent in the districts surrounding Greater Manchester, all of which exceed the national average and
7 All data on housing tenure is from ONS Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 23
collectively have a rate of around 70%. No district accounts for a particularly large proportion of owner-occupied housing in Greater Manchester, with the highest numbers in Wigan and Stockport. Despite the low proportion, Manchester has the third highest number of owner-occupied dwellings in Greater Manchester.
4.23 A low proportion of households are in owner-occupation throughout the central part of Greater Manchester, including the eastern part of Salford as well as most of Manchester and this location accounts for eighteen of the twenty wards in Greater Manchester with the lowest proportions of owner-occupation. There are also clusters of low owner-occupation in and around most of the main town centres, with the largest being in Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham. The other wards with low levels of owner-occupation are generally those with very large social rented housing estates.
4.24 The highest proportions of owner-occupation are seen towards the edge of Greater Manchester, with similar or even higher levels in adjoining wards outside the sub- region. There are particularly significant clusters of high owner-occupation in south Stockport stretching into Cheshire East and High Peak and the northern edge of Greater Manchester extending into West Lancashire, Chorley and Blackburn with Darwen. Most parts of Stockport, Trafford, Bury and Wigan have relatively high proportions of households in owner-occupied properties, with Wigan and Stockport accounting for half of the twenty wards with the highest rates of owner-occupation.
Social rented housing
4.25 A higher proportion of housing in Greater Manchester is social rented than the regional and national averages. Levels in the surrounding districts are generally much lower, with only St Helens and Blackburn with Darwen above the average for England. Shared ownership housing provides only a very small proportion of accommodation in all districts.
4.26 The city centre has a low proportion of social rented housing but large parts of the surrounding areas of Manchester and Salford have high levels. Manchester accounts for more than one-quarter of all social rented housing across Greater Manchester, with almost one-third of its dwellings in this tenure and most wards having relatively high proportions compared to the sub-regional average. Salford has the second most social rented dwellings, with around 29% of Salford’s housing being in this tenure. There are several other significant concentrations of social rented housing, including in the central areas of Oldham and Rochdale, which each include three of the twenty wards in Greater Manchester with the highest proportions of social rented dwellings. There are also quite extensive areas of central Bolton and Tameside that have relatively large proportions of social rented housing and smaller but significant concentrations in more outlying areas such as in Little Hulton in Salford and Bucklow-St Martins in Trafford.
4.27 Stockport, Bury and Trafford have the lowest proportions of dwellings in the social rented tenure, although each has a small number of wards with quite high concentrations. The areas towards the edge of Greater Manchester generally have the lowest proportions of social rented housing, as do many of the surrounding districts with the exception of St Helens but the nature of social rented housing
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 24
provision means that there are still some wards in such areas with relatively large levels of provision. Private rented housing
4.28 The proportion of dwellings in Greater Manchester that are in the private rented sector is very similar to the national and regional averages but there are very significant variations within the sub-region. Each of the districts adjoining Greater Manchester has a lower proportion in this tenure than England and only Calderdale exceeds the Greater Manchester average.
4.29 There is a very clear spatial pattern to the areas with high proportions of private rented housing, with them virtually all being in and around the city centre, extending southwards to Didsbury. Within this broad area of major provision, there is a cluster of particularly high proportions of private rented housing in the City Centre ward of Manchester and four adjoining wards, with 65% of housing in the City Centre ward being private rented and 55% in Ordsall in Salford and then other concentrations to the south around Chorlton and extending southwards from Longsight to Didsbury West, which may partly relate to the main locations of students. This results in Manchester having 28% of its households in private rented accommodation, eighteen of the twenty wards in Greater Manchester with the highest rates and the city provides almost one-third of all private rented housing in Greater Manchester. The high concentrations on the western side of the city centre lead to around 19% of Salford’s housing being private rented. All of the other districts have reasonably similar levels falling within the range 11-14%.
4.30 Levels of private rented housing are generally much lower across the rest of Greater Manchester, with the highest proportions typically around the main town centres. Large areas have quite low levels of private rented housing, with Stockport, Trafford and Wigan each having several wards where less than 10% of housing is private rented.
Size of dwellings8
4.31 The size distribution of dwellings in Greater Manchester is quite similar to that for England but with a slightly higher proportion of properties with two or three bedrooms and slightly lower proportions with one, four, or five or more bedrooms. Average dwelling sizes in the adjoining districts are a little higher, particularly the supply of four bedroom properties.
4.32 Trafford, Stockport, Wigan and Bury all have higher proportions of dwellings with three or more bedrooms than the national average. Although Manchester and Salford have the lowest proportions of such larger dwellings, their rates are still above 50% and the size of Manchester means that it has more housing with three or more bedrooms than any other part of Greater Manchester.
4.33 There is a strong concentration of areas with relatively high proportions of one- bedroom properties around the city centre, extending southwards as far as Didsbury West, northwards to Crumpsall and westwards to Eccles in Salford.
8 All data on dwelling size is from ONS Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 25
Almost 40% of dwellings in the City Centre ward are one bedroom and Manchester as a whole accounts for over one-quarter of such dwellings in Greater Manchester. Some of the main town centres also have relatively high proportions of one bedroom properties, sometimes in a single ward such as Brinnington and Central in Stockport, a couple of wards as in Oldham and Wigan, or a more extensive area such as in Bolton and Rochdale. There are generally low proportions of one bedroom properties around the edges of Greater Manchester and extending into neighbouring districts, although there is a cluster of higher provision in the south of Rossendale.
4.34 There is a more diverse pattern of provision of two bedroom dwellings. There is a significant cluster of wards with high proportions of two bedroom properties in and around the city centre but much more focused along a broad west-east axis than was the case with one bedroom properties and lower proportions in relative terms in most of the area to the south. The Ordsall and Irwell Riverside wards in Salford and the City Centre and Hulme wards in Manchester all have more than half of their properties being two-bedroom. However, there are extensive areas stretching out into most of the other districts that have relatively high proportions of two bedroom dwellings. This is particularly the case for Oldham, where there is a large central stretch of wards with more than 40% of properties having two bedrooms and most of the other wards exceed 30%, resulting in Oldham having the highest overall proportion of two bedroom properties in Greater Manchester, which is likely to reflect the large number of terraced dwellings in the district. The picture is reasonably similar in Tameside but with a smaller area of very high levels of two bedroom dwellings, and both Bolton and Rochdale and to a less extent Bury and Wigan, have quite large areas with quite high proportions of two bedroom housing. Although the northern part of Stockport has a cluster of wards with high proportions of two bedroom dwellings, the district as a whole has quite low levels of provision, and Trafford has by far the lowest proportion of such properties in Greater Manchester. More generally, the proportions of two bedroom properties are generally higher in the northern parts of Greater Manchester extending into the surrounding districts than those in the southern part and neighbouring areas.
4.35 The large number of one bedroom and two bedroom properties in the central part of the conurbation inevitably means that this area has a comparatively low proportion of properties with three or more bedrooms. The City Centre ward has the lowest proportion of larger dwellings, at just 6%, followed by Ordsall at 16% and several other wards in this central area have less than half of their properties with three bedrooms. There are other concentrations of wards with relatively low proportions of three bedroom dwellings, typically extending through the central areas of the northern and eastern districts of Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside. There are smaller clusters of wards with low proportions of larger dwellings, for example in north Stockport and east Wigan. The southern and western parts of Greater Manchester, including west Bolton and south Manchester, together with the adjoining areas of neighbouring districts, generally have comparatively high proportions of dwellings with three or more bedrooms. Within Greater Manchester, the highest proportions are along its southern edge, particularly in Stockport and the western part of Salford extending into east Wigan and north Trafford. There are also individual wards with very high proportions of larger dwellings, such as Heaton and Lostock in Bolton and Sedgley in Bury. The areas with the highest proportions of
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 26
three bedroom properties are generally slightly closer to the centre of the conurbation than are those with large levels of four bedroom dwellings. There are only a small number of wards with relatively high proportions of dwellings with five or more bedrooms, with the primary cluster being in south Trafford extending into north Cheshire East, although Manchester actually has more of these very large dwellings than any other district in the sub-region, accounting for 19% of the Greater Manchester total, with its main cluster around Withington, Old Moat and Didsbury West.
House prices
4.36 The average sales prices are clearly heavily influenced by the properties that are available for purchase in any one year, which can for example be significantly skewed by new developments or if the overall number of properties sold is small. This is particularly exacerbated when looking at smaller areas such as wards and at change over time. Consequently, it is appropriate to focus on general conclusions from house price data rather than specific differences in values and minor variations which could be due to the shortcomings of the data rather than reflecting genuine differences in values. It should also be recognised that the sales prices are averages across all dwellings and therefore will be affected by the types of property in an area and could mask significant differences between property types.
4.37 Land Registry Price Paid data shows that sales in 2015 were highest in Manchester and Stockport and lowest in Oldham and Rochdale. There were decreases in sales in Oldham and Stockport and the highest increase in sales in Salford. From the 38,000 sales in Greater Manchester the average price was £168,511 and the highest prices were in Trafford and Stockport. Overall in Greater Manchester sales and prices increased by over 5% and the highest annual price rises were in Trafford and Bury at over 8% with Oldham and Rochdale the smallest increase in prices over the year
4.38 Average sales prices in 2015 were generally higher in the southern part of the conurbation, and the three wards of Bowdon, Hale Barns and Hale Central on the southern boundary of Trafford had by far the highest average sales prices in Greater Manchester, with the two Bramhall wards in Stockport the next highest. There was also a smaller cluster of high prices in the Didsbury and Chorlton area of Manchester, extending into the Heatons in Stockport, with the two Didsbury wards amongst the ten highest average prices in Greater Manchester by ward and Chorlton and Heatons North in the top 15. They are also quite small areas elsewhere in Greater Manchester with relatively high house prices, including Worsley in Salford, Heaton and Lostock in Bolton, Saddleworth in Oldham, and the northern end of Bury.
4.39 There are large expanses of low house prices across the northern parts of Greater Manchester, with pockets of the lowest prices in the central areas of Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham and to the north and east of the city centre. The St Mary’s Oldham ward had the lowest average sales price in 2015 at just under £63,000. Six wards in central/south Bolton were in the twenty wards with the lowest house prices in Greater Manchester, as were three wards in central Rochdale. This spatial
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 27
pattern of prices and sales has been prevalent in Greater Manchester and is represented in the following map:
Figure 4.1: Greater Manchester Price Paid 2015
Source: HM Land Registry Residential Price Paid, 2016
Transactions
4.40 Alongside reviewing price paid the level of residential transactions provide market signals. The below shows the level of residential transactions in quarter 1 2016 as a percentage of the total transactions in the same period in 2007.
Figure 4.2: Residential transactions 2016 as a percentage of Q2 2007
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 28
Source: H M Land Registry
4.41 The below map shows transactions for second hand or existing residential property in Greater Manchester in 2015 at MSOA level.
Figure 4.3: Sales of existing property at MSOA level
Source: H M Land Registry
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 29
4.42 The following graph sets out the levels of sales annually against the 2007 levels showing a recovery in levels of sales towards the 2007 level year on year.
Figure 4.4: Sales relative pre-recession peak England & Wales Greater Manchester 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 Q2-2007Q2-2008Q2-2009Q2-2010Q2-2011Q2-2012Q2-2013Q2-2014Q2-2015Q1-2016
Source: H M Land Registry
Households
Number of households
4.43 To provide an indication of the change in the number of households over recent years, two datasets have been used. Ward level data for households is from the DCLG 2012-based sub-national household projections (experimental dataset), and data from the DCLG 2014- based sub-national household projections provides district level data for 2015 onwards. Greater Manchester is the largest of the metropolitan counties in terms of the number of households. In 1992 it was only slightly larger than the West Midlands on this measure but its more rapid growth rate over the following 20 years has widened this gap. Despite Greater Manchester growing faster than all of the other metropolitan counties except the neighbouring West Yorkshire over the last two decades, Greater Manchester has grown at a slower rate than England as a whole, although it was only slightly lower over the last ten years. Greater London has seen a higher rate of growth than the national average, with Inner London in particular growing rapidly, whereas Outer London’s growth rate was a little below Greater Manchester’s.
4.44 The rate of household growth was on average a little higher than Greater Manchester’s in the ten districts immediately adjoining it, although as with the comparison with the national average, this gap has narrowed in recent years. The highest growth rates in those neighbouring districts have been in Chorley, followed by the districts of Calderdale and Kirklees to the north-east and Warrington and Cheshire East to the south.
4.45 There was an increase of around 43,000 households in Greater Manchester over the period 1995-2005, with much larger growth in the following decade 2005-2015
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 30
of around 90,000. The highest rates of growth over that latter decade have been in Manchester and Salford, at 1.33% and 1.3% per annum respectively, with the next highest levels being in the districts of Wigan and Trafford. The lowest proportionate increases have been in the north and east of Greater Manchester, with annual growth rates over the period 2005-2015 of 0.4% in Stockport, 0.49% in Oldham and 0.54% in Rochdale. This has resulted in a slight shift in the geography of households in Greater Manchester, with Manchester strengthening its position as the largest district by household numbers.
Household composition
4.46 Greater Manchester’s household composition is similar to that of England as a whole. It has slightly higher proportions of single person households and households with dependent children than the national average and lower proportions of couples with no children and households where everyone is aged 65 or over.9 The adjoining districts are on average very close to the figures for England as a whole.
Single person households
4.47 There is relatively little variation in the proportion of households in each district in Greater Manchester that are single person households. The highest rates are in Salford and Manchester but these are not that much higher than other districts. The lowest proportions are in Wigan, Trafford and Oldham, which are marginally below the national average.
4.48 At ward level, the experimental data set shows quite significant differences within districts. There is a particular cluster of wards at the centre of Greater Manchester with high proportions of single person households, immediately in and around the city centre extending primarily to the west and east, with the very highest proportions typically in the east of Salford. Several wards around Bolton Town Centre have high proportions of single person households, with Halliwell the fourth highest in Greater Manchester and there is a slightly smaller cluster around Stockport Town Centre including Brinnington and Central which has the second highest proportion of single person households in the sub-region. The other locations with above average proportions of such households are quite varied, including other parts of town centres, for example in Wigan and Oldham, a broad area in east Bury and west Rochdale, as well as more peripheral locations such as the southern end of Manchester and some of the outer areas of Tameside and individual wards such as Didsbury West. However on the whole, the outer areas of Greater Manchester extending into neighbouring districts typically have lower proportions of households that consist of a single person.
Couple households
4.49 2015 data shows more variation in the proportions of households that consist of couples with no children than single person households. In Greater Manchester
9 Data on households aged 65 and over is from ONS Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 31
29.5% of households are couples without children, which is slightly below the national average. Within the districts there is some variation, with 21.8% of households in Manchester in this group and 34.7% in Wigan. The other districts are generally around the 30% level.
4.50 At ward level, although there are some differences within districts, the proportion of households that are couples does not generally differ enormously, with the vast majority of wards having 10-20% couple households. The third highest proportion is in the City Centre ward of Manchester and the twentieth highest in Ordsall to the west but a relatively large area surrounding the city centre has below average proportions especially within Manchester from Withington northwards to the city boundary. The northern town centres of Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham and to a lesser extent Bury also have clusters of wards with low proportions of couples, with three of the seven lowest figures in Greater Manchester being in wards covering part of Oldham Town Centre. There are smaller clusters of low proportions of couple households in Wigan, Ashton-under-Lyne and Stockport town centres. In contrast the area around Altrincham town centre has above average proportions of couple households. The areas with the largest proportions of couple households are generally around the edge of Greater Manchester, particularly along its northern boundary and extending into neighbouring districts, although there are also high proportions in most other areas adjoining Greater Manchester.
Households where everyone is aged 65 and over 10
4.51 Greater Manchester has a lower proportion of its households where all members are aged 65 and over compared to the national average, whereas the adjoining districts are collectively marginally above the England rate. Most of the districts in Greater Manchester have between 18% and 21% of their households where all are aged 65 and over, with Stockport having a relatively high figure of 23% and Manchester a much lower figure of less than 13%. This high proportion of older households in Stockport means that district actually has the largest absolute number of such households in Greater Manchester, followed by Wigan and then Manchester.
4.52 Cheshire East and West Lancashire are the only adjoining districts with a higher proportion of this type of household than Stockport. The five districts neighbouring Greater Manchester to the north (Chorley, Blackburn with Darwen, Rossendale, Calderdale and Kirklees) all have lower proportions of older households than the England average.
4.53 There is a large area in and around the city centre, extending southwards to Didsbury, which has low proportions of households where everyone is aged 65 and over, and most parts of Manchester are below average on this measure. Twenty wards in this central part of Greater Manchester have less than 12% of their households where everyone is 65 or older and the figure is just 3% in the City Centre ward, 5% in Hulme and 6% in Ordsall. The areas around the main town centres, with the exception of Altrincham, generally have quite low proportions of older households. Nevertheless, there are some individual wards quite nearby that
10 Data on households aged 65 and over is from ONS Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 32
have some of the highest proportions of older households in Greater Manchester, including Bradshaw and Heaton and Lostock in Bolton, Church and North Manor in Bury and Bamford in Rochdale.
4.54 There are also single wards dispersed elsewhere with high proportions of households aged 65 and over, such as Saddleworth South in Oldham, Denton West in Tameside and Worsley and Boothstown in Salford and smaller clusters of above average proportions such as around north-west Trafford. However, by far the largest cluster of wards with high proportions of older households is in the south and east of Stockport extending into Cheshire East, with a smaller area in south Trafford. There is also a quite significant area in the north-west of Wigan extending into neighbouring areas of Chorley, West Lancashire and St Helens.
Households with dependent children
4.55 Greater Manchester has a slightly higher proportion of households with dependent children than the national average. The proportions within individual districts do not vary much at all, with only Salford and Manchester below the England average at 27-28% and Oldham having the highest rate at 33% and Trafford the second highest proportion at 32%. Manchester has by far the largest absolute number of households with dependent children, accounting for 17.5% of the Greater Manchester total, with Wigan, Stockport and Bolton each providing more than 10% of the sub-regional total.
4.56 Almost all of the wards in Greater Manchester have 25-35% households containing dependent children and the clusters of relatively high or low provision are quite limited compared to some other housing and demographic datasets. The three wards of City Centre, Hulme and Ordsall at the core of the conurbation have some of the lowest proportions of households with dependent children, just 3% in the City Centre ward and 12% in Ordsall, with Withington and Didsbury West in south Manchester being the only other wards in Greater Manchester with less than 20% of households having dependent children. Some neighbouring inner parts of Salford and Manchester also have relatively low proportions of households with dependent children, extending as far west as Eccles in Salford and including Burnage and Old Moat in south Manchester. The other wards with quite low proportions of dependent children households are generally quite isolated rather than in clusters, such as Wigan Central, Marple South in Stockport and North Manor in Bury.
4.57 There is a relatively large cluster of wards with high proportions of households with dependent children in the central part of Oldham and this area includes five of the seven wards with the highest rates in Greater Manchester, three of which exceed 40%. Adjoining this are clusters of high proportions of households with dependent children in the seven northernmost wards of Manchester and large part of Tameside. The other two of the top seven wards are located in the core of Rochdale, forming part of a larger central belt of high rates of dependent children households stretching north-south through the district. There are several other clusters of wards where the proportion of households with dependent children is comparatively high, including the southern end of Manchester extending westwards into Trafford, the northern part of Trafford extending westwards into Salford, south
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 33
Bolton, the central part of Wigan and parts of Bury. It is notable that most wards in Stockport have quite average proportions of dependent children households.
4.58 In comparison, the proportions of dependent children households in the areas just outside Greater Manchester are comparatively modest and are generally quite low in the northern part of Cheshire East.
Student households11
4.59 The proportion of Greater Manchester households that consist solely of full-time students is slightly above the national average, with Manchester having a relatively high figure of 3.2% compared to the England figure of 0.6%. These student households are almost completely focused in the area stretching from the City Centre ward to Withington, with more than 20% of households in the latter consisting wholly of full-time students, by far the highest proportion in Greater Manchester although nine other wards in Manchester exceed 5%. The immediately surrounding areas also typically have above average proportions of student households, including some wards immediately to the west, north and east of the city centre as well as those to the south. Outside this area, the wards of Halliwell and Rumworth in Bolton are the only ones to have more than 0.6% of their households consisting solely of full-time students. This spatial pattern of student households means that 86% are located in Manchester, with 8% in Salford and 3% in Bolton.
Size of households12
4.60 The size profile of households in Greater Manchester is very similar to that of the ten districts that adjoin it as well as the regional and national averages. Greater Manchester has slightly higher proportions of single person, three person and six or more person households than the England average and slightly lower proportions of two person, four person and five person households, such that the proportion of one and two person households is virtually the same as the national figure. Within Greater Manchester, Salford has the highest proportion of one and two person households, with Oldham and Trafford having the lowest proportions. Oldham has the highest proportion of households containing six of more people, followed by Manchester and Rochdale.
4.61 Single person households were discussed above in relation to household composition. That sub-section also included information on couple households but these are only a subset of all households that contain two people. The City Centre ward has the highest proportion of two person households, at 46% of its households and the neighbouring Ordsall to the west also has a high concentration, with above average levels also seen in Hulme and Ancoats and Clayton. However, most of the wards to the north and south, from Manchester’s northern boundary through to Withington, have quite low proportions of two person households, with the area immediately to the south-east of the City Centre ward (consisting of Longsight, Ardwick, Rusholme, Moss Side, Levenshulme and Fallowfield) having some of the lowest proportions in Greater Manchester. There are also quite significant clusters
11 All data on student households is from ONS Census 2011 12 All data on household size is from ONS Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 34
of wards around the town centres of Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham that have low proportions of two person households. Outside the small number of wards with high proportions of two person households at the core of the conurbation, the main concentrations of two person households are around the edges of Greater Manchester, extending into neighbouring districts where the proportions of two person households are typically even higher. Tameside has only one ward, Stalybridge South, where more than 35% of households consist of two people.
4.62 Looking at one and two person households together, the wards with the highest proportions are located primarily along an east-west axis around the city centre, stretching eastwards to the Manchester boundary and westwards to Eccles and Barton in Salford. Within this area, more than 92% of City Centre households consist of one or two people, with a figure of 85% for Ordsall and 80% for Hulme. There is a smaller cluster of wards with a high proportion of such households to the south, consisting of Priory in Trafford and Chorlton, Chorlton Park and Didsbury West in Manchester. Between these two clusters is an area with some of the lowest proportions off one and two person households, focused around the Rusholme area. The central part of Oldham is the other main cluster of wards with low proportions of such households, with smaller clusters in central/north Rochdale and south-east Trafford. There are very large expanses of Greater Manchester that typically have broadly average levels of these smaller households.
4.63 The variation between wards in the proportion of three person households is relatively limited, with the low levels in the City Centre and Ordsall wards being the largest deviation from the average. The wards with the lowest proportions of three person households are generally in the core of the conurbation, together with small clusters in the town centres of Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham and Stockport. However, most of Oldham, together with neighbouring Tameside, has comparatively high proportions of three person households. A larger area of relative concentrations of three person households covers most of Wigan, with Wigan Central being the only ward in that district having a lower proportion than the Greater Manchester average, and extends into south-west Salford, north Trafford and neighbouring districts. More generally, the neighbouring areas to the north-west and west of Greater Manchester often have above average proportions of three person households, as do parts of High Peak, whereas areas to the south and north-east are typically average or below average.
4.64 The level of variation in the proportion of four person households is similar to that for three person households. Once again, the lowest proportions are in the City Centre and Ordsall wards, both below 5%, which lie at the centre of a much larger area of relatively low proportions of four person households covering most of Manchester and a considerable part of Salford, with a particular cluster of low levels in the east of Salford. There are also areas with low proportions around central Bolton, east Bury/south Rochdale and central Tameside, with smaller clusters in parts of Oldham, Stockport and Wigan. The areas with comparatively high proportions of four person households are quite dispersed across Greater Manchester, with the largest concentrations in the south of Trafford and Stockport and indeed eight of the twenty wards with the highest proportions of their households containing four people are in Trafford.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 35
4.65 The proportions of households that contain five people are typically much lower, with an average of less than 5% across Greater Manchester. There are four main concentrations of wards with relatively high proportions of five person households, focused around the area to the south of the city centre (stretching west to east from Longford and Clifford in Trafford to Gorton South, Levenshulme and Burnage in Manchester) and the areas in and around the town centres of Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton. The Oldham cluster includes Werneth where 11% of households consist of five people and St Mary’s where the figure is 10%. There are a couple of smaller clusters in south-east Trafford and north Manchester extending into Sedgley in Bury. This geography of clusters of relatively high proportions of five person households is largely mirrored by the main concentrations of comparatively high proportions of households containing six or more people. The three wards of Coldhurst, Werneth and St Mary’s around Oldham Town Centre all have more than 15% of their households consisting of at least six people, which when combined with the high proportions of five person households shows a major concentration of large households in this area. There are likely to be varied reasons behind these areas of high proportions of larger households, with one of the primary factors being the ethnic composition of the wards as discussed later. The presence of large dwellings is also likely to have an impact, with houses in multiple occupation partly explaining the concentration to the south of the city centre whereas the prosperity of Hale Central and Hale Barns may have an impact on the smaller concentration there that largely relates to five person rather than even larger households.
Overcrowding and under-occupation
4.66 The official interpretation of the 2011 Census data uses the ages of the household members and their relationships to each other to derive the number of bedrooms they require, based on a standard formula. The number of bedrooms required is subtracted from the number of bedrooms in the household's accommodation to obtain the occupancy rating.
4.67 Occupancy levels in Greater Manchester are similar to those for England as a whole, with a marginally lower level of under-occupancy and slightly higher levels occupied to the expected standard. Overall, more than two-thirds of households in Greater Manchester are identified in the 2011 Census as under-occupying their homes and less than 5% are deemed to be overcrowded. The North West as a whole and the ten districts adjoining Greater Manchester on average have lower levels of overcrowding than Greater Manchester and England.
4.68 The largest cluster of wards with above average levels of overcrowding is located to the north, east and south of the City Centre ward, extending from Irwell Riverside and Broughton in Salford, through Crumpsall and around the eastern side of Manchester as far south as Burnage and then across to Longford and Clifford in Trafford. Within this area, the adjoining wards of Longsight, Rusholme and Moss Side to the south of the city centre have the highest levels of overcrowding, all exceeding 14% of households and five other wards in this cluster in Manchester exceed 10%. The proportion of households identified as being overcrowded is relatively high across virtually the whole of Manchester, with almost 8% of the city’s households defined as overcrowded and it accounting for 30% of all overcrowded households in Greater Manchester.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 36
4.69 There are three smaller clusters of wards with high levels of overcrowding, around the town centres of Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton. Three of the wards in Oldham have particularly high levels, with 20% of households overcrowded in Coldhurst, 19% in Werneth (the two highest levels of overcrowding in Greater Manchester) and 17% in St Mary’s. Two of the eight highest rates of overcrowding in Greater Manchester are in the Rochdale cluster, with 17% in Milkstone and Deeplish and 15% in Central Rochdale. There are some other more extensive areas with slightly above average levels of overcrowding, primarily in the central areas of each district, with below average rates typically found in more suburban areas and neighbouring districts.
4.70 As might be expected, these suburban areas generally have the highest proportions of households deemed to be under-occupying their homes, with the largest rates seen around the edges of Greater Manchester, although to a lesser extent along the eastern edges of Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside. There are typically even higher levels of under-occupancy in the areas adjoining Greater Manchester to the south, north and west. Similarly, the lowest levels of under-occupancy are generally the same as those with the highest levels of overcrowding, with the City Centre ward in Manchester and Coldhurst in Oldham having the lowest proportions at 38%.
Concealed families13
4.71 A concealed family is one living in a multi-family household in addition to the primary family, such as a young couple living with parents. A single person cannot be a concealed family and so one elderly parent living with their adult child and family, or an adult child returning to the parental home, is not counted as a concealed family.
4.72 The proportion of families in Greater Manchester that are identified as being concealed is exactly the same as that for England as a whole, which is slightly above the averages for the North West region and the districts adjoining Greater Manchester. Manchester has the highest absolute number of concealed families but Oldham actually has the highest proportion of its families that are concealed, followed by Manchester and Rochdale. Blackburn with Darwen has a higher rate of concealment than any district in Greater Manchester, although the areas closest to Greater Manchester have low numbers of concealed families.
4.73 There is a broad pattern of above average numbers of concealed families throughout most of Manchester and extending eastwards into the nearby parts of Oldham, Tameside and Stockport, with the central areas of the northern districts also having comparatively high numbers. The more suburban areas and particularly most of Salford and Trafford, together with the city centre, generally have relatively low numbers of concealed families.
4.74 The highest concentrations of concealed families are seen in the central Oldham wards of St Mary’s and Werneth, each of which has more than 260 concealed families and over 190 are located in neighbouring Coldhurst, with relatively high
13 All data on concealed families is from ONS Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 37
numbers in some of the other adjoining wards. There are also quite high levels of concealment around the town centres of Bolton and Rochdale, with the four adjoining wards of Rumworth, Crompton, Greater Level and Halliwell in Bolton collectively having over 590 concealed families and the three adjacent wards of Milkstone and Deeplish, Central Rochdale and Spotland and Falinge in Rochdale having 470 concealed families, with above average levels also seen in several surrounding wards in each case. 4.75 There is quite a large cluster of wards to the south of the city centre, extending from Longford and Clifford in Trafford to Gorton South, Levenshulme and Burnage in Manchester, where nine adjoining wards each have more than 100 concealed families and collectively more than 1,230, which is more than five individual districts in Greater Manchester.
Household incomes
4.76 The relative positions of wards in terms of median, mean, lower quartile and upper quartile household incomes are all very similar and so this section focuses on median incomes.
4.77 The three wards with the highest household incomes are Hale Central, Bowdon and Hale Barns along the southern edge of Trafford, with Hale Central quite considerably above any other ward in Greater Manchester with an average household income of £50,300 in 2015. The area stretching northwards from those wards to the M60 motorway also has relatively high household incomes, with Brooklands, Altrincham and Timperley all in top 20 in Greater Manchester. The incomes are similarly high in the adjoining areas of Warrington and Cheshire East to the south. The area extending from Chorlton through Didsbury and into the Heatons, Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme and Bramhall in Stockport and into Cheshire East also has high household incomes, with the two Bramhall wards having the fifth and sixth highest median incomes in Greater Manchester and Didsbury West the seventh highest. Boothstown and Ellenbrook in Salford has the fourth highest median household income, with the neighbouring Worsley twelfth highest. Norden in Rochdale has the tenth highest median household income, forming part of a larger area of relatively high incomes including the neighbouring Bamford in Rochdale, Ramsbottom, North Manor and Tottington in Bury and some of the neighbouring wards in the south of Rossendale extending westwards into Blackburn with Darwen and Chorley and Bromley Cross in Bolton. Marple North in Stockport has the eleventh highest median household income in Greater Manchester, with similarly high incomes to the east in High Peak. The two Saddleworth wards in Oldham and the adjoining Stalybridge South in Tameside form a smaller area with relatively high household incomes. There are also a few isolated wards with high median household incomes such as Heaton and Lostock in Bolton and the City Centre ward in Manchester.
4.78 Although the City Centre median household income is the ninth highest in Greater Manchester, many of the surrounding wards have very low average household incomes particularly to the north, north-west and south-east. This may partly reflect the large number of students in some of these wards but this will not be the case for many of them. Ardwick, Harpurhey, Longsight, Miles Platting and Newton Heath and Moss Side in Manchester, together with Broughton and Langworthy in Salford,
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 38
all have median household incomes below £19,000, placing them in the bottom 20 in Greater Manchester. These wards sit within a much larger area of low incomes that extends eastwards into most of Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside and north-west Stockport, as well as north-west through Salford into central Bolton. Most of the central parts of Wigan also have relatively low median household incomes. Within these broad areas, Halliwell in central Bolton has the lowest average household income in Greater Manchester, with the neighbouring Rumworth and Great Lever also below £19,000. The four central Oldham wards of St Mary’s, Coldhurst, Alexandra and Hollinwood also have median incomes below that figure, with neighbouring Werneth only slightly higher. The three adjoining Rochdale wards of Central Rochdale, Smallbridge and Firgrove and Milkstone and Deeplish are in the 20 lowest household incomes in Greater Manchester, with Kingsway and Balderstone and Kirkholt just to the south also having low averages. There are also other smaller clusters of wards with low median household incomes dotted around Greater Manchester. This spatial representation of median household income across Greater Manchester is represented below.
Figure 4.5: Greater Manchester Median Household Income, 2015
Source: CACI Paycheck 2015
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 39
Residents
Total population and recent change
4.79 Greater Manchester has a total population of almost 2.73314 million people, making it the second largest of the six metropolitan counties by population after the West Midlands (2.808 million). Greater Manchester saw negligible population growth over the period 1994-2004. There was a considerable increase of 183,000 over the following decade 2004-2014. This gave it an annual average growth rate over the period 2004-2014 of 0.69% per annum, which was a little below the England average of 0.80%. The growth rate in Greater Manchester was above the average for seven of the ten districts adjoining Greater Manchester. Chorley (0.83%), Kirklees (0.81%) and Warrington (0.73%) have experienced higher growth rates than Greater Manchester. The average annual growth rate across the North West was 0.42% per annum. Amongst the six metropolitan counties only the West Midlands had a higher annual growth rate than Greater Manchester at 0.80% per annum. The growth rate of Greater London was 1.40% per annum.
4.80 Manchester has dominated population growth in Greater Manchester, accounting for 52.9% of the total increase over the period 1994-201415. Manchester was still experiencing annual population decline up to 1999 when the population was estimated at 391,80016. Since 1999 there has been a rapid rise in population in Manchester with an increase of 128,400 to the 2014 SNPP figure for 2014 – a 33% increase. The overall population of Greater Manchester reached a low about the same time as Manchester. From 1999 to 2014 the conurbation’s rose by 246,000 – equivalent to very nearly 10%.Over the period 2004-2014, Manchester had an average annual growth rate of 1.576%, which was faster than Inner London (1.535% pa). Within Greater Manchester, Salford experienced the next highest increase over the ten year period, growing by 24,100 at a rate of 1.055% per annum. Trafford was the only other district in Greater Manchester that had a higher annual growth rate than England during that period, at 0.8246% per annum, resulting in an increase of over 18,300. Bolton and Wigan both had relatively high absolute increases of nearly 16,000 each over the period 2004-2014, though there annual growth rates were below the Greater Manchester average.
4.81 In contrast, both Stockport and Rochdale saw growth rates below 0.3% per annum. The five districts of Oldham Tameside, Bury, Rochdale and Stockport contributed 33,400 of the population increase in 2004-2014, or just 18.3% of the Greater Manchester population increase. These five authorities accounted for 41.6% of the conurbation’s population in 2014 which is down from 43.3% in 2004. This pattern of change means that Manchester’s share of the total Greater Manchester population has increased from less than 15.7% in 1999 to 19.0% in 2014.
4.82 The ONS has published experimental ward-based mid-year estimates covering the period 2001-2013, which enable a more detailed picture of population change to emerge. The highest population growth over that period was in the City Centre ward
14 Source: 2014-based SNPP figure for 2014. Revised midyear estimates for 2004 15 Source: Revised 1994 midyear estimates compared to 2014 SNPP 16 Source: Revised midyear estimates 1994-2000
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 40
in Manchester (11,910 increase) and Ordsall (9,326) in Salford, which together saw an increase of over 21,236 or 10.7% of the total increase in Greater Manchester’s population in that time. The next highest increases were in wards adjoining the City Centre ward, namely Cheetham (8,293) to the north, Hulme (6,860) to the south. Gorton South (5,615) experienced the next largest rise followed by, Ancoats and Clayton (5,118), Moss Side (5,100) and Bradford (5,004). These wards plus growth in seven others in a larger cluster in the central part of the conurbation, collectively accounted for 79,500 increase in Greater Manchester’s population. Miles Platting and Newton Heath ward had a decline in the population of 560 but this was the only ward in Manchester where this happened. In contrast eleven wards in Stockport had a falling population 2001-2013 and across these wards population fell by 3,691. In Tameside six wards lost population that in total amounted to 2,320 fewer residents.
4.83 Outside this central area, the largest population growth was seen in Sharston (2,620) and Altrincham (2,594). Wigan’s largest population increase occurred in Atherleigh (2,284). Other increases of 2,000 or more outside Manchester were in Rumworth (2,021), Halliwell (2,019) and Westhoughton north and Chew Moor (2,008)
Age profile of the population
4.84 The population has been split into broad age bands for the purposes of analysis. These are generally 15-year age bands but those aged 16 and 17 have been banded with those aged 0-15 rather than 18-29 to provide a clearer picture of where dependent children are located and everyone aged 75 and over has been banded together given the lower total numbers involved. It is useful to consider both the proportion of a ward’s residents that are in each age band and the absolute numbers involved, given the variation in the size of individual ward populations. In this regard, it is important to recognise that the 12 largest wards across the conurbation are all located within Manchester. These 12 wards all have populations exceeding 16,500 in 2013, compared to a Greater Manchester average of 12,628 for Greater Manchester. Cheetham ward has the largest population 23,452 and Bowdon in Trafford has the least at 9,284 according to the mid-2013 estimates from ONS.
4.85 The age distribution of Greater Manchester’s population in these ward estimates (2013-based) is broadly similar to that for England. There are however slightly higher proportions in the younger age bands (0-17, 18-29 and 30-44) and lower proportions in the older age bands (45-59, 60-74 and 75+) . The ten districts adjoining Greater Manchester have collectively a smaller proportion of their residents in the younger age bands (0-17, 18-29 and 30-44) and proportionally more in the older age bands (45-59, 60-75 and 75+).
0-17 age band
4.86 The wards with the highest proportions of residents aged 0-17 are in the central parts of Oldham and the three wards St Mary’s (34.6%), Coldhurst (34.0%) and Werneth (33.4%) are the only three wards in Greater Manchester where more than one-third of the residents are in this age band. A further six wards in this part of
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 41
Oldham have more than one-quarter of their residents aged 0-17 and Oldham district has 25.1% of the population under 18. Manchester has 13 wards where those under 18 form 25% or more of the population of the ward and in absolute terms has nearly twice as many under 18s as Oldham. In contrast Wigan does not have any ward where the youngest age band forms a quarter or more of the population. Bolton and Rochdale each have six wards where the under 18s count for over a quarter of the population. Rochdale (23.8%) has the second highest proportion of residents under 18, with Bolton having the third highest rate at (23.5 %.). For both Bolton and Rochdale the wards with the highest rates are near the respective town centres. There are other concentrations of above average proportions of younger residents such as Sedgely (33.0%) ward in Bury. Gorton South (29.7%) has the highest rate in Manchester. Kersal (31.5%) has the highest rate in Salford.
4.87 There are also some high concentrations where there are major social housing estates, such as Little Hulton (28.3%) in Salford, Bucklow-St Martins (27.2%) in Trafford and the wards for Wythenshawe including Baguley (25.1%) and Sharston (25.0%).
4.88 The City Centre ward has by far the lowest proportion of residents aged under 18 at just 3.4%. The next lowest rate is in Withington (10.3%). Wards with high student populations typically have relatively low rates for under 18s. Further cases include Ordsall (10.8%) and Hulme (14.0%). More generally, it is the more suburban parts of Greater Manchester and most areas just outside the central core, which have average or below average proportions in this age band. Wigan is the only district in Greater Manchester that has a lower proportion of residents under 18 than is the case across all of England.
18-29 age band
4.89 There is a very strong spatial pattern to the 18-29 age band. The wards with the highest proportions in this age band are in and around Manchester, stretching southwards either side of Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road as far as Didsbury East. Manchester has 27.8% of its residents aged 18-29 - by far the highest proportion of any district in Greater Manchester. This rate is far above the national average of 16.0%. The central area of high proportion of young adults also extends into south- east Salford, resulting in that district having more than 19.6% of its residents in this age band.
4.90 More than two-thirds of residents in the City Centre ward in Manchester are aged 18-29. While 58.3% in Withington are in this age band with many being students. These are the only two wards with more than half the residents in this age band. There are five wards that have more than 40% but less than 50% of their population in the 18-29 age band. They are: Hulme (48.0%), Fallowfield (44.2%), Old Moat (42.6%) Ordsall (42.5%) and Ardwick (41.1%). A further 14 wards in the central area of the conurbation and in Manchester and Salford have more than 20% of residents aged 18-29. The Bolton wards near their University are the other two wards in Greater Manchester with over 20% in this age band. 26.3% in this age band reside in just 23 of the 215 Greater Manchester wards – 17 are in Manchester, 4 in Salford and 2 in Bolton.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 42
4.91 There are extensive areas with relatively low proportions of younger adults in the southern parts of Stockport and Trafford and those two districts have the lowest overall levels in Greater Manchester at 13%. Seven wards in these two districts have rates below 10%. They are: Hale Central (9.8%), Marple North (9.7%), Hale Barns (9.7%), North Manor (9.4%), Marple South (9.4%), Bowdon (9.1%) and Bramsall South (8.7%). There are wards around the fringes of Greater Manchester with relatively low proportions of young adults such as Saddleworth South (10.2%) ward. Stockport, Trafford and Wigan all have 19 wards where the young adult population is below the national average. Conversely, Manchester does not have any wards below the national average.
30-44 age band
4.92 The age profile across Greater Manchester (20.4%) within this band is on the whole similar to that for England (20.1%). There are nearly as many wards above the national average in Greater Manchester as there are below and each of the ten districts has at least five wards with rates above and below that average.
4.93 Chorlton (31.1%) and Didsbury West (30.1%) are the only two wards with more than 30% in this age band. Withington (13.8%) is the only ward with a rate below 15%. The more rural wards on the fringe of the conurbation tend to have the lower proportions such as Marple North (15.1%) in Stockport and North Manor (15.4%) in Bury.
4.94 There are relatively high proportions of residents aged 30-44 throughout most of Manchester and the adjoining areas of east Salford, north-east Trafford and north- west Stockport. Chorlton Park (29.1%), Ordsall (28.3%), Whalley Range (27.8%), Priory (27.7%) and Altrincham (25.4%) make up the next highest proportions Cheetham (5,939) has the largest absolute number of residents in this age band, followed by Gorton South (5,069). These are the only two with more than 5,000 in this band. Bowdon has the least at 1,488.
4.95 Most wards in the central area of the conurbation have above average proportions of residents in this age band, including the City Centre ward, but there is a small cluster of wards to the south of the city centre:, Withington (13.8%), Fallowfield (15.7%), Old Moat (17.9%) and Rusholme (18.4%) that have relatively low proportions of residents 30-44. This is due to the popularity of the area with students.
4.96 Whilst Manchester has the highest proportion of the ten districts in this age band at 27.8% and Stockport the lowest proportion (19.4%) the range between these two figures is quite narrow – suggesting little overall variation as was found at the ward level.
45-59 age band
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 43
4.97 The area in and around the city centre, stretching southwards to Didsbury West, generally has a low concentration of people aged 45-59. The City Centre ward itself has just 5.3% of residents in this age band. Withington (8.4%) and Hulme (8.9%) are the other two with rates below 10%. Indeed, most of Manchester has below average proportions of residents aged 45-59, with the city as a whole having just 14.8% in this age band compared to a national average of 19.8%. Moston (20.7%) is the only Manchester ward with an above the national average proportion in this age band.
4.98 The areas with the highest proportions of residents aged 45-59 are generally around the edges of districts and many of the areas adjoining Greater Manchester have even higher levels. Contrary to this is the Central ward in Wigan with the third highest rate at 23.5%
60-74 age band
4.99 The areas with the lowest proportions of residents aged 60-74 are similar to those for the 45-59 age band. Wards in Manchester and east Salford have the lowest levels. Smaller clusters of low proportions are near the town centres of Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton. The twenty wards with the lowest proportions in the 60-74 age band, all below 8%, are in the central areas of Manchester and Salford or parts of Oldham and Rochdale central areas plus the Clifford ward in Trafford. Manchester has the lowest proportion of residents in this age band in Greater Manchester with a rate of 8.5%, compared to the Greater Manchester average of 13.6%.
4.100 In contrast, some other wards in Oldham, in the east and north of the district, form part of a cluster of wards with high proportions of residents in this age band. The ward with the highest proportion in Greater Manchester is North Manor in the north of Bury, where 23.4% of residents are aged 60-74 and some of the surrounding wards extending into north-east Bolton also have high proportions. There is another cluster in the south and east of Stockport that have relatively high proportions of their population in this age band, with Marple South (22.2%) and Marple North (20.9%) having the second and fourth highest proportions in Greater Manchester. However, Wigan is the district with the highest proportion of residents aged 60-74 at 16.5%.The highest rates being in the western half of Wigan district. There are smaller clusters of above average proportions around west Salford (Walkden South, Worsley and Boothstown and Ellenbrook) plus and around the edges of some other districts. The average proportion in this age band in the ten districts surrounding Greater Manchester is higher than the rate for Greater Manchester apart from in Blackburn with Darwen. In eight of these nine authorities the rate is also higher than for England apart from Kirklees.
Aged 75 and over
4.101 The geography of wards with low proportions of residents aged 75 and over is similar to that for the 45-59 and 60-74 age bands. There is a large concentration around the core of the conurbation, including 15 wards in Manchester and Salford where less than 4.0% of the population is aged 75 or over. There are smaller clusters around the town centres of Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton. In addition,
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 44
there are single wards in parts of the towns of Ashton-under-Lyne Bury and Wigan that have relatively low (below 5.0%) proportions aged 75 or over. Manchester has the lowest proportion of residents aged 75 and over, at 4.4%.
4.102 In twenty Greater Manchester wards 10% or more of the population are 75 and over. The main cluster of these wards is in the south and east of Stockport, Bramhall South (13.6%) and Marple South (13.6%) have the highest rates. Stockport has the highest proportion locally with a rate of 9.0% - more than twice the proportion in Manchester. In absolute number terms Wigan has a higher number of residents in this age band (52,621). Trafford (8.1%) is the only other locally with a higher proportion of residents in this age group than the England average (7.9%) in the 2013 ONS estimates. Hale Barns (12.5%) and Bowdon (12.2%) have the third and fourth highest proportions in Greater Manchester. The southern parts of Stockport and Trafford are contiguous with a much larger area of wards in Cheshire East with relatively high proportions of older residents.
Population change by age 2002-2014
All age bands
4.103 Greater Manchester had an increase in all of the population age bands shown above except those aged 30-44.
0-17 age band
4.104 The North West (-47,125) had a reduction in the population aged 0-17 as did Tyne & Wear (-14,201) and Merseyside (-35,163). Within Greater Manchester the districts of Stockport (-2,705), Tameside (-2,178), Rochdale (-1881), Wigan (-1,474) and Bury (-919) all had a decline in the number under 18. Overall in Greater Manchester there are 22,081 more under 18 in 2014 than at 2002. Neighbouring authorities all had population declines amongst the under 18 year olds except Kirklees (-3,871) and Chorley (-762). Amongst the metropolitan areas there were losses of (-35,163) in Merseyside and (-14,201).
4.105 The increase in the 0-17 age group was particularly focused in the central wards around but excluding, the City Centre ward, with the highest growth just to the north of the city centre focused around Cheetham, Harpurhey, Charlestown and Crumpsall in Manchester, Broughton in Salford and Sedgley and Bury which collectively had an increase of around 7,500 residents in this age band or just over one-third of the total growth in Greater Manchester. There was also considerable growth to the south-east of the city centre in Bradford, Gorton North and Gorton South and in Moss Side, with these areas sitting in a much larger area of significant increases. Elsewhere in Greater Manchester, several wards in central Bolton saw quite high increases in the 0-17 age band, with smaller clusters of increase around Oldham and Rochdale town centres. Quite significant growth was also seen in southern parts of Manchester and Trafford, including in Brooklands, Baguley and Sharston in Manchester and Altrincham, Broadheath and Hale Central in Trafford. Large areas of Greater Manchester saw a reduction in population aged 0-17, sometimes quite considerable, particularly around the east/north-east and west of the sub-region. Within these broad areas there were particularly clusters of
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 45
significant reductions just to the east of Manchester. Here there was a decline of almost 3,500 across 11 wards stretching from Failsworth through Droylsden and Denton to Reddish and Bredbury, in east Rochdale and north Oldham, in west Rochdale including Heywood and Middleton and through west Bury and north-east Bolton. Virtually all wards just outside Greater Manchester saw reductions in their population aged 0-17 or very small increases.
18-29 age band
4.106 All districts in Greater Manchester had an increase in the 18-29 age band but just over half of this was in Manchester (38,367). Salford’s increase was 9,818.
4.107 The growth in the 18-29 age band was very strongly focused in the city centre and the immediately adjoining areas, with the six wards of City Centre, Ordsall, Hulme, Ardwick, Bradford, Ancoats and Clayton and Cheetham seeing an increase of almost 29,400 or 38% of the total Greater Manchester increase in this age group. There were some significant increases in the area just to the south, particularly in Withington, although some wards just to the west and south of that area saw reductions in population aged 18-29 with Chorlton and Didsbury West having by far the largest declines in Greater Manchester. The only other notable cluster of growth was around Bolton town centre, in the four wards of Crompton, Tonge with the Haulgh, Great Lever and Halliwell but their collective increase of over 2,400 was relatively modest compared to the area in and around the city centre. Elsewhere, the changes in this age band were much more modest, with relatively low increases or small declines.
30-44 age band
4.108 The population aged 30-44 in England actually declined (-542,251) over the period 2002-201417.There were decreases in the North West (-162,266), Greater Manchester (-20,677), the individual districts of Greater Manchester except Manchester (23,249 increase) and Salford (3,449 increase) plus the metropolitan counties excluding London (242,139 growth). Stockport (-10,700), Wigan (-7,900) and Tameside (-7,700) had the largest decreases locally.
4.109 The largest increases in the 30-44 age band were focused in and around the city centre, with the six wards of Ordsall, City Centre, Cheetham, Bradford, Ancoats and Clayton and Hulme having the highest levels of growth, collectively seeing an increase of over 12,200 compared to a decline of even larger magnitude across Greater Manchester. Most of the rest of Manchester and the eastern part of Salford also saw growth in this age band, as did the town centres of Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale. Altrincham and Broadheath in south Trafford were also in the top twenty wards of population growth in this age band. The largest area of decline in the 30- 44 population extended from Failsworth through north Ashton-under-Lyne, Droylsden, Denton and across most of Stockport with 18 wards in this area each having reductions of more than 500. There were several other large areas seeing quite large reductions in this age band, particularly through the northern districts outside their central areas.
17 Source: ONS midyear estimates 2002 and 2014
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 46
45-59 age band
4.110 The districts in Greater Manchester had an increase in the 45-59 and 60-74 age bands. Growth in these two bands combined contributed to more than half of the overall growth in the Greater Manchester population. Manchester (16,374) had the highest growth locally in the 45-59 age band. The smallest increases locally were Oldham (2,818), Rochdale (2,917) and Bury (3,208).
4.111 There was a much more mixed pattern in the changes in the 45-59 age band, with large parts of Manchester and Trafford in particular seeing substantial increases but there also being considerable growth in parts of the north-west of Greater Manchester in Bolton and Wigan and inner parts of the east/south-east just outside Manchester. The nineteen wards with the highest growth in the 45-59 population were all located in Manchester, Trafford, Salford, Bolton and Wigan, effectively the more central and western parts of the conurbation. Only 29 wards saw a decline in the number of people aged 45-59, which is fewer than for any other age band, with these generally located around the northern and eastern edges of Greater Manchester and the adjoining wards just outside the sub-region are generally similar.
60-74 age band
4.112 Manchester (133) barely saw any increase but Bolton’s increase was 8,511. Salford’s increase was a relatively small 6.4% whereas in Bury the percentage rise was 30.4%.
4.113 The city centre and neighbouring areas all saw a reduction in people aged 60-74, with small decreases or very limited growth in a much larger area extending throughout much of Salford and into south Bury and north-east Trafford. However, Moss Side, Ardwick and Ancoats and Clayton in Manchester and Langworthy in Salford were the only wards that saw a decrease of more than 200. There were also reductions or very small increases in the wards in and around the town centres of Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton. Most of Wigan and west Bolton saw increases in their population aged 60-74, with the ten wards with the highest growth in Greater Manchester located in this area. There were also quite large areas of growth in east Bolton/north-west Bury, east Rochdale extending into north and east Oldham, north-east Tameside and neighbouring parts of West Yorkshire and in east Stockport extending into adjoining areas of Cheshire East.
Aged 75 and over
4.114 The population growth in Greater Manchester was half that of the ten surrounding districts. Within Greater Manchester, the largest increases were in Stockport (4,079) and Wigan (3,781).
4.115 There were reductions or very small increases in people aged 75 or over in almost every ward in Manchester, most parts of central Salford and much of north-east Trafford, with the two wards of Woodhouse Park and Baguley at the southern end of Manchester having the largest reductions in Greater Manchester. The central
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 47
parts of Bolton also saw comparatively high decreases in this age group, as to a lesser extent did the central areas of Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside. The largest cluster of increases extended throughout south Stockport and into neighbouring parts of Cheshire East but there were also quite considerable areas with increases in south Trafford excluding Hale Central, the western and northern parts of Wigan, west and north-east Bolton and parts of Bury.
Ethnic groups18
4.116 Greater Manchester is a little more ethnically diverse than England as a whole, with a higher proportion of population who are Asian/Asian British but a slightly lower proportion who are Black/African/Caribbean/Black British. Both the North West region and the districts adjoining Greater Manchester are less ethnically diverse than the national average.
4.117 Manchester is by far the most ethnically diverse district in Greater Manchester, particularly the central band of wards from City Centre and Bradford to Fallowfield, together with Cheetham and Crumpsall on the north side. Within these wards of Manchester there are seven where more than a quarter of the population is Asian/Asian British, with Longsight having over 55% and Cheetham and Rusholme around 40%. Over 13% of the population of the City Centre ward is Chinese, - the highest rate in the country. Ardwick immediately to the south-east of the City Centre has the fourteenth highest proportion in the country at 8%. Moss Side has the highest proportion of residents in Greater Manchester who are Black/African/Caribbean/Black British, accounting for over a third of the population of the ward. The neighbouring ward of Clifford in Trafford has the second highest proportion at 19%.
4.118 Outside of these central areas there are high proportions of minority ethnic groups around the town centres of Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale and these are primarily people who are Asian/Asian British. More than 60% of the population of the three adjoining wards of Werneth, Coldhurst and St Mary’s in Oldham is Asian/Asian British, with the first of these exceeding 71%, which is the highest in Greater Manchester. More than 60% of Coldhurst’s population is Bangladeshi - the highest proportion in the country and almost half of the population in both St Mary’s and Werneth is Pakistani, putting them in the top fifteen wards in England in terms of the proportion of their population in this ethnic group. Medlock Vale and Alexandra just to the south of Oldham town centre have more than a quarter of their population who are Asian/Asian British, mostly Pakistani in each case. Milkstone and Deeplish have the second highest proportion of population who are Asian/Asian British in Greater Manchester, with around 59% of the residents being Pakistani which is the sixth highest rate in the country. The two neighbouring wards of Central Rochdale and Kingsway also have high proportions of Asian/Asian British residents, at 55% and 34% respectively. Four of the wards around Bolton Town Centre have more than 30% of their population who are Asian/Asian British, with the figure exceeding 55% in Rumworth. Within this area a significant proportion is Indian, particularly in
18 All data on ethnic groups is from ONS Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 48
Rumworth and Crompton, whereas Great Lever and Halliwell have slightly higher Pakistani populations.
4.119 Wigan is the least ethnically diverse part of Greater Manchester, with no ward having less than 95% of its population who are White. Stockport and Tameside are also less diverse than the national average. Almost all of the wards adjoining Greater Manchester have very low levels of ethnic diversity.
Length of residence in UK19
4.120 Although Greater Manchester is more ethnically diverse than England as a whole, it has a slightly higher proportion of its residents who were born in the UK. Nevertheless, the spatial pattern of locations within Greater Manchester with the highest proportions of residents born outside the UK is similar to that for ethnic diversity, including a slightly larger area around the city centre extending into the Salford and Trafford but primarily focused along the north-south axis from Cumpsall to Whalley Range and the area just to the south-east of the city centre - Ardwick, Rusholme, Longsight and Gorton South. Manchester has just under 75% of its population born in the UK, making it the only district in Greater Manchester below the national average and it has five wards where less than 60% were born within the UK, with the City Centre ward slightly higher at 62%.
4.121 The other clusters with relatively low proportions of residents who were born outside the UK are primarily around the town centres of Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale, with smaller areas around Bury and Ashton-under-Lyne. Less than two- thirds of the population of Coldhurst and Werneth in Oldham were born within the UK and the figure is just over 70% in neighbouring St Mary’s. Milkstone and Deeplish in Rochdale has the lowest proportion of residents born in the UK of any ward in the conurbation outside of Manchester, and in the adjoining Central Rochdale ward the rate is around 68%. Rumworth in Bolton has a rate of 64% of its residents born within the UK and the adjacent Great Lever the rate is 70%.
4.122 Wigan and most of the more peripheral wards, particularly along the eastern edge of the conurbation, have very high proportions of their residents born in the UK, as do the vast majority of the areas adjoining Greater Manchester, although levels are slightly lower in some northern parts of Cheshire East.
4.123 For those who were not born in the UK, there are some quite significant differences between the locations of those who have been in the country for varying lengths of time. Those who have lived in the UK for less than two years are very heavily concentrated in and around the city centre, extending north to Crumpsall, south to Fallowfield and Withington and west into the five eastern most wards of Salford, with minor concentrations around the town centres of Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale. The City Centre ward has by far the highest proportion of residents who have been in the country less than two years, at just under 18%, with Hulme and Ardwick also exceeding 12%. The twenty wards with the highest proportions of residents who have lived in the UK for less than two years are all in this central part of Manchester and Salford and they collectively account for more than half of the
19 All data on length of residence in UK is from ONS Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 49
total number of Greater Manchester residents who have resided in the country for this period.
4.124 The geography of wards that have the highest proportions of residents who have lived in the UK for between two and five years is quite similar to that for those who have been in the country a shorter time but with a slightly more even distribution across the central areas and the town centres of Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale becoming a little more significant. The City Centre again has the highest proportion, at just under 10% but this is only slightly higher than some neighbouring wards.
4.125 The areas with the highest proportions of residents who have lived in the UK for between five and ten years are more extensive, again focused on the central parts of Manchester and Salford but also stretching across most of Manchester and into some neighbouring wards of Trafford and Bury. The town centres of Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale appear more significant than for those who have been in the country for a shorter period of time, as to a lesser extent do Bury and Ashton-under-Lyne. Nevertheless, the nine wards with the highest proportions of their residents who have lived in the UK for between five and ten years are all located in Manchester around the city centre, with the City Centre ward itself only 21st in Greater Manchester in terms of the absolute number of such residents.
4.126 The areas with highest proportions of people who were not born in the UK but have lived there for more than ten years are much more varied than for those who have been in the country a shorter time. The very central areas are less significant, with the largest cluster being just to the south within which the highest concentrations stretch east-west through Longsight, Rusholme, Moss Side, Whalley Range, Clifford and Longford, where 15-21% of people were born outside the UK but have lived there for more than ten years. The highest proportions are in some of the wards in the town centres of Rochdale and Oldham, with more than 22% of residents being in this category in Milkstone and Deeplish in Rochdale and in Coldhurst and Werneth in Oldham. In total, each of the areas around the town centres of Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale has three wards in the top twenty wards in Greater Manchester on this measure. Although it was quite significant in terms of those who have been in the UK for a shorter periods, no wards in Salford appear in the top 40 in Greater Manchester in terms of those who have been in the country for more than ten years.
Economic activity
4.127 Economic activity data is available at ward level in the 2011 Census, but more up to date data is available at district and Greater Manchester level. For 2015/16, 75.3% of Greater Manchester residents aged 16-64 were economically active. This is only slightly lower than the North West level but some way below the national average of 78%. The highest rates were in Stockport and Trafford, with around 82% of residents who were economically active, with 80% economic activity in Wigan. Rochdale and Manchester had the lowest levels of economic activity, at 68 and 69%.20
20 ONS Annual Population Survey, 2016
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 50
4.128 Of the 24.7% of economically inactive residents, 6.6% in Greater Manchester were unemployed in 2015/16. This is significantly above the regional and national figures (of 5.4% and 5.2% respectively).Salford and Oldham had the highest rates of unemployment over the period, at 9.8% and 8.2%. Trafford and Wigan are the only districts of Greater Manchester with unemployment rates below the national and regional averages.21
4.129 The Census provides ward level detail about economic activity. Greater Manchester has a lower economic activity rate than England but the same as the North West, with 67.8% of residents aged 16-74 being economically active at the time of the 2011 Census compared to 69.9% nationally. The gap with the national average is slightly larger for males and smaller for females. The rates are on average higher in the districts adjoining Greater Manchester, though they are still below the England figure.
4.130 The highest levels of economic inactivity in Greater Manchester are found to the south of the city centre in the adjoining wards of Ardwick, Moss Side, Longsight, Rusholme, Fallowfield, Levenshulme, Old Moat and Withington, which includes the four lowest rates in the sub-region, with all of these wards having economic activity rates below 59%, four below 54% and Ardwick less than 49%. Some of the immediately adjoining wards also have below average levels of economic activity. The low rates in some of the wards in this part of Manchester may partly be the result of the large student population. The city centre has a relatively low economic activity rate at 61%, whereas the neighbouring Ordsall to the west has the seventh highest in Greater Manchester at over 77%. Several of the wards to the north also have low rates, with Miles Platting and Newton Heath in Manchester and Broughton in Salford below 59% and Langworthy, Irwell Riverside, Kersal, Cheetham, Harpurhey, Crumpsall, Higher Blackley and Charlestown are all below 64%. This all contributes to Manchester having the lowest economic activity rate in Greater Manchester, at 63.5%.
4.131 The other main clusters of low economic activity are in the central areas of Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham, with Coldhurst, Werneth, St Mary’s and Alexandra in Oldham all amongst the wards with the lowest rates and Halliwell, Rumworth and Great Lever in Bolton amongst the 20 with the lowest rates. The districts of Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton each have economic activity rates below the Greater Manchester average.
4.132 Although Manchester as a whole has low levels of economic activity, it includes part of the largest area of high economic activity, which stretches through the four Chorlton and Didsbury wards westwards into Trafford where it extends across most of north Trafford and south through the broad areas of Sale and Altrincham to Hale Central and eastwards into Stockport where it extends through Reddish, the Heatons, Cheadle Hulme and nearby wards to the east. Within this area, the wards of Didsbury West and Chorlton are the only parts of Greater Manchester with economic activity rates above 80% and there is a total of 14 wards in this area that exceed 74%. Trafford and Stockport have the highest economic activity rates in Greater Manchester, with Bury being the only other district in Greater Manchester
21 Annual Population Survey
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 51
with a rate above the national average. There are several other parts of Greater Manchester with relatively high economic activity rates, including several wards around the north and north-eastern edges, Tottington and Ramsbottom in Bury, Norden in Rochdale, Mossley in Tameside and the Saddleworth wards in Oldham.
4.133 Female economic activity rates are typically lower than male rates by around nine percentage points. The spatial patterns of economic activity are broadly similar for both males and females but there are some significant differences in the wards with the lowest rates of economic activity for females. Werneth and Coldhurst in central Oldham have the lowest female economic activity rates in Greater Manchester, below 38%, with the neighbouring St Mary’s the fourth lowest at less than 41% and Alexandra the tenth lowest at 50%. The central areas of Bolton and Rochdale are also comparatively lower for females than they are for all residents. Within the area of low general economic activity rates to the south of the city centre, Longsight, Rusholme and Ardwick all have particularly low rates for females.
Qualifications
4.134 Greater Manchester had considerably fewer working age residents qualified to level 4 and above (around 66,500 fewer), as well as more residents with no formal qualification (around 36,500 more) compared to the national average in 2015.
4.135 Both constitute a fundamental challenge to the Greater Manchester labour market and are thus closely related to housing affordability. In relation to the local employment rate it is residents with no qualifications who are linked most closely to lower levels of employment across Greater Manchester wards because of additional skill barriers in finding work. However, lower levels of higher qualifications (level 4 and above) have the next biggest impact on employment rates, as well as on lower productivity across the conurbation.
4.136 On a borough level, qualification achievements vary considerably, with only Bury, Stockport, and Trafford showing qualification levels at level 2 and above (all qualifications from 5 GCSE’s up to a university degrees) above the national average in 2015. On the other hand, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, and Tameside showed the highest levels with residents with no formal qualifications and consequently much lower levels of residents qualified to level 2 and above, as well as level 4 and above. Only Bury, Manchester, and Trafford show residents qualified to level 4 and above at above the national average. Overall, residents in Trafford have the highest qualifications in Greater Manchester.
4.137 Rates for all other qualification levels (incl. other qualifications, level2, apprenticeships, and level 3 only) were somewhat closer to the national average or slightly above.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 52
Greater Manchester skills challenge
Figure 4.6: Percentage of residents (16 to 64) with no qualification in Greater Manchester and England, 2004-2015 20 18 16 14 12 10 8
GM England
Source: Labour Force Survey, 2015
4.138 Levels of Greater Manchester residents with no formal qualification have decreased considerably over the last decade (by 8.2 percentage points) and the gap between Greater Manchester and England has narrowed too – from a 3.4 percentage points in 2004 to 1.7 percentage points in 2015.
4.139 Again, variations are much greater across the Greater Manchester boroughs compared to the gap between Greater Manchester and national levels. As illustrated by the graph below above, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, as well as Tameside have proportionally more residents with no formal qualification than the national average, and all apart from Tameside substantially contribute to the Greater Manchester -UK Resident Employment Rate gap.
Figure 4.7: Percentage of residents (16 to 64) with no qualification in Greater Manchester boroughs and England, 2004-2015
24
19
14
9
4 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Bolton Bury Manchester Odlham Rochdale Salford Stockport Tameside Trafford Wigan GM England
Source: Labour Force Survey, 2015
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 53
4.140 There is an extensive area on the east/north-east side of Greater Manchester with high proportions of people whose highest qualification is level 1 or below (i.e. broadly NVQ1, or four or less GCSEs/O-levels at any grade), with residents from Oldham, Tameside, and Rochdale showing particular high proportions.
Figure 4.8: Percentage of residents (16 to 64) with no qualification across Greater Manchester wards, 2011
Source: Census 2011
Level 4 and above skills
4.141 At level 4+ there is a persistent skills gap of more than three percentage points, which has widened slightly over the 2004-2015 decade. Although Greater Manchester has rapidly increased its population with 4+ skills between 2005 and 2015 (33.6% of people in Greater Manchester had this level of skills in 2015 compared with 36.7% in England), England has done so to a greater extent, thereby creating a situation of ‘absolute increase and relative decline’ in level 4+ skills in Greater Manchester.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 54
Figure 4.9: Percentage of residents (16 to 64) with qualifications at level 4 and above in Greater Manchester boroughs and England, 2004-2015 38.0 36.0 34.0 32.0 30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0
GM - L4+ England - L4+
Source: Labour Force Survey, 2015
Occupation
4.142 The 2011 Census provides data on the occupation of residents aged 16-74, using the National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SeC). This evidence needs to be treated with caution as typically around 9% of residents nationally are not classified, due to them being students, their occupations not being stated or inadequately described, or for other reasons. This is particularly an issue for Manchester, where almost 21% of residents are not classified and to a much lesser extent for Salford where the figure is over 10%, with all of the other districts below 8%.These differences could in large part be due to where the main concentrations of students are located. Consequently, this discussion considers the figures both including and excluding students.
4.143 Greater Manchester as a whole has lower proportions of residents in the higher occupations than the national average, particularly classes 1 and 2 and higher proportions in the routine and manual occupations, or who have never worked or are long-term unemployed, irrespective of whether students are included. If students are included then Manchester has the third lowest proportion in Greater Manchester of residents aged 16-74 in the highest occupational classes 1 and 2, after Oldham and Rochdale. If students are excluded then Manchester has the fourth highest proportion after Trafford, Stockport and Bury.
4.144 The main concentrations of residents in higher occupations are in Trafford extending southwards from Sale, the western and southern parts of Stockport and the four wards covering Chorlton and Didsbury in Manchester. This forms part of a much larger area where there are high proportions of residents in occupational classes 1 and 2 that extends through south Warrington, north Cheshire East and
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 55
much of High Peak. The next largest concentration is around north Bury, extending into north and west Bolton, north-west Rochdale and the adjoining parts of Rossendale, Blackburn with Darwen and Chorley. There are also smaller clusters in Saddleworth wards in Oldham and Worsley/Boothstown in Salford, where more than 40% of residents aged 16-74 are in class 1 or 2 occupations. Levels for residents in and around the city centre are a little lower, although still well above the national average, with 38% in Ordsall and 34% in the City Centre ward, which is similar to the levels seen in places such as Littleborough in Rochdale, the southern parts of Bury and Standish/Shevington in Wigan. Overall, the districts of Trafford and Stockport have considerably higher proportions of residents in class 1 and 2 occupations than the national average of 31.3%, with Bury also slightly above it. Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside are all considerably below it at around 26%. However, if students are excluded, then the City Centre ward has the highest proportion of residents aged 16-74 in class 1 and 2 occupations, at over two-thirds, whereas it was only 53rd if students are included.
4.145 There are two large areas of Greater Manchester with relatively high proportions of residents aged 16-74 in routine and manual occupations, one stretching through most of Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside into north Manchester and the other covering most of Wigan except its western edge and extending into central and south-east Bolton, the northern edge of Salford as well as into St Helens. This second area has a particularly high concentration of people in routine and manual occupations in the central parts of Wigan, including seven of the ten wards with the highest proportions in Greater Manchester, all of which are above 47%. The district of Wigan has by far the highest proportion in Greater Manchester of its residents aged 16-74 in routine and manual occupations, at over 41% compared to a national average of less than 32% and Tameside, Oldham and Rochdale also have high proportions. The areas with the lowest proportions in routine and manual occupations are generally in the central and southern parts of Greater Manchester, together with some of the outer areas of other districts.
4.146 The main clusters of wards with high proportions of residents who have never worked or are long-term unemployed are around the inner areas around the city centre and around the town centres of Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton. The three wards of Coldhurst, Werneth and St Mary’s in central Oldham form a particularly high concentration of such residents, with more than 22% in each having never worked or being long-term unemployed and there are similar proportions in the Milkstone and Deeplish and Central Rochdale wards in Rochdale Town Centre. Large areas have reasonably low proportions, particularly around the edges of Greater Manchester, and Stockport, Trafford, Wigan and Bury all have lower proportions than the national average.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 56
Industry of employment
4.148 The 2011 Census provides information on the industry that people are employed in, using 18 different categories based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007. This section focuses on particular sectors, namely manufacturing (sector C), and the collection of mainly office-based sectors that are likely to be very important contributors to future growth covering information and communication (sector J), financial and insurance activities (K), real estate activities (L), professional, scientific and technical activities (M) and administrative and support service activities (N).
4.149 Just over 9% of Greater Manchester’s employed residents work in manufacturing, with the north-east areas of Tameside, Oldham and Rochdale and the north-west areas of Wigan and Bolton, being more reliant on this sector than the sub-regional average. More generally, there is a clear pattern where the central and southern areas (including south Bury and most of Salford) have average or below average proportions of their residents employed in manufacturing, whereas the northern areas stretching from Wigan to Tameside have above average levels. The most significant concentration extends through the central strip of Tameside through to south Oldham and includes the three wards of St Peter’s, Dukinfield Stalybridge and Dukinfield in Tameside which have the highest proportions employed in manufacturing in Greater Manchester, all above 16%, with nine other wards in this area exceeding 13%. The other main cluster is in central Wigan, where seven wards are above 13% with Ince and Pemberton both over 15%. Wigan has more people employed in manufacturing than any other district in Greater Manchester, accounting for almost 16% of the sub-regional total. The nineteen wards with the lowest proportions employed in manufacturing all lie in the area extending from the city centre southwards to Didsbury and westwards into Ordsall and Irwell Riverside in Salford.
4.150 Over 20% of Greater Manchester’s employed residents work in sectors J-N, which is slightly below the national average. The pattern within Greater Manchester is very broadly the opposite of that for manufacturing, with the highest proportions in the central and southern areas and the lowest proportions through the north of the sub- region, although there are many wards throughout Greater Manchester that have relatively average levels of employment in these sectors. Some of the highest proportions are in the southern parts of Trafford, with Bowdon, Altrincham, Hale Central and Hale Barns all amongst the top ten wards in Greater Manchester and having rates above 30% and the wider area extending northwards to Sale also has high proportions employed in sectors J-N. The Chorlton and Didsbury wards to the east in Manchester also have high proportions of residents employed in these sectors, all above 27%, with above average proportions in some neighbouring wards. Some of the western and southern wards in Stockport also have quite high levels, including four wards above 27%. The areas to the south of Greater Manchester in Cheshire East and south-east Warrington have similarly high proportions employed in these sectors. The City Centre ward has the highest proportion of residents employed in sectors J-N in Greater Manchester, at almost 40%, with the neighbouring Ordsall, Hulme and Ancoats and Clayton all above 30%, with some of the adjoining wards also above average. There are also smaller
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 57
clusters of relatively high proportions of residents working in these sectors around south Bury and Worsley/Boothstown in Salford. Extensive parts of Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside have relatively low proportions of residents working in sectors J-N, with the lowest rates broadly in the eastern half of Rochdale and through the central spine of Oldham, where there are twenty wards with less than 15.5% of residents in these sectors. Much of Wigan and significant parts of east Bolton also have low proportions employed in sectors J-N, with the adjoining wards of Pemberton, Douglas, Ince, Hindley, Abram, Worsley Mesnes and Bryn in Wigan having less than 14% in these sectors. Overall, this results in Wigan, Oldham and Rochdale having the lowest proportions in Greater Manchester of residents employed in sectors J-N at just over 16%, with Bolton and Tameside also below 18%.
Travel to work22
4.151 If we define ‘sustainable’ modes of travel to work as tram/underground, train, bus, cycling and walking, then 28.3% of Greater Manchester’s residents use sustainable modes for their commute, which is below the national average of 32.3% and is broadly average for the metropolitan counties in the North and Midlands. Only 20.7% of those in the ten districts adjoining Greater Manchester travel to work by these sustainable modes and indeed all of those districts are well below the Greater Manchester average. In stark contrast, almost two-thirds of Greater London residents commute by sustainable modes and 81.7% in Inner London.
4.152 Within Greater Manchester, by far the largest concentration of residents who travel to work by sustainable modes live in and around the city centre, with the highest levels focused in the area extending west to Langworthy, north to Cheetham, east to the Manchester boundary and south to Withington, with above average levels in a much larger area covering virtually the whole of Manchester, east Salford and north-east Trafford. This results in Manchester having by far the highest proportion of its residents travelling to work by sustainable modes at almost 47%, with Salford just about matching the national average rate. Around three-quarters of those living in the City Centre commute by sustainable modes and it is notable that this is the only ward in Greater Manchester that exceeds the average for the whole of London. Four of the Manchester wards in this central area exceed 60% and a further nine wards in Manchester and Salford are above 50%. There are much smaller clusters of wards around the main town centres where the proportion of people commuting to work by sustainable modes is above the national average. All other parts of Greater Manchester (160 of its 215 wards) have rates below the national average.
4.153 There is a large area of relatively low proportions travelling by sustainable modes around the northern edges of Greater Manchester, extending across much of Wigan and into parts of west Salford. This area includes 15 wards below 15%, more than half of which are in Wigan, with their also being particularly low proportions in Worsley/Boothstown in Salford. Wigan has the lowest proportion of its residents commuting by sustainable modes at less than 20% and the northernmost districts of Bolton, Bury and Rochdale are all below 23%. There is also a smaller area with low
22 All data on travel to work is from ONS Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 58
proportions commuting by sustainable modes along the southern boundaries of Trafford and Stockport, and extending across Cheshire East and south Warrington.
4.154 Half of people living within the City Centre ward commute to work by foot, which is by far the highest in Greater Manchester. The next highest levels in the sub-region are in the adjacent areas, with Hulme, Ardwick, Bradford, Ancoats and Clayton and Cheetham in Manchester and Ordsall, Irwell Riverside and Broughton in Salford all above 20%.
4.155 There is a very distinctive pattern of cycling to work, with low levels across the whole of the north of Greater Manchester, with the exception of a few wards around Wigan Town Centre, with Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside less than half the national average. Levels of cycling are broadly average or above across the southern and eastern parts of Salford, most of Trafford, all of Manchester to the south and east of the city centre and some of the western parts of Stockport. However, the highest proportions of residents cycling to work are seen in the area just to the south of the city centre, extending from Gorse Hill and Stretford in Trafford through to Levenshulme and Didsbury East in Manchester, with 13 wards having more than 5% of residents cycling to work and Chorlton and Whalley Range more than 9%. Woodhouse Park and Baguley at the southern end of Manchester are also amongst the top twenty wards for the proportion of residents cycling to work. Levels of commuting by bicycle are generally low in the districts adjoining Greater Manchester, with the exception of the central belt of Warrington. More than one-third of Greater Manchester residents who cycle to work live in Manchester.
4.156 An even higher proportion of Greater Manchester residents who commute to work by bus reside in Manchester, at over 36%. The highest concentrations are in the wards broadly to the south and east of the city centre, stretching from Withington and Old Moat through Gorton and Bradford up to Harpurhey, an area which includes the top 13 wards in terms of the proportion of people commuting by bus, ten of which exceed 30%. City Centre and Brooklands are the only wards in Manchester where less than 15% of resident commuters travel by bus which is the average for Greater London, leading to a total figure of 23% in Manchester compared to a national average of just under 8%. There are several wards just to the east of Manchester in Oldham, Tameside and north-west Stockport that exceed 15% and three wards in east Salford, including Broughton at almost 25%. The wider central areas of Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside, Stockport and Trafford typically have levels of commuting by bus above the national average, whereas the most outer areas together with virtually the whole of Bury and Wigan have quite low levels, as do almost all of the wards surrounding Greater Manchester.
4.157 The wards with the highest proportions of commuting by train and tram are heavily determined by the infrastructure. The tram extensions to Oldham, Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyne and Didsbury started after the 2011 Census and so it only provides a partial picture in this regard. Priory in Trafford has by far the highest proportion of residents commuting by tram at just under 15%, with the three adjoining wards to the south of Brooklands, Timperley and Altrincham all above 9% and a further three Trafford wards exceeding 6%. Eight wards in Bury and north Manchester have more than 6% of commuters travelling by tram. Two wards in Salford also exceed that figure, including Ordsall which has the second highest
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 59
proportion in Greater Manchester of residents travelling to work by tram at over 11%.
4.158 Most of Stockport has - compared to the rest of Greater Manchester - relatively high proportions of people commuting by train, but it still only has 5.4% of its residents taking the train to work - below the national average. There are also relatively high levels of train commuting in the eastern parts of Tameside, extending into the neighbouring High Peak and in parts of Bolton, though neither of those districts has more than 4% of its residents travelling to work by train. No ward in Greater Manchester has more than 11% of its residents commuting by train, which is below the Greater London average of 14%. The City Centre ward has the third highest rate in Greater Manchester at just over 9%.
Migration flows
4.159 All migration flow data in this section is taken from the 2011 Census and relates to migration during the 12 months prior to the Census date. Due to the method of collection, it is not possible to identify outflows from districts and wards to locations outside the UK but figures for inflows from overseas are available. Consequently all net figures relate to flows within the UK and do not take into account movements to or from locations outside the UK. Inflows relate to the number of people/households who moved from outside the area (whether it is a district or a ward) to inside the area, with outflows being the opposite. Flows within the same areas are not considered here.
4.160 It should be noted that inflows and outflows may involve movements over very short distances, for example to/from an adjoining district/ward. Net flows and international inflows can be summed to give totals for larger areas. However, absolute flows within the UK cannot be summed, as some of the flows will be within the same area. The different size of the wards in terms of total population means that the largest absolute migration flows may not necessarily be the greatest as a proportion of the area’s population. This is particularly an issue for some inner parts of Manchester but the larger than average ward populations may in part be due to the size of the migration flows.
4.161 The 12-month period to which the data relates may not necessarily be representative of the role of an area. For example flows to an area could be skewed by a new housing development, the decanting of households associated with demolition activity, or simply a statistical anomaly. The scale of inflows to individual wards could also be affected by the number of existing dwellings that become available for people to move into, which may be affected by specific local market conditions. The scale of outflows of people/households with particular characteristics from wards will clearly be impacted by the number of such people/households who were originally there.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 60
Longer term population change is discussed earlier in this report.
Scale and geography of migration
4.162 Greater Manchester had a very small net UK migration outflow of 188 residents, whereas the ten districts adjoining Greater Manchester collectively lost almost 2,400 residents to other parts of the UK. There was a very significant inflow to Manchester, exceeding 7,100 and also a considerable inflow of over 2,000 people to Salford. The other eight districts all experienced net out-migration, with Stockport and Oldham having the highest levels. In terms of the adjoining districts, only Chorley, Kirklees and West Lancashire saw net in-migration from within the UK though the level for all was below 500.
4.163 79% of wards within Greater Manchester saw a net UK inflow or outflow of less than 150 people. The largest net migration flows were concentrated in a small number of wards. The highest net inflow was to the City Centre ward, at more than 1,500 residents and all of the other large flows were around the city centre extending into Salford and south as far as Didsbury West. However, this central area also saw three of the four largest net outflows, with Harpurhey, Moss Side and Rusholme collectively seeing a net population loss to the UK of over 1,200. Halliwell in Bolton was the only ward outside Manchester and Salford that had net UK in- migration of more than 200. Central Rochdale had the largest net UK outflow at over 500 people. The three Oldham central wards of Coldhurst, Werneth and St Mary’s all had net UK outflows exceeding 200, as did the adjoining ward of St James’. The three adjoining wards of Heatons South, Edgeley and Cheadle Heath and Davenport and Cale Green in the western part of Stockport were the only other areas that had net UK outflows exceeding 200 people.
4.164 The largest absolute inflows (including people from within the UK and overseas) were all in the city centre and immediately surrounding areas, extending southwards to Chorlton Park and the two Didsbury wards, with nineteen wards in Manchester and four wards in Salford having inflows exceeding 2,000. The City Centre ward was the highest at almost 8,500 but Ardwick, Hulme, Withington and Fallowfield all exceeded 5,000. The large student population in these areas is likely to be responsible for a significant portion of these inflows but the importance of the wider area in attracting migrants is clear. In terms of the areas of Greater Manchester with the lowest absolute inflows of migrants, six wards of Wigan had inflows of less than 600, including the two lowest figures in Greater Manchester, with five of those wards along the district’s western edge (Winstanley, Shevington with Lower Ground, Bryn, Ashton and Orrell). The two Davyhulme wards in Trafford also saw inflows below 600, as did three wards in Bury, three in Rochdale, two each in Salford and Oldham and one in Tameside. Inflows to the wards surrounding Greater Manchester were generally low, with the exceptions of West Yorkshire and parts of Warrington and St Helens.
4.165 The city centre and surrounding wards also had the largest absolute outflows of people to locations within the UK, with the 25 wards with the highest outflows being in these parts of Manchester and Salford. The City Centre ward had the highest outflow at over 5,200, with Ardwick and Withington both exceeding 4,000. The rest of Manchester, north-west Stockport and the central parts of Bolton, Wigan and
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 61
Oldham also had relatively high outflows. The areas with the lowest total outflows were in the western parts of Wigan (Bryn, Winstanley, Orrell, Shevington with Lower Ground and Worsely Mesnes), south-west Salford/north-west Trafford (Irlam, Cadishead, Boothstown and Ellenbroook and Worsley in Salford and Bucklow-St Martins, Davyhulme West and Davyhulme East in Trafford), and south-west Oldham (the two Failsworth wards).
Age characteristics
4.166 There was a very small net outflow from Greater Manchester to the rest of the UK, but with quite significant differences between age bands. There was a net UK inflow to Greater Manchester of over 4,000 people aged 16-24, with a net UK outflow of almost 2,500 people aged 25-64 age bands, over 1,000 aged 75 and over and around 750 aged 0-17.
0-15 year olds
4.167 Trafford had a net UK inflow of over 500 people aged 0-15, with small net inflows in Stockport and Bolton and a negligible net inflow for Wigan. The other districts saw very small net outflows for this age band, with the exception of Manchester where the figure exceeded 1,000. Greater Manchester had a net outflow of almost 750 people aged 0-15, whereas the adjoining districts collectively had a net inflow of 850 people, with Cheshire East, Chorley and Warrington being largely the source districts.
4.168 Manchester had the highest absolute inflows, exceeding 4,000 which was more than twice the levels seen in the next highest districts of Trafford and Salford. A higher proportion of Manchester’s inflows were due to international migration but it still had by far the highest inflows from within the UK, with Trafford next highest and the other districts broadly quite similar. Greater Manchester had high inflows of 0-15 year olds from overseas, exceeding 3,600, with more than 40% of those people moving to Manchester, with Salford, Trafford and Bolton being the other main destinations within the sub-region but collectively less than Manchester. Manchester also had by far the largest outflows to the rest of the UK, exceeding 3,500, with the other districts all very similar at just over 1,000 and a little higher in the case of Salford.
4.169 No wards in Greater Manchester had net inflows from within the UK of more than 100 people aged 0-15 and only 15 exceeded a net inflow of 50 people in this age band, with four of those wards in Trafford and three in Stockport. The other wards with comparatively high net inflows in this age band were generally dotted around Greater Manchester, with West Middleton in Rochdale having the highest figure and Weaste and Seedley in Salford the third highest. Some of the net outflows for individual wards were more substantial, with six exceeding 100. The wards with the largest outflows were generally located in and around the city centre, with smaller clusters around Oldham, Stockport and Ashton-under-Lyne town centres. Central Rochdale had the highest net outflow of over 220, with Coldhurst in Oldham more than 160.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 62
4.170 The areas with the highest absolute inflows of people aged 0-15 in the twelve months preceding the 2011 Census were around the city centre, particularly to the north and south-east, with Gorton South, Gorton North, Moss Side, Harpurhey and Cheetham all having inflows exceeding 400. There was a second significant cluster of high inflows in the five adjoining wards of Halliwell, Rumworth, Great Lever, Harper Green and Farnworth in central/south Bolton, all of which had inflows of around 300. More generally, most of Manchester excluding the City Centre ward had relatively high inflows of 0-15 year olds, as did the central areas of most districts together with south-west Trafford. The areas with the smallest inflows for this age band were quite varied in geography but included some of the more prosperous suburban wards such as Boothstown and Ellenbrook and Worsley in Salford, Marple South and Bramhall South in Stockport, Chorlton in Manchester and Saddleworth North in Oldham, with the City Centre ward having the lowest figure. The largest cluster of wards with low inflows of people aged 0-15 was along the western side of Wigan, including Winstanley, Shevington with Lower Ground, Bryn and Orrell. The absolute inflows of 0-15 year olds to the wards surrounding Greater Manchester were typically lower than virtually every ward within Greater Manchester, with the exception of those in West Yorkshire and some parts of Warrington and St Helens.
4.171 The geography of wards with the highest inflows from within the UK is similar to that for all inflows, with some central parts of Bolton and Oldham being a little bit more significant and some areas to the south of the city centre a little less. The main destinations for overseas migrants aged 0-15 years old are more focused within the same locations, with the largest levels just to the north of the city centre (in Cheetham, Crumpsall, Broughton and Kersal), in a west-east band to the south of the city centre (in Whalley Range, Moss Side, Rusholme, Longsight, Levenshulme and Gorton South), in Bolton Town Centre and to a much lesser extent the town centres of Oldham, Rochdale and Altrincham.
4.172 The areas with the highest absolute outflows of people aged 0-15 were reasonably similar to the areas with the highest inflows, with a strong focus on the inner parts of the conurbation. There were also some significant outflows from the central areas of Oldham, Bolton, Stockport and Rochdale and at slightly lower levels from Tameside, Wigan and Bury. The main difference from the inflows was that some of the outer areas were less significant for outflows than they were for inflows, such as some parts of south Trafford.
4.173 Although the central areas of Greater Manchester had high flows of people aged 0-15, that age band actually constituted a low proportion of the overall migration inflows for most of the wards, with the two Gorton wards and the five northernmost wards in Manchester being the main exceptions. The picture was more mixed in the other areas with high absolute flows of 0-15 year olds, with this age band making up a high proportion of migrant inflows in Oldham, Rochdale and south Trafford, with the exception of Altrincham but only in parts of central/south Bolton. There were also a few other wards that had a high proportion of in-migrants in this age band such as Little Hulton in Salford, Sedgley in Bury and Droylsden West in Tameside.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 63
16-24 year olds
4.174 Greater Manchester had a large net inflow from the rest of the UK of over 4,000 people aged 16-24 but the surrounding ten districts had an even larger net outflow of almost 4,900. The Greater Manchester figures are heavily skewed by Manchester, which actually had a net UK inflow of close to 10,000. Salford was the only other district with a net inflow, exceeding 1,800. All of the other districts having net outflows to the rest of the UK and a significant element of this would be to Manchester and Salford, with Stockport and Trafford having the highest net outflows at well over 1,000.
4.175 The total inflows to Manchester were extremely high at more than 26,500 and Salford also saw major inflows of over 6,100. In both cases, most of these inflows were from within the UK but both cities also saw considerable in-migration from overseas, with Manchester accounting for two-thirds of the international inflows of 16-24 year olds to Greater Manchester. Manchester also had by far the highest outflows of this age band to the rest of the UK, with the next highest levels in Stockport, Salford and Trafford.
4.176 The City Centre ward had the highest net inflow of people aged 16-24 from within the UK, at just under 1,900. Withington, Hulme and Ardwick to the south all exceeded 1,000 and the only other ten wards with net inflows of more than 250 were all in the neighbouring parts of Manchester and Salford. The only two wards outside this central area that exceeded a net inflow of 100 16-24 year olds were Halliwell in central Bolton and Brinnington and Central in Stockport. Six of the seven wards with the highest net UK outflows of people aged 16-24 were in Stockport, primarily towards the south-west of the district. Five wards towards the south of Trafford also had net outflows exceeding 100, as did three wards in Bury.
4.177 The inflows were very heavily concentrated in the city centre and the area to the south extending to Old Moat and Withington, with nine wards in this part of Manchester having inflows exceeding 2,500. The next ten highest inflows were all in wards in a slightly larger central area. These flows are likely to be due to a combination of large numbers of students as well as young adults seeking to take advantage of the employment and leisure opportunities in this location. Much more modest though still quite significant inflows were seen in the rest of Manchester, large parts of Salford, central Bolton and central Wigan and a smaller area through the centre of Bury. Inflows elsewhere of 16-24 year olds were much more limited, including across large Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside, Stockport and Trafford.
4.178 The pattern of inflows from the rest of the UK was virtually identical to that for all inflows. The international inflows in the 16-24 age band were much more concentrated in the centre of the conurbation, with the highest levels in the City Centre and Ardwick wards, with the former exceeding 1,100, followed by Hulme, Rusholme, Moss Side, Irwell Riverside, Fallowfield and Longsight, suggesting that the international inflows are even more dominated by students than for all inflows. No ward outside the central parts of Manchester and Salford had an international inflow of more than 60 in this age band but there were small clusters of above average international inflows around Bolton and Oldham town centres compared to the very low levels seen elsewhere across Greater Manchester.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 64
4.179 The highest outflows to other parts of the UK were also seen from the wards in the central parts of Greater Manchester, with the highest levels from Fallowfield and Withington, followed by the city centre and other wards just to its south within Manchester. Outside these central areas, the next highest levels of outflows were from wards in the western part of Stockport, central Bolton and central/east Wigan. Some of the lowest outflows of 16-24 year olds were in a cluster broadly around south-west Salford/north-west Trafford, including Worsley, Boothstown and Ellenbrook, Irlam and Cadishead within Salford and the two Davyhulme wards, Urmston, Flixton and Bucklow-St-Martins in Trafford. However, many areas had only slightly higher outflows of this age band, such as the four Middleton wards in Rochdale, with most wards in Greater Manchester seeing outflows of around a couple of hundred.
4.180 The 16-24 age band dominated the inflows to some of the central areas of the conurbation, accounting from more than three-quarters of all inflows to Withington and Fallowfield, more than two-thirds to Ardwick, Rusholme, Old Moat and City Centre and more than half to Levenshulme, Hulme, Irwell Riverside, Moss Side and Longsight. Outside this core area, the 16-24 constituted more than 30% of the inflows to the two central wards of Halliwell and Great Lever in Bolton.
25-64 year olds
4.181 Greater Manchester as a whole had a net outflow of almost 2,500 people aged 25- 64 to other parts of the UK, compared to a net inflow of nearly 1,400 for the ten surrounding districts. Manchester had the highest net UK outflow, exceeding 1,500, Salford had the highest net inflow at over 450 and Trafford was the only other district in Greater Manchester to see a net inflow of this age band from within the UK. Manchester had by far the highest flows in this age band, with more than 21,000 inflows. The next highest inflows of 25-64 year olds were in Salford, Trafford and Stockport, with the lowest in the four north-east districts of Tameside, Oldham, Rochdale and Bury, with a broadly similar pattern for outflows within the UK. Inflows from overseas accounted for a higher proportion of total inflows to Manchester than for other districts, totalling almost 6,000, with Salford also having comparatively high international inflows in this age band.
4.182 The vast majority of wards in Greater Manchester had a net UK inflow or outflow or less than 100 people aged 25-64 and only 16% of wards were outside this range. Ordsall in Salford had the highest net inflow at over 400, with Chorlton Park just under 300. Four of the eight other wards that had net inflows exceeding 100 were dotted around Manchester, with no real pattern to the other highest net inflows. The wards with the highest net UK outflows of people aged 25-64 were concentrated in the city centre and area to the immediate south and north, with eight wards in this area in Manchester having net outflows of more than 200 and six others in the inner parts of Manchester, Salford and Trafford above 100. Central Rochdale was the only other ward with a significant net outflow of this age band, at more than 220. There was a small cluster of quite high net outflows around Oldham Town Centre.
4.183 The highest total inflows of 25-64 year olds were very much concentrated in and around Manchester city centre, with the 24 wards with the largest inflows all being
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 65
in this area broadly extending north to Crumpsall, west to Ordsall, east to the Manchester boundary and south to Didsbury. Both the City Centre and Ordsall had inflows exceeding 2,600, with Hulme and Cheetham also above 2,000. Outside this central area, the next highest inflows were generally in the south of Greater Manchester, around parts of south Trafford, south Manchester and west Stockport. The three adjoining wards of Crompton, Halliwell and Great Lever in central Bolton also had quite high inflows compared to most other parts of Greater Manchester. The lowest inflows of people aged 25-64 were generally around the eastern and northern sides of Greater Manchester, together with west Salford/north-west Trafford and the western side of Wigan. Inflows in this age band were generally low for the wards just outside Greater Manchester, with more moderate levels in West Yorkshire and some parts of Warrington.
4.184 The distribution of inflows from within the UK was very similar to that for all inflows. The international inflows were focused much more within and around the city centre, with the City Centre ward having the highest inflow at just over 550 and the next four largest inflows in wards immediately adjoining it. In total, 29 of the 30 largest international inflows were in this central part of the conurbation. More modest international inflows of 25-64 year olds were seen in central Bolton and south Trafford.
4.185 The geography of the highest outflows within the UK was also quite similar to the inflows, being focused primarily around the central parts of Greater Manchester but there were also relatively high levels from the rest of Manchester, north-west Stockport and the central parts of Bolton and Wigan. The lowest outflows were generally seen around the western parts of Wigan, south-west Salford/north-west Trafford, the area just to the east of Manchester in Oldham and Tameside and some parts of Bury.
4.186 The 25-64 age band generally made up a higher proportion of all migration inflows for wards in the south of Greater Manchester, including most wards in Trafford extending eastwards through Whalley Range, Chorlton and Didsbury in Manchester and into the western and southern parts of Stockport. The two Chorlton wards were the only ones in Greater Manchester where more than 70% of migrant inflows were aged 25-64 and there were 13 other wards in these parts of Trafford, Stockport and Manchester that exceeded 60%. The other main area where the 25-64 age band dominated inflows was in the three adjoining wards of Eccles, Worsley and Boothstown and Ellenbrook which were also all above 60%, with a smaller cluster in the two Saddleworth wards in Oldham. This age band was much less significant in the area from Withington and Fallowfield through to the city centre and it constituted a comparatively low proportion of those migrating to the wards around the town centres of Oldham and Bolton.
Aged 65 and over
4.187 The absolute flows of people aged 65 and over were much lower than for other age bands and so the differences between both districts and wards are generally less than for younger groups. Overall, Greater Manchester saw a net outflow of just over 1,000 people in this age band. Every district within Greater Manchester had a net outflow but only in Manchester, Stockport and Trafford did this exceed 100.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 66
Manchester again had the highest absolute flows but unlike the other age bands it was only slightly higher than the other districts and Stockport was only second for each type of flow. The lowest total inflows were to Oldham and Rochdale. In terms of the adjoining districts, Cheshire East had the highest flows and was largely responsible for the net inflow collectively seen by those districts.
4.188 Every ward in Greater Manchester had a net UK migration flow of people aged 65 and over of magnitude less than 50, reflecting the lower flows in this age band. The nearby wards of Broughton in Salford and St Mary’s at the southern end of Bury had the highest net inflows but the areas with the largest net inflows and outflows were reasonably dispersed across Greater Manchester.
4.189 The main concentration of relatively high inflows was in Stockport, particularly in the east around Bredbury, Marple and Bramhall and stretching into neighbouring parts of Tameside and Cheshire East. There were also quite high inflows in parts of west/south Bolton, with the district having three of the eleven highest inflows in Greater Manchester and in some individual wards across the sub-region such as Bowdon in Trafford, Didsbury West in Manchester and Broughton in Salford, with the latter the only ward in the sub-region that had an inflow of people aged 65 and over that exceeded 100. The lowest inflows were to the city centre and the areas to the east, south and west, with several other areas with relatively low inflows such as west Salford/north Trafford, west Wigan and south-east Bury. The international inflows of people aged 65 and over were very low and so the pattern of inflows from within the UK was very similar to that for all inflows.
4.190 The largest cluster of wards with high outflows of the 65 and over age band covered virtually the whole of Stockport, extending westwards through parts of south Manchester and Trafford and 11 of the 20 largest outflows from Greater Manchester wards were from Stockport. There were smaller clusters of relatively high outflows in north Manchester, central Bolton and some eastern and central parts of Oldham.
4.191 The 65 and over age band generally constituted only a very small proportion of migration inflows towards within Greater Manchester, particularly within a large central area covering most of Manchester and east Salford. This age band was generally most significant in Stockport, with this district having the five wards with the highest percentages (the four Bredbury and Marple wards, together with Bramhall South), with even higher proportions in several of the northern wards of Cheshire East.
Household composition
Single person households
4.192 Greater Manchester had a small net UK inflow of single person households of just over 200, with the surrounding districts having a very small net outflow. Salford had the largest net UK inflow at almost 800, followed by Manchester at just over 350. Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Trafford all saw net outflows of single person households to the rest of the UK, with the last of these exceeding 500.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 67
4.193 Manchester and Salford had significantly higher inflows of single person households than the other districts in Greater Manchester, with the lowest inflows being to Bury, Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside. Inflows from within the UK constituted at least 80% of total inflows for each district but the absolute international flows of single person households were quite significant for both Manchester and Salford, with the former seeing more single person households migrating in from overseas than the total inflows to each of the aforementioned north-east districts. Manchester also had the highest outflows to other parts of the UK.
4.194 The Ordsall and City Centre wards had by far the highest total inflows of single person households, both exceeding 1,000. 13 of the 18 other wards that had inflows of more than 300 were located in the surrounding inner areas. Inflows of single person households were generally quite low outside the central part of Greater Manchester, although there were several wards around Bolton Town Centre that had relatively high inflows, including the three wards of Halliwell, Crompton and Great Lever that all exceeded 300. Inflows to the other town centres were less significant, although Brinnington and Central in Stockport and Ashton St Peter’s in Tameside both had inflows of more than 300. The wards with the lowest inflows of single person households were generally, though not exclusively, around the edges of the districts. The geography of inflows from within the UK was the same.
4.195 The outflows of single person households to elsewhere in the UK were generally more evenly distributed than the inflows. The largest outflows were very much concentrated in and around the city centre, accounting for 25 of the 27 highest figures in Greater Manchester, although only nine of these exceeded 300 with the City Centre ward highest at just over 600. The area around Bolton Town Centre formed the other main cluster of large outflows. Several of the wards with the lowest outflows were along the south-western edge of Wigan.
4.196 In terms of the areas where single person households made up a relatively large proportion of inflows, there is a much more varied distribution than for absolute inflows. 63 wards in Greater Manchester had at least 50% of their household inflows being single person households, with Ordsall and City Centre having the highest proportions. Once again, there was quite a large area at the core of the conurbation with high proportions of household inflows being single persons but there were also quite extensive areas in several other districts, with six of the 17 largest proportions being around central Bolton. There were only two wards where single person households constituted less than one-quarter of inflows. Generally the lowest proportions were seen around the southern fringe of Greater Manchester, with nine of the twenty lowest being in Trafford.
Couple households
4.197 Greater Manchester had a total net outflow of couple households to other parts of the UK of just over 700. There was an inflow of 800 couple households from overseas but information is not available on the international outflows. The districts surrounding Greater Manchester saw a small net inflow of couple households. By far the largest net outflow was from Manchester, at more than 500, with Bury, Stockport and Trafford seeing very modest net inflows. Manchester had the largest
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 68
absolute inflows of couple households, followed by Salford, Trafford and Stockport and these four districts similarly had the largest outflows to other parts of the UK. Manchester accounted for more than 40% of international inflows of couple households to Greater Manchester, with Salford being the other main destination.
4.198 The City Centre and Ordsall wards had the highest total inflows of couple households, both over 250, with the adjoining wards of Ancoats and Clayton, Hulme, Cheetham and Bradford all above 100. The other main cluster of high inflows was just to the south focused around the two Didsbury wards, the two Chorlton wards and the neighbouring Priory. There were also quite high inflows of couple households to parts of south Trafford, in Altrincham and Broadheath. There were quite low inflows across much of the north-east of Greater Manchester, with 13 of the 17 lowest couple household inflows in Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside, seven of which were in Oldham primarily in the area from the town centre to Failsworth. The geography of the main outflows of couple households to the rest of the UK was very similar.
4.199 The areas with the highest proportions of household inflows that were couples were primarily in the southern part of Greater Manchester, with 19 of the 25 wards where couples accounted for at least 20% of inflows being located in Trafford, south Manchester and Stockport (primarily the area from Sale to Hale in Trafford, around Chorlton and Didsbury in Manchester and south-west Stockport, together with the two Marple wards). Worsley in Salford had the second highest proportion, with the adjoining Boothstown and Ellenbrook also above 20%. Couples formed a low proportion of household inflows across central Bolton and much of Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside, with five wards in central Oldham below 7% and six in south/central Bolton below 8%.
Households containing dependent children
4.200 Greater Manchester had a net outflow to other parts of the UK of just over 300 households with dependent children, whereas the ten adjoining districts collectively had a net inflow of almost 600 such households. Manchester had a net UK outflow of almost 700 households with dependent children, with very small net outflows from Bury, Oldham and Salford. Trafford was the only district with a substantial net inflow at over 250 which was similar to the level seen in Cheshire East. Manchester saw the highest inflows of households with dependent children, followed by Trafford, Salford and Stockport. Over 1,100 of these households came from overseas, with Manchester and Salford accounting for just over half of these and over 20% of the inflow of households with dependent children to the two cities came from overseas. Manchester had by far the largest outflow, with broadly similar levels across the other Greater Manchester districts.
4.201 The largest concentration of high inflows of households with dependent children was to the north and east of the city centre, with this area containing seven of the eight wards where the inflows exceeded 150. There was a significant cluster of relatively high inflows to the south, focused around Sharston, Northenden and Brooklands in Manchester but extending westwards into Trafford and southwards to the city boundary. A cluster of high inflows was also seen in south Bolton, with slightly lower flows extending throughout central Bolton into large parts of the east
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 69
and centre of Wigan. The central areas of the other districts also had reasonably high inflows, although many wards within Greater Manchester saw quite similar flow levels. Inflows of households with dependent children to the wards surrounding Greater Manchester were generally lower than the vast majority of wards within the sub-region, with more average levels in West Yorkshire and parts of St Helens.
4.202 The location of the main outflows was reasonably similar, with the largest outflows generally just to the north and east of the city centre but with relatively high outflows throughout most of Manchester, north-east Trafford and east Salford. There was also a stronger clustering of relatively high outflows around some of the town centres, particularly Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, Ashton-under-Lyne and Stockport. Lower outflows were generally seen around the edges of districts and in wards just outside Greater Manchester.
4.203 Although there were some high inflows, households with dependent children generally formed a low proportion of all household inflows to the central parts of Greater Manchester. Trafford wards had six of the twelve highest proportions in Greater Manchester, all exceeding 45%, with quite high levels in central Oldham and northern Rochdale. The proportion of household inflows towards surrounding Greater Manchester that contained dependent children were quite mixed.
Households where all members are aged 65 and over
4.204 The flows of households with all members aged 65 and over, which includes some single person households, were much lower than for the other types of household. Greater Manchester saw a net outflow of such households to other parts of the UK of almost 400, with each district having a net outflow of less than 80. The surrounding districts had a net inflow of just over 100, largely due to Cheshire East. Manchester and Stockport had the largest inflows in Greater Manchester, at just over 200, although this was much lower than Cheshire East which exceeded 450. Inflows of older households from overseas were limited, totalling less than 200 across Greater Manchester, with a reasonably even distribution between the districts. Manchester had the largest outflows of such households, followed by Stockport and Trafford.
4.205 There was not really any clear pattern in terms of the spatial distribution of the highest inflows of households with all members aged 65 and over and the low numbers involved mean that the differences between wards were quite limited. There was some evidence of slightly higher inflows to east Bolton and parts of Stockport and Oldham. There appears to have been slightly more clustering of wards with relatively high outflows, in a large central area in Bolton, the southern edge of Trafford and south Stockport but the numbers involved were small. Older households constituted a very small proportion of households moving into large parts of Greater Manchester, with the highest proportions generally around the edges of the sub-region, primarily in Oldham and Stockport.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 70
Student households
4.206 The inflows of households where all members were students were very much focused in and immediately adjoining the city centre, stretching southwards to Withington. There were virtually no inflows of such households outside this area.
Economic activity
4.207 The large number of students in the central parts of Greater Manchester skews the figures, particularly in terms of the proportion of people aged 16 and over who were economically active. Consequently, this section looks at the population both including and excluding full-time students from the statistics on economic activity. Even when they are excluded, the influence of students is still felt in the statistics, as outflows of students who were economically inactive in Manchester in the twelve months before the Census date but were in work in the week of the census will be identified as an outflow of an economically active resident from Manchester, even though they were not economically active when they resided in Manchester. Hence care needs to be taken in interpreting the data, particularly in terms of net flows.
4.208 Excluding students, Manchester had the highest proportion of its in-migrants who were economically active, at almost 85%, with Trafford, Salford and Stockport also above 80%. None of the districts adjoining Greater Manchester exceeded that figure. Rochdale had the lowest proportion in Greater Manchester of in-migrants who were economically active, at just under 73%, with Oldham, Tameside and then Bolton the next lowest. The neighbouring districts of Chorley and Blackburn with Darwen to the north-west of Greater Manchester had even lower proportions at less than 72%.
4.209 For every district in Greater Manchester, the economic activity rate of in-migrants from within the UK was higher than that for those from overseas and Chorley was the only district adjoining the sub-region where this was not also the case. Rochdale had the lowest proportions of in-migrants who were economically active both in terms of UK and international moves, with Tameside and Oldham the next lowest for UK moves and Bolton, Oldham and Bury for overseas moves, showing a clear north-east focus of the lowest levels of economic activity for UK inflows and a northern focus for the lowest levels amongst international inflows. Manchester, Trafford, Stockport and Salford once again clearly had the highest proportions of in- migrants from within the UK that were economically active, with Salford and Manchester the highest for international in-migrants. Manchester, Salford and Trafford also had the highest economic activity rates for out-migrants to other parts of the UK, with Rochdale and Oldham once more the lowest.
4.210 If students are included in the statistics, then the proportion of in-migrants who were economically active reduces for all districts but by a very large margin for Manchester, with their also being a considerable reduction for Salford and an above average one for Bolton. This impact in relation to Manchester is seen particularly amongst overseas in-migrants, where the level of economic activity from 75% to 42% but there is also a very substantial reduction for UK migrants. For Greater Manchester as a whole, the inclusion of students in the statistics reduces the proportion of overseas in-migrants who are economically active from 73% to 52%.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 71
4.211 Manchester had by far the highest total number of economically active people migrating into the district, with this being even more significant if students are included. Manchester accounted for 37% of all economically active overseas in- migrants to Greater Manchester. Salford and Trafford had the next highest inflows, both in terms of those from within the UK and international moves. Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside were lowest in terms of total and UK inflows and along with Bury for overseas in flows. The relative sizes of the outflows to other parts of the UK were also similar. However, there were some differences in terms of the overall balance of UK inflows and outflows, with Manchester seeing a net outflow of 2,600 economically active people to other parts of the UK, excluding students. However, as noted above, this is likely to be the result of a large number of full-time students having been economically inactive when they were studying in Manchester but then moving to a job outside the city and being identified as economically active in the census with Manchester as the source location of their migration. The figures for Salford, Bolton and Oldham may also be affected to some extent by this anomaly, and so the apparent net outflow from Greater Manchester of over 1,700 economically active people to the rest of the UK may be misleading. Notwithstanding these issues, there were reasonably large net inflows from the rest of the UK to Salford and Trafford and in terms of the adjoining districts to Cheshire East, Calderdale and Chorley. If students are included, then the net UK figures look quite different, with an effectively zero balance for Greater Manchester but large net inflows of economically active people to Manchester and Salford, with all other districts in the sub-region having net outflows.
4.212 In terms of inflows of economically inactive people aged 16 and over, if students are excluded then Manchester has the highest inflows followed by Salford, with all other Greater Manchester districts having quite similar levels. The inclusion of students results in a massively higher figure for Manchester and a more than doubling for Salford. Excluding students, Manchester and Salford had the highest inflows from within the UK, with Oldham and Bury the lowest. Manchester accounted for 32% of inflows of economically inactive people from overseas into Greater Manchester, with Tameside having the lowest such inflow. Greater Manchester as a whole had a net outflow to the rest of the UK of 2,000 economically inactive residents, excluding students, although once again this could be impacted on by the way in which the statistics are defined. Half of this net outflow was from Manchester, with smaller outflows from Trafford, Stockport and Oldham and very minor inflows to Salford and Wigan. The neighbouring districts of Cheshire East, Chorley and Warrington had more substantial net UK inflows of economically inactive people aged 16 and over, which could in part be due to the movement of retired residents.
4.213 The wards with the highest inflows of economically active people were focused very much in and immediately adjoining the city centre and in the four neighbouring wards to the south of Didsbury West, Chorlton Park, Chorlton and Whalley Range, with high inflows in the surrounding areas. Ordsall in Salford, had by far the largest inflow of economically active residents, at almost 3,200 people, with the City Centre ward next highest. Altrincham was the only ward outside this broad central area that had an inflow of more than 900 economically active residents, with the neighbouring Broadheath, Brinnington and Central in Stockport and the two Bolton wards of Crompton and Halliwell also having quite large inflows. Most wards in Oldham,
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 72
Rochdale and to a lesser extent Tameside had relatively low inflows of economically active residents, as did the western side of Wigan and north-west Trafford/south-west Salford. However, many of the wards just outside Greater Manchester had equally low or even lower inflows of economically active people, particularly around the north/north-west edge and in High Peak and parts of Cheshire East. The patterns of UK inflows and overseas inflows were very similar to those for total inflows, as were the outflows to the rest of the UK. A similar picture also emerges if students are included but with a much stronger focus on the areas in and around the city centre extending south to Didsbury, with the City Centre ward now having the largest inflow ahead of Ordsall.
4.214 Once again, the net UK flows data for economically active residents may be misrepresentative at ward level, particularly when considering wards with supposedly net outflows. The largest net outflow was from Withington which has one of the largest concentrations of full-time students and so at least in part is likely to be due to students moving to other locations outside the ward when they leave university and move into employment. This may also be the reason for the apparent net outflow from the City Centre and some of the nearby wards, as well as Irwell Riverside in Salford where the University of Salford’s student accommodation is located. Nevertheless, there are quite extensive areas of Greater Manchester dispersed across all districts that appear to have modest net outflows of economically active people which is unlikely to be associated with the movement of full-time students. Some of the highest such net outflows are from around Oldham Town Centre. If students are included then the patterns are broadly similar but with the City Centre and some adjoining wards now having net UK inflows of economically active people, though the area around Levenshulme, Rusholme and Withington through Moss Side to Clifford in Trafford still had net outflows.
4.215 If students are excluded, then the highest inflows of economically inactive people were in the wards circling the city centre, with the largest levels just to the north of the city centre (in Cheetham, Broughton, Crumpsall and Harpurhey) and extending to the east/south-east (in Ancoats and Clayton, Bradford, the two Gorton wards, Longsight and Levenshulme). There were also quite substantial inflows around Bolton Town Centre and at slightly lower levels Oldham Town Centre and Rochdale Town Centre extending northwards. The lowest inflows were generally seen around the edges of Greater Manchester, particularly the western side of Wigan and west Salford/north-west Trafford. The pattern is generally quite similar for UK inflows, with overseas inflows of economically inactive people, excluding students, being concentrated in the city centre and the area immediately to the north, the band of wards to the south broadly from Gorton to Chorlton and the town centres of Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham. The picture is considerably different if students are included in the figures, with an extremely strong concentration of total inflows in the city centre extending southwards through Ardwick and Hulme to Old Moat and Withington, with lower levels to the west and north of the city centre.
4.216 The geography of wards with the largest outflows of economically inactive people to other parts the UK is similar to the inflows but with slightly larger areas around the core of the conurbation and the town centres of Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham, with other clusters around west Rochdale/east Bury, Stockport Town Centre, the southern end of Manchester and central Wigan.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 73
4.217 The net UK flows of economically inactive people, excluding students, were generally quite modest in most wards. The highest net inflow was to Pendlebury in Salford, the third highest to Healey in Rochdale, the fifth highest to Abram in Wigan and the highest net outflow was from Cheetham in Manchester and this may be related to the fact that these are the four wards that contain Greater Manchester’s prisons (Forest Bank, Buckley Hall, Hindley and Strangeways, respectively). Generally, the largest net outflows were from wards along a north-south axis through most of Manchester and into south Bury and west Stockport, with smaller areas dotted around Greater Manchester such as around Oldham Town Centre. The largest net inflows were broadly around the north of the sub-region in Wigan, Bolton and Bury, together with east Stockport and some other fringe areas such as south Trafford which could partly reflect the movement of retired people.
4.218 Excluding students, the areas with the highest proportions of in-migrants aged 16 and over who were economically active were mainly located around the city centre and some of the areas to the south. The City Centre and Ordsall wards had the highest proportions in Greater Manchester, at 95% and 94% respectively, with the neighbouring Hulme ward above 90% and Ancoats and Clayton exceeding 85%. The four wards in Chorlton and Didsbury were all above 90%, with the neighbouring areas of Withington, Old Moat, Whalley Range (Manchester) and Priory (Trafford) only slightly lower and a wider area extending through north Trafford and into west Stockport having high proportions. The three adjoining wards of Hale Central, Altrincham and Broadheath in Trafford are also over 85%. There are also quite high proportions around some of the outer edges of Bolton, Wigan, Salford and Oldham. The wards with the lowest proportions of in-migrants aged 16 and over who were economically active were focused very much around the central parts of Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton. The five adjoining wards of Werneth, St Mary’s, Alexandra, Waterhead and Coldhurst in Oldham were all below 65%, as were the five adjoining wards of Healey, Milkstone and Deeplish, Spotland and Falinge, Smallbridge and Firgrove and Central Rochdale in Rochdale. The inclusion of students significantly changes the position in the central areas, with Ordsall remaining in the eight highest proportions in Greater Manchester but the city centre and the wards extending south to Old Moat and Withington now forming the ten lowest in the sub-region, with seven below 50% including Ardwick just under 40%.
Occupation
4.219 When considering the proportions of in-migrants aged 16 and over who were in different occupations, the results are again strongly affected by the numbers of students and so full-time students have been removed from the totals for these purposes. However, students are included in the absolute figures. As with the data on economic activity, the net flows need to be treated with caution, as a person who was a full-time student in one ward in the twelve months prior to the Census date and then moved to another ward and found a graduate job in classes 1 and 2 would be recorded as the net loss of someone in classes 1 and 2 for the source ward even though they were not in such an occupation when they lived there. This skews the figures for wards with large numbers of full-time students.
4.220 The figures for the proportion of in-migrants aged 16 and over in each occupation class have excluded full-time students from the calculations, in order to give a better
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 74
indication of the balance of adult migration between different occupations, since including student’s results in all occupations appearing to have low percentages in wards with high numbers of students. Those who have never worked or are long- term unemployed have been included, on the basis that they could have formed part of the labour force but again in areas with large numbers in this category the other percentages will appear somewhat depressed. Consequently, tables are presented for the highest and lowest percentages in each occupation both with and without those who have never worked or are long-term unemployed included.
Higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations (classes 1 and 2)
4.221 Just over half of those migrating into Trafford were in the highest occupations (classes 1 and 2), with both Stockport and Manchester well above 40%, as were the adjoining districts of Cheshire East and High Peak. Rochdale had the lowest proportion of its in-migrants in such occupations, with Oldham and Tameside also below 30%, as was Blackburn with Darwen to the north of Greater Manchester. Bolton and Wigan also had quite low proportions relative to most of the districts surrounding Greater Manchester, at around one-third.
4.222 The highest net UK inflows of people in class 1 and 2 occupations were to Ordsall in Salford, the two adjoining wards of Miles Platting and Newton Health and Ancoats and Clayton to the east of the city centre and Chorlton Park, Chorlton and Didsbury West. Large parts of Trafford had net inflows, as did several wards in Salford. The highest net UK outflows are recorded as being from the wards just to the south of the city centre and are clearly impact by the movement of graduating students, as are some other central locations such as Irwell Riverside in Salford. There is quite an extensive area running through Rochdale and Oldham and into Tameside where there were modest net outflows of those in higher occupations, as well as in the central parts of most other districts.
4.223 Ordsall and City Centre had the largest inflows of people in class 1 and 2 occupations, each exceeding 1,800. Ancoats and Clayton and Hulme, both adjoining the City Centre ward and the four neighbouring wards covering Chorlton and Didsbury, had the next highest inflows, with all but Didsbury East exceeding 1,000, with several other wards in this general area having large inflows of people in such occupations. There were quite significant inflows throughout the western half of Stockport and much of Trafford excluding its north-west area. There was a large area extending from central Rochdale through Oldham and into north Tameside where there were very low numbers of in-migrants in these occupations, with many of the lowest levels concentrated around Oldham Town Centre and Failsworth. The distribution of inflows from within the UK was essentially the same as for the total inflows and the outflows to other parts of the UK was also similar but with more outflows from the wards with high numbers of students just south of the city centre. The largest international inflows were very much concentrated in and around the city centre and the Chorlton/Didsbury area, with almost all significant inflows being in Manchester, east Salford, and south and east Trafford, with more modest levels across Stockport.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 75
4.224 Most of the wards where a large proportion of in-migrants excluding students were in occupation classes 1 and 2 were located in the south of Greater Manchester, primarily in the southern part of Trafford stretching up through Altrincham and Sale, through Chorlton and Didsbury in Manchester and through the Heatons, Cheadle and Bramhall in Stockport. This forms part of a larger area extending through north Cheshire East and into Warrington of wards with high proportions of in-migrants in higher level occupations. Within this area, the two Chorlton wards and the two Didsbury wards all had more than 60% of in-migrants, excluding students, in occupational classes 1 and 2. Ten of the wards in south Trafford extending through Bowdon, Hale, Altrincham and Sale exceeded 50%, with five of them above 55% and Hale Central the highest in Greater Manchester at just under two-thirds. The two Bramhall wards and the neighbouring Cheadle Hulme South in Stockport also exceeded 50%, with three other Stockport wards just to the north only slightly lower. The City Centre ward had the second highest proportion of in-migrants in occupation classes 1 and 2 in Greater Manchester at almost 66% and indeed this ward had the highest figure if the long-term unemployed and those who have never worked are excluded from the denominator. The neighbouring Ordsall to the west also exceeded 50%, with Ancoats and Clayton and Hulme a little lower. Elsewhere, the two adjoining wards of Boothstown and Ellenbrook and Worsley were both 50%, with Saddleworth North and Saddleworth South in Oldham and Bromley Cross and Heaton and Lostock in Bolton all above 45%. Ramsbottom in Bury also exceeded that figure, forming part of a cluster of wards with relatively high proportions of in- migrants in higher level occupations including North Manor, Tottington and Elton in Bury, Norden in Rochdale and extending into Rossendale and Blackburn with Darwen. Other areas with comparatively high proportions included the western edge of Wigan, north-west Trafford and south-east Stockport.
4.225 There was a large area of wards with low proportions of in-migrants in occupation classes 1 and 2 extending through central and south Rochdale, north Manchester, most of Oldham, with other key areas including central Bolton and the middle of Wigan. The very lowest proportions were focused around the town centres of Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton, with the seven adjoining wards of Alexandra, St Mary’s, Medlock Vale, Werneth, Coldhurst and Waterhead in Oldham all having less than 16% of their in-migrants in occupation classes 1 and 2. Milkstone and Deeplish in Rochdale had the lowest proportion in Greater Manchester at less than 10%, with the neighbouring Central Rochdale below 14% and Balderstone and Kirkholt and Kingsway under 18%. The neighbouring wards of Rumworth, Great Lever, Farnworth and Halliwell in central Bolton were all below 17%, with nearby Breightmet only marginally higher. A couple of the wards near the city centre in north-east Manchester also had low proportions with Harpurhey and Miles Platting and Newton Heath both below 15%.
Intermediate occupations (classes 3 and 4)
4.226 Greater Manchester had a net outflow of around 900 people in intermediate occupations, with most of this being from Manchester but this is likely to be due to the anomaly relating to the movement of graduating university students. Although Salford is also likely to be impacted by this phenomenon, it saw a modest net UK inflow of those in intermediate occupations, similar to the total level for the surrounding ten districts. Manchester had the largest total inflows of people in
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 76
intermediate occupations, followed by Salford, with Trafford and Stockport a little lower again. Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside and Bury had the lowest absolute inflows. This pattern was reflected both for those migrating from within the UK and those arriving from overseas. The pattern of outflows to the rest of the UK was also similar but with Salford closer to Stockport.
4.227 Most wards had a net UK inflow or outflow of people in intermediate occupations less than 50 in magnitude. The wards with higher outflows were largely in and around the city centre, with the movement of graduating students potentially responsible for this, particularly in Withington which had the highest net outflow. Ordsall had by far the highest net inflow of people in intermediate occupations, at just over 250, with only four other wards above 50 (Altrincham and Priory in Trafford and Didsbury West and Bradford in Manchester).
4.228 Ordsall also had the highest total inflows at around 700, with the next 15 largest inflows all being in and around the city centre extending southwards to the band of wards through Didsbury and Chorlton to Priory in Trafford. Slightly lower inflows were seen in a few other wards in the eastern half of Salford and in Altrincham. Most of Rochdale and Oldham had quite modest inflows of people in intermediate occupations, as did quite large parts of Bury, much of west and central Wigan and the area around south-west Salford/north-west Trafford, with three of the five lowest inflows to the Oldham Town Centre wards of Coldhurst, St Mary’s and Werneth. The pattern of inflows both from with the UK and internationally was similar. The wards with the highest UK outflows were strongly concentrated around the city centre extending south to Chorlton and Didsbury, with the 22 largest figures in this area. More modest flows were seen in the surrounding areas as well as quite large areas in Bolton and Stockport. The lowest outflows of people in intermediate occupations within the UK were from wards in south-west Wigan, south-west Salford/north-west Trafford and dotted around Oldham and Rochdale but these were not much lower than for many parts of Greater Manchester outside the central areas. Flows in and out of the areas surrounding Greater Manchester, with the exception of West Yorkshire, were generally low.
4.229 Overall, the disparity between different wards in terms of the proportions of in- migrants, excluding students, who were in intermediate occupations was less than for the proportions in higher level occupations, with most wards broadly around the 20% mark. The area stretching through Manchester and the central spine of Rochdale formed a broad expanse of wards with low proportions of in-migrants in intermediate occupations, with the areas around the town centres of Oldham, Bolton and Wigan also having low levels. Indeed, Coldhurst and St Mary’s in Oldham had the lowest proportions in Greater Manchester, with Alexandra, Werneth, Waterhead and Hollinwood also in the 14 lowest and these wards were also amongst the lowest for the proportion of in-migrants in higher level occupations. The third and fourth lowest proportions were for the two adjacent Rochdale wards of Central Rochdale and Milkstone and Deeplish, with neighbouring Kingsway also one of the lowest in the sub-region and these wards also had low proportions of in-migrants in occupation classes 1 and 2. Abram and Ince in Wigan had low proportions in intermediate occupations, as did some of the wards in and around the city centre.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 77
4.230 The areas with the highest proportions of in-migrants in intermediate occupations were more dispersed across Greater Manchester, although some of the highest were in the south-east of the sub-region in parts of Stockport, south-west Tameside and south-west Oldham. There were also quite large areas around the edges of most districts with relatively high proportions of in-migrants in such occupations.
Routine and manual occupations (classes 5, 6 and 7)
4.231 As with the higher level occupations, Greater Manchester had a modest net outflow of people in routine and manual occupations to the rest of the UK, whereas the ten adjacent districts had a net inflow. Manchester had quite a high net UK outflow of more than 900 people in these occupations, with Trafford the only other district with a net outflow of more than 200, whereas Salford, Wigan and Bolton all had moderate net inflows. Once again, Manchester had the largest absolute inflows followed by Salford but for routine and manual occupations the next largest flows were to Wigan and Bolton and the lowest flows were into Bury, Oldham and Tameside, with the same relative position for inflows from the UK. One-third of all inflows from overseas into Greater Manchester were to Manchester, with Salford the next highest.
4.232 The wards with the highest net UK inflows of people in routine and manual occupations were quite dispersed across Greater Manchester, although the two largest net inflows were to wards in Salford, namely Ordsall and Pendlebury. The nine largest outflows were all in and around the city centre extending southwards to Withington which once again had the highest figure, although there were some net inflows for wards in this area as well such as to Whalley Range and Bradford. The other significant cluster of wards with net outflows of people in such occupations was in central Oldham extending eastwards.
4.233 The largest absolute inflows of people in routine and manual occupations were primarily to wards in and around the city centre, although the majority of wards in Manchester and east Salford had relatively high inflows. The largest inflow was to Cheetham in Manchester and the seventh largest to Pendlebury in Salford which could possibly be affected by the location of prisons. The central areas of most other districts, with the exception of Trafford, had quite high inflows of people in these occupations, particularly around Bolton Town Centre. The lowest inflows were generally seen around the edges of Greater Manchester, with three of the five smallest being in the wards of Bowdon, Hale Central and Hale Barns on the southern boundary of Trafford. The wards just outside Greater Manchester often had lower inflows again, with the exception of West Yorkshire, Warrington and St Helens. The pattern of inflows from within the UK is essentially identical, whereas the inflows of people in routine and manual occupations from overseas were more concentrated in the central areas, especially just to the north and west of the city centre. The largest UK outflows were also quite similar to the main UK inflows.
4.234 There is quite an extensive area stretching through central Rochdale, north-east Manchester, Oldham and into Tameside which had high proportions of in-migrants in routine and manual occupations, with their also being quite large areas in the central parts of Bolton and Wigan and in south-west Salford. Hollinwood in Oldham had the highest proportion at more than 56%, with several nearby wards in Oldham
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 78
above 45%. The City Centre ward had the lowest proportion at just 13%, with the next lowest areas generally been those that had the highest proportions of in- migrants in classes 1 and 2, such as south Trafford, Chorlton and Didsbury and west Stockport.
ONS area classifications
4.235 The ONS has produced area classifications based on the 2011 Census which seek to group together areas with similar characteristics in terms of their demographic structure, household composition, housing, socio-economic characteristics and employment patterns23. Two versions have been produced, one at local authority level and the other at output area level. Each classification is hierarchical, consisting of three tiers of Supergroups, Groups and Subgroups.
Area classification for local authorities
4.236 Seven of the ten Greater Manchester districts are identified as being in the Mining, Heritage and Manufacturing supergroup (8), namely Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Tameside and Wigan. Five of these, Bolton, Bury, Oldham Rochdale and Tameside are in the Manufacturing Traits group (8a) and the Manufacturing Centres subgroup (8a2) and so have quite a young age structure, a relatively large Asian population and mainly terraced housing. Blackburn with Darwen, Calderdale and Kirklees, that adjoin those five districts, are also in this subgroup. The other North West authorities in this subgroup are Burnley, Hyndburn and Pendle., Further afield but also in this subgroup are Middlesbrough, Stoke-on- Trent Wellingborough (East Midlands) and Newport in Wales. Stockport and Wigan are both in the Mining Heritage group (8b) and the Mining Heritage and Manufacturing subgroup (8b3), as are Rossendale and Warrington, and these areas are more likely to have households without children and in owner-occupation. Other districts in this subgroup include Barnsley, Rotherham and Wakefield in Yorkshire and several authorities in the Midlands. St Helens is also in the Mining Heritage group (8b) but is in the Mining Heritage and Industry (8b2) subgroup, where there is less ethnic diversity and more social rented housing.
4.237 Manchester and Salford are both in the Business and Education Centres supergroup (5) and the Business and Education Centres group (5a) but Manchester is in the Education Centres subgroup (5a2) whereas Salford is in the Business Centres subgroup (5a1). Residents in such groups are identified as more likely to live in either flats or terraces, to privately rent their home and to have higher qualifications, with the main differences between the subgroups being that the Education Centres subgroup has a higher proportion of residents aged 25 to 44 and with higher educational attainment and households are more likely to live in privately rented accommodation, whereas in the Business Centres subgroup qualifications are lower, unemployment is higher, there are more children and households are more likely to live in terraced housing. The Business Centres subgroup also includes major cities such as Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham and Sheffield, whereas the Education
23 Office for National Statistics (July 2015) Pen Portraits for the 2011 Area Classification for Local Authorities, p.4
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 79
Centres subgroup has a smaller number of authorities including Cambridge, Oxford, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
4.238 Trafford is the only authority in Greater Manchester and the immediately surrounding authorities that is in the Suburban Traits supergroup (4). This supergroup tends to be associated with local authorities in the south of England, especially the Outer London boroughs and concentrated in larger urban conurbations in the transitional areas between urban centres and suburbia and so is quite different to the other supergroups covering Greater Manchester authorities. The group and subgroup that Trafford is characterised by residents that are more likely to be older, travel to work by private transport and have higher educational attainment. The other authorities in the City Periphery subgroup with Trafford are all in the south-east region of England. They are the London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Havering and Sutton, plus elsewhere in the South East: Rushmoor, Spelthorne and Woking but also Hertsmere, Southend-on-Sea and Watford in the East region.
4.239 Cheshire East, Chorley, High Peak and West Lancashire are all in the English and Welsh Countryside supergroup (1) and the Rural England group (1c), with the first three in the Rural Hub Towns subgroup (1c2) and West Lancashire in the Established Rural subgroup (1c1). These groups are characterised by older populations and lower unemployment, living in larger semi-detached or detached housing and travelling to work by private transport. The population in the Established Rural subgroup is slightly older and in the Rural Hub Towns subgroup slightly younger.
4.240 The ONS analysis of authorities that are most similar to each other suggests that many of the Greater Manchester districts are extremely similar to one another, sharing more in common with each other than authorities outside the conurbation. This is particularly the case for Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale, where for each district the other two are the most similar in the country. Bury and Stockport are each other’s most similar district. Bury and Stockport are also similar to Trafford, identified as ‘very similar’ to it, whereas Trafford is identified as extremely similar to each of them. Wigan and St Helens are also identified as being extremely similar. Four of Tameside’s five most similar authorities are in Greater Manchester, all being very similar. None of the five most similar authorities to Manchester or Salford are in Greater Manchester, with them being cities widely spread across England in each case and different for each.
Area classification for output areas
4.241 There is a strong concentration of Cosmopolitans (2) in and around the city centre, extending south broadly along Oxford Road to Didsbury and west into Salford Quays. There are also small pockets in Chorlton and Bolton and Wigan Town Centres. Immediately surrounding the central focus of cosmopolitans are areas of Ethnicity Central (3) and there are some in the town centres of Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham. There is then a much larger area of Multicultural metropolitans (4) at the centre of the conurbation, extending through much of Manchester, east Salford and north-east Trafford, with significant concentrations around the town centres of
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 80
Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham and slightly smaller areas in the town centres of Bury and Ashton-under-Lyne.
4.242 The rest of Greater Manchester is generally more diverse with interspersed areas of Urbanites (5), Suburbanites (6), constrained city dwellers (7) and Hard-pressed living (8), with rural residents (1) around the fringes of many of the districts and extending into neighbouring areas. South-east Trafford is mainly covered by quite an even balance of urbanites and suburbanites, as is much of Stockport outside its central areas possibly with slightly more suburbanite areas, whereas there are quite extensive areas of hard-pressed living mixed in elsewhere, including covering much of Wigan, with suburbanites generally outside the central parts of districts.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 81
Chapter 5: Market signals
5.1 The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that: “The housing need number suggested by household projections (the starting point) should be adjusted to reflect appropriate market signals, as well as other market indicators of the balance between the demand for and supply of dwellings. Prices or rents rising faster than the national/local average may well indicate particular market undersupply relative to demand” (paragraph 2a-019-20140306). The PPG says that relevant market signals may include land prices, house prices, rents, affordability, rate of development and overcrowding with these all discussed below. The PPG also states: “A worsening trend in any of these indicators will require upward adjustment to planned housing numbers compared to ones based solely on household projections” (paragraph 2a-020-20140306).
5.2 There are essentially two ways in which a higher demand for housing could be inferred from such market indicators. On the one hand, it could be suggested from the evidence that household formation is being dampened and therefore the total number of households is lower than might otherwise be expected from a given size of population, for example because of rising house prices or rents excluding people from the market. This is effectively about the total level of demand. On the other hand, the data could be considered to provide a signal that some households are not living in their preferred location, possibly due to costs or supply availability and this could for example manifest in lower migration to some places and higher migration to others, both within and outside Greater Manchester. This is essentially about the location of demand rather than overall level of demand.
5.3 It is difficult to differentiate between these two reasons from the evidence that is available. However, they may point towards different policy responses. The first suggests that there may be a need for more housing overall and the issue of household formation was discussed earlier in this report. The second suggests that the issue is more about the location of housing rather than the overall amount that is being provided, although this could impact on the amount required in individual areas such as Greater Manchester or some of its districts. Consequently, in terms of this second reason, an increase in new housing provision in one location may need to be accompanied by a reduction somewhere else in order to avoid an oversupply, whether that is in Greater Manchester or the country as a whole. Hence, great care is required when assessing possible market signals and it is important to avoid reading too much into a single indicator in isolation.
Land values
5.4 The Department for Communities and Local Government has recently started publishing land value estimates to inform policy appraisal. This provides an estimated post permission residential land value per hectare for each local authority area. Two versions have been published, in February 2015 (figures for 1 January 2014) and December 201524 (figures for 1 March 2015). The methodology for
24 Department for Communities and Local Government (February 2015) Land value estimates for policy appraisal, and also December 2015
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 82
producing the estimates is quite simplistic, and the latest report explains that: “The figures provided are appropriate to a single, hypothetical site and should not be taken as appropriate for all sites in the locality.”25 The table below compares the figures for the ten Greater Manchester districts with the weighted averages for England, both including and excluding London.
Figure 5.1: Land values DCLG estimated post permission residential land value per hectare 1 January 2014 1 March 2015 (£) (£) % change Bolton 1,905,000 1,775,000 -6.82 Bury 1,465,000 1,265,000 -13.65 Manchester 1,790,000 1,635,000 -8.66 Oldham 1,253,000 1,140,000 -9.02 Rochdale 1,017,000 1,055,000 3.74 Salford 938,000 975,000 3.94 Stockport 1,745,000 2,085,000 19.48 Tameside 1,385,000 1,450,000 4.69 Trafford 1,920,000 1,900,000 -1.04 Wigan 1,355,000 1,295,000 -4.43
England (including London) 6,017,000 6,900,000 14.68 England (excluding London) 1,958,000 2,100,000 7.25 Source: DCLG
5.5 Land values in Greater Manchester are generally quite low compared to the national average, and none of the districts exceed the national figure even when London is excluded. There is quite considerable variation across Greater Manchester with Salford and Rochdale having the lowest values at around half of the England (excluding London) average. Stockport, Trafford, Bolton and Manchester have the highest values, but are still below that national average. Given the limitations of the estimates, it would be inappropriate to read too much into the change over a single 14 month period. However, it is notable that six of the districts saw a reduction in the estimated value, and only Stockport exceeded the national increase (including or excluding London).
5.6 The following table sets out the residential land price index in July 2010 on a regional basis, together with a national average, based on data from the discontinued DCLG live table 653. Within the table there are three different base dates for the index. All regions have seen significant growth since 1994 but a decline since 2004. The North West better maintained land values between 2004 and 2010, which is likely to be due to less of a speculative bubble than elsewhere rather than any underlying strength in the market, and actual land prices in January 2010 were reasonably similar to other locations outside London and the South East
25 Department for Communities and Local Government (December 2015) Land value estimates for policy appraisal, p.15
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 83
Table 5.2: Average valuation of residential building land with outline planning permission
Residential land price index in July 2010 Index of 100 Index of 100 Index of 100 Weighted average in Spring in Spring in January price per hectare 1994 2001 2004 in July 2010 (£) North West 311 178 95 1,327,120 North East 257 207 88 1,123,003 Yorkshire and the Humber 292 181 76 1,250,173 East Midlands 275 132 68 1,067,924 West Midlands 274 136 87 1,571,870 East 380 140 84 2,298,157 South East 315 107 82 2,330,618 London 338 118 81 6,457,285 South West 281 111 74 1,501,729
England 324 127 82 2,371,549 Source: DCLG live table 653 (discontinued)
5.7 It is not possible to determine Greater Manchester’s relative position within the North West from this data. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) published property reports up until 2011 and the last of these reports indicated that a 0.5 hectare suburban housing site in Manchester would typically have a value of £1.35 million per hectare which is very similar to the figure for the North West in the above table.
5.8 The VOA reports provide reasonably consistent data for residential land values on bulk sites exceeding 2 hectares for the period 1 April 2001 to 1 July 2009. The graph below plots this data for the selected regions26, together with England & Wales excluding London. Merseyside is given as a separate figure to the rest of the North West.
Figure 5.3: Average residential land values
Source: VOA
26 It should be noted that the time period between each data point is not exactly the same, but is sufficiently even to give a reasonable indication of change over time.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 84
5.9 All areas saw an increase in land values, peaking in 2007, before a fall to 2009. The line for the North West follows a similar trajectory to that for England and Wales excluding London, starting from a lower base but almost identical from 2004. Other than Merseyside, the other four areas all fell back to a similar price per hectare by 1 July 2009.
5.10 The next graph displays similar data for those areas within Greater Manchester for which the VOA published price information. The general pattern is similar to the previous graph, with Manchester and Stockport seeing the highest peaks.
Figure 5.4: Average residential land values
Source: VOA
5.11 The two graphs below are taken from a Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) housing market area report for the North West27, comparing average land values across Great Britain with those for the Northern area (defined as the North West, North East, and Yorkshire and the Humber) using the Savills residential land value indices. The report observes that: “Following a halving of value from 2007 to 2009, greenfield land values in Great Britain have returned to three quarters of their 2007 value. Indexed values in the Northern region are calculated to have risen to nearly half of their 2007 level. Urban land values fell proportionally further post-2007, and the British average value is now just over half of its peak level. Prices in the Northern area have moved little since 2009 and remain around one third of their 2007 level.”28
27 Homes and Communities Agency (August 2014), North West Operating Area Housing Market Report 28 Ibid, p.12
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 85
Figure 5.5 Greenfield residential land value growth index, quarterly (June 2005=100)
Source: Savills Research, Development Land Statistical Supplement, June 2014.
Figure 5.6: Urban residential land value growth index, quarterly (June 2005=100)
Source: Savills Research, Development Land Statistical Supplement, June 2014.
5.12 Values in the Northern area can be seen to be flat since 2009, despite some limited uplift in values across Great Britain as a whole, with a small uplift in the last few months. Consequently, there is no evidence from land values that there is any supply shortage impacting on prices and the recovery in land values in the Northern area is lagging behind the rest of the country. It was recently reported that Knight Frank’s UK greenfield development index shows that land values have fallen by 2.4% in the last 12 months29.
5.13 The graph above highlights the difficulties in interpreting market signals. If there was a simple relationship between land prices and housing demand, then the
29 http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/new-homes-plan-puts-focus-9847270
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 86
graphs would suggest that there has been a major decline in demand over recent years and/or an oversupply of land for housing, resulting in a huge fall in average land prices, with the minimal increase in land prices more recently indicating that the land oversupply continues. In practice, the higher prices at the start of the period may partly be the result of a speculative bubble both in land and property rather than a housing land supply shortage, and the large fall may be partly due to the recession and the resulting retrenchment of the housing industry.
House prices
Recent prices
5.14 The table below shows the lower quartile, mean and median house prices at quarter 4 2015 for various areas, using ONS House Price Statistics for Small Areas (HPSSAs). Details are given for the districts within Greater Manchester, the districts adjoining the sub-region, LEPs which are the nearest equivalent to the other metropolitan counties, London and the national average.
5.15 The mean house price for Greater Manchester is higher than the Liverpool, North East, and Sheffield City Region LEPs but lower than the Leeds and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs. All LEPs shown have much lower mean house prices than England and considerably lower than London. There is a broad range (of nearly £125,000) in mean prices across the districts surrounding Greater Manchester. Blackburn with Darwen, St Helens and Rossendale have the lowest mean prices and contrast sharply with the averages in Cheshire East and Cheshire West & Chester and Warrington. No authority in Greater Manchester or the eleven surrounding districts have a mean house price above the national average.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 87
Table 5.7 – Average house prices at Q4 2015 Average house prices at Quarter 4 2015 Area Lower Quartile Mean Median Bolton £ 82,500 £ 142,134 £ 120,000 Bury £ 107,000 £ 165,053 £ 146,995 Manchester £ 106,656 £ 164,333 £ 143,000 Oldham £ 85,000 £ 135,557 £ 119,000 Rochdale £ 85,000 £ 136,480 £ 124,950 Salford £ 94,500 £ 146,160 £ 129,995 Stockport £ 128,500 £ 214,205 £ 183,000 Tameside £ 92,500 £ 135,626 £ 125,000 Trafford £ 160,000 £ 273,835 £ 221,000 Wigan £ 85,150 £ 137,715 £ 124,995
Greater Manchester £ 100,000 £ 168,650 £ 141,000
Blackburn with Darwen £ 71,000 £ 121,621 £ 103,000 Calderdale £ 89,000 £ 154,502 £ 130,000 Cheshire East £ 132,500 £ 246,098 £ 193,000 Cheshire West and Chester £ 133,000 £ 219,833 £ 182,000 Chorley £ 119,000 £ 189,965 £ 162,500 High Peak £ 123,500 £ 187,977 £ 163,750 Kirklees £ 97,500 £ 158,813 £ 135,000 Rossendale £ 80,000 £ 141,251 £ 122,850 St. Helens £ 84,000 £ 135,494 £ 123,000 Warrington £ 117,000 £ 200,019 £ 165,000 West Lancashire £ 125,000 £ 199,861 £ 170,000
Greater Birmingham and Solihull £ 122,000 £ 202,747 £ 163,995 Leeds City Region £ 107,000 £ 181,777 £ 150,000 Liverpool City Region £ 90,000 £ 154,831 £ 134,000 North East £ 88,500 £ 155,853 £ 134,000 Sheffield City Region £ 95,000 £ 156,413 £ 132,000
London £ 295,000 £ 556,300 £ 400,000
England £ 140,000 £ 277,262 £ 212,500 Source: ONS House Price Statistics for Small Areas (HPSSAs), Dataset 9: Median price paid for national and subnational geographies, quarterly rolling year, Dataset 12: Mean price paid for national and subnational geographies, quarterly rolling year and Dataset 15: Lower Quartile price paid for national and subnational geographies, quarterly rolling year
5.16 Within Greater Manchester, mean house prices are highest in Trafford, where the mean is marginally below the national mean. The mean in Stockport is above the £200,000 threshold and the only other district with a mean figure above the Greater Manchester mean. The mean in Stockport is notably closer to the average across Cheshire districts. Oldham, Tameside, Rochdale, Wigan, Bolton and Salford have mean house prices noticeably below the Greater Manchester mean.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 88
Figure 5.8 –House prices Q4 2015 by MSOA
Source: ONS/H M Land Registry
5.17 The map above shows the average house prices for Middle-Layer Super Output Areas (MSOAs) in 2015, using the H M Land Registry dataset. Care needs to be taken in interpreting the data, as the average prices in some areas may be skewed by a small number of transactions or by a single new development accounting for most sales, which may not necessarily be representative of prices overall within the area at that time.
5.18 The higher house prices in the south of Greater Manchester, stretching into Cheshire East, south Warrington and High Peak, clearly stand out. The other areas of high house prices in Greater Manchester are much smaller, generally just one or two adjoining MSOAs, and are distributed in various parts of the conurbation, including within the city centre, around Worsley in Salford, Lostock in Bolton, north and south Bury, and Saddleworth in Oldham.
5.19 The area surrounding the city centre, and locations within and around the main town centres, are typically characterised by relatively lower house prices. However, this is not the case in Trafford, which generally has high house prices. There is a much greater diversity of house prices in the south of Greater Manchester, whereas prices in districts in the north are typically lower in the urban areas of those districts. Tameside in particular has a relatively limited range of average house prices when looking at this geographical level, although this could mask diversity within individual MSOAs.
5.20 Figure 5.7 above shows house prices in 2015 for all MSOAs in England & Wales. The average prices have been ranked with each area allocated a decile within which it falls relative to all other areas with an equal number of areas in each decile. The darkest red areas have the highest house prices and the darkest blue areas have the lowest house prices. The map shows the gap between the very high
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 89
prices in the south and east of the country compared to the low prices in the northern regions and most of Wales.
5.21 Only Trafford has MSOAs in the most expensive decile nationally. Stockport has one MSOAs within the ninth most expensive decile and Manchester has one MSOA in the eighth most expensive decile. Tameside’s price range consists of the four lowest-priced deciles and all of Rochdale’s MSOAs are within the lower half of averages nationally.
Change in house prices
5.22 The table below shows house price changes over 20 years to 2015 and the 10 years 2005 to 2015. The middle column shows the H M Land Registry House Price Index, with a base date of January 1995 and the third column uses the same data re-indexed to January 2005. Data is not available for county districts so figures are not included for Chorley, High Peak, Rossendale or West Lancashire.
Figure 5.9: Index of house prices 1995, 2005 and 2015 House price index January 2015 Area January 1995=100 January 2005=100 Bolton 288.4 107.2 Bury 320.4 108.4 Manchester 381.2 144.5 Oldham 288.9 122.0 Rochdale 279.0 105.2 Salford 321.2 111.0 Stockport 329.1 115.3 Tameside 318.5 110.4 Trafford 366.4 121.6 Wigan 286.8 108.6
Greater Manchester 326.9 119.1
Blackburn with Darwen 288.3 120.1 Calderdale 284.5 116.6 Cheshire East 318.0 118.9 Cheshire West and Chester 321.9 110.2 Kirklees 286.0 113.7 St Helens 260.4 98.1 Warrington 294.4 105.4
Merseyside 295.9 104.7 South Yorkshire 311.8 113.6 Tyne and Wear 306.4 105.3 West Midlands 320.0 110.7 West Yorkshire 298.3 114.3
London 541.2 173.3
England and Wales 378.2 127.0 Source: H M Land Registry, House Price data, 2015
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 90
5.23 All areas have seen a significant rise in house prices over the last 20 years. There was an almost fourfold increase in England and Wales. Over the 10 years to 2015 there has been more limited change, with some areas (such as St Helens) seeing a small decline in average house prices, although this generally masks further increases up to late 2007 followed by a very significant reduction and then a recovery, mirroring economic changes over that time. There was an overall increase in house prices in Greater Manchester in the ten years to 2015, with the other metropolitan counties seeing smaller increases. Greater Manchester also experienced the highest growth over the longer 20 year period. House price change in Greater Manchester was behind that seen in the country as a whole and far lower than that of London. The two Cheshire districts and Warrington saw slightly lower house price growth than Greater Manchester over the 20 years. Index increases for Blackburn with Darwen, Calderdale, Kirklees plus St Helens were also below the index increases for Greater Manchester over the 20 years.
5.24 Within Greater Manchester, Manchester, Oldham and Trafford have experienced 20% or more house price growth over the 10 years to 2015. Manchester, Trafford and Stockport experienced the largest increases since 1995, with Manchester’s change just above the national average in that time. Rochdale, Wigan and Bolton have seen relatively slow house price growth over the twenty years. Rochdale’s values are lower than other Greater Manchester districts in both time periods. .
5.25 The following series of graphs show the change in average house prices in the ten districts of Greater Manchester using two different indices based on H M Land Registry data, with base dates of January 1995 and January 2005.
Figure 5.10: House price index for Greater Manchester authorities 1995-2015
Source: H M Land Registry, House Price Paid data, 2015
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 91
Figure 5.11: House price index for Greater Manchester authorities 2005-2015
Source: HM Land Registry, House Price Paid data, 2015
5.26 Since January 1995, growth in average house prices has been consistently strongest in Manchester and Trafford, with Oldham and Wigan appearing to strengthen more recently. Rochdale and Bolton have seen the lowest proportionate increase in average house prices.
5.27 With the base date of January 2005, Manchester and Oldham show the highest change, with Oldham’s rate slowing in 2014 and Trafford increasing to meet that level in 2015. Stockport also experienced growth, with Salford seeing a spike in growth from 2014 to 2015. The next graph shows the change in absolute average house prices, using the same H M Land Registry data.
Figure 5.12: Greater Manchester mean house prices
Source: ONS House Price Statistics for Small Areas (HPSSAs), Dataset 12: Mean price paid for national and subnational geographies, quarterly rolling year.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 92
5.28 The graph shows that the highest proportionate growth in house prices occurred in the districts with the highest average house prices (Trafford, Stockport, Bury and Manchester), whereas the lowest proportionate growth has been in those districts with the lowest average house prices (Oldham and Tameside). Consequently, the difference in the rates of growth may be the result of wider market factors, such as there being a stronger investment element in house price growth in more prosperous areas, and a lack of funding for house purchases in lower cost areas, rather than necessarily being an indicator of varying levels of underlying housing need and demand.
5.29 The table below compares the annual growth rate in house prices in Greater Manchester and its ten constituent districts over the period March 1995 to March 2008 (pre-recession), 2008-2015 and overall (right-hand column). Regional and national averages and figures for surrounding districts for which data is available are shown for comparison purposes.
Table 5.13: Average per annum growth in house prices Average per annum growth in house prices (%) March March March 2008- 1995- 1995-March March March 2008 2015 2015 Bolton 9.5% -1.6% 5.5% Bury 9.7% -0.6% 6.0% Manchester 10.9% 0.0% 7.5% Oldham 9.6% -1.9% 5.4% Rochdale 9.2% -2.1% 5.1% Salford 9.6% -0.7% 5.9% Stockport 9.8% 0.1% 6.3% Tameside 10.0% -2.0% 5.6% Trafford 10.3% 1.1% 7.0% Wigan 9.2% -1.1% 5.2%
Greater Manchester 10.0% -0.8% 6.1%
Blackburn with Darwen 9.4% -2.7% 5.0% Calderdale 8.9% -0.9% 5.4% Cheshire East 9.5% 0.2% 6.1% Cheshire West and Chester 9.4% -0.3% 5.9% Chorley 9.4% -1.4% 5.4% High Peak 9.0% -0.5% 5.6% Kirklees 9.3% -1.7% 5.4% Rossendale 9.6% -1.7% 5.5% St Helens 9.1% -2.5% 4.9% Warrington 9.6% -1.0% 5.8%
North West 9.5% -1.0% 5.7% England and Wales 10.2% 1.0% 6.9% Source: H M Land Registry
5.30 The long-term annual house price growth rate for Greater Manchester (March 1995 to March 2015) is calculated to be 6.1% per annum which is slightly above the rate
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 93
for the North West region but below the annual rate for England & Wales. There was strong house price growth in the period March 1995 to March 2008, with Greater Manchester experiencing growth only slightly below the national average for the period and above the North West average. Within Greater Manchester growth was consistently above 9% per annum across the districts. In the period 2008-2015, the picture was different, with Greater Manchester and all districts except Manchester and Trafford subject to contraction in house prices. The contraction of prices in Greater Manchester of 0.8% was smaller than the national figure of 1%.
5.31 The pattern for Greater Manchester was broadly replicated in each individual district, with very similar high levels of house price inflation over the period February 2000 to February 2005. Trafford had slightly lower growth than the other districts during that period, despite having the highest overall growth rate over the 20 year period and also being the only district in Greater Manchester to see positive house price inflation in each of the four five-year periods. Stockport was the only other district to see positive growth during the first period. Stockport had the second highest growth rate for the full period but rates were negative in the third period. Oldham had the highest rate of growth during the third five-year period, but the fastest reduction in average house prices over the last five years and the lowest rate of growth for the full 20 years. Excluding Bury, the four northern districts of Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale and Wigan had the lowest house price inflation overall. The lowest rate amongst the districts adjoining Greater Manchester was in Blackburn with Darwen. It was the two southern districts of Trafford and Stockport that had the highest rate of house price growth, and the highest figure for districts adjoining Greater Manchester was in Cheshire East. There has been a geographical element to house price inflation with districts to the north experiencing rates lower than southern districts across the conurbation. This may partly be a function of the type and value of housing rather than the level of underlying demand. The following graph uses the ONS House Price Statistics for Small Areas (HPSSAs) data to show lower quartile house prices indexed to 1995.
Figure 5.14: Greater Manchester lower quartile house price index
Source: ONS House Price Statistics for Small Areas (HPSSA)
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 94
5.32 Although the vertical axis extends to 600, eight of the districts are clustered around the 300 mark at the end of the period. Increases in the Manchester area account for the extended axis, seeing very rapid growth in lower quartile house prices over the period 2005-2007, and again in 2014-15. One reason for this may be changes in the type of property sold during those periods, with a very large number of new apartments coming onto the market. Transactions
5.33 The following maps provide a view of the levels of transactions across Greater Manchester and nationally. Transaction levels provide a view of the level of demand in an area. Looking at the difference between the height of the market and quarter 1 2016 there are a number of areas where the transactions level is still below the pre- recession peak far exceeds the number of areas where the transactions level is now higher. The areas that are still well below 2007 levels are mainly concentrated in the North West, North East and Yorkshire with the Humber regions.
Figure 5.15: Percentage change in transactions nationally
Source: ONS/H M Land Registry
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 95
Figure 5.16: Greater Manchester Transactions Q1 2016
Source: ONS/H M Land Registry
5.34 Looking at the transactions levels locally for Q2 2007 and Q1 2016 it can be seen that most areas of Greater Manchester are below their immediate pre-recession peak.
5.35 The following maps provide a view for Greater Manchester only of transaction levels for Quarter 4 2015. The show all transactions, new builds and existing properties highlighting the areas with more transactions.
Map 5.17: Dwelling sales in 2015 in Greater Manchester
Source: ONS/H M Land Registry
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 96
5.36 The above map shows that locally sales have been less numerous in MSOAs to the north and east of the conurbation particularly in Oldham and Tameside districts. Conversely in the Salford Quays area and the City Centre the number of sales per MSOA is relatively high.
5.37 Sales of new dwellings per MSOA during 2015 were highest areas across a belt north of London and south of Birmingham and also in the centre of Greater London. Sales generally across the North West were relatively less frequent than other regions.
Figure 5.18: New property sales in Greater Manchester 2015
Source: ONS/H M Land Registry
5.38 For the Greater Manchester conurbation and in 2015 new property sales were concentrated in the MSOAs in Salford bordering Manchester, East Manchester and in parts of Middleton. There no or low sales in a ring around the centre of the conurbation. The high rates in some areas could be due to the types of property being made available such as a block of flats coming on the market all at once.
5.39 Sales in Greater Manchester and of existing properties were relatively low in the districts of Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside. Parts of Manchester especially to the east and south had low numbers also.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 97
Figure 5.19: Sales of existing properties in Greater Manchester in 2015
Source: ONS/HM Land Registry
Index of annual transactions for Greater Manchester districts and England and Wales
5.40 The chart below shows quarterly sales indexed relative to their earliest level recorded over a 20 year period. Peaks in the market in all areas before the recession were followed by rapid falls. For all areas, apart from in Oldham and Tameside the transactions levels are now back above the levels first recorded.
Figure 5.20 Transactions index England and Wales Bolton Bury Manchester Oldham Rochdale Salford Stockport Tameside Trafford Wigan 300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
Source: ONS/HM Land Registry
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 98
Build costs and inflation
5.41 Inflation is an inherent part of the economy, and consequently it is unsurprising that there has been a long-term increase in house prices across the country. In particular, increases in build costs over time would be expected to filter through into the price of housing. The graph below compares some of these variables, using private housing build cost information for Great Britain published by the Department for Business and Skills, the retail prices index as a consistent measure of inflation and the HM Land Registry house price indices for England and Wales (as the nearest comparator to Great Britain) and Greater Manchester. All of this data has been expressed as an index rebased to January 1995.
Figure 5.21: Inflation, build costs and house prices
Source: Department for Business and Skills/H M Land Registry
5.42 For the country as a whole, house prices have risen at a faster rate than private housing build costs over the period 1995-2014, which in turn have increased more quickly than the retail prices index. However, as the graph below shows, with all of the above data rebased to January 2009, in more recent years the private housing build costs and the house price index at the national level have followed a very similar trajectory and have actually increased at a slower rate than the retail prices index. Figure 5.22: Comparison of inflation, build costs and house prices
Source: Department for Business and Skills/H M Land Registry
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 99
5.43 Over both time periods, Greater Manchester’s house prices have risen at a slower rate than the national private housing construction index. Private housing build costs will be affected by a variety of factors, including the cost of labour and so it is likely that some parts of the country will have seen higher build cost inflation than the Great Britain average and other areas lower levels. Consequently, it is not possible to say that house prices in Greater Manchester have risen more slowly than build costs in Greater Manchester. However, the data does suggest that the levels of house price increases in the sub-region since 1995 are the least that would be expected given the available information on build costs. Thus, there is little basis on which to conclude that a supply shortage has led to the increase in house prices across Greater Manchester as a whole, nor that an increase in supply would moderate future house price gains, as they would need to continue to rise in order to keep pace with build cost inflation.
Private rents
5.44 ONS produces an experimental index of private housing rents at the regional level. This is indexed to January 2011 but the data is available from January 2005. The table below shows the figures if they are re-indexed to January 2005, so that this longer-term change in private rents is easier to appreciate. Statistics are given for January in alternate years, except in the final row where the data relates to August 2016 - the latest data available.
Figure 5.23: Private rent index Private rent index (January 2005 = 100) England Yorkshire excludin North North and The East West South South g East West Humber Midlands Midlands East London East West England London Jan 2005 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Jan 2007 105.6 103.4 106.0 104.8 104.7 105.3 103.4 104.1 105.3 104.2 104.7 Jan 2009 110.3 107.5 110.9 108.3 108.8 110.4 111.6 109.9 111.8 110.5 109.9 Jan 2011 111.8 109.0 112.4 107.3 108.1 109.4 112.5 109.9 111.5 110.8 110.0 Jan 2013 113.6 110.7 114.5 110.3 110.7 112.8 122.2 114.5 115.2 116.3 113.2 Jan 2015 114.2 111.7 115.5 112.6 113.0 115.5 128.3 118.6 118.2 120.2 115.8 Aug 2016 115.6 113.3 117.5 116.4 116.1 120.6 134.5 123.7 121.3 124.7 119.4 Average % per annum increase 1.33 1.14 1.48 1.39 1.37 1.72 2.73 1.95 1.77 2.03 1.63 Source: Office of National Statistics
5.45 The North West region has seen the lowest inflation in private rents since January 2005, although this could clearly mask significant differences across the region. Rental increases have been the highest in the south of the country, with little difference between the Midlands and the North. Overall, rental increases have been relatively modest, with the national average almost exactly at the Bank of England target inflation rate and the North West just over half that rate.
5.46 The next series of tables shows more detailed data from the VOA on average monthly rents for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016. Data for smaller geographical areas needs to be treated with caution, as may often be based on a
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 100
relatively small number of properties that may not necessarily be representative of the market as a whole.
Figure 5.24 : Monthly rent – All categories All categories Monthly rent (£) Lower Upper Count of Average quartile Median quartile District rents Bolton 1,320 519 430 495 550 Bury 840 578 475 550 650 Manchester 4,490 693 500 650 825 Oldham 1,810 522 450 495 575 Rochdale 1,420 494 425 450 540 Salford 1,720 612 490 550 695 Stockport 1,990 689 550 650 750 Tameside 2,510 519 450 495 550 Trafford 1,580 864 625 750 900 Wigan 2,700 482 400 450 525
Greater Manchester 20,380 605 450 550 685 North West 66,340 567 425 525 650 England 492,430 820 495 650 900
Merseyside 12,320 517 395 495 595 South Yorkshire 12,480 522 425 495 575 West Yorkshire 18,040 547 425 499 600 Tyne & Wear 8,080 540 450 500 595 West Midlands 44,610 607 475 565 680
London 62,810 1,727 1,150 1,452 1,950 Source: VOA
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/private-rental-market-statistics-may-2016
5.47 The ‘all categories’ table is indicative of the individual types of rental property, with Greater Manchester’s average monthly rents generally being slightly above the regional average, well below the national average and broadly typical or towards the top end of the metropolitan counties.
5.48 Within Greater Manchester, Trafford has the highest monthly rents for most of the categories. Rents there are above the national average for larger properties on average. Manchester and Stockport generally have the next highest rent averages across Greater Manchester, particularly for larger properties. One bedroom properties in Manchester are on average considerably higher in cost than in the other nine districts but still below the national average. Wigan and Rochdale have the lowest monthly rents for most property types. Rents in Bolton, Oldham and Tameside are relatively low overall and also for some of the individual categories. This pattern is similar to that for house prices.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 101
5.49 The next table uses the ‘all categories’ measure and compares the monthly rents in the year to 30 June 2011 with those in the year to 31 March 2016 to provide an indication of rental change in recent years. There is a risk that figures in one period could be skewed by a disproportionate number of rents being included from a particular category of property such as one-bedroomed or smaller properties.
Figure 5.25: Average monthly rent Average monthly rent (all categories) 12 months to 30 June 12 months to 31 District 2011 March 2016 % increase Bolton 460 519 12.8 Bury 525 578 10.1 Manchester 501 693 38.3 Oldham 494 522 5.7 Rochdale 491 494 0.6 Salford 549 612 11.5 Stockport 601 689 14.6 Tameside 499 519 4.0 Trafford 711 864 21.5 Wigan 475 482 1.5
Greater Manchester 526 605 15.0 North West 520 567 9.0 England 694 820 18.2
Merseyside 520 517 -0.6 South Yorkshire 468 522 11.5 West Yorkshire 512 547 6.8 Tyne and Wear 492 540 9.8 West Midlands 527 607 15.2
London 1,265 1727 36.5 Source: VOA
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/private-rental-market-statistics-may-2016
5.50 Rental growth in Greater Manchester over this period was below the national average but above the regional figure. Rents increased by less in percentage terms in South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Tyne & Wear. Rents even fell marginally in Merseyside. Greater Manchester was on a par to the change in West Midlands but both conurbations had increases significantly below rate of change in London in the near five year period. Within Greater Manchester, rental growth was particularly significant in Manchester where percentage change was edging towards the level recorded for London. Trafford was the only other local district with change above the national average. In Stockport the change was similar to that for all of Greater Manchester. Conversely the rents hardly increased in Rochdale and there was below double digit change in Wigan, Tameside and Oldham. Overall, rents have been growing faster in the centre and south of Greater Manchester, with very modest increases in the arc of districts stretching from Wigan through the north of the sub-region across to Tameside.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 102
Rental Affordability
5.51 The table below shows two housing affordability measures published by DCLG (live tables 576 and 577). The first uses a ratio of the lower quartile house price with the lower quartile earnings and the second uses a ratio of the median house price to the median earnings between 2013 and 2015. Details are given for the districts within Greater Manchester, the districts surrounding the sub-region, the other metropolitan counties, London and the national average.
Figure 5.26: Housing affordability Housing Affordablity
Lower quartile house prices to Median house prices to median lower quartile earnings earnings Area 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Bolton 4.19 4.70 4.56 4.65 5.01 5.02 Bury 5.07 5.54 5.88 5.21 5.43 5.80 Manchester 4.65 4.85 5.16 4.65 4.89 5.14 Oldham 4.67 4.93 5.01 5.11 5.20 5.33 Rochdale 4.52 4.85 4.94 5.11 5.43 5.49 Salford 4.44 4.44 4.64 4.22 4.66 4.80 Stockport 6.28 6.59 6.81 6.09 6.78 6.99 Tameside 5.02 5.13 5.23 5.26 5.30 5.51 Trafford 7.71 7.67 8.35 7.66 7.69 8.94 Wigan 4.60 5.04 4.83 4.91 5.41 5.15
Greater Manchester 5.11 5.37 5.54 5.29 5.58 5.82
Blackburn with Darwen 3.96 4.18 3.90 3.99 4.22 4.03 Calderdale 4.80 4.75 4.73 4.88 4.94 5.13 Cheshire East 6.80 7.01 7.01 7.18 7.12 7.56 Cheshire West and Chester 6.73 6.95 7.16 6.60 7.23 7.16 Chorley 6.04 6.75 6.86 6.08 6.43 6.91 High Peak 6.31 6.99 6.89 6.36 6.60 7.06 Kirklees 5.34 5.41 5.49 5.35 5.52 5.64 Rossendale 4.72 4.77 4.81 5.61 5.40 5.46 St. Helens 4.73 4.74 4.86 4.92 5.38 5.23 Warrington 6.07 5.91 5.98 5.94 6.09 6.16 West Lancashire 7.07 6.95 6.86 7.01 6.94 6.65
Tyne and Wear 4.87 5.00 5.15 4.96 5.17 5.35 Merseyside 4.88 4.90 5.09 4.90 5.11 5.26 South Yorkshire 4.82 4.91 5.00 4.78 4.97 5.00 West Yorkshire 5.02 5.15 5.20 5.10 5.25 5.38 West Midlands 5.81 6.11 6.08 5.37 5.74 5.74
Inner London 13.62 16.06 16.96 13.91 16.54 17.61 Outer London 10.08 11.30 12.47 9.46 10.86 11.87
England 6.66 6.95 7.02 6.92 7.25 7.63 Source: DCLG (live tables 576 and 577).
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 103
5.52 Affordability can be seen to have worsened quite considerably everywhere between 2013 and 2015. Greater Manchester’s lower quartile affordability ratio is greater than the metropolitan counties with a ratio of 5.54 apart from the West Midlands with a ratio of 6.08 in 2015. Greater Manchester is significantly more affordable than the England average (5.549 compared to 7.02 on the lower quartile measure in 2015, and 5.82 and 7.63 on the median measure) and far more affordable than London.
5.53 Within Greater Manchester, most of the districts have affordability ratios of around 4.5-5.5. Trafford has the highest affordability ratio, exceeding a ratio of 8 on both measures in 2015. This ratio is above the national average and also exceeds the ratios for the districts that adjoin Greater Manchester. Stockport’s affordability ratios are also relatively high, although this is lower than some of the districts around Greater Manchester, such as both of the Cheshire districts and West Lancashire and similar to Chorley and High Peak. Overall, there is a clear pattern of less affordable housing around the south of Greater Manchester both within and adjoining the sub-region.
Housing Registers
Figure 5.27: Housing Registers lists 1997-2015
Source: DCLG Live Table 600 Numbers of households on local authorities' housing waiting lists, by district: England 1997-2015
5.54 Data on the number of households on local authorities’ housing registers is published in DCLG live table 600, having been submitted by the local authorities through statistical returns. The graph above displays information for the metropolitan counties over the period 1997-2014.
5.55 Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire all follow a broadly similar trajectory, with a large increase in numbers on the housing registers up to around 2010 followed by a significant decrease, with this being particularly extreme in the case of South Yorkshire. The West Midlands may be following a
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 104
similar trajectory but with a later peak, whereas Tyne & Wear had a much earlier peak followed by reductions in numbers on the waiting list.
5.56 Some of these changes, both in terms of increases and decreases, may relate to issues such as eligibility criteria and data cleansing, rather than being a clear indicator of demand for social housing and consequently the data needs to be interpreted with considerable caution. The next graph shows similar data for each district in Greater Manchester.
Figure 5.28: Greater Manchester housing registers lists 1997-2015
Source: DCLG Live Table 600 Numbers of households on local authorities' housing waiting lists, by district: England 1997-2015
5.57 Some of the differences are undoubtedly due to the way in which local authorities manage their waiting lists and how this has changed over time. The highest numbers are focused in the centre and north of Greater Manchester (Manchester, Bolton, Oldham and Salford). Despite having the highest affordability ratios, Trafford and Stockport have relatively low numbers of households on their waiting lists.
Development rates
5.58 DCLG live table 122 provides data on the number of net additional dwellings provided each year since 2004. Although this data is based on the Housing Flows Reconciliation forms completed by local authorities, there are some differences between the figures in the live table and those reported by districts through their development monitoring. This is likely to be partly a result of the fact that the DCLG information was rebased in light of the 2011 Census. The table below sets out the live table data for Greater Manchester and identifies the proportion of the net additional dwellings in the sub-region over the period 2004-2015 that were provided in each district. Statistics for the other metropolitan counties are included as a comparison and these are also displayed in the graph after the table.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 105
Figure 5.29 – Net increase in number of dwellings (2004-2015 Net increase in number of dwellings (2004-2015)
Annual Change
Area % of GM Total 2004-2015 total 2004- 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 15
Bolton 560 890 1,060 1,300 660 500 460 530 340 330 470 7,100 8.9% Bury 750 940 380 410 300 230 280 220 270 270 540 4,590 5.8% Manchester 3,300 3,010 4,900 5,470 2,220 1,820 880 870 2,230 610 890 26,200 33.0% Oldham 30 150 210 330 320 -160 -10 10 250 330 490 1,950 2.5% Rochdale 130 480 220 510 470 130 280 450 450 270 310 3,700 4.7% Salford 600 520 1,840 2,720 1,670 600 570 150 550 840 980 11,040 13.9% Stockport 260 340 650 480 180 60 40 200 380 370 430 3,390 4.3% Tameside 460 760 640 870 730 330 460 410 550 400 400 6,010 7.6% Trafford 620 560 590 810 350 280 260 200 110 150 380 4,310 5.4% Wigan 1,360 1,220 1,740 1,930 1,240 960 910 360 220 600 530 11,070 13.9%
Greater Manchester 8,080 8,880 12,220 14,850 8,140 4,750 4,130 3,390 5,350 4,160 5,420 79,370 100.0%
Merseyside 3,070 3,410 4,800 4,160 4,130 2,760 1,790 2,020 1,980 2,530 3,670 34,320
South Yorkshire 3,210 3,950 4,080 5,650 4,520 3,140 3,060 2,320 2,240 2,870 3,810 38,850
Tyne and Wear 2,930 2,420 2,620 2,540 1,570 1,650 1,830 1,420 1,220 1,660 2,560 22,420
West Midlands 6,730 7,910 6,510 7,400 5,950 5,520 4,690 4,820 4,880 5,180 6,670 66,260
West Yorkshire 6,290 7,360 9,940 10,140 8,620 5,830 5,370 4,830 3,890 5,270 5,330 72,870
6 Source: DCLG Live Table 122 Net additional dwellings by local authority district, England 2004-05 to 2014-15
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 106 Figure 5.30: Net additional dwellings 2004-2015
Source: DCLG Live Table 122 Net additional dwellings by local authority district, England 2004-05 to 2014-15
5.57 Overall, completions within all areas have followed a similar pattern, with an increase from average levels in 2004/5 to a peak around 2007/8, after which there was a significant decline to 2011-2013 and then a slight recovery. This broadly matches the performance of the wider national economy over the same period. The peak and subsequent decline was much more pronounced in Greater Manchester than in the other metropolitan counties. The timing of the fall and then the modest change since is very similar to the pattern seen for land values described earlier.
5.58 Manchester accounted for more than one-third of all net completions in Greater Manchester over the period 2004-2015. Wigan and Salford have also made a significant contribution to the supply of additional housing in the sub- region, achieving an average of more than 1,000 per annum over the ten years. The increase in dwellings within Greater Manchester has therefore been dominated by the axis stretching westwards from the centre of the conurbation.
5.59 Net additions have been particularly low in Oldham, with an average of under 150 per annum accounting for 2.5% of the Greater Manchester total. The number of net additional dwellings has also been quite low in Stockport, Rochdale, Trafford and Bury.
5.60 The next table shows the net change in dwellings over the period 2004-2014, as well as the total number of dwellings in the areas in question and shows a percentage per annum increase over those ten years. This has been modelled using the figures for the number of dwellings in each area from the 2011 Census and using completions data from live table 122 to model dwelling numbers for 2004 and 2015.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 107
Figure 5.31: Change in the number of dwellings (2004-2015)
Number of dwellings Increase in % increase Area dwellings per annum Census 2011 2004 2015 2004-2015 2004-2015
Bolton 120,802 115,372 122,472 7,100 0.54% Bury 81,423 78,133 82,723 4,590 0.52% Manchester 213,529 191,929 218,129 26,200 1.17% Oldham 92,998 92,128 94,078 1,950 0.19% Rochdale 89,966 87,746 91,446 3,700 0.38% Salford 108,607 100,087 111,127 11,040 0.96% Stockport 125,810 123,800 127,190 3,390 0.25% Tameside 99,146 94,896 100,906 6,010 0.56% Trafford 97,129 93,659 97,969 4,310 0.41% Wigan 141,519 132,159 143,229 11,070 0.73%
Greater Manchester 1,170,929 1,109,879 1,189,249 79,370 0.63%
Merseyside 626,049 601,929 636,249 34,320 0.51% South Yorkshire 584,623 557,013 595,863 38,850 0.61% Tyne and Wear 501,938 486,378 508,798 22,420 0.41% West Midlands 1,122,501 1,077,791 1,144,051 66,260 0.54% West Yorkshire 958,729 905,179 978,049 72,870 0.71%
London 3,358,163 3,157,513 3,454,493 296,980 0.82%
England 22,976,066 21,684,366 23,542,986 1,858,620 0.75% Source: DCLG Live Table 122 Net additional dwellings by local authority district, England 2004-05 to 2014-15, and Census 2011
5.61 All of the metropolitan counties saw lower growth rates than the national average of 0.75% per annum. West Yorkshire had the highest growth rate of those areas, followed by Greater Manchester. In contrast, London saw its number of dwellings increase faster than the rate across England as a whole.
5.62 Manchester had by far the highest proportionate growth rate amongst Greater Manchester authorities and well above both the national average and the levels seen in London. Salford also saw higher growth than those areas and Wigan was the only other Greater Manchester district with proportionate growth close to the national average. Both Oldham and Stockport saw very low rates of increase in their number of dwellings and the rates for Rochdale and Trafford were also considerably below the national average. Growth rates were a bit higher in Bury, Bolton and Tameside, though still significantly below levels seen across the country as a whole. The spatial pattern of growth is similar to that described above in relation to the absolute change in the number of dwellings, with the western axis stretching from the core having the highest levels of growth. More generally, the five districts to the west of Manchester (Bolton, Bury, Salford, Trafford and Wigan) had almost twice the growth rate of the four districts to the east of Manchester (Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Tameside) (0.65% per annum compared to 0.34%). House price inflation has been relatively low in
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 108
Oldham and Rochdale and high in Trafford, Stockport and Bury and so there is no clear correlation between house price inflation and dwelling completions.
5.63 DCLG live table 253 also provides data on dwelling completions but is based on building control returns (P2 returns from local authorities, NHBC data, and approved inspector returns). This information relates to gross completions and so it is not directly comparable with the net additions data above. It is also quite patchy in terms of availability, particularly from 2000 onwards and so figures are only discussed here for the period 1980-1999.Despite these problems, it is useful to compare the gross completions from 1980-1999 with the net additions data discussed above, to gain an overall indication of whether development activity has increased or decreased across Greater Manchester and within individual districts. By definition, gross completions would be expected to be at least as high as net additions and so any increase in the per annum rates between the two periods would reflect an increase in net additions whereas a reduction would be less clear as the impact of gross losses would be uncertain.
Figure 5.32: Housing construction activity Housing construction activity Gross completions Net additions (1980-1999) (2004-2015)
Average % of Greater Average % of Greater per annum Manchester per annum Manchester Bolton 899 13.5% 645 8.9% Bury 465 7.0% 417 5.8% Manchester 1,115 16.7% 2,382 33.0% Oldham 551 8.3% 177 2.5% Rochdale 622 9.3% 336 4.7% Salford 676 10.1% 1,004 13.9% Stockport 592 8.9% 308 4.3% Tameside 460 6.9% 546 7.6% Trafford 417 6.3% 392 5.4% Wigan 874 13.1% 1,006 13.9%
Greater 6,667 7,215 Manchester
England 158,429 168,965
Source: DCLG Live Table 253 Housebuilding: permanent dwellings started and completed, by tenure and district, 2015-16, and DCLG Live Table 122. Net additional dwellings by local authority district, England 2004-05 to 2014-15, and Census 2011.
5.64 Both Greater Manchester and England saw a higher level of development activity over the period 2004-2015 than in 1980-1999. Within Greater Manchester, housing development has been far higher more recently in Manchester and also considerably greater in Salford. Wigan and Tameside are the only other areas that saw an increase in activity between the two periods. Although the impacts of gross reductions is unclear, the figures could suggest a significant reduction in development activity in Oldham, Rochdale and Stockport.
5.65 Manchester’s share of the Greater Manchester total is more than twice as high when considering net additions over the period 2004-2014 than gross completions for 1980-1999. Salford saw quite a significant increase in its share,
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 109
with more modest increases for Wigan and Tameside. The supply of new dwellings in Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale and Stockport in as a proportion of the Greater Manchester total appear to have reduced.
5.66 The now revoked Regional Spatial Strategy30 (RSS) identified an annual average dwelling requirement of 9,623 for Greater Manchester. The RSS dwelling requirements applied from 2003 but as explained earlier, an estimated change in the number of occupied dwellings in Greater Manchester can only be made from 2005, using DCLG live tables 125 and 615. For the period 2005- 2012, immediately preceding the start of the demographic projection used above, there was an average net increase of 9,492 occupied dwellings, slightly below the average RSS dwelling requirement. It is possible that the projections underpinning the RSS overestimated household growth, or that migration and/or household formation was constrained due to the availability of housing but it cannot be determined which from the completions and/or occupied dwelling data alone. The possibility of suppressed migration is discussed later in this section.
Development rates and house prices
5.67 The national Planning Practice Guidance states that:
“A worsening trend in any of these indicators will require upward adjustment to planned housing numbers compared to ones based solely on household projections. … In areas where an upward adjustment is required, plan makers should set this adjustment at a level that is reasonable. The more significant the affordability constraints (as reflected in rising prices and rents, and worsening affordability ratio) and the stronger other indicators of high demand (e.g. the differential between land prices), the larger the improvement in affordability needed and, therefore, the larger the additional supply response should be.” (paragraph 2a-020-20140306).
5.68 Furthermore, the Barker Report (2004) states:
“Taking as the baseline the level of private sector build in 2002-03, 140,000 gross starts and 125,000 gross completions, it is estimated that: • reducing the trend in real house prices to 1.8 per cent, would require an additional 70,000 private sector homes per annum; and • more ambitiously, to reduce the trend in real house prices to 1.1 per cent, an additional 120,000 private sector homes per annum would be required.”
5.69 These assume that there is a clear and direct relationship between the supply of housing and the cost of housing.
30 HM Government (September 2008) The North West of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021, p.66 (Table 7.1)
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 110
Vacant dwellings
5.70 The following two tables provide data on the proportion of dwellings that are vacant within Greater Manchester, the NUTS3 regions of Greater Manchester North (consisting of Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale and Wigan) and Greater Manchester South (Manchester, Salford, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford), the adjoining districts, the metropolitan counties, London and England. The first table relates to all vacancies and the second to long-term vacancies. The figures in each table have been calculated using the vacancy data from DCLG live table 615 and the dwelling stock data from DCLG live table 125. These are approximations as in each year the vacancy data relates to October and the dwelling stock data to 31 March. It is important to look at overall trends rather than specific years, as some of the individual figures appear problematic, for example the very low number of vacancies in Bolton recorded in 2004 which included zero long-term vacancies.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 111
Figure 5.33: Percentage of dwellings that are vacant Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bolton 4.8 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.2 4.8 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.8 Bury 3.4 3.9 3.6 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.1 Manchester 6.8 7.0 7.3 7.3 6.9 5.8 5.2 3.4 2.5 2.2 1.8 Oldham 5.2 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.4 4.9 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.3 Rochdale 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.6 4.3 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.3 Salford 6.2 6.2 6.0 5.9 6.1 5.8 4.2 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.1 Stockport 2.5 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.5 Tameside 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.3 3.8 3.7 3.4 2.9 2.9 2.5 Trafford 3.6 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.2 Wigan 3.2 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.2 2.9
Greater 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.4 4.0 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.7 Manchester
GM North 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.3 GM South 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.3 4.6 4.1 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.4
Blackburn with 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.0 Darwen Calderdale 5.2 5.4 5.9 6.2 5.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.1 4.0 Cheshire East 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.5 2.4 Cheshire West and 3.5 3.3 2.7 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 2.9 2.7 2.8 Chester Chorley 2.9 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.2 3.1 2.9 High Peak 2.8 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.5 Kirklees 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.3 2.9 Rossendale 2.9 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 5.1 4.6 4.3 St Helens 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.1 Warrington 3.6 3.7 2.8 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.6 2.6 West Lancashire 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.2 2.8
Merseyside 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.1 3.9 3.8 South Yorkshire 3.6 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.8 Tyne and Wear 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.0 2.9 3.0 West Midlands 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.5 West Yorkshire 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.1 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.6 3.4
London 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.7
England 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.5 Source: DCLG Live Table 615 All vacant dwellings by local authority district, England, from 2004 and DCLG LiveTable 125: Dwelling stock estimates by local authority district: 2001 - 2015
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 112
Figure 5.34: Percentage of all dwellings that are long-tern vacant Area % of all dwellings that are long-term vacant 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bolton 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.5 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 Bury 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 Manchester 5.2 5.6 5.5 5.3 4.8 4.2 3.8 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.7 Oldham 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 Rochdale 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.1 Salford 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.6 3.5 2.1 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.0 Stockport 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 Tameside 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 Trafford 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.7 Wigan 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1
Greater 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 Manchester
GM North 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 GM South 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.3 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.8
Blackburn with 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.0 Darwen Calderdale 2.8 2.6 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.8 Cheshire East 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 Cheshire West 1.6 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 and Chester Chorley 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.0 High Peak 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 Kirklees 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.2 Rossendale 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.8 St Helens 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 Warrington 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.9 West Lancashire 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1
Merseyside 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.4 South Yorkshire 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 Tyne and Wear 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 West Midlands 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 West Yorkshire 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3
London 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
England 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 Source: DCLG Live Table 615 All long-term vacant dwellings by local authority district, England, from 2004
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 113
5.71 England as a whole saw a modest increase in vacancies to 3.5% in 2008, followed by a reasonably significant reduction to 2.5% in 2015. Many other areas saw similar changes over the period 2004-2014, including Greater Manchester where the increase and subsequent reduction were much greater. The vacancy rate reducing from 5.0% in 2008 to 2.7% in 2015. This was a rate which is broadly average for the metropolitan counties though still above the national average. This reduction in vacancies is likely to reflect a continuing increase in the number of households at a time when the supply of new dwellings dropped considerably due to the recession, as discussed above, as well as concerted efforts by local authorities to address long-term vacancies. In contrast, the increase in vacancy rates over the period 2004-2008 could indicate that housing supply was moving ahead of demand and this is the period of highest net dwelling completions in Greater Manchester, or at least ahead of the ability of people to secure the finances to access new housing. The very low vacancy rates in London pull the national rate down by around 0.2% (i.e. the vacancy rate in England excluding London in 2014 was 2.8%, only marginally lower than in Greater Manchester).
5.72 Within Greater Manchester, there has been a particularly dramatic reduction in the vacancy rate for Manchester, declining from 7.3% in 2008 to just 1.8% in 2015, which is well below the national average. Trafford is the only other part of the sub-region with a vacancy rate below that of England as a whole, just under Manchester’s figure but it has seen a much more modest reduction over time. Salford also saw a very considerable lowering of its vacancy rate in a short space of time, from 6.1% in 2009 to 3.1% in 2015. Stockport has consistently seen a low vacancy rate, typically just below 3%, potentially highlighting strong demand relative to supply. Both Bolton and Oldham consistently have quite high vacancy rates, though they have also seen reductions in recent years.
5.73 There is now a very clear split between the north and south of the conurbation. Although the Greater Manchester South area (Manchester, Salford, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford) had much higher vacancy rates in the early part of the period, its rate quickly declined from 5.2% in 2008 to 2.4% in 2015, matching the national average, with none of the individual districts now having a vacancy rate higher than 3.0%. Greater Manchester North (Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale and Wigan) has seen relatively limited change between the start and end of the period (recognising that the 2004 figure is skewed by the apparently erroneous figure for Bolton) and its rate in 2015 was 3.3%.
5.74 There is a very mixed picture in terms of the districts surrounding Greater Manchester. Warrington, Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester, which all lie to the south/south-west of Greater Manchester and generally have higher house prices, all have vacancy rates below 3%. Chorley, High Peak, St Helens and West Lancashire have seen much more consistent vacancy rates compared to other areas, generally lying just above 3%. The areas to the north of Greater Manchester, such as Blackburn with Darwen, Rossendale and Calderdale, have had consistently high vacancy rates.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 114
5.75 There has also been a significant reduction in long-term vacancies in Greater Manchester, from a peak of 2.8% in 2008 to 1.0% in 2015, a level which is now at the lower end of the metropolitan counties though still marginally above the national rate of 0.9%. Trafford has consistently had the lowest proportion of long- term vacant dwellings in Greater Manchester and its figure of 0.7% in 2015 is well below the national average and is in line with London’s. Manchester’s vacancy rate also fell to this level in 2015. There was considerable variation amongst the ten districts in 2004 but they now have broadly similar levels of long-term vacancies. As with vacancies more generally, the north of the conurbation generally has slightly higher long-term vacancy rates than the centre/south, (Manchester, Salford, Stockport and Trafford have rates below 1%, whereas the other six districts have rates above 1%) but the difference is less pronounced than for all vacancies. Blackburn with Darwen, Rossendale and Calderdale again have the highest long-term vacancy rates for districts surrounding Greater Manchester, whereas Warrington and Cheshire East have the lowest.
Number of occupied dwellings
5.76 The table below uses data from DCLG live tables 125 and 615 to estimate the change in the number of occupied dwellings over the period 2005-2015. This could be considered to be a better indicator of demand than the net change of dwellings, as the analysis of vacancies above suggests that a significant proportion of recent demand has been accommodated within the existing stock rather than new provision. The slightly shorter period of 2005-2015 has been used here rather than 2004-2015 due to a likely error in the vacancy figure for Bolton in 2004.
Figure 5.35: Change in occupied dwellings 2005-2015 Change in occupied dwellings 2005-2015 Increase in Area Average increase % increase per occupied per annum annum dwellings Bolton 7,513 751 0.66% Bury 3,963 396 0.51% Manchester 32,297 3,230 1.65% Oldham 3,585 359 0.40% Rochdale 4,108 411 0.48% Salford 13,239 1,324 1.32% Stockport 3,054 305 0.25% Tameside 7,332 733 0.78% Trafford 4,867 487 0.52% Wigan 9,793 979 0.73%
Greater Manchester 89,741 8,974.10 0.81%
London 295,690 29,569 0.92%
England 1,796,330 179,633 0.82% Source: DCLG live tables 125 and 615
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 115
5.77 Whereas the rate of increase in dwellings was higher in England than Greater Manchester, the proportionate increase in occupied dwellings in the period was higher in Greater Manchester. Within the sub-region there were very significant differences in the rate of increase. Manchester saw by far the highest rate of increase in occupied dwellings, almost twice the rate seen in London. Salford’s rate of increase in occupied dwellings was also far in excess of the London and national averages. Manchester and Salford have a very significant impact on the Greater Manchester average, with the other eight districts all below that sub- regional average and the two cities accounted for more than half of the absolute increase in occupied dwellings in the sub-region. The rate of increase in occupied dwellings was particularly low in Stockport and Oldham but was also quite modest in Bury, Rochdale and Trafford. As with dwelling completions, there is no clear correlation between the rate of increase in occupied dwellings and house price inflation, with Trafford having the highest price increases in Greater Manchester and Rochdale the lowest.
Overcrowding
5.78 The table below identifies the level of overcrowding and under-occupancy amongst households, based on 2011 Census data. The official interpretation of the census data uses the ages of the household members and their relationships to each other to derive the number of bedrooms they require, based on a standard formula. The number of bedrooms required is subtracted from the number of bedrooms in the household's accommodation to obtain the occupancy rating.
Figure 5.36: Level of occupancy Level of occupancy (% of households) (2011 Census) Area Under-occupied Occupied to standard Overcrowded Bolton 67.36 28.03 4.61 Bury 71.50 25.01 3.49 Manchester 56.51 35.73 7.76 Oldham 64.26 29.11 6.64 Rochdale 65.18 29.46 5.36 Salford 64.87 30.97 4.16 Stockport 73.58 23.49 2.93 Tameside 67.39 28.67 3.94 Trafford 73.91 22.85 3.24 Wigan 73.70 23.61 2.68
Greater Manchester 67.02 28.28 4.70
Merseyside 72.21 24.46 3.34 South Yorkshire 72.45 23.90 3.65 Tyne and Wear 69.64 26.92 3.43 West Midlands 64.99 28.57 6.43 West Yorkshire 68.90 26.85 4.25
London 49.38 39.28 11.34
England 68.68 26.68 4.64 Source: Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 116
5.79 The levels of overcrowding and under-occupancy are similar in Greater Manchester to England as a whole, although overcrowding is possibly a little higher than is typical for the metropolitan counties. London has far lower levels of under-occupancy and significantly greater overcrowding. Within Greater Manchester, the highest proportions of overcrowded households are in Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale, with low levels in Wigan, Stockport, Trafford and Bury. The latter three authorities have seen the highest average house price inflation over the last twenty years and so there appears to be no correlation between increasing house prices and levels of overcrowding.
5.80 The next table compares the levels of overcrowding recorded in the last two censuses. It uses the ‘room’ rather than ‘bedroom’ definition but the occupancy level is calculated essentially in the same way as described above.
Figure 5.37: Level of overcrowding (rooms) Level of overcrowding (total and number of rooms short) 2001 Census 2011 Census Area Total 1 room 2+ rooms Total 1 room 2+ rooms Bolton 5.99 4.49 1.51 6.91 5.39 1.52 Bury 4.93 3.78 1.15 5.33 4.30 1.02 Manchester 11.19 7.72 3.48 16.43 12.22 4.21 Oldham 7.29 5.09 2.20 7.55 5.65 1.90 Rochdale 7.02 5.16 1.86 7.79 6.03 1.75 Salford 5.85 4.58 1.28 9.51 7.15 2.36 Stockport 4.51 3.52 1.00 4.81 3.87 0.94 Tameside 5.79 4.55 1.24 6.12 4.93 1.20 Trafford 4.68 3.42 1.26 5.59 4.35 1.24 Wigan 4.15 3.25 0.91 4.43 3.59 0.85
Greater Manchester 6.41 4.72 1.69 8.18 6.28 1.91
Merseyside 5.70 4.26 1.43 6.31 4.89 1.41 South Yorkshire 4.89 3.73 1.16 6.49 4.86 1.63 Tyne and Wear 6.07 4.72 1.36 6.28 5.03 1.25 West Midlands 7.36 5.15 2.22 9.19 6.68 2.51 West Yorkshire 7.25 5.22 2.03 7.80 6.04 1.76
London 17.32 10.78 6.55 21.66 14.32 7.34
England 7.13 5.02 2.11 8.74 6.40 2.34 Source: 2001 and 2011 Census
5.81 All areas listed in the table saw an increase in overcrowding between the two censuses. Most of the increase is due to households requiring one room more to meet the census standard, with the rise in the proportion requiring two or more additional rooms generally being quite low and some areas saw a decline on this measure.
5.82 Using this measure of ‘rooms’ rather than ‘bedrooms’, overcrowding in Greater Manchester is below the national average but the gap has narrowed very slightly between the two censuses. West Midlands and South Yorkshire saw a similar rise in overcrowding, whereas the increase was lower in the other metropolitan counties. Both Manchester and Salford saw a significant increase in
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 117
overcrowding, with Manchester being closer to London than the national average and Salford scoring comparatively much worse on this measure than on the bedrooms measure above. The other districts in Greater Manchester generally saw quite modest increases in overcrowding over this period.
5.83 Since the rooms occupancy rating assumes that every household, including one person households, requires a minimum of two rooms excluding bathrooms in addition to the number of bedrooms needed, it is likely that the increase in overcrowding in Manchester and Salford on this measure is related to the large numbers of apartments that have been provided in the two cities in recent years, where there may only be one room other than bedrooms and bathrooms (for example where the kitchen and lounge are combined rather than being separate). Such accommodation may be adequate for the households involved and so an increase in overcrowding on this measure may not necessarily mean that the quantity or type of housing supply is not meeting household need.
5.84 The following table compares the levels of overcrowding in different tenures, using the bedrooms measure from the 2011 Census and also identifies the proportion of households containing more than five people.
Figure 5.38: Level of overcrowding (bedrooms) Level of overcrowding (bedrooms measure) (% of households) % of households (2011 Census) with 5 people or Owned or shared Private rented or more Area ownership Social rented living rent free Bolton 3.51 6.69 6.50 7.53 Bury 2.44 6.11 5.75 6.68 Manchester 4.97 8.10 10.97 8.96 Oldham 5.52 8.77 8.69 9.59 Rochdale 4.45 7.01 6.62 8.66 Salford 2.30 5.73 6.60 5.91 Stockport 1.79 7.20 5.03 5.93 Tameside 2.76 6.83 4.87 6.05 Trafford 1.77 6.57 6.76 6.99 Wigan 1.64 5.36 4.25 5.15
Greater Manchester 3.03 7.00 7.60 7.20
England 2.27 8.73 8.58 7.02 Source: 2011 Census
5.85 Levels of overcrowding are significantly higher in rented housing than in owned or shared ownership housing and this is the case for each district as well as for Greater Manchester. There are similar spatial differences between the districts when looking at each tenure to the overall levels, with rates of overcrowding typically being highest in Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale, although Stockport’s rate for social rented housing is quite high as is Trafford’s for private rented accommodation.
5.86 There is a correlation between levels of overcrowding and the proportion of households containing five people or more, with Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale having the highest percentage of these large households. This may
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 118
suggest that overcrowding is primarily a result of the limited availability of suitable and affordable accommodation for large households, rather than separate households having to share a dwelling. However, it is possible that the large size of some households could be the result of constrained household formation due to housing costs rather than through choice.
Concealed families
5.87 The 2011 Census provides data on the number of ‘concealed families’ and this is summarised in the table below. A concealed family is one living in a multi- family household in addition to the primary family, such as a young couple living with parents. A single person cannot be a concealed family and so one elderly parent living with their adult child and family, or an adult child returning to the parental home, is not counted as a concealed family. As a result of these definitions, the table presents data on families rather than households.
Figure 5.39: Concealed families % of all families that are concealed families (2011 Census) Lone parent concealed Couple concealed Area All concealed families families families Bolton 1.96 0.78 1.18 Bury 1.56 0.64 0.92 Manchester 2.46 1.20 1.26 Oldham 2.62 1.17 1.45 Rochdale 2.28 0.98 1.30 Salford 1.43 0.74 0.69 Stockport 1.53 0.62 0.91 Tameside 1.73 0.88 0.85 Trafford 1.58 0.67 0.91 Wigan 1.25 0.66 0.59
Greater Manchester 1.85 0.85 1.00
Merseyside 1.59 0.94 0.65 South Yorkshire 1.46 0.70 0.76 Tyne and Wear 1.40 0.74 0.66 West Midlands 3.05 1.20 1.84 West Yorkshire 2.25 0.86 1.39
London 3.32 1.09 2.23
England 1.85 0.68 1.18 Source: 2011 Census
5.88 Greater Manchester has the same rate of concealed families as the national average, although a higher proportion of these are lone parent families. There is quite a significant deviation between the metropolitan counties, with Greater Manchester broadly in the middle and London having a significantly higher rate.
5.89 Within Greater Manchester, the highest proportions of concealed families are in Oldham, Manchester and Rochdale, with relatively low levels in Wigan, Salford, Stockport and Bury. This is a very similar spatial pattern to that
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 119
described above in relation to overcrowding (using the ‘bedroom’ definition from the Census).
5.90 The next table compares the change in concealed families between the last two censuses, both in terms of absolute numbers and as a percentage of all families.
Figure 5.40: Families identified as concealed families Families identified as concealed families (2001 and 2011 Census) % of families that are Number of concealed families concealed Change 2001- 2001 2011 2011 2001 2011 Bolton 939 1,535 596 1.27 1.96 Bury 536 828 292 1.03 1.56 Manchester 1,412 2,814 1,402 1.54 2.46 Oldham 995 1,647 652 1.62 2.62 Rochdale 898 1,347 449 1.56 2.28 Salford 585 891 306 1.01 1.43 Stockport 780 1,264 484 0.95 1.53 Tameside 660 1,098 438 1.08 1.73 Trafford 688 1,024 336 1.16 1.58 Wigan 812 1,195 383 0.91 1.25
Greater Manchester 8,305 13,643 5,338 1.21 1.85 North West 21,162 32,128 10,966 1.11 1.62 England 161,254 275,954 114,700 1.16 1.85 Source: 2001 and 2011 Censuses
5.91 All areas have seen an increase, with the national rate having increased slightly more quickly than the Greater Manchester rate so that they are now the same, whereas the regional rate has risen a little more slowly. Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale had the highest rates recorded in Greater Manchester in both censuses. Bury, Salford, Trafford and Wigan had the lowest increases in the number of concealed families.
5.92 Relatively high levels of concealment may not necessarily relate to issues of housing availability and affordability and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has observed that they could be a function of cultural issues:
“Concealed family proportions may relate to cultural differences in familial ties between ethnic groups. Within England and Wales, ‘other households’ are more than twice as likely to have a HRP [household reference person] of non- white or mixed ethnic group (24 per cent) compared with all households (11 per cent). The ten LAs [local authorities] with the highest proportions of concealed families … also have the highest proportions of the population identifying with a non-white ethnic group; high proportions of the population of these areas identified as Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi. The high proportions of
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 120
concealed families in these areas may be a result of closer familial ties in Asian cultures.”31
5.93 Increases in the proportion of residents identifying themselves as Asian may therefore explain the increase in the proportion of concealed families at the regional and national levels identified above. For example, the proportion of residents identifying themselves as Asian has increased from 6% to 10% in Greater Manchester, 3% to 6% in the North West and 5% to 8% in England.
5.94 Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale have the highest proportions in Greater Manchester of residents identifying themselves as Asian, as well as the highest levels of overcrowding and concealed families, which would seem to support the ONS hypothesis. Wigan has the lowest proportions in Greater Manchester on all these measures, with Salford and Stockport next lowest in terms of both the proportions of concealment and of residents identifying themselves as Asian.
5.95 The table below shows all of the wards in Greater Manchester that have rates of concealed families exceeding 3% and/or levels of overcrowding exceeding 10% and also provides details of the proportion of residents who identified themselves as Asian in the 2011 Census.
31 Office for National Statistics (February 2014), What does the 2011 Census tell us about concealed families living in multi-family households in England and Wales?, p.11
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 121
Figure 5.41: Concealed families, overcrowding and ethnicity Concealed families, overcrowding and ethnic characteristics
% of families that are % of households that % of people identifying Area concealed families are overcrowded themselves as Asian Bolton Crompton 3.73 8.15 33.67 Great Lever 4.06 10.00 43.52 Halliwell 3.66 8.31 31.52 Rumworth 4.77 12.74 55.11
Manchester Ardwick 2.28 12.10 27.46 Burnage 3.45 7.69 21.63 Cheetham 3.91 11.79 41.78 Crumpsall 3.94 8.51 32.04 Fallowfield 3.95 10.88 19.60 Gorton South 2.07 10.10 22.83 Levenshulme 3.71 9.21 27.85 Longsight 7.20 17.62 55.27 Moss Side 2.45 14.60 18.50 Rusholme 5.87 15.09 39.94 Whalley Range 4.61 8.91 30.75 Withington 2.81 10.98 12.78
Oldham Alexandra 3.35 9.56 27.95 Coldhurst 6.74 19.99 66.67 Medlock Vale 3.38 10.11 36.14 St Mary's 7.94 17.16 61.01 Werneth 9.32 18.73 71.81
Rochdale Central Rochdale 6.43 14.53 55.18 Milkstone and Deeplish 7.30 17.48 68.57 Spotland and Falinge 3.80 7.66 25.27
Trafford Clifford 5.25 9.47 35.95 Longford 4.08 6.85 25.86
Greater Manchester 1.85 4.70 10.15 Source: 2011 Census
5.96 This data shows that all wards with significantly higher than average levels of overcrowding and/or concealment compared to the Greater Manchester average also have above average proportions of residents identifying themselves as Asian. Most of the wards with more than 3% concealed families have more than 10% overcrowding and vice versa and all wards that are high on one measure are above average on the other. It is also notable that the wards are generally in locations close to the city centre or town centres, rather than more suburban areas.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 122
5.97 The six wards with more than 6% concealed families and the five wards with more than 17% overcrowding all have more than 55% of residents identifying themselves as Asian. This relationship seems slightly weaker in some wards of Manchester which have quite high levels of overcrowding and/or concealment but lower, though still above average, proportions of households identifying themselves as Asian. For example, Moss Side has one of the highest levels of overcrowding at 14.6% but has amongst the lowest levels of concealment and residents identifying themselves as Asian in the table (though is still well above the Greater Manchester average on both measures). However, it has by far the highest proportion in Greater Manchester of residents identifying themselves as black (34.49%, with no other ward exceeding 20%) and so the high levels of overcrowding may once again be explained by the ethnic characteristics of the population, although whether or not this is the result of choice cannot be discerned from the data. It is possible that the high levels of overcrowding in Fallowfield and Withington wards are partly a result of the large concentration of private rented sector accommodation aimed at students.
Homelessness
5.98 The table below summarises information from DCLG live table 784 on homelessness, comparing data for 2004/05 and 2015/16 relating to the rate of homelessness and those in temporary accommodation per 1,000 households.
Figure 5.42 : Change in levels of homelessness Change in levels of homelessness
Number accepted as being Total in temporary accommodation homeless and in priority need per per 1,000 households 1,000 households
Area 2004/2005 2015/16 2004/05 2015/16 Bolton 6.7 1.9 0.6 0.4 Bury 5.8 1.9 0.3 0.1 Manchester 7.3 4.1 3.7 3.0 Oldham 10.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 Rochdale 8.7 3.2 0.6 0.5 Salford 12.9 3.5 0.7 0.6 Stockport 4.6 1.4 0.5 0.5 Tameside 6.5 1.7 0.8 0.8 Trafford 3.9 1.4 1.1 0.6 Wigan 11.4 1.4 0.4 0.1
Greater Manchester 7.8 2.3 1.1 0.9 Merseyside 4.9 0.9 0.5 0.2 South Yorkshire 6.3 1.1 0.5 0.2 Tyne and Wear 7.4 1.7 0.5 0.2 West Midlands 7.6 5.2 1.1 1.5 West Yorkshire 6.6 1.7 1.3 0.4
England 5.7 2.5 4.8 3.1
England excluding 5.3 2.0 2.2 1.0 London Source: DCLG live table 784 on homelessness
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 123
5.99 All areas have seen a significant reduction in the numbers accepted as being homeless and in priority need over the ten-year period, as well as a lowering in the number of temporary accommodation. If London is excluded, then the rate of homelessness in Greater Manchester remains above the national average and is broadly typical for a metropolitan county but has fallen by a very large amount. The rate of households in temporary accommodation has more than halved and is below the average for England excluding London although above four of the other five metropolitan counties.
5.100 Within Greater Manchester, the highest rate of homelessness is now in Manchester, although Salford and Rochdale are also above the sub-regional average. Oldham has very low levels of homelessness. Manchester has by far the highest rate of households living in temporary accommodation in Greater Manchester, at three times the average for England excluding London. Most of the other districts have very low rates on this measure.
Possible suppression of migration (to replace existing ‘Suppressed migration’ section)
5.101 The potential for suppressed migration is not specifically referred to as a market signal in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance, but the Planning Advisory Service’s guidance note suggests that it is worthy of consideration:
“it is difficult to believe that the PPG would acknowledge the impact of under- supply on only one driver of household need, HRRs [household representative rates], while ignoring its impact on another driver, migration. Such an approach would not make sense and if would be inconsistent with the NPPF, which at paragraph 159 makes it clear that migration is part of the OAN”32
5.102 The graph below shows the net migration to Greater Manchester over the period 2001-2014, leading up to the base date of the latest population and household projections, taken from the ONS mid-year estimates. The total net migration for the eleven districts surrounding Greater Manchester that are discussed elsewhere (the ten districts adjoining Greater Manchester together with Cheshire West and Chester) is also included for comparison, as are the averages for these areas over the whole period and trendlines drawn using Excel.
32 Planning Advisory Service (July 2015), Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets: Technical advice note – Second edition, paragraph 7.12
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 124
Figure 5.43: 2001-2014 Net Migration
5.103 There is significant variation for both Greater Manchester and the surrounding districts over the period 2001-2014. However, the Greater Manchester line tends to oscillate either side of the average, and the trendline is broadly level with the slight overall decline due to the unusual net out-migration in 2012- 2013. The line for the surrounding districts is primarily above the average in the first half of the period, and below it in the second half, and this is reflected in its trendline, which shows a more significant reduction over time, albeit with there being an increase in the last couple of years. If there had been suppressed migration into Greater Manchester then it would have been expected that this might manifest in increased levels of migration into surrounding areas as people seek an alternative nearby location. This was not seen, and so there is no indication that migration to Greater Manchester has been suppressed in recent years.
5.104 The first of the following four graphs shows net migration over the period 2001-2014 for the ten Greater Manchester districts, using the same data source as the previous graph. The other three graphs group the local authorities into central (Manchester and Salford), east (Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Tameside), and west (Bolton, Bury, Trafford and Wigan), and provide trendlines using Excel, to more easily distinguish the trends involved.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 125
Figure 5.44: 2001-2014 Net Migration
5.105 Manchester has seen very significant variation in its net migration each year, with a peak in 2004/5 and a smaller peak in 2010/11, but overall there appears to have been some decline over the period 2001-2014. Bolton, Wigan and Tameside have also seen a general trend towards reduced net in-migration, but again with significant variance. Salford, Trafford, Oldham and Stockport have had quite a considerable overall increase net in-migration per annum, with all but Trafford seeing a reasonably consistent upward trend, and Bury and Rochdale were largely flat. Consequently, there has been quite a varied picture across Greater Manchester. There has been little clear spatial pattern, although there was reducing migration to the two north-west districts of Bolton and Wigan, and levels to the adjoining districts of Bury and Rochdale were broadly flat.
5.106 The PAS advisory note refers to the relationship between net migration and net dwelling completions. This is displayed for Greater Manchester in the graph below, using the net migration figures from the ONS mid-year estimates and the net additional dwellings from DCLG live table 122. The change in occupied dwellings, calculated from DCLG live tables 125 and 615, is also included for comparison.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 126
Figure 5.45: Net Migration and occupied dwellings
5.107 Net migration up to 2011 was broadly even, despite a significant peak in completions in 2007/8. As completions have started to recover following the recession, the increase in occupied dwellings has actually declined and there has been a big drop and then a large increase in net migration. Hence there is little clear relationship in Greater Manchester between these three variables, and the availability of housing does not seem to have promoted higher or lower levels of migration.
5.108 The next series of graphs provides displays similar data for each of the ten districts.
Figure 5.46: District data
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 127
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 128
5.109 These graphs suggest no consistency in the relationships between the three variables. For example, in the first part of the period, the three variables showed similar trends in Bury but in the second half net migration has been quite low despite increasing numbers of completions and occupied dwellings. Salford also saw an apparently close relationship between the three variables in the earlier years, but more recently has seen a big increase in net in- migration despite little change in the number of occupied dwellings and a more modest increase in net additional dwellings. The data for Manchester suggest little relationship between the variables, with migration declining in the early years when dwelling completions were peaking, and then migration increased rapidly as completions were declining. Bolton saw a peak in migration just after the peak in completions, after which completions remained at a moderate level but migration dropped off suddenly. The gradual recovery in completions in Tameside has coincided with a period of net out-migration until the last year. Trafford’s net in-migration was peaking just as the net completions were at their lowest. Perhaps the closest apparent relationships have been in Wigan, where migration fell considerably as completions dropped, and in Oldham where recently migration has increased quite rapidly following on from an increase in dwelling completions. However, there is no clear evidence that the supply of dwellings in any district has suppressed migration.
Conclusion on market signals
5.110 Evidence on residential land values is very limited but the latest data suggests that greenfield values in the North of England are half of what they were in 2004 and brownfield values just one-third of 2004 prices.
5.111 Average house prices, private rents and affordability ratios in Greater Manchester are similar to other metropolitan counties. There is quite a broad mix of house prices within Greater Manchester and in surrounding districts, which would be expected over such a large area, but there is quite a clear spatial differentiation between higher values in the south and lower values elsewhere. Although the rate of house price increases has been below the national average over the last 20 years, it has still exceeded the overall rate of inflation. All of the increase for Greater Manchester was concentrated in the earlier 2000s, when there was an average price increase of roughly 15% in almost every part of the country, with little price change at other times. This would suggest that there were wider issues in the housing market that led to the house price increases, such as the easy availability of cheap and high loan to value mortgages, rather than any specific supply/demand issues in Greater Manchester. Furthermore, house price inflation in Greater Manchester has actually been lower than the rate of increase in the national index of private housing construction costs whereas the opposite would be expected if there was any supply shortage.
5.112 There are variations in the pattern of house price inflation depending on the timescale and data source but Trafford, Stockport and Bury have typically seen the largest proportionate increases in house prices and Rochdale and Oldham the lowest. More generally, if Bury is excluded then locations in and adjoining the north of Greater Manchester have seen lower rates of house price increase
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 129
than locations in and adjoining the south of the sub-region. Affordability ratios are also higher in and around the south of Greater Manchester. Recent increases in private rents have been strongest in the centre and south of Greater Manchester, with little change across the north of the sub-region. It is possible that these spatial differences in house prices, private rents and their change over time could in part reflect variability in the balance of housing supply and demand across Greater Manchester. They are also likely to be a function of the type of housing that is available and its partial role as an investment.
5.113 As with the rest of the country, affordability ratios across Greater Manchester worsened significantly between 1997 and 2005 but have fallen back slightly since then. After peaking in 2010, the number of households on the housing registers list in Greater Manchester has reduced and it is the areas with the highest affordability ratios that have the fewest households on their waiting lists. Evidence supplied by developers in viability appraisals suggests that house prices are only just able to cover basic development costs in many parts of Greater Manchester and an increase in supply would not improve this situation.
5.114 There has been a significant reduction in net housing completions in Greater Manchester since they peaked in 2007/8 but rather than leading to market signals that there may be a supply shortage, this reduction has actually been accompanied by an overall decline in house prices and an improvement or only slight worsening in other market signals. The only exception to this is in Trafford, where house prices have consistently increased since dwelling completions have fallen. The continued increases in the number of occupied dwellings and net in-migration suggest that the reduced supply of new dwellings has not negatively impacted on demand. The re-occupancy of existing vacant dwellings has helped to meet the needs of household growth. Both Trafford and Stockport have had consistently low vacancy rates in recent years which could be indicative of relatively high underlying demand for housing but could also reflect the higher house prices and rents that lead to people seeking to maximise the value of any residential investment by ensuring occupancy.
5.115 Levels of overcrowding and concealed families have worsened between the last two censuses and the highest concentrations are in Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale. This may be largely explained by the ethnic characteristics of particular areas and is more an issue of the availability and affordability of larger accommodation than it is the total volume of housing.
5.116 Overall, there is little evidence from the market signals that there has been a housing supply shortage across Greater Manchester as a whole that has constrained household growth. Trafford and Stockport have the highest values or rates on several measures such as house prices, private rents, increases in house prices and private rents, affordability ratios and dwelling completions but they have relatively low numbers on their housing registers. Trafford has also been the only district in Greater Manchester to see recent house price increases at the same time as net housing completions have been comparatively low. It is questionable whether these market signals are actually an indication of a mismatch in supply and demand that requires an uplift in housing numbers compared to projected levels which would improve affordability, particularly as
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 130
the recent house prices rises in Trafford are modest and do not exceed what might be expected in a properly functioning market. Trafford and Stockport form part of a much larger area extending across north Cheshire that shares many of the same characteristics. This high cost area may inherently perform differently due to the housing stock being perceived to have an investment value at a time when other opportunities for capital growth are limited. The varying pattern of house price change may also reflect the constrained finances of low- and medium-income households over recent years, whereas those on higher incomes and/or with greater assets have maintained the ability to invest large amounts in residential property.
5.117 Some of the market signals data could suggest that housing demand is lower in the northern parts of Greater Manchester, particularly Rochdale and Oldham. Low dwelling completions do not appear to have led to any worsening of market signals in these districts but this may partly be a result of increasing pressures on low incomes making any significant house price inflation unrealistic. This potentially raises the challenge of how demand can be increased in such areas, so that they continue to secure investment over the long-term and are able to attract a wider range of households.
5.118 At this stage it is considered that there is insufficient evidence to justify an uplift in the housing requirements of any districts in Greater Manchester compared to their projected/forecast need. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance states that: “A worsening trend in any of these indicators will require upward adjustment to planned housing numbers compared to ones based solely on household projections” (paragraph 2a-020-20140306). It is questionable whether any of the indicators have been ‘worsening’ over the last few years when compared to how a well-functioning housing market would be expected to perform, for example in terms of modest annual increases in house prices and private rents. The recession has had a major impact and could be considered to distort some of the figures, likewise for the housing ‘bubble’ that preceded the recession. It will be important to continue to monitor carefully all of the various indicators.
5.119 It is also appropriate to consider what the impacts of an upward adjustment to planned housing numbers would achieve in practice. The purpose of an uplift in housing numbers that is stated in the PPG is to improve affordability (paragraph 2a-020-20140306). If the uplift did not result in an increase in the dwelling vacancy rate then it would be likely that demand would have risen in line with supply, with no associated improvement in affordability. However, it is questionable whether an increase in the dwelling vacancy rate would be desirable in Greater Manchester and could be considered an inefficient use of land, buildings and materials. The existing vacancy rates are not considered unduly low, as discussed earlier and indeed the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) was allocated over £8 million for 2013-2015 from the Government’s empty homes programme specifically to reduce vacancies further, by far the highest single allocation. A policy response designed to increase vacancy rates would not therefore appear appropriate or consistent with other actions.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 131
5.120 If there are any demand pressures then these are concentrated in the south of the sub-region and to a lesser extent the centre. Although such pressures are not sufficient to lead to an uplift in the housing figures, they could indicate that any major redistribution of housing need from the south to other parts of Greater Manchester could lead to worsening market signals and the need for future uplifts in housing delivery. There may also be some indications that demand may be lower in parts of the north of Greater Manchester, particularly around Oldham and Rochdale. This raises the issue of whether there may be any ways of increasing demand in such locations so as to support a more even pattern of development.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 132
Chapter 6: Housing Needs of Particular Groups
Introduction
6.1 This section considers groups within the population who have specialist housing needs, or whose housing needs differ from the wider population.
6.2 Consideration of household groups who have particular housing needs is a key output of the SHMA guidance, and the NPPF indicates that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing which takes account of the needs of different groups in the community.
6.3 The following key groups have been identified which may have housing needs which may differ from those of the wider population:
• Older People; • People with disabilities; • Members of the armed forces; • Students; • Families; and • Those wishing to build their own homes;
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 133
Older People
Demographic Profile
6.4 The population of the UK is growing, but the population of older people is growing at an even faster rate. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the age structure of England from the 2001 and 2011 Censuses. The data shows that the proportion of the population made up by older people has increased during this time, as the number of older people has grown faster than the population as a whole. Those aged 45+ made up 39.6% of the population in 2001 compared to 41.7% in 2011. In greater detail, the largest change was seen in those aged 45-64, with this age bracket accounting for 23.8% of the population in 2001 and 25.4% in 2011 - an increase of 1.6% or 1.78 million people. Figure 6.1: 2001 Age Structure of England
Age 18-44 37.7% Age 45-64 23.8% Age 45+ 39.6% Age 65-84 13.9% Age 0-17 22.7% Age 85+ 1.9% Source: 2001 Census
Figure 6.2: 2011 Age Structure of England
Age 18-44 36.9% Age 45-64 25.4% Age 45+ 41.7% Age 65-84 14.1% Age 0-17 21.4% Age 85+ 2.2% Source: 2011 Census
6.5 As shown above, the South East saw the largest increases in the number of older people across all three age brackets with a combined increase of 482,354.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 134
London had the second largest increase for those aged 45-64, but the lowest for the remaining two age brackets. Overall, the North West gained 306,505 older people between 2001 and 2011, 95% of the entire increase for all ages during this period.
Figure 6.3: Change in Older People 2001-2011 350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000 Age 45-64 150,000 Age 65-84 Age 85+ 100,000
50,000
0 North North Yorkshire East West East London South South East West and The MidlandsMidlands East West Humber
Source: 2001 and 2011 Census
Population Density
6.6 In terms of where older people live in Greater Manchester, Figure 4 shows the population density of different age brackets across the conurbation, with 0 representing a density equal to the national average and deviations representing percentage differences. Greater Manchester has a lower share of older people in every age category than the national average, and the figures decrease for each step up in age bracket; the conurbation registers a population density 18% lower than the national average for those aged 85 and above.
6.7 The stand-out districts from the data are Manchester and Stockport; Manchester has a significantly lower proportion of older people than the national average, with 43% fewer people aged 85 and over than national figures. Manchester is not alone in this respect and rarely do cities have high elderly populations. Stockport is the only district to have a higher density of old people in every category analysed when compared to the national average, with a concentration 11% higher than the national figure for those aged 65 to 84. Trafford remains relatively close to national averages amongst all age brackets analysed. A number of districts such as Bury, Tameside and Wigan have a higher portion of “younger- older people”, yet a lower share in the higher age brackets. Upon first analysis, this could be attributed to individuals choosing to leave these districts as they get older. However, it is important to understand the factor of life expectancy in these districts, as districts with a lower life expectancy than the national average will
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 135
inevitably have lower portions of older people when compared to the country- wide figures.
Figure 6.4: Population Density of Older People in Greater Manchester Compared to National Average Figure 8.4: Population Density of Older People in Greater Manchester Compared to National Average
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20 Age 45-64 -0.30 Age 65-84 -0.40 Age 85+
-0.50 Deviation from National Average fromNational Deviation
Source: New Economy Using Data from 2011 Census
Life Expectancy
6.8 Figure 6.5 demonstrates the life expectancy across Greater Manchester and the North West compared to the national life expectancy. The expectancy is lower across Greater Manchester than the national average, and as such the conurbation will have a younger population when compared to the national average with fewer older people than may be expected. Only two districts (Stockport and Trafford) have higher or equal life expectancies for both males and females. It is no coincidence that it is these same two districts that registered higher or relatively equal elderly population densities previously. Similarly, the district with the lowest life expectancy for both genders (Manchester), had the lowest elderly population density.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 136
Figure 6.5: Life Expectancy of a 65-Year-Old in 2011-13
87.0
86.0 Males 85.0 Aged 65
Females 84.0 Aged 65
83.0 National Average
Life Expectancy (Years) LifeExpectancy 82.0 Male National 81.0 Average Female 80.0
Source: Office of National Statistics
6.9 Therefore, whilst Greater Manchester has a lower share of older people than may be expected nationally, the factor of life expectancy must be taken into account, and the expectancy generally correlates well with population density data. As such, Greater Manchester’s lower share of older people, particularly in the 85+ category, is more due to death rather than people moving elsewhere.
6.10 Figure 6.6 shows the percentage of all housing occupied by over 65s across Greater Manchester, the North West and England. Once again, the data correlates to previous data in that Stockport has the highest concentration of housing occupied by over-65s (22.9%), and Manchester has by far the lowest (12.5%). The remaining eight districts have relatively similar shares of properties occupied by over-65s, varying between 18.1% in Salford and 20.9% in Trafford. It should also be noted that whilst Manchester may have the lowest share of properties occupied by over 65s, its scale and size means that it actually has the third largest real number, with 25,667 properties, behind only Stockport and Wigan.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 137
Figure 6.6: Breakdown of Housing for Over 65s Number of Percentage of All Total Households Households District Number of Occupied by Occupied by Over Households Over 65s 65s Bolton 116,371 23,217 20.0% Bury 78,113 15,835 20.3% Manchester 204,969 25,667 12.5% Oldham 89,703 17,721 19.8% Rochdale 87,552 16,605 19.0% Salford 103,556 18,701 18.1% Stockport 121,979 27,923 22.9% Tameside 94,953 18,788 19.8% Trafford 94,484 19,747 20.9% Wigan 136,386 27,255 20.0%
Greater Manchester 1,128,066 211,459 18.7% North West 3,009,549 629,481 20.9% England 22,063,368 4,576,776 20.7% Source: 2011 Census
6.11 The map below (Figure 7) shows the areas across Greater Manchester that have the highest density of older people (over 55). As expected from the data above, there is a low density of older people in Manchester, and the higher density areas tend to be on the outskirts of the conurbation. A similar trend follows within each district, with relatively small concentrations of older people in the centre of the districts and higher concentrations towards the outskirts and borders with other districts. Stockport once again seems to show a large density of older people, with a large portion of the district registering over 30% older people. Similar “hotspots” can be found in the northern and eastern parts of Oldham, and in south west Trafford.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 138
Figure 6.7: Population aged over 65 in Greater Manchester
6.12 The maps below illustrate the spatial distribution of the population aged 65 to 74 and Over 75. Once again Stockport has high concentrations, particularly in the east. Oldham retains high concentrations in its northern and eastern areas. Although Trafford’s density has declined overall, it retains a high proportion of older people in the south west of the district along its border.
6.13 Figure 7 shows relatively lower density of older people across the conurbation for over 75s than for 65 to 74s, as would be expected. The northern and eastern regions of Oldham register much lower densities for this age bracket compared to the previous maps. Stockport retains the largest number of areas with a large concentration of older people, although the areas are more dispersed than previous maps. In Trafford, the south western region which was registering high concentrations of older people in the previous two maps has diminished, although the district retains a higher concentration in more northern areas. Once again, Manchester has very low concentrations of older people in the centre
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 139
Figure 6.8: Population 65 to 74 Greater Manchester
Figure 6.9 Population Aged Over 75 Greater Manchester
6.14 Between the three maps there is a pattern of pockets of older people in Stockport, Oldham and Trafford. The latter two regions retain high concentrations of older people in the higher age brackets (75+), whereas Oldham shows lower concentrations for this higher age bracket. This can be attributed to a lower life expectancy in Oldham.
6.15 In greater depth, we can see the specific wards in Greater Manchester with the highest and lowest concentrations of older people (all those aged over 55). Unsurprisingly, Figure 8 shows that wards in Stockport, Bury, Trafford, Oldham
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 140
and Wigan make up most of the top 20. Marple in particular has a high concentration of old people, with Marple South and Marple North both in the top three wards. Other key areas are Bramhall (South and North) and Saddleworth (South and North). All of these wards are on the outskirts of Greater Manchester which supports previous findings.
Figure 6.10: 20 Wards in Greater Manchester with over 50% of Population Aged Over 55 Percentage of All Population Aged Ward District Over 55 E05000795 : Marple South Stockport 56.2% E05000676 : North Manor Bury 55.3% E05000794 : Marple North Stockport 55.1% E05000780 : Bramhall South Stockport 54.7% E05000821 : Bowdon Trafford 52.2% E05000671 : Church Bury 51.8% E05000830 : Hale Barns Trafford 51.7% E05000732 : Saddleworth South Oldham 51.7% E05000731 : Saddleworth North Oldham 51.6% E05000659 : Heaton and Lostock Bolton 51.0% E05000779 : Bramhall North Stockport 50.9% E05000651 : Bradshaw Bolton 50.4% E05000724 : Crompton Oldham 50.0% E05000858 : Shevington with Lower Ground Wigan 49.7% E05000754 : South Middleton Rochdale 49.4% E05000729 : Royton North Oldham 49.3% E05000861 : Wigan Central Wigan 48.9% E05000856 : Orrell Wigan 48.8% E05000827 : Davyhulme West Trafford 48.8% E05000790 : Heald Green Stockport 48.7% Source: 2011 Census
6.16 Figure 6.11 once again demonstrates Manchester’s low population density of older people. 6 of Manchester’s wards have less than 20% of its population over 55 with the city centre at just 7.6%.
Figure 6.11: Wards in Greater Manchester with Less than 20% of Population Aged Over 55 % of All Population Ward District Aged Over 55 E05000708 : Longsight Manchester 19.3% E05000710 : Moss Side Manchester 19.0% E05000770 : Ordsall Salford 18.6% E05000717 : Withington Manchester 18.1% E05000688 : Ardwick Manchester 17.8% E05000706 : Hulme Manchester 13.2% E05000697 : City Centre Manchester 7.6% Source: 2011 Census
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 141
House Size
6.17 Figure 6.12 shows the size of properties that people over 65 live in. The majority of over 65s clearly live in 2 and 3-bedroom properties, with only a small number living in 4 and 5-bedroom properties. Stockport has the largest percentage of older people living in 4 and 5-bedroom properties: 10.9% and 2.0% respectively compared to the national average of 8.2% and 1.7%. This signifies an under occupancy issue, with a number of larger properties being under- occupied by older people. Despite Oldham’s large population of older people, the issue of under occupancy does not seem as potent, as older people in the district typically live in 2 and 3-bedroom properties with only 5.6% living in 4 and 5- bedroom properties.
Figure 6.12: Size of over 65 properties (bedroom) Figure 12: Size of Over 65 Properties 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Bolton 19.3% 35.9% 37.6% Bury 15.7% 33.7% 41.5% Manchester 22.2% 27.5% 44.5% Oldham 19.2% 40.9% 34.4% 1 Bedroom Rochdale 21.4% 34.4% 37.1% Salford 19.9% 32.4% 41.9% 2 Bedrooms Stockport 14.5% 29.4% 43.2% 3 Bedrooms Tameside 19.2% 36.7% 39.4% Trafford 15.9% 23.3% 48.9% 4 Bedrooms Wigan 14.3% 34.0% 46.2% 5 Bedrooms Greater… 18.0% 32.5% 41.9% North West 15.7% 31.7% 40.4% England 15.1% 32.2% 42.9% Source: 2011 Census
Figure 6.13: Percentage of All Properties Lived in by Over 65s by Size (where all residents are over 65) Number of Bedrooms District 1 2 3 4 5 All Bolton 37.1% 21.1% 18.2% 10.4% 7.7% 20.0% Bury 35.2% 22.5% 19.2% 11.9% 7.4% 20.3% Manchester 16.8% 10.8% 13.8% 7.6% 4.3% 12.5% Oldham 41.2% 21.7% 16.7% 9.1% 6.5% 19.8% Rochdale 35.2% 20.4% 16.6% 10.3% 6.9% 19.0% Salford 26.5% 17.0% 18.4% 10.1% 7.5% 18.1% Stockport 35.3% 24.8% 22.4% 16.7% 10.7% 22.9% Tameside 36.1% 20.8% 17.9% 8.5% 7.4% 19.8% Trafford 36.0% 21.4% 21.4% 13.5% 9.0% 20.9% Wigan 38.1% 23.2% 18.5% 8.5% 7.7% 20.0% Greater Manchester 30.2% 19.4% 18.1% 10.9% 7.5% 18.7% North West 32.4% 23.6% 19.9% 13.0% 9.5% 20.9% England 27.2% 23.6% 20.3% 14.2% 10.4% 20.7% Source: 2011 Census
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 142
6.18 Figure 6.13 demonstrates the percentage of properties of a certain size that are occupied by people over 65. There is a clear tendency for older people to live in one-bedroom properties, and across Greater Manchester 30.2% of all one- bedroom properties are occupied by people over 65. It is likely that much of this property is specialist housing. This figure is highest in Oldham but lowest in Manchester, where one-bedroom properties tend to be occupied by young professionals within the private rented sector. The percentage of four and five- bedroom properties occupied by over-65s in Greater Manchester is lower than the national average. However, the older population in Stockport is once again apparent as over-65s occupy a greater share of all sizes of properties than the national average. This can become a problem at the higher end of the spectrum when over-65s under occupy four and five bedrooms properties, creating supply problems across the housing market; 10.7% of five bedroom properties in Stockport are occupied by over 65s, compared to just 7.5% across the conurbation.
6.19 Looking in more detail at one person households across Greater Manchester by age band Figure 6.14 shows that the percentage of one person households increases from 30% of those aged 55 to 59 to 70% of those aged over 85 living alone. This pattern is similar across all districts i.e. the percentage of those living alone increasing as age increases. This trend is particularly pronounced in Oldham where for those aged 55 to 59 26.6% are one person households and this rises to 74.3% for those aged over 85.
Figure 6.14: Percentage of one person households by age band in Greater Manchester
Area 55-59 60-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Bolton 28.1% 33.5% 40.4% 55.1% 71.7% Bury 27.6% 32.2% 40.3% 53.5% 70.4% Manchester 38.8% 46.2% 51.3% 57.8% 67.9% Oldham 26.6% 33.2% 41.9% 56.9% 74.3% Rochdale 30.0% 35.8% 42.3% 56.2% 72.3% Salford 35.6% 40.1% 44.7% 58.1% 73.2% Stockport 27.2% 31.8% 40.0% 53.3% 68.3% Tameside 30.0% 34.6% 43.0% 56.7% 72.9% Trafford 25.9% 32.6% 39.9% 52.6% 68.4% Wigan 26.6% 30.7% 36.6% 52.4% 71.0%
Greater Manchester 30.0% 35.3% 42.0% 55.1% 70.7% Source: ONS Census 2011 CT0345 - Age of Household Reference Person (HRP) by household composition by tenure by bespoke accommodation type (excluding caravans and temporary structures) by number of bedrooms
Tenure
6.20 Of housing for over-65s, the majority tend to be owned, and those that are owned are almost always owned outright (i.e. no mortgage owed). Nationally, 73% of over-65s are owner occupiers (Figure 15). Within Greater Manchester the overall figure is lower, at 67.6%, although there is considerable variation between
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 143
districts. Stockport has the highest percentage of owner occupiers in this age group, with 79.3%, whereas Manchester has the lowest at 48%.
6.21 Of those that do not own their home, most live in social rented properties. The data shows a considerable reliance on the social rented sector in Greater Manchester compared to national data, with 25.6% of all over-65 properties falling into this bracket in the conurbation, compared to 19.8% nationally and 20.2% in the North West. 7 out of 10 districts in Greater Manchester have a higher percentage of over-65s in social rented housing than the national figure. This figure is highest in Manchester where 42.4% of over-65 properties are in the social rented sector.
6.22 The private rented sector accounts for only a small share of over-65 housing, at 4.4% across England compared to around 15% for all age groups. Greater Manchester has a smaller private rented sector for over 65s compared to the national figure, at 3.6%. The only district to have a higher figure than England is Manchester, where 5.1% of over-65 properties are in the private rented sector.
Figure 6.15: Tenure mix over 65
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 144
Population and Household projections in Greater Manchester
6.23 Figure 8.16 shows the population projection at local authority level for Greater Manchester, based on 2014 levels up to 2037 for those aged over 55. The population of Over 55’s is estimated to increase by 34% across GM rising from 27% of the total population in 2014 to 43.4% of the total population in 2037.
Figure 6.16: Population Projections in Greater Manchester - Aged Over 55 2014 2037 Change
Change % 2014 to Change Change in Number % of total Number % of total 2037 2014 to % of total Area ('000's) population ('000's) population ('000's) 2037 population Bolton 78 27.7 101 33.2 23 29.8 5.4 Bury 54 29.0 71 34.5 17 31.5 5.6 Manchester 89 17.0 128 20.8 40 44.9 3.8 Oldham 61 26.4 79 31.8 19 30.6 5.3 Rochdale 58 27.4 75 33.3 16 27.8 5.9 Salford 59 24.5 82 27.9 22 37.6 3.4 Stockport 90 31.5 117 36.7 26 29.2 5.2 Tameside 64 28.8 84 35.4 21 32.8 6.7 Trafford 65 28.0 91 33.5 26 40.0 5.6 Wigan 96 29.8 128 37.1 32 33.9 7.3
Greater Manchester 713 27.0 956 32.4 243 34.0 5.4 Source: Table 2: 2014-based Subnational Population Projections for Local Authorities and Higher Administrative Areas in England https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections
6.24 At the local authority level Stockport has the highest percentage of its population over 55 in 2014 at 31.5% and this is expected to rise to 36.7% of the population by 2037. In terms of actual numbers, Manchester’s over 55’s population is projected to rise 44.9% although this will only still represent 20.8% of its total population. Outside of the city council areas of Manchester and Salford all districts are expected to have over 30% of their populations over 55. In Wigan, the over 55 population will rise from 29.8% of its total population to 37.1% in 2037.
6.25 Whilst population levels are important, in terms of the provision of housing it is the projection of households that is the key measure to estimate future demand.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 145
Figure 6.17: Household Projections in Greater Manchester Over 55 Over 65 Over 75 Over 85
% Change Change Change Change in Chan in actual in actual in actual actual % of ge % of total % % of total % % of total % total 2012 househol Change househol Change househol Change household to ds 2012 2012 to ds 2012 2012 to ds 2012 2012 to s 2012 to Area 2037 to 2037 2037 to 2037 2037 to 2037 2037 2037 Bolton 34.9 7.4 54.2 9.1 85.3 7.6 134.9 3.8 Bury 34.3 6.9 52.2 8.5 83.2 7.5 145.6 3.8 Manchester 62.0 7.5 70.4 5.4 65.1 2.3 76.7 0.9 Oldham 45.7 10.1 66.7 10.9 98.5 8.4 151.2 3.8 Rochdale 33.9 8.1 55.5 9.9 81.1 7.5 134.2 3.6 Salford 37.7 2.0 43.0 2.2 55.2 2.2 83.7 1.4 Stockport 35.7 7.2 50.8 8.4 74.9 7.4 133.0 4.1 Tameside 35.6 7.9 54.1 9.1 83.1 7.4 135.6 3.5 Trafford 53.0 9.1 63.2 7.8 78.4 5.8 127.7 3.3 Wigan 32.2 7.1 51.9 9.1 89.9 8.0 169.7 4.3
Greater Manchester 41.0 7.0 56.4 7.5 78.8 5.9 127.3 3.0 Source: DCLG 2012-based sub-national household projections
6.26 Greater Manchester’s number of households over 55 is expected to increase by 41% between 2012 and 2037 (Figure 17). In terms of actual change Manchester will increase its number of over 55’s by 62% (just over 39,000) although this as a percentage of total households is still relatively low at 37.8%. In terms of percentage change of the older population as a ratio of the total population, Oldham is expected to rise from 43.5% to 53.5%, the highest proportional change of all the districts. As each age band gets older the percentage change also increases. For Greater Manchester, for example, there is expected to be an increase of 56.4% for those aged over 65, then 78.8% for those aged over 75 and 127% for those aged 85. All districts follow this pattern and all, apart from Manchester and Salford are expected to experience an increase of 100% of heads of households aged over 85. Older People Population Projections
6.27 The Projecting Older People Population Information system (POPPI)33 provides population data to identify key characteristics within the older population (over 65), projecting numbers into the future to indicate a prevalence of conditions that may require a social care response.
6.28 Calculations are applied to population figures to estimate projected numbers of older people by; those living alone, living in care home, receiving unpaid care, their ability to carry out domestic tasks and self-care.
33 supported by the Extra Care Charitable Trust, originally developed by the Institute of Public Care (IPC) for the Care Services Efficiency Delivery Programme (CSED). The system is now provided solely by the Institute of Public Care on licence from the Department of Health http://www.poppi.org.uk/
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 146
6.29 Prevalence rates from research have been used to estimate the impact of conditions such as limiting long term illness, dementia and falls. A summary of these statistics for Greater Manchester are provided below: (Figure 18).
Figure 6.18: Limiting Long Term Illness and Living Alone 2014 to 2030
Long term illness whose day-to-day Living Alone activities are limited a lot
% of % of % of % of over 65 over 65 % Change over 65 over 65 % Change population population 2014 to population population 2014 to 2014 2030 2030 2014 2030 2030 Bolton 28.4 30.0 43.3 35.6 37.1 41.0 Bury 24.4 26.0 42.7 35.8 37.3 39.6 Manchester 35.5 35.4 33.2 36.9 36.0 30.1 Oldham 28.1 29.3 38.6 36.1 37.3 37.0 Rochdale 29.2 30.3 39.8 36.0 37.1 39.2 Salford 32.7 33.3 31.9 36.5 36.5 29.4 Stockport 22.6 23.9 40.0 36.8 37.5 35.1 Tameside 28.9 30.2 46.4 35.7 36.8 44.1 Trafford 24.0 24.5 39.2 37.4 36.9 34.5 Wigan 30.8 32.8 44.2 35.0 36.9 42.3
Greater Manchester 28.5 29.7 39.8 36.2 36.9 37.2 North West 27.5 28.7 39.9 36.3 37.3 37.7 England 23.7 25.0 46.7 36.5 37.5 42.9 Source: http://www.poppi.org.uk/
6.30 The table above (Figure 6.18) shows the percentages of the total population over 65 with a limiting long term illness and the percentage of the population that is living alone. Whilst the proportions of the population over 65 do not change considerably what should be noted is the change in the actual number of people. Almost 40% more people will have a limiting long term illness by 2030 in Greater Manchester (although this is lower than for the country as a whole). Tameside has the highest change at 46.4%. There will be 37% more people living alone in 2030 in Greater Manchester and this change ins over 40% in Tameside, Wigan and Bolton.
6.31 The table below (Figure 6.19) shows the percentages of the total population over 65 who have dementia and who are predicted to have dementia by 2030. In Greater Manchester only Stockport’s percentage of 8.2% is higher than the national average for England and the average for Greater Manchester in 2030 is that 7.7% of the over 65 population will have dementia compared to 6.6% in 2014. What stands out from the figures is the actual change in figures. As the overall number of those over 65’s increases the number of people with dementia is expected to increase by 55%. This is lower in districts of Manchester and Salford as there is generally a younger population. It is in Wigan that dementia is predicted to increase the most, by just over 71%
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 147
Figure 6.19: Dementia and Self Care 2014 to 2030 People unable to manage at least one self-care activity on their own (Activities include: bathe, shower or wash all over, dress and undress, wash their face and hands, People aged 65 and over feed, cut their toenails, take predicted to have dementia medicines
% of % of % Actual % of % of % Actual population population Change population population Change over 65 over 65 2014 to over 65 over 65 2014 to 2014 2030 2030 2014 2030 2030 Bolton 6.4 7.7 62.1 32.1 34.5 45.3 Bury 6.4 7.7 61.0 32.2 34.7 44.6 Manchester 7.0 7.1 35.5 33.4 33.0 31.7 Oldham 6.6 7.7 55.8 32.6 34.6 41.2 Rochdale 6.6 7.7 58.3 32.5 34.3 42.7 Salford 6.8 7.5 41.9 33.2 34.0 32.7 Stockport 7.0 8.2 55.0 33.4 35.3 39.8 Tameside 6.3 7.5 67.1 32.1 34.2 48.8 Trafford 7.3 7.8 45.9 34.2 34.5 37.4 Wigan 6.0 7.6 71.4 31.3 34.3 48.3
Greater Manchester 6.6 7.7 55.2 32.7 34.3 41.2 North West 6.7 7.9 57.5 32.8 34.8 42.0 England 6.9 8.1 62.1 33.2 35.1 47.1
6.32 In summary, within Greater Manchester, there are a lower proportion of older people than the national average due to a lower life expectancy. Stockport has a large population of elderly than other Greater Manchester districts with a higher life expectancy. Manchester has the fewest number of older people, and the lowest life expectancy, yet the size of the Manchester district means that it actually has the second highest number of over-65 households in the conurbation. There are pockets of older people in Oldham, Wigan and Trafford, although these diminish as age brackets increase, particularly in Oldham, where there is considerable variation in the number of older people between wards. Stockport has the largest level of under-occupancy with a larger share of older people occupying 4 and 5-bedroom properties than neighbouring districts. Most over-65 properties are owned outright. The remaining properties tend to be in the social rented sector, with Greater Manchester relying on this sector more than the country as a whole. The private rented sector accounts for only a small portion of over-65 housing.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 148
6.33 It is not only the actual numbers of older people that is important but the characteristics of this older population itself. Almost 40% more people will have a limiting long term illness by 2030 in Greater Manchester (although this is lower than for the country as a whole). Tameside has the highest change at 46.4%. There will be 37% more people living alone in 2030 in Greater Manchester and this change is over 40% in Tameside, Wigan and Bolton. As the overall number of those over 65’s increases the number of people with dementia is expected to increase by 55%. This is lower in districts of Manchester and Salford as there is generally a younger population. It is in Wigan that dementia is predicted to increase the most, by just over 71%
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 149
People with disabilities
6.34 In understanding the need for housing provision, it is important to consider the specific needs of households with member(s) with some form of disability, and their current and future housing situation. Census data from 2011 provides a way to examine the numbers and distribution of people with a long-term health problem or disability, defined as:
“a long-term health problem or disability that limits a person's day-to- day activities, and has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months. This includes problems that are related to old age. People were asked to assess whether their daily activities were limited a lot or a little by such a health problem, or whether their daily activities were not limited at all.”34
6.35 Figure 6.20 shows the numbers of people with a long-term health problem or disability (LTHPD), including those whose daily activities were limited ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’.
Figure 6.20: Population with a long term health problem or disability Number %
Bolton 53,612 19.5% Bury 33,248 18.2% Manchester 86,048 17.9% Oldham 42,727 19.1% Rochdale 42,722 20.4% Salford 46,691 20.4% Stockport 50,151 17.9% Tameside 44,504 20.4% Trafford 37,410 16.6% Wigan 66,555 21.1% Greater Manchester 503,668 19.1% North West 1,369,604 19.8% England 9,608,162 17.4% Source: Census 2011
6.36 Focusing solely on those whose daily activities were limited ‘a lot’ by their long-term health problem or disability produces the picture shown in Figure 21 overleaf.
6.37 While there will be a complex range of factors behind the patterns shown in the two tables, one of the major determinants will be the relative age profiles of districts. The figure overleaf shows the numbers of people with a long-term health problems or disability which limits their daily activities ‘a lot’, broken down into age ranges. As would be expected, the numbers and share of the population with an LTHPD increases as you rise up the age groups.
34 Census 2011: Glossary of Terms, Office for National Statistics May 2014 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/census-data/2011-census-data/2011-first- release/2011-census-definitions/2011-census-glossary.pdf
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 150
Figure 6.21: Population with daily activities limited 'a lot' by a long term health problem or disability Number %
Bolton 26,668 9.7% Bury 15,586 8.5% Manchester 45,263 9.4% Oldham 21,234 9.5% Rochdale 21,452 10.2% Salford 24,444 10.7% Stockport 22,792 8.1% Tameside 22,199 10.2% Trafford 17,247 7.7% Wigan 33,413 10.6% Greater Manchester 250,298 9.5% North West 681,402 9.8% England 4,444,433 8.1% Source: Census 2011
Figure 6.22: Population limited 'a lot' by a long term health problem or disability Age 0-15 Age 16-49 Age 50-64 Age 65+ Number % Number % Number % Number % Bolton 928 1.6% 6,191 4.9% 7,223 14.5% 12,326 29.8% Bury 584 1.6% 3,449 4.1% 4,164 12.1% 7,389 26.1% Manchester 1,914 2.0% 13,422 4.8% 12,967 21.2% 16,960 37.2% Oldham 976 1.9% 5,042 4.9% 5,893 15.1% 9,323 29.6% Rochdale 769 1.7% 5,335 5.5% 6,228 16.3% 9,120 30.8% Salford 853 1.9% 5,997 5.3% 6,654 17.6% 10,940 34.2% Stockport 853 1.6% 4,709 3.8% 5,542 10.1% 11,688 23.7% Tameside 674 1.6% 5,298 5.2% 6,189 15.1% 10,038 30.5% Trafford 595 1.3% 3,662 3.5% 4,267 10.5% 8,723 24.8% Wigan 888 1.5% 7,134 4.9% 9,252 15.4% 16,139 32.3% Greater Manchester 9,034 1.7% 60,239 4.7% 68,379 14.9% 112,646 30.0% North West 22,305 1.7% 150,080 4.7% 182,214 13.9% 326,803 29.0% England 163,214 1.5% 935,384 3.7% 1,084,291 10.7% 2,261,544 25.5% Source: Census 2011
6.38 Looking at these two tables together, the importance of age distribution becomes clearer. Particularly notable are Manchester’s figures, which in Figure 21 are slightly below the Greater Manchester average overall in percentage terms, but are in fact proportionately higher than the Greater Manchester average in each individual age range in Figure 6.22, illustrating how the lower total figure is a factor of the city’s relatively youthful population.
6.39 Considered overall, Greater Manchester would appear to have a similar proportion of people with a long term health problem or disability to the North West as a whole, though with a smaller proportion reporting an issue which limits
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 151
their daily activities ‘a little’. But both Greater Manchester and the North West have a greater share of people with a LTHPD than England as a whole.
6.40 The Census also provides information about the tenures which people with a long term health problem or disability live in. This is recorded in terms of people rather than households, so totals will not match other tenure analysis in this document. Figures 23-26 below and overleaf summarise the data.
Figure 6.23: Population with a long term health problem or disability, by tenure Owner occupation Renting Owned with Private mortgage, Owned Social rented or loan or Total Total outright rented living rent shared free ownership Bolton 21,682 10,439 32,121 15,787 5,704 21,491 Bury 14,400 7,530 21,930 7,799 3,519 11,318 Manchester 19,497 13,298 32,795 40,605 12,648 53,253 Oldham 16,869 8,747 25,616 12,521 4,590 17,111 Rochdale 15,452 8,961 24,413 13,432 4,877 18,309 Salford 14,483 7,607 22,090 19,427 5,174 24,601 Stockport 23,687 11,153 34,840 10,949 4,362 15,311 Tameside 16,983 9,267 26,250 13,540 4,714 18,254 Trafford 16,644 7,961 24,605 9,680 3,125 12,805 Wigan 29,284 13,319 42,603 17,773 6,179 23,952 Greater Manchester 188,981 98,282 287,263 161,513 54,892 216,405 North West 569,349 272,729 842,078 370,060 157,466 527,526 England 4,072,075 1,878,182 5,950,257 2,571,218 1,086,687 3,657,905 Source: Census 2011
Figure 6.24: Population with a long term health problem or disability, by tenure Owner occupation Renting
Owned with Private mortgage, Owned Social rented or loan or Total Total Total outright rented living rent shared free ownership Bolton 29.5% 9.3% 17.3% 31.5% 14.6% 24.1% 19.5% Bury 29.6% 8.9% 16.4% 34.0% 13.3% 22.9% 18.2% Manchester 30.3% 10.2% 16.9% 28.9% 8.7% 18.6% 17.9% Oldham 28.9% 9.2% 16.7% 30.6% 15.7% 24.4% 19.1% Rochdale 30.6% 10.1% 17.6% 32.2% 16.9% 26.0% 20.4% Salford 33.6% 9.4% 17.8% 32.8% 11.5% 23.6% 20.4% Stockport 28.8% 8.3% 16.1% 34.7% 13.4% 23.9% 17.9% Tameside 32.8% 9.8% 17.9% 32.9% 15.8% 25.7% 20.4% Trafford 27.4% 7.7% 15.0% 30.8% 10.6% 21.0% 16.6% Wigan 35.4% 9.4% 19.0% 32.9% 16.3% 26.0% 21.1% Greater Manchester 30.7% 9.2% 17.1% 31.5% 12.4% 22.6% 19.1% North West 31.1% 9.5% 17.9% 32.8% 14.4% 23.7% 19.8% England 28.8% 8.5% 16.4% 28.5% 11.0% 19.4% 17.4% Source: Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 152
Figure 6.25: Population limited 'a lot' by a long term health problem or disability, by tenure Owner occupation Renting
Owned with Private Owned mortgage, Social rented or Total Total outright loan or shared rented living rent ownership free Bolton 10,172 4,361 14,533 9,226 2,909 12,135 Bury 6,372 2,961 9,333 4,543 1,710 6,253 Manchester 9,842 5,820 15,662 23,751 5,850 29,601 Oldham 7,920 3,752 11,672 7,201 2,361 9,562 Rochdale 7,224 3,819 11,043 7,893 2,516 10,409 Salford 7,178 3,269 10,447 11,382 2,615 13,997 Stockport 10,169 4,265 14,434 6,257 2,101 8,358 Tameside 7,964 3,979 11,943 7,840 2,416 10,256 Trafford 7,177 3,155 10,332 5,404 1,511 6,915 Wigan 14,182 5,685 19,867 10,279 3,267 13,546 Greater Manchester 88,200 41,066 129,266 93,776 27,256 121,032 North West 265,876 116,430 382,306 218,854 80,242 299,096 England 1,774,600 739,095 2,513,695 1,429,602 501,136 1,930,738 Source: Census 2011
Figure 6.26: Population limited 'a lot' by a long term health problem or disability, by tenure Owner occupation Renting Owned with Private Owned mortgage, Social rented or Total Total Total outright loan or shared rented living rent ownership free Bolton 13.8% 3.9% 7.8% 18.4% 7.5% 13.6% 9.7% Bury 13.1% 3.5% 7.0% 19.8% 6.5% 12.7% 8.5% Manchester 15.3% 4.5% 8.1% 16.9% 4.0% 10.3% 9.4% Oldham 13.6% 4.0% 7.6% 17.6% 8.1% 13.6% 9.5% Rochdale 14.3% 4.3% 7.9% 18.9% 8.7% 14.8% 10.2% Salford 16.7% 4.0% 8.4% 19.2% 5.8% 13.5% 10.7% Stockport 12.4% 3.2% 6.7% 19.8% 6.5% 13.0% 8.1% Tameside 15.4% 4.2% 8.1% 19.0% 8.1% 14.5% 10.2% Trafford 11.8% 3.0% 6.3% 17.2% 5.1% 11.4% 7.7% Wigan 17.1% 4.0% 8.9% 19.0% 8.6% 14.7% 10.6% Greater Manchester 14.3% 3.9% 7.7% 18.3% 6.1% 12.6% 9.5% North West 14.5% 4.1% 8.1% 19.4% 7.3% 13.4% 9.8% England 12.5% 3.4% 6.9% 15.8% 5.1% 10.2% 8.1% Source: Census 2011
6.41 The overall picture, graphically summarised in Figure 27 overleaf, is a relative concentration of people with a LTHPD in the social rented sector. Given the specialist and supported housing offered by the sector, this might be expected to some degree, but it is clear from the numbers involved that this alone is insufficient to explain the differences between tenures. Within the owner- occupied sector, there is a clear bias toward those with a LTHPD owning their home outright, likely to be an indicator that older households are more likely to have paid their mortgage in full. Only Trafford and Stockport have fewer owner- occupiers with a LTHPD than the national average, all ten districts have a higher percentage of people with a LTHPD in social rented housing than the national average. Looked at as a whole, while the proportions vary slightly, these overall
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 153
patterns replicate those found in the wider North West and across England as a whole.
Figure 6.27: Long term health problem or disability by tenure, Greater Manchester
Source: Census 2011
6.42 Spatially, Figure 28 overleaf summarises the picture across the ten districts and three main tenures. Variations between districts are perhaps surprisingly limited, with the most notable being the lower levels of people with LTHPD in the private rented sector in Manchester, Salford and Trafford.
6.43 While aggregate analysis such as this helps inform strategic direction, it does so in a context where a distinctive approach is rapidly emerging as Greater Manchester Health & Social Care devolution proceeds. An increased focus on prevention, new commissioning approaches, and much closer integration of housing and other services working with health and social care are together intended to radically transform the health outcomes for Greater Manchester residents, which are currently among the worst in the country. Individual locality plans for each of the ten districts outline the local vision for health and social care. Given the ambitions to provide tailored, integrated approaches at individual and community scale, the detailed planning of housing and housing-related services for people with long term health problems or disabilities will be tackled at district level, rather than through the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 154
Figure 6.28: Tenure, long term health problem or disability by Greater Manchester district,
Source: Census 2011
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 155
Armed Forces
6.44 Demand for housing for members of the armed forces can be analysed using CORE: (Continuous Recording) of Lettings and Sales by Registered Providers; this must be filled in by social landlords for every new let.
6.45 Since 2012, the CORE form has included the question: “Has anyone in the household ever served in the British regular armed forces?” Since 2012, there have been 890 lets to members of the armed forces across Greater Manchester, which accounted for 1.7% of total lets.
Figure 6.28: Number and proportion of lets to households with members that have served in the armed forces, 2012-2015 Number of lets % lets 2012/13 303 1.8% 2013/14 281 1.6% 2014/15 306 1.7%
Source: CORE (Continuous Recording) of Lettings and Sales by Registered Providers
Spatial Distribution
6.46 By analysing the data to a district level, it is clear that there is no particular spatial pattern of armed forces lets. Generally, over the three years Manchester and Tameside have had relatively high numbers of armed forces lets compared to the rest of Greater Manchester, and Trafford has had very few.
Family Type
6.47 Armed forces lets have predominantly been to single people and families (2 adults and at least 1 child) since 2012. However in 2014/15, a number of lets went to older households, both single older people and couples.
Figure 6.29: Armed forces lets by family type, 2012-2015 Count of armed forces lets in Greater Manchester Family Type 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 1 adult 124 111 109 2 adults 1+ child 42 48 39 1 Elder 32 31 63 2 adults 27 25 30 2 elders 32 18 42 1 adult 1+ child 28 23 14 Other 10 12 9 Source: CORE (Continuous Recording) of Lettings and Sales by Registered Providers
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 156
Family Housing
6.48 Using the ONS Sub-National Population Projections it is possible to understand the increase on families in the period and the potential need for family housing across the districts and Greater Manchester. The below shows the number of extra dwellings projected as for families with dependent children over the plan period, and also breaks this down by number of bedrooms.
Figure 6.30: Total number of extra dwellings needed for families with dependent children over the plan period, by bedroom size
Number of extra dwellings needed for families over the plan period
1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5+ bedrooms Total
Bolton 0 11,151 19,654 7,159 2,015 39,979 Bury 0 6,342 13,361 5,582 1,582 26,867
Manchester 0 20,387 39,248 7,923 2,828 70,386
Oldham 0 10,390 15,037 5,060 1,572 32,060 Rochdale 0 8,207 14,615 4,972 1,406 29,199 Salford 0 10,990 19,365 5,422 1,779 37,556
Stockport 0 8,886 19,480 8,685 3,045 40,096
Tameside 0 9,333 15,936 4,618 1,097 30,984
Trafford 0 6,073 17,881 7,955 3,355 35,264 Wigan 0 10,036 25,255 8,536 1,505 45,332
GM Total 0 101,796 199,83 2 65,911 20,184 387,723 Source: OAN- ONS Sub-National Population Projection 2014, with LPEG Headship rates applied
6.49 Figure 8.30 shows that there will be a projected increase in over 380,000 more family sized dwellings for families with dependent children over the period in Greater Manchester, at a variety of sizes, with almost 200,000 3 bedroomed homes needed in Greater Manchester over the period, and a smaller number of dwellings that have 4 or more bedrooms (around 86,000 over the period).
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 157
Students
6.50 The proportion of Greater Manchester households that consist solely of full- time students is slightly above the national average, with Manchester having a relatively high figure of 3.2% compared to the England figure of 0.6%.
6.51 These student households are almost completely focused in the area stretching from the City Centre ward to Withington, with more than 20% of households in the latter consisting wholly of full-time students, by far the highest proportion in Greater Manchester although nine other wards in Manchester exceed 5%. The immediately surrounding areas also typically have above average proportions of student households, including some wards immediately to the west, north and east of the city centre as well as those to the south.
6.52 Outside this area, the adjoining ward of Halliwell in Bolton is the only one to have more than 0.6% of their households consisting solely of full-time students. This spatial pattern of student households means that 86% are located in Manchester, with 8% in Salford and 3% in Bolton.
6.53 It is considered reasonable to expect that the spatial distribution of students will not alter greatly over the lifetime of the GMSF and therefore it is clear that the needs of students will continue to be met predominantly in Manchester, Salford and Bolton.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 158
Self-Build and Custom Build
6.54 SHMAs need to investigate the contribution that self-build custom build homes can make toward the local housing land supply.
6.55 NPPF Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 2a-021-20160401 looks at how the needs for all types of housing should be addressed.
6.56 In relation to self-build and custom housebuilding, NPPG states that the Government wants to enable more people to build or commission their own home and wants to make this form of housing a mainstream housing option. Historically quantitative information regarding levels of self-build has been hard to come by. However, in accordance with NPPG and The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Register) Regulations 2016, since 1 April 2016, each of the Greater Manchester districts have been keeping a register of individuals and associations of individuals who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in their area in order to build homes for those individuals to occupy.
6.57 Although it is possible that these registers could give a false impression of demand because, theoretically, anyone can apply to be on a register even if they have no realistic means to build their own home, and there is a lack of measures to prevent people from signing up to registers in numerous authorities, thus potentially inflating demand, they do nonetheless act as a barometer for demand in such cases.
6.58 As of September 2016 the number of people registered on Greater Manchester’s self-build registers is around 150, with Oldham having the highest level, 100, on its register, followed by Trafford with 30 on its. It is likely that the increased interest in Oldham’s register is as a result of their “Custom Build Vanguard” status. It is possible that the relatively high level of demand in Trafford could reflect the type of housing market and land values in Trafford and the fact that this type of housing is often related to the ‘intensification’ of urban areas, for example maximising the potential for constructing dwellings in large gardens or corner plots.
6.59 Evidence from housing officers across Manchester would suggest that key issues in relation to delivery of this type of unit are associated with skills and risk. Whist there may be people with an ‘interest’ in self-build in Greater Manchester, there is normally a significant financial outlay; risks and; time delays associated with self-build.
6.60 Evidence to date would suggest that this is currently a relatively niche sector, which could deliver a small number of new homes, sometime bespoke high-end homes, but also more modest homes for sale. Given the nature and numbers involved with this type of unit, it is expected that most new delivery will be on small windfall sites and it is therefore unlikely to contribute significant numbers to GM’s housing land supply over the lifetime of the GMSF. However, there may be potential, through local policy, to encourage developers to designate parts of sites as plots available for custom build. Such policy formulation would be more appropriate at the local level, potentially through masterplanning, since given the
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 159
evidence available at present across Greater Manchester, it is difficult to demonstrate a true level of demand for this market. As part of this work, it may also be appropriate for individual local authorities to explore ways to remove some of the barriers for individuals around self-build, for example, making the lending more similar to traditional new build mortgages.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 160
Chapter 7: Affordable Housing Need
Overview
7.1 At a city region level, Greater Manchester has relatively low housing costs in a national context, with the relationship to household incomes less distant than is the case in other parts of the country. This is reflected in the housing stock and the council tax bandings as highlighted below (Figure 7.1). Over 45% of housing stock is in Council Tax Band A compared to less than 25% in England and Wales and then Greater Manchester has a lower percentage of its stock in all the other council tax bandings.
Figure 7.1: Stock profile Greater Manchester
7.2 As highlighted below in Figure 7.2 looking at residential sales and median/mean income, a household on the GM mean income can afford a property up to about £145,000 (assuming a 85% LTV mortgage and 3.5 times income at 3.5% interest over 25 years) and there are a significant amount of property sale transactions carried out at this level. Similarly, for rental properties below a mean household GM income can afford a monthly rent of £910 and with a median household income £703. Looking at the number of advertised rental properties in Greater Manchester the vast majority are affordable for the average Greater Manchester household.
7.3 The below graph illustrates the range of properties sold in Greater Manchester in 2014-15 that are affordable on a mean and median household income. The
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 161
following graph illustrates affordability for advertised rental properties across Greater Manchester in 2014-15.
Figure 7.2: Greater Manchester residential Sales 2014-15 and household income
Source: Land Registry and CACI Paycheck data
Figure 7.3: Greater Manchester rental and housing income 2014 -15
Source: Greater Manchester Estate Agents and CACI data
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 162
7.4 Despite this relative affordability as shown above, there are significant variations within Greater Manchester, and all districts continue to require a level of affordable housing for the various types of households unable financially to access market housing for sale or rent. Figure 7.4 below shows that the average income to house price ratio in GM was 6.7 with the least affordable being Trafford (8.1 times) and most affordable Tameside (5.6 times income to price).
Figure 7.4: House price affordability (2015 prices)
Source: Land Registry House Price and CACI Paycheck
7.5 Below provides a view of median household incomes across Greater Manchester for 2015, an overall income curve for Greater Manchester and individual district income splits.
Figure 7.5: GM median income 2015
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 163
Figure 7.6: Median household income curve 2015
Source: CACI Paycheck 2015
Figure 7.7: Median household income distribution Greater Manchester (2015)
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 164
Source: CACI Paycheck 2015
7.6 The current stock of affordable housing is around 260,000, or about 22% of all Greater Manchester homes, with that proportion ranging between 14% and 31% across the ten districts35. In common with national trends, the proportion of affordable housing has reduced over recent decades, primarily through Right to Buy and through restructuring and remodelling of social housing, largely balanced by new build supply to the sector, but not keeping up with growth in private sector tenures, and in particular the private rented sector.
7.7 New additions have been substantially supported by grant funding to registered housing providers through the HCA’s Affordable Homes Programme and predecessor programmes. Together with the larger accompanying investments made by registered providers from their own resources, this has enabled the delivery of affordable housing to provide an element of counter-cyclical, or at least stable, delivery through the peaks and troughs of the market over the last decade, as illustrated below:
Figure 7.8: Housing Completions 2004/5 to 2014/15
35 Source: CLG Table 100: Dwelling Stock at 1 April 2015
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 165
Source: DCLG (2016)
7.8 In Greater Manchester, the contribution made through the planning system to the direct delivery of affordable housing has been relatively small, as might be expected given the combination of relatively low values and the preponderance of brownfield delivery, with the additional development costs that can often bring. That proportion has further declined since 2008, reflecting the viability issues faced by developers in a more challenging market environment. Latest available figures from CLG36 suggest Section 106 provided only 68 affordable homes in Greater Manchester in 2014-15, of which only 4 were for rent.
7.9 The direction of Government policy under both the previous Coalition Government and the current administration has been an increasing switch of policy and financial interventions away from affordable housing as previously understood, toward supporting home ownership and access to home ownership by a wider range of households, through interventions such as the Help to Buy equity loan, now running until at least 2021. This now extends to a redefinition of affordable housing to include Starter Homes, which are in effect market sales properties with a one-off discount on sales price to the initial purchaser, though that purchaser has (at least as presently understood) to be a first-time buyer under the age of 40.
7.10 The Housing and Planning Act (2016) is now on the statute book, but there remains considerable uncertainty about the practical application and implications of a number of relevant provisions, including the extended Right to Buy and the mechanisms for their replacement, ‘pay to stay’ for council tenants, and the enforced sale of high value council homes. This is in addition to the proposed ability for the Secretary of State to redefine affordable housing by regulation (the route by which Starter Homes will be reflected in the planning system). Ministerial announcements of national targets for 200,000 Starter Homes, 135,000 shared ownership homes and 10,000 homes for Rent to Buy from the
36 Source: CLG Live Table 1011 Additional affordable housing supply 2014-15
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 166
HCA’s (renamed) Shared Ownership and Affordable Homes Programme illustrate the shift toward home ownership products within the broadened ‘affordable housing’ policy envelope.
7.11 These announcements are combined with the reduction in social rents by 1% per annum for four years from 2016, a major component of an estimated £345 million reduction in income for registered housing providers in Greater Manchester, and continuing changes to the welfare system, including a further reduction in the benefit cap to £20,000 per annum. At the same time, Government has made clear that it intends to deregulate the sector in order to secure a reversal of the ONS reclassification of housing associations as public sector bodies.
7.12 It is clear, therefore, that the national policy and financial framework underpinning the affordable housing sector in coming years will be substantially different than has previously been the case. The degree of transformation ultimately likely is yet to fully emerge, but elements of the new landscape seem to include:
a substantially greater role for intermediate tenure options such as shared ownership and rent to purchase models (and indeed Starter Homes), given both the availability of Government funding and the changes in the mortgage market post-2008; a push by some registered housing providers to engage more actively in that intermediate market, in market rental and potentially market sale development activity, perhaps working with private sector developer partners, and offering a greater choice of products on individual sites and potentially raising absorption rates as a result; the likelihood of a more flexible and porous boundary between tenures than previously, with the development of those intermediate tenure models, and a need for planning policy to respond to that greater fluidity; and in Greater Manchester specifically, the driver of the GMCA’s public service reform programme potentially leading to a positive programme of investment in housing solutions for particular client groups, for whom tailored housing provision offers a route to more effective and efficient public service delivery outcomes – perhaps particularly in health and social care, where Greater Manchester has strong devolved powers.
7.13 Greater Manchester devolution also offers the ability to invest directly in private sector-led projects through the Greater Manchester M Housing Investment Fund, and a more focused route to bringing public sector land forward through the activities of the Greater Manchester Land Commission, which brings central and local government together at senior level to unlock land for residential and other development in a strategic and coordinated way. With a unique relationship with the major housing association and ALMO social landlords operating in the city through our Memorandum of Understanding with Greater Manchester Housing Providers also driving partnership working on housing delivery, GMCA and our partners are well placed to innovate and diversify
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 167
sources of supply of homes financially accessible to Greater Manchester households.
7.14 In this context then, and given the limited amount of affordable housing achieved through the Section106 route in Greater Manchester even in more benign market conditions pre-2008, we conclude that there is no substantive case to boost housing provision targets specifically to secure new affordable housing. There are a range of other more effective mechanisms to help achieve the continued supply of affordable housing as an integrated part of wider housing delivery strategies, and there is also a much less clear policy rationale for treating land for affordable housing distinctly from general housing land, given the shifting definition being applied by Government.
Greater Manchester Housing Need Assessment
7.15 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)37 requires a calculation of affordable housing need, notwithstanding our conclusion above. A Greater Manchester SHMA was previously produced in 2008 by Deloitte which used the 2007 ‘Version 2’ practice guidance38. In light of changes to DCLG guidance the analysis presented here takes the guidance and as much secondary, easily accessible data as possible to produce an estimate of housing need. To make the statistics as robust as possible a combination of secondary and local data evidence was produced and final results agreed by housing strategy leads in each Greater Manchester district.
7.16 Various assessments of affordable housing need have been undertaken at the local level in the Greater Manchester districts providing more detailed data such as ward level and/or surveys of the local population. The dates of completion of this research vary, as do the approaches and whilst NPPG methodology was primarily used in all districts there was also some degree of primary data (survey work) in some districts. The most recent of these studies are caveated in the main table. It is useful, however, in the main table to have a consistent set of statistics of housing need in each district rather than attempting to combine the different approaches. It must be noted that all approaches to this are valid.
7.17 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)39 provides guidance on calculating affordable housing need. This replaced the 2007 Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA) Practice Guidance, and states that local authorities need to “estimate the number of households and projected households who lack
37 “National Planning Practice Guidance: Housing and economic development needs assessment. Methodology :assessing housing need” (Revision date 06/03/2014)
38 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11812/Strategic_Housi ng_Market_Assessments-_Practice_Guidance.pdf 39 “National Planning Practice Guidance: Housing and economic development needs assessment. Methodology :assessing housing need” (Revision date 06/03/2014)
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 168
their own housing or live in unsuitable housing and who cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the market”. The NPPG sets out the different types of households that are considered to be in housing need and this includes homeless households or insecure tenure (e.g. housing that is too expensive compared to disposable income); households where there is a mismatch between the housing needed and the actual dwelling (e.g. overcrowded households); households containing people with social or physical impairment or other specific needs living in unsuitable dwellings (e.g. accessed via steps) which cannot be made suitable in-situ; households that lack basic facilities (e.g. a bathroom or kitchen) and those subject to major disrepair or that are unfit for habitation and households containing people with particular social needs (e.g. escaping harassment) which cannot be resolved except through a move. The NPPG contains the methodology for calculating the level of affordable housing need, and it is this process that has been followed in calculating housing need across Greater Manchester and is set out in Figure 7.9. It must be noted that these figures are not targets. Districts will use these and other more detailed local information to steer their local strategies, investment and planning policies to meet need for affordable housing.
Figure 7.9: Affordable housing NPPG method outcome
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 169
Area Bolton Bury Manchester Oldham Rochdale Salford Stockport Tameside Trafford Wigan GM
Step 1 - Current Housing Need (Gross Backlog)
1.1 Number of Homeless households and those in temporary accommodation
1.2 Number of Overcrow ding and concealed households 1.3 Other Groups 3,592 1,058 4,565 3,139 1,293 7,598 2,710 4,040 1,504 1,510 31,009 1.4 Total current housing need (gross) = 3,592 1,058 4,565 3,139 1,293 7,598 2,710 4,040 1,504 1,510 31,009 1.1 + 1.2 (+1.3) Step 2 - Future Housing Need (Net Annual) 2.1 New Household 1,978 1,253 4,558 1,367 1,358 1,793 1,809 1,504 1,402 2,115 19,137 formation 2.2 Proportion of households unable to buy 0.314 0.283 0.421 0.336 0.324 0.381 0.309 0.326 0.330 0.280 0.338 or rent 2.3 Existing households 1,094 380 2,429 809 738 763 518 817 497 972 9,017 falling into need 2.4 Total new ly arising need (gross per year) = 1,714 735 4,346 1,269 1,179 1,447 1,076 1,307 960 1,564 15,597 (2.1 x 2.2) + 2.3 Step 3 - Affordable Housing Supply (Net Annual) 3.1 Affordable dw ellings occupied by households in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 need 3.2 Surplus Stock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Committed supply of 135 70 386 110 42 901 133 171 222 247 2,417 new affordable housing 3.4 Units to be taken out of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 management
3.5 Total affordable housing stock available 135 70 386 110 42 901 133 171 222 247 2,417 = 3.1 + 3.2 + 3.4 - 3.4
3.6 Annual supply of social 1,829 629 4,082 1,520 1,177 2,025 1,057 1,682 780 1,651 16,432 re-lets (net) 3.7 Annual supply of intermediate affordable housing available for re-let 8 3 17 2 3 1 33 9 7 6 89 or resale at sub market levels 3.8 Annual supply of affordable housing = 3.6 1,837 632 4,099 1,522 1,180 2,026 1,090 1,691 787 1,657 16,521 + 3.7 Step 4 - Total Housing Need (Net Annual) Total net need = 1.4 - 3.5 3,457 988 4,179 3,029 1,251 6,697 2,577 3,869 1,282 1,263 28,592 Annual flow (20% of total 691 198 836 606 250 1,339 515 774 256 253 5,718 net need) Net annual housing need = (2.4 + Annual 569 300 1,082 353 248 760 502 390 429 160 4,794 flow ) - 3.8
7.18 Local studies in Bolton, Rochdale and Stockport used similar, but different, methodology to that carried out by all ten districts here with more local data and surveys. For reference the total affordable housing needs figures in these distrcts
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 170
using these calculations were 531 in Bolton, 204 in Rochdale and 931 in Stockport. The relevant reports can be found here.40
40 Bolton: http://www.bolton.gov.uk/website/pages/Localplan.aspx Rochdale: http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/pdf/2015-03-31_ldf_cs_eip_rc021_final_shma.pdf Stockport: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/2013/2998/43251/stockporthna2015
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 171
Chapter 8: Objectively Assessed Housing Need
8.1 The Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN) for the GMSF has used planning policy guidance as a starting point and has made a number of amendments to reflect some of the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) recommendations.
8.2 There are four main stages in calculating the OAHN which are summarized below:
Stage 1: Forecast population change Stage 2: Translate population into households Stage 3: Translate households into dwellings Stage 4: Apply market signals
8.3 This section focuses on the first three stages, with the application of market signals dealt with in a subsequent section. In practice, market signals could influence some of the assumptions relating to the first three stages.
8.4 In each stage a number of inputs can be amended which will alter the resultant OAHN. The starting point for any OAHN should be the most recent ONS sub national population projections. For the basis of the draft GMSF the starting point is the ONS 2014-based Sub National Population Projections (SNPP).
8.5 No amendments have been made for population, but they have been made for the households and dwellings in line with the relevant LPEG recommendations. These amendments have been made as it would seem likely that at least some of the LPEG recommendations will be adopted by the Government.
8.6 All calculations have been made for each of the ten individual districts, and then summed to produce the Greater Manchester totals. Where relevant, POPGROUP41 software has been used to run the population, household and dwelling scenarios.
41 POPGROUP is a suite of demographic software developed to generate population, household, labour force and other derived projections for specified geographical areas and/or population groups. Edge Analytics is responsible for managing, developing and distributing POPGROUP products under licence from the LGA/Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), which continue to own the software.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 172
Stage 1: Demographic starting point
8.7 The demographic starting point for the OAHN is the 2014 Office of National Statistics (ONS) Sub National Population Projections (SNPP). The 2014 projections provide a slightly higher population by 2035 than the 2012 ONS SNPP.
8.8 The 2012 and 2014 ONS SNPPs provide two different rates of population change. The main influence on this change is the difference in rates of international migration in 2012 and 2014 base projections. Below shows the two projections of population to 2035. The 2012 SNPP estimate that there will be 3,030,000 people living in Greater Manchester by 2035 while the 2014 SNPP estimate that there will be 3,043,000 people in the conurbation by 2035.
Figure 8.1: 2012 and 2014 ONS SNPP
Source: ONS SNPP 2012, ONS SNPP 2014
8.9 The 2014 SNPP has a slightly higher population projection to the 2012 rate. The main driver of the difference in the population is the level of international migration between the two projections. Below sets out the differences in the three main drivers of population from the two projections, natural change, international migration and internal migration. The dashed lines illustrate the 2012 SNPP elements of change and the solid lines set out the 2014 elements of population change.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 173
Figure 8.2: SNPP Elements of demographic change
Source: ONS SNPP 2012, ONS SNPP 2014
8.10 The 2014 SNPP estimates a total change of 309,000 people in population for Greater Manchester between 2014 and 2035. The overall change for each Greater Manchester district is shown below. Manchester is projected to the have the largest overall increase in population as illustrated in the graph above, while Rochdale will see the smallest increase:
Figure 8.3: Greater Manchester Population 2014 and 2035
Source: ONS SNPP 2014
8.11 As discussed and shown above the overall difference in total population is not significantly different in the two projections. However, there is some variation between individual districts between the two projections, with some are districts having higher projected populations in the 2014-based projections and others
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 174
higher in the 2012-based projections. Below illustrates the difference between the 2012 and 2014 ONS SNPP in 2035, the positive percentages are where the 2014 SNPP projects a higher population.
Figure 8.4: 2012 and 2014 SNPP 2035 Population difference Percentage difference 2012 SNPP and 2014 District SNPP 2035 population Bolton -2.9% Bury -0.2% Manchester 4.2% Oldham 1.2% Rochdale 0.3% Salford 1.0% Stockport 1.4% Tameside -4.3% Trafford 2.9% Wigan -3.0% Greater Manchester 0.4% Source: ONS SNPP 2012, ONS SNPP 2014
8.12 Below sets out a more detailed overview of the 2014 SNPP which provides the starting point for the OAN. Between 2014 and 2035 Greater Manchester is predicted to increase in overall population by 11%. Manchester, Salford and Trafford are all projected to see increases in population of over 15%. Rochdale, Tameside and Wigan will see the smallest population increase of under 7%. Below sets out the change for each district in Greater Manchester.
Figure 8.5 2014 SNPP total population change
Source: ONS SNPP 2014
8.13 The rate of change between Districts shows a sharp increase in population for Manchester and a more steady increase for the remaining nine Districts, this is shown below:
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 175
Figure 8.6: 2014 SNPP annual change 2014- 2035
Source: ONS SNPP 2014
8.14 Alongside total change, population projections are influenced by the age and sex profile of the population and the potential natural change in population. The 2014 ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates demonstrate that Manchester and Salford had a younger population profile in 2014 than Stockport and Wigan who have an older population profile. Below sets out the age profile of each Greater Manchester District in 2014. It shows that Manchester has both the largest population in Greater Manchester and the largest share of younger people. The spread of older people throughout the conurbation is relatively even.
Figure 8.7: SNPP 2014 Age Profile by Greater Manchester district
Source: ONS SNPP 2014
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 176
8.15 Proportionally the age profile of each District is projected to shift slightly between 2014 and 2035. By 2035 all districts have a slightly older population. The two tables below illustrate the population make up of each district by age band. The fields highlighted in red are the top three districts in terms of the age profile. For example Stockport in both 2014 and 2035 proportionally has an older population than other districts.
Figure 8.8: SNPP 2014 Age Profile 2014 SNPP Age Profile Population District proportions of age group Age Group Bolton Bury Manchester Oldham Rochdale Salford Stockport Tameside Trafford Wigan Under 15 20% 19% 19% 21% 20% 19% 18% 18% 19% 18% 15-24 13% 12% 20% 13% 13% 14% 11% 12% 11% 12% 25-44 26% 26% 34% 26% 26% 30% 25% 26% 27% 26% 45-64 25% 26% 18% 24% 25% 23% 27% 27% 26% 27% Over 65 17% 17% 9% 16% 16% 15% 19% 17% 17% 18%
Total population 280,400 187,500 520,200 228,800 213,000 242,000 286,800 220,800 232,500 321,000 Source: ONS SNPP 2014
Figure 8.9: SNPP 2035 Age Profile 2035 SNPP Age Profile Population District proportions of age group
Age Group Bolton Bury Manchester Oldham Rochdale Salford Stockport Tameside Trafford Wigan Under 15 19% 18% 18% 19% 18% 18% 18% 18% 19% 16% 15-24 12% 11% 19% 12% 12% 13% 10% 11% 11% 11% 25-44 24% 24% 32% 25% 24% 29% 23% 24% 24% 24% 45-64 23% 23% 19% 23% 23% 23% 24% 24% 25% 24% 65 + 22% 23% 12% 21% 22% 18% 25% 24% 22% 25%
Total population 303,000 205,400 610,700 247,100 222,900 289,000 315,900 236,500 268,700 343,300 Source: ONS SNPP 2014
Implications of the June 2016 EU Referendum Vote on international migration
8.16 Assumptions around international migration in the ONS 2014 SNPP have been reviewed in response to the result of the June 2016 EU Referendum Vote. There have been very few concrete Government announcements concerning the plans that the UK has to leave the EU; this means that understanding the potential impact on overall population projections is difficult to assess. The Prime Minister has stated that Government will no longer provide a running commentary of negotiations. However, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU42, has said the UK’s securing of increased migration control may be incompatible with membership of the single market, but the Prime Minister’s spokesperson was
42 G20 Summit: PM Commons statement, 7 September 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/g20-summit-pm-commonsstatement-7-september-2016
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 177
quick to rebuff this, saying it is ‘not government policy’43. Such statements from Government make it difficult to assess the potential impact on overall population trends in relation to international migration.
8.17 Commentators suggest that when and if the UK leaves the EU there will be restriction in migration from the EU. This leaves the issue of migration from non EU countries open to policy debates beyond the exit from the European Union.
8.18 Furthermore, different parts of the UK have different levels of migration and consequently the potential impact on overall population could differ considerably. The 2011 Census provides an overview of the proportion of international migrants across Greater Manchester and nationally by whether they are from the EU (excluding Croatia who joined in 2013) or outside the EU. Greater Manchester has a far higher proportion of non EU international migrants in all districts apart from Wigan suggesting that international migration in Greater Manchester is driven by non EU as opposed to EU migrants. The below sets out the levels of proportions of international migrants from 2011 Census for Greater Manchester against the England levels.
Figure 8.10: Elements of international migration Greater Manchester
Source: Census 2011
8.19 Alongside the EU migrants who contribute to the population in Greater Manchester and the UK there are UK citizens who live within other EU countries. It is estimated that 1.2 million British Citizens are permanently resident in other EU countries44. The status of these citizens is likely to be part of any discussions on the UK’s exit from the EU and no announcements have yet been made in this regard.
43 The Guardian, David Davis's single market stance 'not government policy‘, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/daviddavis-single-market-stance-not-government- policy 44 House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number SN06077 (May 2016) Migration Statistics p 25
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 178
8.20 Recognising that there have been very few policy announcements concerning the UK exit from the EU, the migration elements of the 2014 SNPP have been reviewed for the purposes of the OAN with a view on exit from the EU, but with an understanding that without any concrete announcements or policy guidance from Government, any change in the ONS 2014 SNPP would be based on assumptions and modelling scenarios.
8.21 The graph below compares estimated past annual net UK long-term migration for 2005-2015 with the forecast future annual net UK migration from the last two ONS national population projections (covering the period 2012-2035 for the 2012- based projections, and 2014-2035 for the 2014-based projections).
Figure 8.11: Migration estimates comparison
8.22 In the 2014-based projections, the projected long-term average annual net UK migration from the year 2020/1 was 185,000 per annum, which was an increase from 165,000 in the 2012-based projections. In the 10-year period 2005-2015, only two years were recorded below the 2012-based long-term projected average, 167,000 in 2011/2 and 182,000 in 2012/3, with the other eight years all being above 200,000. The 2014 SNPP of net international migration 185,000 per annum appears to be realistic and reasonable enough to account for some potential impacts of the UK leaving the EU on migration, as well as the UK’s economic performance.
Reviewing alternative migration scenarios
8.23 Alongside reviewing the 2014 SNPP, sensitivity analysis has been carried out to review alternative migration trends following the LPEG recommendation:
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 179
“Plan makers should apply a sensitivity test based on a longer term, ten year migration trend, working back from latest Mid-Year Estimates, and using the migration data set out in the Components of Change in the Mid-Year Estimates. For the period prior to 2011, the Revised Mid-Year Estimates following the 2011 Census should be used. Where the ten year migration trend projects a higher level of population and household growth across the housing market area as a whole, this should be used as the demographic starting point, replacing the DCLG household projections. Where the ten year migration trend is lower, the official projections should always be used. A consistent set of projections (either the latest official projections or the ten year trend, whichever is higher) should be used across the whole housing market area.”45
8.24 This alternative population scenario has been run, and the results are shown below together with the 2014 SNPP.
Figure 8.12: Alternative scenarios Comparison of forecast 2014-2035 population change in the 2014 SNPP and alternative migration scenario 10-year migration 2014 SNPP scenario Difference (1) (2) (= 2 – 1) Bolton 22,578 23,890 1,312 Bury 17,890 16,123 -1,767 Manchester 90,488 63,400 -27,088 Oldham 18,383 14,621 -3,762 Rochdale 9,968 6,719 -3,249 Salford 46,939 39,748 -7,191 Stockport 29,144 21,436 -7,708 Tameside 15,775 17,352 1,577 Trafford 36,220 25,597 -10,623 Wigan 22,312 22,220 -92
Greater Manchester 309,695 251,105 -58,590
8.25 Although the ten-year migration scenario produces higher population growth for Bolton and Tameside, overall it produces much lower growth across Greater Manchester as a whole. Consequently, this scenario has not been taken forward, and the 2014 SNPP has been used in preference.
Labour supply
8.26 A further consideration is whether the projected change in population would be sufficient to support economic growth ambitions. A separate paper has been produced looking at this issue. It concludes that an increase in the resident employment rate would be necessary for the projected population increase to provide sufficient labour to fill the employment forecast to be created under an
45 Local Plans Expert Group (March 2016) Appendices: Appendix 6 – Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment – Revised NPPF Text, paragraph 017
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 180
accelerated growth scenario, but that this is both realistic and appropriate given the key objective of ensuring that all residents share in the benefit of growth. Consequently, no adjustment to the 2014 SNPP is considered necessary.
8.27 Taking all of the above issues into account, it is considered that the 2014 SNPP provides an appropriate demographic starting point for calculating the OAHN for Greater Manchester and its districts.
Stage 2: Translate the population change into household change
8.28 The translation of population projections into household projections/forecasts has two elements:
Remove the institutional population to leave the household population Apply headship rates or household representative rates to the household population to give the number of households
Household population
8.29 Not all people live in households, instead living in communal establishments, and such people need to be deducted from the total population in order to give a household population from which the number of households can be calculated. This ‘institutional’ population includes people who live in nursing homes, halls of residence, barracks and prisons.
8.30 The DCLG household projections provide estimates of the institutional population. The estimates for 2011 are based on the 2011 Census, and these numbers are then held constant for the under 75s. For those aged 75 and over, the rates of institutional population are held constant as a proportion of the total population rather than the absolute numbers being held constant as for younger ages, and so the institutional population aged 75 and over increases over time as the total number of older people increases.
Translating household population into households.
8.31 To work out the number of households from the population a household representative rate is applied to each age group and household type. Essentially the household representative is the ‘head of household’ and the rate is used to convert numbers of people into the typical sizes of households for different age cohorts and genders, based on the age and gender of the household representative. Below provides an example of the population to households translation using the 2014 DCLG household projections for 2015. The base population from the 2014 SNPP for the year is multiplied by the household representative rate, as follows:
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 181
Figure 8.13: Household representation rate Oldham example: 2015 Households (HH type working) Total household population by Head of head of household age Household household band(derived from HHR and representative rate Total age Households) (HHR) households 0-14 - - - 15-24 28,617 0.1186 3,395 25-34 30,975 0.4033 12,492 35-44 28,546 0.5843 16,681 45-54 31,253 0.6022 18,822 55-59 13,212 0.6265 8,277 60-64 11,601 0.6111 7,090 65-74 20,665 0.6749 13,946 75-84 11,162 0.7898 8,816 85+ 3,471 0.8940 3,103 Source: DCLG SNPP 2014 and modelling
8.32 The household representative rate can be amended to increase or decrease the number of households. The household representative rate for the 25-44 cohorts is especially important as these are the age groups who are key in forming new households. Reviewing the rates for younger adults was recommended for GMSF by Edge Analytics in 2015 as discussed below and by the LPEG recommendation in 2016.
8.33 In preparation for the 2015 GMSF Options consultation Edge Analytics reviewed the modelling assumptions used in the POPGROUP modelling for the three scenarios. A number of recommendations were made to consider in future iterations of GMSF scenarios. One of the recommendations was that models should consider the difference between the 2012 and 2008 headship rates for young adults:
“In considering household growth, rather than comparing 2012-based outcomes to 2008- based alternatives, it is recommended that the upper range of growth outcomes is based upon scenarios which estimate household growth using the 2012-based assumptions, modified to account for potential ‘recovery’ in a selected number of age-specific representative rates, specifically those of young adults, for whom household formation has been most affected, post-recession.” (Edge Analytics, September 201546)
8.34 The Local Plan Expert Group (LPEG) in Discussion Paper 247 suggest that the rates between 2008 and 2012 should be amended to reflect a higher rate of household formation of those aged 24-44 than the 2012 rates suggest. Amending the household representative rate for the 25-44 cohorts is recommended in the LPEG report, to reflect an assumption that the rates for that age group have been suppressed due to worsening housing affordability.
46 Greater Manchester Review of demographic evidence, Edge Analytics, September 2015, p 15 http://gmsf-consult.objective.co.uk/file/3648889 47 LPEG, Discussion Paper No 2: Establishing Objectively Assessed Needs (OAN), http://www.localplansexpertgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Discussions-documents-local- plans-report.pdf
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 182
8.35 The LPEG report recommends amending the 2012 household representative rate for the 25-44 cohorts to half way between the 2008 and 2012 rates by 2033 and then trending the 2012 rates from 2033. The reason for this adjustment is that the 2008 rate suggests a far higher number of single person households than the 2012 rate. Although the number of young people forming households is lower than past trends it is unlikely to be as high as the 2008 household projections – hence LPEG suggest the half way point between the two projections is taken, though only for areas where the 2008 rate is higher than the 2012 rate.
8.36 For the OAN the 2014 rate as opposed to the 2012 rate has been taken as the starting point. This point has been chosen as it provides the most up to date view of household formation for the cohort and links directly to the estimated households in the age cohort. As shown below it does not differ significantly from the 2012 rate but does differ from the 2008 rate. The example below is for 25-34 year olds in Bolton for the years 2014-2035. This demonstrates the significant difference between the higher 2008 rate and lower 2012 and 2014 rates predicted for each year for the 25-34 year old households.
Figure 8.14: Headship rates
Source: DCLG Household projections 2008, 2012 and 2014
8.37 The above illustrates that the 2012 and 2014 rates are very similar. These rates provide a much more up-to-date view of likely changes in household formation than the 2008 rates which were published six years ago. It must be noted that a move towards a position halfway between the 2014 and 2008 rates for the 25-44 age cohorts by 2033 may not be realistic. Nevertheless this move has been considered recognising the LPEG recommendations and the advice from Edge Analytics in 2015.
8.38 Achieving such an increase in household formation as discussed above would be likely to require a range of policy measures aimed at increasing the ability of these age groups to form households. Improving the ability of younger adults to
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 183
form households is considered to be an appropriate objective. Nevertheless increasing formation rates to those in the LPEG approach is very ambitious. Consequently, this may represent the maximum level of household formation that could realistically be expected. The forecasting assumes that the move to the 2033 rate is gradual and takes a proportion of each years' difference to move to the half way point at 2033.
8.39 The forecasting for the 25-44 age cohorts takes the rates from the 2014 DCLG household projections for 2014, and halfway between the 2014 and 2008 rates for 2033. It is then assumed that the change from one to the other is gradual and takes place at an even pace, rather than there being a sudden change from the 2014 rates to midway between the 2014 and 2008 rates.
8.40 The below graph demonstrates the new rate for 25-34 year old households in Bolton.
Figure 8.15: Gradual move to 2008 rate
Source: DCLG household projections 2008 and 2014
8.41 The dotted line above is the new household representation rate used for the 25-34 cohorts for 2015-2033; the same method has been used to adjust the 35- 44 cohorts in each district to provide a new household representative rate for 25- 44 year old households.
8.42 From 2033 the household representative rate follows the 2014 trend with the base as the amended 2033 rate. The 2014 household representation rates have been applied for the remaining groups (15-24 and over 45).
8.43 The table below compares the results of this approach to increasing the household formation rates for the 25-44 age cohorts with the DCLG 2014-based household projections.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 184
Figure 8.16: Households with amended rate comparison Forecast increase in households 2014-2035 With increased Difference DCLG 2014- formation for 25- between two based projections 44 age cohorts forecasts Bolton 14,919 17,614 2,695 Bury 10,780 13,026 2,246 Manchester 52,289 62,207 9,918 Oldham 13,379 16,548 3,169 Rochdale 9,623 11,808 2,185 Salford 27,099 30,135 3,036 Stockport 18,259 20,342 2,084 Tameside 12,104 14,034 1,930 Trafford 21,019 25,464 4,445 Wigan 17,506 20,668 3,162
Greater Manchester 196,978 231,846 34,868
8.44 It can be seen that the use of the higher formation rates for the 25-44 age cohorts makes a significant difference to total forecast household growth for the period 2014-2035, increasing it by 18%.
Stage 3: Dwellings
8.45 The third stage in establishing the OAN is translating households into dwellings. The method used to make this adjustment is the approach recommended by LPEG. The number of second homes and vacant dwellings are derived from the Council tax records. Where the vacancy rate is above the national rate a gradual move to the national rate is made by 2030. The 2015 rates are used as the reference rates, and the actual rates for 2014 are used.
8.46 Where vacancy rates are lower than the national average these have been applied to all years. Second home rates are applied to all years and have not been amended and remain constant throughout the plan period.
8.47 Below sets out the council tax data for each district. Amendments of the dwelling to household ratios have been made to areas in bold, the highlighted cells are those where the vacancy rate is higher than the national rate.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 185
Figure 8.17: Vacancy and second home estimations Household to dwelling 2015 Council Tax Data rates
% Chargeable Second Vacant Second % Vacant 2015 % 2030 % dwellings homes dwellings homes dwellings rate rate Bolton 121,242 636 3,384 0.52 2.79 96.68 97.53 Bury 81,642 357 2,028 0.44 2.48 97.08 97.62 Manchester 211,999 5,432 2,582 2.56 1.22 96.22 96.22 Oldham 93,575 176 2,263 0.19 2.42 97.39 97.87 Rochdale 90,908 454 2,132 0.50 2.35 97.16 97.56 Salford 109,850 1,041 2,159 0.95 1.97 97.09 97.11 Stockport 125,466 691 2,319 0.55 1.85 97.60 97.60 Tameside 99,577 156 1,851 0.16 1.86 97.98 97.98 Trafford 96,350 576 1,482 0.60 1.54 97.86 97.86 Wigan 140,173 331 3,286 0.24 2.34 97.42 97.82
England 23,120,325 245,324 448,999 1.06 1.94 97.00 98.94
8.48 The amendment means that in the areas which have more vacant dwellings there would be an expectation that some of the household need would be met by the reuse of vacant dwellings. The reduction in percentage of vacant dwellings will be gradual from 2015 to 2030 as shown below.
8.49 The below graph shows an area with a housing need for 1000 households, where the 2015 vacancy rate is above the national average. From 2016 the second home rate in the area remains the same throughout the period, the vacancy rate reduces year on year to the national rate by 2030. This means the number of dwellings required reduces as vacant homes come back into use and the allowance for vacant homes moves toward the national average. No change has been made for second homes.
Figure 8.18: Estimating return to national average
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 186
8.50 From 2030 the new rate is applied to derive all dwellings from households.
8.51 The result of the application of the various stages set out in the above approach provides the OAHN for the ten Districts and Greater Manchester, prior to consideration of market signals, and this is shown below.
Figure 8.19: OAHN OAHN for Greater Manchester 2015-2035
OAHN Total OAHN per annum Bolton 16,413 821 Bury 12,206 610 Manchester 62,405 3,120 Oldham 15,606 780 Rochdale 11,338 567 Salford 30,035 1,502 Stockport 20,212 1,011 Tameside 13,578 679 Trafford 25,910 1,296 Wigan 19,499 975 Greater Manchester 227,203 11,360
Stage 4: Market Signals
8.52 The final stage of the OAHN is to consider the market signals and whether an uplift on dwelling requirements is necessary. The proceeding chapters cover the main housing market signals in Greater Manchester. From this analysis it has been concluded that no uplift is required based on housing market signals in Greater Manchester.
The uplifts required by the LPEG methodology are not needed to meet the growth in households, and therefore it would seem highly questionable that they would ever be delivered in practice. If they were delivered, then one or both of the following would result.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 187
8.53 The below provides an overview of the Greater Manchester OAHN approach:
Figure 8.20: OAHN Approach
LPEG Affordable housing uplift recommendations
8.54 In its proposed changes to the Planning Practice Guidance on calculating objectively assessed housing need, the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) suggests that an upward adjustment may need to be made to reflect market signals48. The LPEG approach to market signals focuses solely on two affordability measures:
House price affordability – the ratio of median house prices to median earnings Rental affordability – lower quartile rental costs as a percent of lower quartile earnings
8.55 The uplifts required by the LPEG methodology are not considered to be required for Greater Manchester considering the overall housing market and affordability. This is discussed in more detail in Appendix 3.
48 Local Plans Expert Group (March 2016) Appendices: Appendix 6 – Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment – Revised NPPF Text, paragraph 019-020
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 188
Chapter 9: Need for different sizes of homes
Introduction
9.1 Chapter 8 considered the amount of housing that would be required in order to accommodate forecast levels of household growth. This chapter looks at what type of housing might be required, in terms of the mix of houses and apartments, based on that same level of household growth.
9.2 The household growth forecast underpinning the objectively assessed housing need (OAHN) was produced using detailed headship rates based on the stage 2 DCLG 2014-based household projections, with adjustments for the 25-44 age cohorts as discussed in chapter 5. This provides outputs for each of the following age groups in terms of the age of the household head: 15-24; 25-34; 35-44; 45- 54; 55-59; 60-64; 65-74; 75-84; 85 and over.
9.3 The total number of households for each of these age groups is split into the following categories:
One person: male One person: female Couple, no child Couple and adults, no child One child Two children Three or more children Other households
9.4 Hence, the total number of households for a district is split into 72 sub-categories (nine age categories multiplied by eight type categories). These outputs provide the basis for the following analysis. The proportionate relationship between the number of households and the number of dwellings in each district is assumed to hold for each sub-category. All figures are produced for the individual districts and then summed to give the Greater Manchester total.
Relationship between household type and dwelling type
Comparing household type categories from households forecasts and the Census
9.5 A limited amount of data is available from the 2011 Census on the size and tenure of housing that is occupied by different types of household. This provides an indication of the mix of housing that could be required to accommodate the mix of additional households that is being forecast. It is likely that some households at the time of the census may not have been occupying the size and tenure of housing that they may have desired, and/or that would have best suited their needs. For example, some small households in the older age groups may
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 189
have wanted to downsize if there was appropriate accommodation, whereas some younger families with children may have wanted larger dwellings if they had been available at an affordable cost. Consequently, the census data can only provide a broad indication of the type of housing that may be required for a certain mix of households, and other considerations will need to be taken into account including strategic objectives.
9.6 The categorisation of households used in the household projections is different to that used in the census, and there is no official matching of categories between the two. However, it would appear that a reasonably accurate correspondence can be identified, which results in four composite categories for comparison between the household projections and the census: one person households; couple households; households with dependent children; and other adult households. The table below shows this correspondence between the DCLG 2014-based household projection categories and the 2011 Census categories, as well as the number of households in Greater Manchester that they identify in each category in 2011. It can be seen that the figures from the two sources are very similar, suggesting that the identified correspondence is reasonably accurate. It would seem likely that the census category of ‘One family only; all aged 65 and over’ may include some households who are not couples, but the totals suggest that these are unlikely to affect the figures significantly. Separate figures are provided below for households with one dependent child and households with two or more dependent children, further highlighting the similarity between the figures, but the rest of the analysis combines them into a single category of households with dependent children.
Figure 9.1: Greater Manchester Households Number of households in Greater Manchester in 2011 DCLG 2014-based household projections 2011 Census Composite categories for analysis Composite DCLG Census DCLG categories Number Census categories Number categories total total One person One Person Household; households: Male 183,127 Total 364,137 One person 367,683 364,137 One person households: Female 184,556
One family and no One Family Only; others: Couple: No Married Couple; No Couple with no dependent children 256,105 Children 117,909 dependent children 256,105 253,281 One Family Only; Same- Sex Civil Partnership Couple; No Children 1,230 One Family Only; Cohabiting Couple; No Children 60,029 One Family Only; All Aged 65 and Over 74,113
One Family Only; Households with Married Couple; One Households with one dependent child 156,839 Dependent Child 63,028 one dependent child 156,839 160,106 One Family Only; Same- Sex Civil Partnership Couple; One Dependent Child 83 One Family Only; Cohabiting Couple; One Dependent Child 26,364 One Family Only; Lone Parent; One Dependent 55,651
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 190
Number of households in Greater Manchester in 2011 DCLG 2014-based household projections 2011 Census Composite categories for analysis Composite DCLG Census DCLG categories Number Census categories Number categories total total Child Other Household Types; With One Dependent Child 14,980
One Family Only; Households with Married Couple; Two or Households with two two dependent More Dependent or more dependent children 117,939 Children 97,216 children 177,147 180,843 One Family Only; Same- Households with Sex Civil Partnership three dependent Couple; Two or More children 59,208 Dependent Children 62 One Family Only; Cohabiting Couple; Two or More Dependent Children 26,242 One Family Only; Lone Parent; Two or More Dependent Children 41,411 Other Household Types; With Two or More Dependent Children 15,912
Households with dependent children 333,986 340,949
A couple and one or more other adults: One Family Only; No dependent Married Couple; All Other adult children 82,344 Children Non-Dependent 62,446 households 171,367 169,699 One Family Only; Same- Sex Civil Partnership Couple; All Children Other households 89,023 Non-Dependent 31 One Family Only; Cohabiting Couple; All Children Non-Dependent 6,440 One Family Only; Lone Parent; All Children Non- Dependent 44,659 Other Household Types; All Full-Time Students 7563 Other Household Types; All Aged 65 and Over 2492 Other Household Types; Other 46,068
Total 1,129,137 1,128,066 1,129,137 1,128,066
2011 Census relationships between household type and dwelling size
9.7 Census table DC1402EW provides details of the mix of dwelling sizes that different types of household occupy. This subsection sets out a series of tables summarising the results for Greater Manchester. The single person and couple households have been subdivided by age, to enable a more nuanced approach to be taken.
9.8 The first table shows the data relating to single person households, split by those aged under 65 and those aged 65 and over.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 191
Figure 9.2: Single person households Proportion of single person households by number of bedrooms and age of household (2011 Census) 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 65 and 65 and 65 and Under 65 over Under 65 over Under 65 over Bolton 25.72 26.32 46.19 37.79 28.09 35.89 Bury 24.18 21.89 42.67 36.37 33.15 41.74 Manchester 36.31 27.72 37.90 28.74 25.79 43.53 Oldham 22.59 25.68 49.03 42.36 28.38 31.96 Rochdale 28.81 28.75 41.76 35.32 29.44 35.93 Salford 30.60 26.40 43.76 34.34 25.64 39.26 Stockport 26.00 20.76 40.28 32.87 33.72 46.37 Tameside 25.82 25.60 46.14 38.45 28.04 35.95 Trafford 24.51 22.80 37.26 26.18 38.23 51.01 Wigan 19.49 20.52 43.17 36.18 37.35 43.29
Greater Manchester 27.94 24.59 42.12 34.50 29.94 40.91
9.9 The districts are quite mixed in terms of the proportions occupying one bedroom dwellings, with some being higher for the older single person households and some having a higher proportion for the younger households. However, Manchester is notable for having a much higher proportion of single person households aged under 65 in one bedroom housing than for those aged 65 and over. All districts have a significantly lower proportion of single person households aged 65 and over in two bedroom accommodation than for those under 65, with the largest differences in Trafford, Salford and Manchester. Conversely, each district has a higher proportion of single person households aged 65 and over in three bedroom accommodation than for those under 65, with Manchester, Salford, Stockport and Trafford all more than 12 percentage points higher, whereas Oldham is less than 4 percentage points higher.
9.10 The next two tables show the data relating to couple households, split by those aged under 65 and those aged 65 and over. It is assumed here that the census category of ‘One Family Only; All Aged 65 and Over’ provides a reasonable proxy for couple households in which the household head is aged 65 and over, and the three census categories involving ‘One Family Only; No Children’ where the family is a couple49 are collectively a reasonable proxy for couple households where the household head is aged under 65.
49 The three categories are ‘One Family Only; Married Couple; No Children’, ‘One Family Only; Same- Sex Civil Partnership Couple; No Children’, and ‘One Family Only; Cohabiting Couple; No Children’
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 192
Figure 9.3: Couple households Proportion of couple households (at least one person aged under 65) by number of bedrooms (2011 Census) 1 2 3 4 5+ 1 or 2 Bolton 5.01 36.07 44.13 12.45 2.34 41.08 Bury 4.55 31.82 46.72 14.29 2.62 36.37 Manchester 17.19 39.52 36.38 5.21 1.70 56.70 Oldham 4.92 39.05 44.39 9.94 1.69 43.97 Rochdale 5.90 33.96 45.09 12.93 2.11 39.86 Salford 9.47 37.90 42.47 8.07 2.09 47.37 Stockport 4.45 28.40 47.27 16.06 3.82 32.85 Tameside 5.37 38.05 46.04 9.14 1.40 43.42 Trafford 5.31 25.66 50.66 13.94 4.43 30.97 Wigan 3.65 30.25 52.92 11.81 1.37 33.90
Greater Manchester 7.08 34.10 45.40 11.12 2.31 41.17 Proportion of couple households (all aged 65 and over) by number of bedrooms (2011 Census) 1 2 3 4 5+ 1 or 2 Bolton 7.62 32.67 47.28 10.56 1.87 40.29 Bury 5.89 28.96 50.36 12.87 1.92 34.85 Manchester 6.39 23.62 60.14 7.77 2.08 30.01 Oldham 7.09 38.02 45.27 8.04 1.59 45.11 Rochdale 7.64 32.46 47.66 10.56 1.68 40.10 Salford 6.33 28.36 55.81 7.79 1.72 34.68 Stockport 4.79 23.79 50.45 17.60 3.37 28.59 Tameside 7.45 33.42 51.12 6.94 1.07 40.87 Trafford 4.79 18.47 57.97 15.03 3.75 23.25 Wigan 5.46 30.82 55.30 7.51 0.91 36.28
Greater Manchester 6.20 28.76 52.22 10.78 2.03 34.96
9.11 These tables indicate that the older couple households tend to have a higher propensity to live in larger accommodation, predominantly due to the fact that more than half occupy three bed dwellings. However, there are differences between districts. In Manchester, the proportion of younger couple households in one and two bedroom accommodation is far higher than that for older couple households, and Salford is similar in this regard. The differences are far smaller for the other districts, and Oldham and Wigan actually have a higher proportion of older couple households in one and two bedroom housing than younger couples.
9.12 The following table shows the data relating to households with dependent children.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 193
Figure 9.3: Dependent children households Proportion of households with dependent children by number of bedrooms (2011 Census) 1 2 3 4 5+ 1 or 2 Bolton 1.40 26.50 49.16 17.91 5.04 27.89 Bury 1.04 22.56 49.73 20.78 5.89 23.61 Manchester 3.31 25.65 55.76 11.26 4.02 28.96 Oldham 1.43 30.98 46.90 15.78 4.90 32.41 Rochdale 1.56 26.55 50.05 17.03 4.81 28.11 Salford 2.12 27.14 51.56 14.44 4.74 29.26 Stockport 1.90 20.26 48.58 21.66 7.59 22.16 Tameside 1.49 28.63 51.43 14.90 3.54 30.12 Trafford 1.60 15.62 50.71 22.56 9.51 17.22 Wigan 1.14 21.00 55.71 18.83 3.32 22.14
Greater Manchester 1.82 24.45 51.46 17.07 5.19 26.27
9.13 Over half of households with dependent children live in three bedroom dwellings, although more than one-quarter are in smaller accommodation. There are quite significant differences between the districts, with only 17% of such households in Trafford in one or two bedroom accommodation, compared to more than 30% in Oldham and Tameside.
9.14 The final table sets out the data relating to other adult households, which includes families where all children are non-dependent, all-student households, and other households where all occupants are adults.
Figure 9.4: Other households Proportion of other adult households by number of bedrooms (2011 Census) 1 2 3 4 5+ 1 or 2 Bolton 1.40 26.50 49.16 17.91 5.04 27.89 Bury 1.04 22.56 49.73 20.78 5.89 23.61 Manchester 3.31 25.65 55.76 11.26 4.02 28.96 Oldham 1.43 30.98 46.90 15.78 4.90 32.41 Rochdale 1.56 26.55 50.05 17.03 4.81 28.11 Salford 2.12 27.14 51.56 14.44 4.74 29.26 Stockport 1.90 20.26 48.58 21.66 7.59 22.16 Tameside 1.49 28.63 51.43 14.90 3.54 30.12 Trafford 1.60 15.62 50.71 22.56 9.51 17.22 Wigan 1.14 21.00 55.71 18.83 3.32 22.14
Greater Manchester 1.82 24.45 51.46 17.07 5.19 26.27
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 194
9.15 Just over half of all other adult households in Greater Manchester reside in three bedroom accommodation, with one quarter in two bedroom housing.
Relationship between dwelling size and dwelling type
9.16 The above data relates household type to dwelling size. However, planning policy typically focuses primarily on the mix of houses and apartments, rather than on the size of those dwellings. Consequently, it is necessary to identify ways in which a demand/need for particular dwelling sizes can be translated into dwelling types.
9.17 The table below compares the 2011 Census data for household spaces with at least one usual resident for dwelling size (focusing on dwellings with two or fewer bedrooms) and dwelling type (focusing on apartments). There is a very limited number of apartments in Greater Manchester with three or more bedrooms, and very few houses with just one bedroom, but there is a broad mix of property types that have two bedrooms. Here it is assumed that all apartments have two or fewer bedrooms, and all houses have two or more bedrooms. By deducting the number of apartments from the number of dwellings with two or fewer bedrooms, the proportion of existing two bedroom properties that are houses and the proportion that are apartments can be estimated. This provides a starting point for considering the future relationships of household type, dwelling size and dwelling type.
Figure 9.5: Two bed dwellings Estimate of proportion of two bedroom dwellings by type Estimated % of two 2011 Census bedroom dwellings by type Dwellings with two or fewer Houses Apartments bedrooms Apartments Difference (4 = 2 / 1 * (5 = 3 / 1 * (1) (2) (3 = 1 – 2) 100) 100) Bolton 51,550 15,977 35,573 69.01 30.99 Bury 30,724 10,523 20,201 65.75 34.25 Manchester 99,469 68,227 31,242 31.41 68.59 Oldham 41,600 10,947 30,653 73.69 26.31 Rochdale 38,142 12,583 25,559 67.01 32.99 Salford 49,644 28,151 21,493 43.29 56.71 Stockport 44,539 18,578 25,961 58.29 41.71 Tameside 43,178 14,190 28,988 67.14 32.86 Trafford 30,238 17,598 12,640 41.80 58.20 Wigan 50,084 12,684 37,400 74.67 25.33
Greater Manchester 479,168 209,458 269,710 56.29 43.71
9.18 It is estimated that existing two bedroom dwellings in Greater Manchester are broadly balanced in terms of type, with a moderately higher proportion of houses
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 195
than apartments. The estimated mix of two bedroom dwellings varies considerably across Greater Manchester, with more than two-thirds being apartments in Manchester, and more than half in Salford and Trafford. In contrast, around three-quarters of two bedroom dwellings in Oldham and Wigan are houses, and approximately two-thirds in Bolton, Bury, Rochdale and Tameside. These latter districts generally have large numbers of older terraced properties, whereas Manchester, Salford and Trafford have seen considerable development of new apartments in recent years.
Applying Census data to the household forecasts
9.19 One way of estimating the type of housing required to accommodate future household growth is to assume that the relationships between household type and dwelling size remain the same in the future as they were in the 2011 Census. For example, if x% of single person households in 2011 occupied one bedroom accommodation then it would be assumed that this proportion would remain the same throughout the forecast period to 2035. A similar approach can also be taken to the relationship between dwelling size and dwelling type.
9.20 This approach can only provide a starting point for consideration of the type of housing required, as it assumes that the mix of dwelling sizes in 2011 was the most appropriate possible, and takes no account of whether alternative accommodation would be more suitable or strategically desirable. For example, levels of under-occupancy or overcrowding could indicate that a different mix of dwelling sizes would be more appropriate in the future. A key consideration is that an increase in household formation rates amongst those aged 25-44, as assumed in the OAHN household forecast, would be expected to result in an increased demand for smaller dwellings due to financial constraints, as it would be unlikely that people would go straight from not forming households to living in large dwellings. This would be particularly the case for single and couple households, which would be expected to be accommodated in primarily one and two bedroom accommodation.
9.21 It also assumes that the mix of dwelling types, particularly amongst two bedroom properties, should remain constant. This does not take account of recent changes in the housing market, given that many of the two bedroom houses across Greater Manchester will be quite old and much of the new two bedroom accommodation will have been in the form of apartments.
9.22 Nevertheless, the application of census proportions to the household forecasts provides one mechanism for estimating the type of dwellings that need to be provided. The table below shows the outputs of this approach.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 196
Figure 9.6: Dwelling type mix 1 Required mix of dwelling types (2014-2035) based on maintaining 2011 Census relationships between household type, dwelling size and dwelling type Number of dwellings % of dwellings Houses Apartments Total Houses Apartments Bolton 12,701 4,181 16,882 75.24 24.76 Bury 9,699 3,050 12,749 76.08 23.92 Manchester 40,198 23,452 63,650 63.15 36.85 Oldham 12,249 3,921 16,170 75.75 24.25 Rochdale 8,263 3,388 11,650 70.92 29.08 Salford 20,257 10,753 31,010 65.33 34.67 Stockport 16,090 4,586 20,676 77.82 22.18 Tameside 9,987 3,988 13,975 71.46 28.54 Trafford 19,530 6,596 26,125 74.75 25.25 Wigan 16,434 3,595 20,028 82.05 17.95
Greater Manchester 165,408 67,508 232,916 71.02 28.98
9.23 Overall, this methodology suggests that over 70% of the net additional dwellings in Greater Manchester should be houses. The figure exceeds 60% in every district, with Manchester and Salford the lowest at just under two-thirds, and Wigan the highest exceeding 80%.
Varying the assumptions about the relationship between household type and dwelling type
9.24 As noted above, there are many reasons why it might be considered that continuing the relationship between household type, dwelling size and dwelling type from the 2011 Census is inappropriate and/or unrealistic. The various factors affecting these relationships, including changes in the housing market, changes in consumer preference, pressures on household incomes, potential for downsizing and strategic objectives to make more efficient use of land in order to promote sustainability, would all suggest that the above figures based on the 2011 Census relationships are likely to overestimate the demand for houses and underestimate the need for apartments. They are therefore very much at the top end of the number of houses that may be required.
9.25 At the other extreme, a very simple assumption could be made that sought to secure a ‘better’ match between the type of additional households and the type of new housing that is delivered. This would not affect existing households, but could lead to a significant change in the relationship between household type and dwelling type. Two examples of this are presented here. The first example, shown in the table below, assumes that all of the increase in single person and
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 197
couple households is accommodated in apartments, and all of the increase in households with dependent children and other adult households is accommodated in houses.
Figure 9.7: Dwelling mix 2 Required mix of dwelling types (2014-2035) based on additional single and couple households living in apartments and additional households with dependent children and other adult households living in houses Number of dwellings % of dwellings Houses Apartments Total Houses Apartments Bolton 4,789 12,093 16,882 28.37 71.63 Bury 3,345 9,405 12,749 26.23 73.77 Manchester 31,932 31,717 63,650 50.17 49.83 Oldham 4,400 11,770 16,170 27.21 72.79 Rochdale 2,410 9,240 11,650 20.69 79.31 Salford 11,684 19,326 31,010 37.68 62.32 Stockport 6,754 13,922 20,676 32.67 67.33 Tameside 2,874 11,101 13,975 20.56 79.44 Trafford 8,291 17,835 26,125 31.73 68.27 Wigan 4,883 15,145 20,028 24.38 75.62
Greater Manchester 81,362 151,553 232,916 34.93 65.07
9.26 This approach can be seen to result in a very considerable change in the required mix of housing compared with applying the 2011 Census relationships, with almost two-thirds of additional dwellings in Greater Manchester needing to be apartments. Interestingly, Manchester and Salford now have the highest proportions of houses of the ten districts, whereas they had the lowest proportions when applying the 2011 Census relationships. This reflects the higher existing propensity of single and couple households to live in apartments in the two cities, whereas a much higher proportion currently live in houses in the other eight districts. This may reflect the availability of different types of accommodation as much as the preferences of households.
9.27 The second example is the same as the previous one except that the increase in couple households is assumed to be accommodated in two bedroom dwellings, split between houses and apartments according to the 2011 Census analysis set out above.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 198
Figure 9.8: Dwelling mix 3 Required mix of dwelling types (2014-2035) based on additional single person households living in apartments, additional households with dependent children and other adult households living in houses, and additional couple households living in two bedroom accommodation split between houses and apartments based on the 2011 Census Number of dwellings % of dwellings Houses Apartments Total Houses Apartments Bolton 7,134 9,748 16,882 42.26 57.74 Bury 5,056 7,693 12,749 39.66 60.34 Manchester 34,004 29,645 63,650 53.42 46.58 Oldham 6,356 9,814 16,170 39.31 60.69 Rochdale 3,682 7,969 11,650 31.60 68.40 Salford 13,755 17,255 31,010 44.36 55.64 Stockport 9,305 11,371 20,676 45.00 55.00 Tameside 4,305 9,670 13,975 30.81 69.19 Trafford 11,049 15,076 26,125 42.29 57.71 Wigan 9,273 10,755 20,028 46.30 53.70
Greater Manchester 103,920 128,996 232,916 44.62 55.38
9.28 The proportions of houses and apartments are now a little more balanced, but apartments would still form the majority of new dwellings. Manchester would be the only district where more than half of the dwellings should be houses, whereas Rochdale and Tameside would both be below one-third houses.
9.29 The three approaches set out above broadly represent the ends of a spectrum of dwelling mixes that could be considered appropriate, depending on the assumptions that are made. As noted above, it would seem desirable to attempt to reduce levels of under-occupancy for a range of reasons, including in terms of improving the efficient use of the dwelling stock, reducing costs for households, and providing accommodation that more closely matches needs. However, there will always be reasons why some small households occupy larger accommodation, particularly related to family circumstances but also factors such as consumer preference. Therefore, it would seem unlikely that the 2011 Census relationships would change to the extent shown in the last two examples, but nevertheless some reduction in levels of under-occupancy would seem both likely and desirable, particularly if the household forecast underpinning the OAHN assumes that there will be an increase in levels of household formation amongst the 25-44 age cohorts.
9.30 It would also seem likely that the relationship between dwelling size and dwelling type will change compared to the 2011 Census. The growth of the apartment market in the City Centre and The Quays, which is extending into
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 199
other locations, means that the proportion of smaller dwellings that are apartments is likely to increase significantly. Some of the new two bedroom dwellings will undoubtedly be houses, but the vast majority of the supply is likely to be apartments.
9.31 The likely extent of these changes is very difficult to determine, given the range of factors involved. The table below sets out the results of making more modest changes to these key variables, after taking the 2011 Census relationships between household type, dwelling size and dwelling type as the starting point. It assumes that there is a 5 percentage point increase in the proportion of single and couple households that live in one or two bedroom accommodation, and a 5 percentage point decrease in the proportion living in homes with three or more bedrooms. It also assumes that all households with dependent children who live in one bedroom dwellings will move to two bedroom dwellings, better reflecting their needs. In terms of the relationship between dwelling size and dwelling type, it then assumes that there is a 10 percentage point increase in the proportion of two bedroom dwellings that are apartments, and a 10 percentage point decrease in the proportion of two bedroom dwellings that are houses, reflecting changes in the type of accommodation that is being provided. These alterations to the 2011 Census relationships between household type, dwelling size and dwelling type are considered to be realistic, but an argument could equally be made for slightly higher or lower percentage point changes in the variables, and indeed different levels of change in different districts. Consequently, this is just one possible scenario.
Figure 9.9: Dwelling mix 4 Required mix of dwelling types (2014-2035) based on the 2011 Census, but with a 5 percentage point increase in the proportion of single and couple households living in apartments, and a 10 percentage point increase in the proportion of two bedroom dwellings that are apartments Number of dwellings % of dwellings Houses Apartments Total Houses Apartments Bolton 9,411 7,471 16,882 55.75 44.25 Bury 7,337 5,412 12,749 57.55 42.45 Manchester 31,596 32,053 63,650 49.64 50.36 Oldham 9,558 6,612 16,170 59.11 40.89 Rochdale 5,758 5,893 11,650 49.42 50.58 Salford 15,634 15,376 31,010 50.42 49.58 Stockport 12,169 8,507 20,676 58.85 41.15 Tameside 7,096 6,879 13,975 50.78 49.22 Trafford 15,835 10,290 26,125 60.61 39.39 Wigan 12,653 7,375 20,028 63.18 36.82
Greater Manchester 127,047 105,869 232,916 54.55 45.45
9.32 Taking this approach, there is a much more even balance in dwelling types, with around 55% of new dwellings in Greater Manchester needing to be houses.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 200
Manchester, Rochdale, Salford and Tameside all have a virtually 50/50 split between houses and apartments, whereas Trafford and Wigan both exceed 60% houses.
9.33 The above approach provides an indicative mix requirement for Greater Manchester. Approaching Greater Manchester as a single housing market means that the exact mix within Districts could differ from the figures above. It is important for Greater Manchester to show that the overall dwelling mix supply can provide the Greater Manchester mix as set out above. This may mean some districts have a higher proportion of apartments planned which would meet the needs of those who have an under supply of apartments but an oversupply of houses and vice versa.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 201
Chapter 10: Future Housing Land Supply Targets
Future Housing Land Supply Targets
Conclusions regarding Objectively-Assessed Housing Need
10.1 The NPPF sets out that local authorities should seek to meet housing need within their areas where it is sustainable to do so and consistent with other policies within the NPPF. The NPPF affords significant protection to Green Belt but does not stop the review process if there is a clear long term need.
10.2 Taking account of the demographic projections, adjustments to migration, the needs of the local economies, adjustments to take into account of future changes in the Household Representation Rate and a range of market signals, the SHMA draws the following conclusions on the overall full objectively assessed need for housing in Greater Manchester over the 2015-35 period:
10.3 This SHMA demonstrates that the best available estimate of objectively assessed housing need for Greater Manchester for 2015-2035 is as shown in the table below. This is based on the ONS 2014-based sub-national population projections, an uplift in the household formation rates for 25-44 year olds compared to the DCLG 2014-based household projections, a reduction in vacancy rates to the England average, and the conclusion that no additional uplift is required in response to market signals.
Figure 10.1 : OAHN OAHN for Greater Manchester 2015-2035
OAN Total OAN per annum Bolton 16,413 821 Bury 12,206 610 Manchester 62,405 3,120 Oldham 15,606 780 Rochdale 11,338 567 Salford 30,035 1,502 Stockport 20,212 1,011 Tameside 13,578 679 Trafford 25,910 1,296 Wigan 19,499 975
Greater Manchester 227,203 11,360
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 202
Greater Manchester Housing Targets
10.4 The next step is to establish the housing targets for Greater Manchester and each of the districts, and to provide sufficient flexibility in the housing land supply to ensure deliverability. In setting Greater Manchester’s housing targets it is necessary to start with the requirements of the NPPF. This requires that:
Plans should meet the demand and need for housing development wherever they have the capacity to do so sustainably. To measure this demand and need, they should use demographic projections. Where the required capacity does not exist, or where demand and need are not tied to a particular local authority area, authorities should steer development to places than can accommodate it, irrespective of administrative boundaries. Authorities should work together across housing market areas to deliver these outcomes.
10.5 Through the GMSF, the Greater Manchester districts are seeking to set their targets jointly, based on shared evidence.
10.6 Each district produces a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, which identifies sites that are considered potentially to be suitable and deliverable for housing. Based on the sites in these assessments, and taking into account new evidence since they were last published, the districts have identified the existing supply of sites capable of delivering 170,437 net additional dwellings over the period 2015-2035, as shown in the table below.
Figure 10.2: Existing supply District Existing Supply Bolton 10,817 Bury 4,786 Oldham 56,549 Manchester 8,206 Rochdale 9,192 Salford 33,926 Stockport 7,146 Tameside 8,507 Trafford 13,231 Wigan 18,077
Greater Manchester 170,437
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 203
10.7 A note of caution should be applied to these figures in that inclusion in a SHLAA does not automatically imply that the site will be made available for housing. The Greater Manchester districts’ SHLAAs are technical studies and not policy documents. They identify possible housing sites and assess the overall housing potential but ultimately decisions on which sites would be brought forward for development will be determined through either the local plan process or the planning application process. However, that said, it is considered that this housing land supply position represents a realistic position in relation to the current supply of sites across Greater Manchester.
10.8 An allowance has then been made for the delivery of new homes on small sites below the thresholds for inclusion in the SHLAAs of the districts. An initial analysis of three districts suggests that a figure of around 100 dwellings per annum in each district may be realistic, but a conservative estimate of 1,000 for the whole plan period has been used for most districts as it is unclear at this point whether there is the potential for any double-counting. Small windfalls are typically higher in Manchester and Salford and so a larger figure of 1,500 is used for each of these two cities, but once again this is likely to be a conservative estimate. Further work will be undertaken to improve the accuracy of these small site windfall estimates prior to the next stage of the GMSF process, which is likely to increase the overall small sites windfalls figure. The table below shows the combined existing supply and small site windfall allowance for each district.
Figure 10.3: Total existing supply
Total existing Small sites windfall supply with small Existing supply allowance sites windfalls Bolton 10,817 1,000 11,817 Bury 4,786 1,000 5,786 Oldham 56,549 1,500 58,049 Manchester 8,206 1,000 9,206 Rochdale 9,192 1,000 10,192 Salford 33,926 1,500 35,426 Stockport 7,146 1,000 8,146 Tameside 8,507 1,000 9,507 Trafford 13,231 1,000 14,231 Wigan 18,077 1,000 19,077
Greater Manchester 170,437 11,000 181,437
10.9 As demonstrated by the existing land supply table above, there is currently capacity for 181,437 units in the land supply, taking account of small site windfalls, equating to 9,072 units per annum. Given this supply, there is a supply shortfall across the housing market area of over 45,500 dwellings. In the light of this shortfall, and the advice in the NPPF that plans should meet the demand and need for housing development wherever they have the capacity to do so sustainably, the ten Greater Manchester districts have re-assessed Greater
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 204
Manchester’s capacity for housing development and sustainable options for increasing it.
10.10 Paragraph 51 of NPPF states that local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings and, where appropriate, acquire properties under compulsory purchase powers. Additionally they should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate. National guidance also places an emphasis on maximising the potential of brownfield land. The districts should therefore consider ways of optimising the yields to be achieved on sites within the urban area which already benefit from good communication links, particularly public transport ones. Further work will be undertake on this, and it is possible that such sources could increase the supply identified above.
10.11 Given the level of the identified shortfall, it is anticipated that adopting these approaches alone, will not yield sufficient housing land supply to meet the needs set out in this SHMA. One option is to assess whether neighbouring districts could accommodate part of Greater Manchester’s housing requirement. Initial discussions have been held with those districts, but none has indicated that they would be able to accommodate part of Greater Manchester housing need in a suitable location.
10.12 The districts have therefore collectively considered additional options for identifying sufficient housing land supply, including the option of sites on the edge of the urban area such as land currently safeguarded from development or within the adopted Green Belt. This process has assessed a range of sites, including those suggested by stakeholders as part of the ‘call for sites’ in the 2015 GMSF consultation, and has considered issues such as physical and environmental capacity, commercial capacity, other sustainability objectives and the overall strategy of the GMSF.
10.13 This work has identified a series of possible housing sites (Allocations) that are identified in the Draft GMSF, and could collectively accommodate almost 64,000 dwellings. The table below summarises the overall supply position if these Allocation sites are added to the existing supply and small sites windfall allowance discussed above.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 205
Figure 10.4: Net additional dwellings Net additional dwellings 2015-2035 Small site Existing supply windfalls Allocations Total Bolton 10,817 1,000 6,764 18,581 Bury 4,786 1,000 8,111 13,897 Manchester 56,549 1,500 20 58,069 Oldham 8,206 1,000 5,170 14,376 Rochdale 9,192 1,000 6,970 17,162 Salford 33,926 1,500 3,300 38,726 Stockport 7,146 1,000 12,100 20,246 Tameside 8,507 1,000 5,435 14,942 Trafford 13,231 1,000 10,050 24,281 Wigan 18,077 1,000 5,932 25,009
Greater Manchester 170,437 11,000 63,852 245,289
10.14 The supply identified above would be sufficient to deliver the total requirement for 2015-2035 of 227,200 net additional dwellings, with an 8% buffer. Given an average annual requirement for Greater Manchester of 11,360 net additional dwellings, the buffer would be equivalent to 1.6 years. This would provide the flexibility in housing land supply required by the NPPF, whilst not unnecessarily allocating more land than is required to meet identified needs.
10.15 This total potential land supply has then been used in combination with the district OAHNs to determine the net housing requirement for each district. The approach has sought to meet the OAHN for each district within that district as far as possible, and where it is not possible to evenly redistribute the unmet need amongst the remaining districts. This responds directly to the distribution of forecast demand whilst recognising that the location of the most sustainable sites that are available may have a different geography.
10.16 On this basis, the distribution of the total Greater Manchester requirement between the ten districts has been calculated as follows (all figures rounded to the nearest hundred):
The four districts (Manchester, Oldham, Stockport and Trafford) that have not identified sufficient supply to meet their individual dwelling figures are given a requirement that would leave them with a 5% buffer in their supply compared to that requirement. Tameside is given its dwelling figure as its requirement, as it has sufficient supply with more than a 5% buffer but applying the same approach as the remaining five districts would leave it with lower requirement. The remaining five districts (Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Salford and Wigan) are given a requirement that would involve them utilising the same proportion of their identified supply, which equates to around an 11% buffer for each.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 206
This approach has the effect of a modest redistribution of forecast demand from the four districts of Manchester, Oldham, Stockport and Trafford to the five districts of Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Salford and Wigan.
10.17 The table below shows the results of this approach, together with the OAHN for each district, and shows the difference between the OAHNs and proposed requirements (net additional dwellings), as well as the supply and buffer.
Figure 10.5: Comparison of OAHN, housing requirement and housing supply Comparison of OAHN, housing requirement and housing supply Buffer Proposed Difference in OAHN housing between Requirement supply 2015- requirement requirement as % of Land (= (5 - 2035 2015-2035 and OAHN OAHN supply 2) / 2 * (1) (2) (3 = 2 – 1) (4) (5) 100) Bolton 16,413 16,800 387 102 18,581 11% Bury 12,206 12,500 294 102 13,897 11% Manchester 62,405 55,300 -7,105 89 58,069 5% Oldham 15,606 13,700 -1,906 88 14,376 5% Rochdale 11,338 15,500 4,162 137 17,162 11% Salford 30,035 34,900 4,865 116 38,726 11% Stockport 20,212 19,300 -912 95 20,246 5% Tameside 13,578 13,600 22 100 14,942 10% Trafford 25,910 23,100 -2,810 89 24,281 5% Wigan 19,499 22,500 3,001 115 25,009 11%
Greater Manchester 227,203 227,200 -3 100 245,289 8%
10.18 It can be seen that all districts have a supply buffer of 5-11%, ensuring the deliverability of the proposed housing requirements. Bolton, Bury and Tameside have requirements very similar to their OAHNs. Manchester, Oldham and Trafford have requirements just less than 90% of their OAHNs, and Stockport’s figure is around 95% of its OAHN. Thus, the proportionate redistribution of the OAHN from these four districts is relatively small, and they are still seeking to meet the vast majority of their OAHN within the district. The fact that Manchester’s OAHN is more than double the next highest district means that the 11% of its OAHN that needs to be met by the other districts exceeds 7,100 dwellings. Rochdale, Salford and Wigan are the three districts that have requirements significantly above their OAHNs. Salford has the highest absolute increase, but Rochdale has the highest proportionate increase compared to its OAHN. Overall, this means there is a modest but achievable redistribution of the OAHNs when translated into district housing requirements.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 207
Appendix 1: Relationships between area Characteristics of the Housing Market Area variables
This section sets out a series of scatterplots comparing some of the variables discussed in Chapter 4: Characteristics of the Housing Market Area, with the purpose of identifying whether there are any correlations between them. Each dot on the graphs represents one of the 215 wards in Greater Manchester. It is important to recognise that a correlation does not necessarily mean that there is any causality and indeed it could simply be a statistical coincidence. Where there is some causality, there may be some circumstances where it is difficult to determine the precise nature of the relationship and which variable affects the other.
Housebuilding and population
The scatterplot below compares the gross dwelling completions in each ward with the net population change that they saw over the period 2006-2013, using local authority development monitoring data and ONS experimental ward-based mid-year estimates respectively, together with a linear trend-line.
Source: Local authority data/ONS midyear estimates
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 208
The graph is skewed to a large extent by the areas with relatively high housing completions but these areas show a clear correlation between gross dwelling completions and population increase. The two dots furthest to the right are the wards of Ordsall and City Centre, where high dwelling completions and large rises in population have gone hand in hand. Cheetham had the third highest population increase which appears relatively high compared to its gross dwelling completions (5,388 and 1,947 respectively).
In order to better appreciate the relationship between the variables for the wards with lower dwelling completions, the next graph shows the same data but excludes the eight wards that had gross completions exceeding 1,000.
Source: Local authority data/ONS midyear estimates
The trend-line in this second graph is very similar to the first, showing a positive correlation between net population change and gross dwelling completions, with the line having a gradient of approximately 2 (i.e. suggesting two additional people per new dwelling). However, there is quite a lot of variation amongst the wards, with some having much higher or lower population change than might be expected given the gross dwelling completions, although clearly this relationship will be impacted by the number of dwelling losses in each ward and the type of new dwellings which are not taken into account here.
For example, Gorton South in Manchester appears to have had a very high level of population growth compared to its level of dwelling completions, with figures of 3,217 and 514 respectively. Some of the nearby wards on the south side of the city centre also had large population increases compared to their level of housebuilding,
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 209 including Gorton North (population increase of 2,231 compared to gross completions of 238), Longsight (1,529 and 90), Withington (1,496 and 161), Moss Side (2,403 and 594), Chorlton Park (1,927 and 232) and further to the west, Gorse Hill (1,267 and 100) and Priory (1,061 and 94) in Trafford. However, there were other wards in this area to the south of the city centre that had lower population increases than gross completions including Rusholme, Fallowfield, Chorlton and Didsbury East (the last of these seeing a reduction in population). It was noted above that Cheetham saw relatively high population increases even compared to its significant gross dwelling completions and some nearby wards also saw high population growth compared to levels of housebuilding, including Harpurhey (2,202 and 176), Crumpsall (1,605 and 291) and Charlestown (1,637 and 345).
Outside these inner areas, there was high population growth compared to completions around the town centres of Bolton, Oldham and to a lesser extent Rochdale and Wigan, including Halliwell (1,426 and 191) and Rumworth (796 and 13) in Bolton, St James’ (1,492 and 137), Medlock Vale (1,315 and 134) and Alexandra (988 and 26) in Oldham, Milkstone and Deeplish (669 and 23) in Rochdale and Ince (1,465 and 276) in Wigan.
The trend-line is an average and inevitably means that there will be a considerable number of wards that sit below it. Those furthest below the trend-line that saw population decline despite reasonably significant dwelling completions are in the east of Greater Manchester, namely Central Rochdale (net population loss of 471 but 147 gross dwelling completions, Royton North in Oldham (-284 and 173) and Miles Platting and Newton Heath (-258 and 233). In terms of the wards that saw a population increase, those furthest below the line were Langworthy in Salford (population growth of just 282 despite having the ninth highest gross completions in Greater Manchester at 794), North Heywood in Rochdale (27 and 342), Hyde Werneth in Tameside (235 and 404) and Chorlton in Manchester (565 and 605). The level of demolitions is at least partly responsible for this disparity in some wards, such as Langworthy in Salford which saw 1,515 gross reductions over the period 2006-2013 resulting in a net reduction of 721 dwellings.
Older people and population change
The scatterplot below compares the proportion of people aged 60 and over in each Greater Manchester ward in 2013 with the change in the total population in each ward over the period 2002-2013, using the ONS experimental ward-level mid-year estimates.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 210
Source: Local authority data/ONS midyear estimates
As might be expected, due to the relationship between age and fertility, there is a negative correlation such that the areas with the highest proportion of residents aged 60 and over had the lowest increases in population and often saw a decline in total numbers. Conversely, the areas with high population increases typically had low proportions of older people. The graph is very similar if the 75 and over age band is used.
The next graph compares the total population change in each ward with the change in the number of people aged 60 and over, during the period 2002-2013 using ONS experimental mid-year estimates at ward level. A polynomial trend-line drawn by Excel has been added. The two wards with the highest total population increases, City Centre and Ordsall, have been excluded in order to more clearly see the wards on the left-hand side of the graph.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 211
Source: ONS ward experimental statistics
There is very considerable variation but there is a negative correlation between total population change and change in the number of residents aged 60 and over. Indeed, out of the sixteen wards with the highest population increase over the period 2002- 2013, fourteen of them had reductions in the number of residents aged 60 and over and of the other two, 1.6% of the total population increase in Ordsall was aged 60 and over, and 0.8% in Chorlton Park, compared to 32.4% for Greater Manchester.
Commuting and population change
The next scatterplot compares the net change in population over the period 2002- 2013 in each Greater Manchester ward with the proportion of residents aged 16-74 commuting to work by more sustainable modes of transport, that is by train, tram, bus, cycling or walking.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 212
Source: 2011 Census
There is a relatively weak positive correlation but it is perhaps notable that all of the areas that saw a population increase above 4,000 had more than 45% of commuters travelling by sustainable modes of transport. There could potentially be causal links in both directions, with higher density developments that could accommodate more residents being built in the most accessible locations and good public transport accessibility enabling more people to live in particular areas.
Dwelling type and tenure
The scatterplot below compares the proportion of dwellings in each ward in Greater Manchester that are apartments with the proportion of households that are living in private rented accommodation, using 2011 Census data.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 213
Source: 2011 Census
There is a clear positive correlation, suggesting that higher levels of private renting maybe expected in areas where a high proportion of dwellings are apartments. There is quite significant variation, with the wards that are furthest below the trend- line having high proportions of social rented housing. The next scatterplot shows that there is also a strong positive correlation if all rented housing is used (i.e. including social rented housing) rather than just private rented accommodation.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 214
Source: 2011 Census
House prices and household incomes The next scatterplot compares the average dwelling sales prices in 2014, using H M Land Registry data, with the 2015 CACI data on median household incomes, for wards in Greater Manchester.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 215
Source: H M Land Registry
There is a clear correlation between household incomes and house prices, particularly for dwelling sales values up to around £300,000. The increase in incomes is much less significant for the very highest house prices. The basic relationship can be seen more clearly if the five wards with the highest house prices are excluded and a trend-line is added to the graph, as shown below.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 216
Source: H M Land Registry
Most of the wards are clustered quite close to the trend-line but there are a few that appear a significant distance away from it. In terms of the wards that appear to have comparatively high median household incomes compared to house prices, which are the dots in the graph furthest above the line, the largest are Boothstown and Ellenbrook in Salford, the City Centre ward in Manchester, Norden in Rochdale and Bromley Cross in Bolton, followed by Ramsbottom in Bury, Stalybridge South in Tameside and Winstanley in Wigan. Nearly all of the wards significantly above the line, with the exception of the City Centre and Ordsall wards, are in what would be considered suburban locations.
The wards that are furthest below the line and have relatively low household incomes compared to house prices which could raise issues of affordability, are Broughton in Salford, Clifford in Trafford, Old Moat, Fallowfield and Ardwick in Manchester and in terms of the higher house prices Village and St Mary’s in Trafford and Marple South in Stockport. Some other parts in the city centre area extending southwards also appear to have low household incomes relative to house prices compared to other parts of Greater Manchester, including Rusholme and Withington in Manchester and Longford in Trafford and the high number of students is likely to be partly responsible for this. Village and St Mary’s in Trafford are two areas with higher average house prices that are also significantly below the line.
House prices and people in higher level occupations
The next scatterplot compares the average dwelling sales prices in 2014, using H M Land Registry data, with the proportion of people aged 16-74 in higher managerial,
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 217 administrative and professional occupations (NS-SeC classes 1 and 2) from the 2011 Census.
Source: H M Land Registry
The scatterplot is quite similar to that for house prices and household incomes, with a clear positive correlation for most wards. This is clearer in the next graph, which excludes the five wards with the highest average house prices.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 218
Source: H M Land Registry
This scatterplot clearly suggests that, for wards with average house prices below £300,000, there is a significant increase in the proportion of people in higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations as the average house prices in an area increases. The wards are well clustered around the trend-line, particularly in terms of those above the trend-line where there are very few of any significant distance above. The furthest above the tend-line in Ordsall in Salford, with the next highest being Ramsbottom in Bury, Horwich and Blackrod and Bromley Cross in Bolton, Littleborough Lakeside in Rochdale, Boothstown and Ellenbrook in Salford and Mossley in Tameside. The wards furthest below the tend-line which therefore have lower proportions in higher level occupations than might otherwise be expected, are in the central parts of the conurbation (Fallowfield, Withington, Ardwick, Old Moat, Rusholme and Longsight in Manchester, Clifford in Trafford and Broughton in Salford) which may be partly due to the number of students in these areas and some suburban areas with relatively high average house prices including Village and St Mary’s in Trafford, Cheadle Hulme South in Stockport and Heaton and Lostock in Bolton.
The next scatterplot shows similar data to the previous one but this time compares the proportion of in-migrants in the 12 months prior to the Census, aged 16 and over and excluding students, who were in higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations (NS-SeC classes 1 and 2).
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 219
Source: H M Land Registry
This shows a very similar positive correlation but with a bit more variability around the trend-line. The City Centre and Ordsall wards are furthest above the line, suggesting that they have a higher proportion of in-migrants that are in occupation classes 1 and 2 than might be expected from their dwelling prices, with the next furthest above being Hulme, Chorlton Park and Ancoats and Clayton in Manchester, Ramsbotton and Holyrood in Bury and Weaste and Seedley and Boothstown and Ellenbrook in Salford. The wards considerably below the trend-line are quite mixed, including Broughton in Salford, Heaton and Lostock in Bolton, the two Marple wards in Stockport and Village and St Mary’s in Trafford. Of the 23 wards furthest below the trend-line, six are in Rochdale, five in Oldham and four in Tameside.
These graphs cannot demonstrate causality and so it is impossible to determine from this data whether areas with high house prices help to attract people in higher level occupations into Greater Manchester, or whether those who have decided to move here are then most likely to choose high value housing areas.
Dwelling type and people in higher level occupations
The following four scatterplots compare the proportion of dwellings of different types, with the proportion of people aged 16-74 in higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations (NS-SeC classes 1 and 2), using data from the 2011 Census.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 220
Source: 2011 Census
Source: 2011 Census
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 221
Source: 2011 Census
Source: 2011 Census
The correlations between dwelling type and the proportion of people in higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations are quite limited. There is a slight positive correlation between detached dwellings and the proportion in such
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 222 occupations and a slight modest negative correlation for terraced housing but there is a large amount of deviation from any apparent trend and there seems to be little relationship for semi-detached dwellings and apartments.
Dwelling type and people in higher level occupations
The next four scatterplots compare the proportion of dwellings of different types, with the proportion of households that contain dependent children, using data from the 2011 Census.
Source: 2011 Census
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 223
Source: 2011 Census
Source: 2011 Census
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 224
Source: 2011 Census
The key issue is the lack of any correlation between the proportion of households that have dependent children and the type of housing other than the negative relationship with the proportion of apartments. More specifically, there appears to be no increase in the proportion of households with dependent children as the proportion of detached houses increases or as the proportion of semi-detached houses increases and only a very slight positive correlation with terraced houses. This suggests that the important factor in attracting households with dependent children to an area is the presence of houses rather than apartments and the type of house has little impact. This may partly be linked to the availability and affordability of different types of housing in some areas.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 225
Appendix 2: Private rent tables
The following provides detailed tables on private rent from the Valuation Office Agency
Room with shared facilities Monthly rent (£) Lower Upper Count of Average quartile Median quartile District rents Bolton 10 421 303 303 607 Bury 10 311 300 300 325 Manchester 620 361 312 347 425 Oldham 20 361 347 368 390 Rochdale 20 375 325 325 433 Salford 80 373 321 368 412 Stockport 10 384 350 400 425 Tameside 10 318 282 300 350 Trafford 10 348 325 325 375 Wigan 130 329 300 325 350
Greater Manchester 910 357 312 347 412 North West 5,390 344 303 336 368 England 27,310 382 325 360 412
Merseyside 2,280 339 314 329 358 South Yorkshire 640 316 275 325 347 West Yorkshire 490 317 282 325 347 Tyne & Wear 200 300 260 290 325 West Midlands 2,910 349 312 342 381
London 1,870 607 500 585 695 Source: VOA
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/private-rental-market-statistics-may-2016
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 226
Studio Monthly rent (£) Lower Upper Count of Average quartile Median quartile District rents Bolton 10 285 280 280 290 Bury 10 354 325 325 370 Manchester 90 474 412 450 500 Oldham 10 295 250 258 375 Rochdale 10 321 280 288 360 Salford 30 541 525 550 595 Stockport 20 376 325 375 425 Tameside 30 337 325 345 350 Trafford 20 431 395 425 450 Wigan 30 383 390 390 390
Greater Manchester 240 427 350 416 495 North West 750 384 320 375 425 England 12,650 641 395 525 800
Merseyside 170 354 300 350 395 South Yorkshire 210 393 325 395 450 West Yorkshire 330 373 325 368 405 Tyne & Wear 40 399 325 380 465 West Midlands 890 414 347 390 455
London 4,150 1,020 797 925 1,170 Source: VOA
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/private-rental-market-statistics-may-2016
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 227
One bedroom Monthly rent (£) Lower Upper Count of Average quartile Median quartile District rents Bolton 160 410 365 400 450 Bury 80 435 395 425 460 Manchester 780 617 500 600 725 Oldham 130 437 380 425 475 Rochdale 130 388 355 390 400 Salford 290 527 425 475 625 Stockport 260 509 465 500 550 Tameside 250 410 375 400 450 Trafford 210 547 495 550 595 Wigan 240 371 347 370 395
Greater Manchester 2,530 506 399 475 579 North West 8,420 454 380 425 498 England 86,470 694 435 550 795
Merseyside 1,700 440 375 425 475 South Yorkshire 1,590 462 395 450 540 West Yorkshire 3,100 429 360 401 475 Tyne & Wear 810 454 395 450 495 West Midlands 7,330 484 400 450 550
London 17,190 1,329 1,000 1,250 1,517 Source: VOA
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/private-rental-market-statistics-may-2016
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 228
Two bedroom Monthly rent (£) Lower Upper Count of Average quartile Median quartile District rents Bolton 730 478 425 475 500 Bury 470 537 475 525 595 Manchester 2,140 728 575 695 850 Oldham 1,080 484 450 475 525 Rochdale 790 458 425 450 475 Salford 950 604 495 550 650 Stockport 1,030 632 575 625 675 Tameside 1,460 489 450 485 525 Trafford 760 741 650 700 795 Wigan 1,360 451 412 450 475
Greater Manchester 10,780 572 450 525 650 North West 30,520 540 450 500 595 England 201,470 760 495 600 833
Merseyside 4,510 525 450 500 590 South Yorkshire 5,130 496 425 475 550 West Yorkshire 8,390 514 425 495 565 Tyne & Wear 4,570 514 450 495 550 West Midlands 18,320 584 495 550 650
London 24,370 1,685 1,250 1,500 1,885 Source: VOA
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/private-rental-market-statistics-may-2016
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 229
Three bedrooms Monthly rent (£) Lower Upper Count of Average quartile Median quartile District rents Bolton 340 581 500 550 625 Bury 230 650 575 650 695 Manchester 680 837 650 795 950 Oldham 500 592 525 575 650 Rochdale 400 548 495 550 595 Salford 310 706 575 675 750 Stockport 520 779 675 750 875 Tameside 650 595 550 585 650 Trafford 430 956 775 895 1,000 Wigan 810 538 475 525 595
Greater Manchester 4,870 675 550 625 750 North West 17,020 639 525 600 695 England 121,880 867 575 695 925
Merseyside 3,010 608 525 575 675 South Yorkshire 4,150 550 475 525 600 West Yorkshire 4,240 618 500 595 695 Tyne & Wear 2,100 601 500 575 675 West Midlands 12,050 672 570 650 725
London 10,160 2,189 1,500 1,800 2,448 Source: VOA
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/private-rental-market-statistics-may-2016
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 230
Four or more bedrooms Monthly rent (£) Lower Upper Count of Average quartile Median quartile District rents Bolton 70 926 650 800 995 Bury 50 960 795 850 1,100 Manchester 190 1,249 928 1,200 1,450 Oldham 70 841 695 795 950 Rochdale 70 837 700 795 950 Salford 60 997 763 925 1,148 Stockport 150 1,167 895 1,100 1,350 Tameside 110 788 675 750 899 Trafford 150 1,798 1,125 1,450 1,900 Wigan 130 822 650 795 900
Greater Manchester 1,050 1,108 750 950 1,300 North West 4,240 1,018 700 850 1,195 England 42,650 1,556 850 1,250 1,800
Merseyside 650 915 650 800 1,000 South Yorkshire 770 873 650 795 995 West Yorkshire 1,490 899 650 800 1,040 Tyne & Wear 360 855 650 800 950 West Midlands 3,110 1,072 775 950 1,250
London 5,080 3,335 2,000 2,687 3,650 Source: VOA
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/private-rental-market-statistics-may-2016
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 231
Appendix 3: LPEG recommendations affordable housing uplift
In its proposed changes to the Planning Practice Guidance on calculating objectively assessed housing need, the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) suggests that an upward adjustment may need to be made to reflect market signals50. The LPEG approach to market signals focuses solely on two affordability measures:
House price affordability – the ratio of median house prices to median earnings Rental affordability – lower quartile rental costs as a percent of lower quartile earnings
The LPEG methodology states that DCLG live tables will provide the data on these issues, but such tables are not currently published. DCLG live table 577 provides some data on the ratio of median house prices to median earnings in each district, but the latest figures are for 2013. It also uses workplace-based earnings, whereas it would seem more appropriate to use residence-based earnings.
For the analysis here, median house prices for each district have been calculated using Land Registry price paid data, and excluding all properties in the ‘other’ category which are essentially the commercial properties. The lower quartile rental costs have been taken from Table 2.7 of the private rental market statistics published by the government. The median and lower quartile earnings have been taken from the ASHE data for gross weekly earnings in 2015 (Tables 8.1a and 7.1a, respectively).
The table below summarises the results using both residence-based earnings and workplace-based earnings, and identifies the uplift required in each district if the LPEG methodology was used.
Analysis of market signals using the LPEG methodology Residence-based earnings Workplace-based earnings Rental Rental House Affordability % uplift House Affordability % uplift Price Ratio Ratio (%) required Price Ratio Ratio (%) required Bolton 4.70 25.87 10% 4.81 26.66 10% Bury 5.19 27.69 10% 5.56 29.80 10% Manchester 5.47 33.71 20% 4.96 30.67 20% Oldham 4.96 29.76 10% 5.16 31.83 20% Rochdale 4.96 28.45 10% 5.35 29.65 10% Salford 5.03 31.36 20% 4.64 29.32 10% Stockport 6.39 31.50 20% 6.87 33.03 20% Tameside 5.18 30.25 20% 5.34 30.55 20% Trafford 7.42 35.03 25% 8.82 37.26 25%
50 Local Plans Expert Group (March 2016) Appendices: Appendix 6 – Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment – Revised NPPF Text, paragraph 019-020
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 232
Analysis of market signals using the LPEG methodology Residence-based earnings Workplace-based earnings Rental Rental House Affordability % uplift House Affordability % uplift Price Ratio Ratio (%) required Price Ratio Ratio (%) required Wigan 4.57 24.68 0% 5.00 27.26 10%
The next table applies these uplifts to the OAHN figures from chapter 5, and then deducts the 2014-2015 completions to give a remaining requirement for 2015-2035, using both the residence-based and workplace-based earnings.
OAHN with LPEG house price/rental affordability uplifts 2014- Residence-based earnings Workplace-based earnings 2015 2014- 2014- 2014- net 2035 2015- 2015- 2035 2015- 2015- 2035 addit- with 2035 2035 per with 2035 2035 per OAHN ions uplift residual annum uplift residual annum (1) (2) (3) (4=3-2) (5 = 4/20) (6) (7=6-2) (8=7/20) Bolton 16,882 469 18,570 18,101 905 18,570 18,101 905 Bury 12,749 543 14,024 13,481 674 14,024 13,481 674 Manchester 63,650 1,245 76,380 75,135 3,757 76,380 75,135 3,757 Oldham 16,170 564 17,788 17,224 861 19,405 18,841 942 Rochdale 11,650 312 12,815 12,503 625 12,815 12,503 625 Salford 31,010 975 37,212 36,237 1,812 34,111 33,136 1,657 Stockport 20,676 464 24,811 24,347 1,217 24,811 24,347 1,217 Tameside 13,975 397 16,770 16,373 819 16,770 16,373 819 Trafford 26,125 215 32,657 32,442 1,622 32,657 32,442 1,622 Wigan 20,028 529 20,028 19,499 975 22,031 21,502 1,075
Greater Manchester 232,916 5,713 271,054 265,341 13,267 271,573 265,860 13,293
Chapter 7 identified the OAHN for Greater Manchester over the period 2015-2035 as 227,203 net additional dwellings (which is column 1 minus column 2 from the table above). If the uplifts are applied, then this increases to 265,341 net additional dwellings (or 13,267 per annum) when residence-based earnings are used, and to 265,860 net additional dwellings (or 13,293 per annum) when workplace-based earnings are used. This represents a 16.4% uplift for Greater Manchester as a whole for residence-based earnings, and 16.6% for workplace-based earnings.
The LPEG methodology then requires a further 10% uplift to be applied if a district would be unable to deliver its identified affordable housing need based on that total number of dwellings and its likely tenure split. At this stage it is not possible to say which districts will be able to meet their identified affordable housing need in full, as this will rely on more detailed policy and viability work that is likely to take place during the production of district local plans and strategies. The table below shows the results if all districts had to add this extra 10% uplift to the residence-based earnings approach, based on the figures from the previous table.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 233
OAHN with LPEG house price/rental affordability (residence-based earnings) and affordable housing uplifts 2014-2035 2014-2035 with 2014-2015 with affordable 2014-2035 net affordability housing 2015-2035 2015-2035 OAHN additions uplift uplift residual per annum (1) (2) (3) (4=3*1.1) (5=4-2) (6=5/20) Bolton 16,882 469 18,570 20,427 19,958 998 Bury 12,749 543 14,024 15,427 14,884 744 Manchester 63,650 1,245 76,380 84,017 82,772 4,139 Oldham 16,170 564 17,788 19,566 19,002 950 Rochdale 11,650 312 12,815 14,097 13,785 689 Salford 31,010 975 37,212 40,933 39,958 1,998 Stockport 20,676 464 24,811 27,292 26,828 1,341 Tameside 13,975 397 16,770 18,447 18,050 903 Trafford 26,125 215 32,657 35,922 35,707 1,785 Wigan 20,028 529 20,028 22,031 21,502 1,075
Greater Manchester 232,916 5,713 271,054 298,160 292,447 14,622
If all districts had to apply a 10% uplift for affordable housing then this would increase the Greater Manchester requirement to 292,447 net additional dwellings (or 14,622 per annum).
The uplifts required by the LPEG methodology are not needed to meet the growth in households. If these additional dwellings were require there could be a number of policy implications. These include an increased vacancy rate due lack of demand from households who are not forecast to exist in Greater Manchester in the plan period. Furthermore the earlier work on affordable housing shows that many parts of Greater Manchester are affordable and the needs for affordable housing can be met in Greater Manchester without an uplift in supply.
Consequently, the LPEG approach to market signals would seem inappropriate, and, having regard to the other evidence in this document, the OAHN identified in Chapter 7 have been used without any uplift for market signals, both at the district and Greater Manchester levels. Hence the OAHN for Greater Manchester is 227,203 net additional dwellings over the period 2015-2035, equating to an average of 11,360 per annum.
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016 234