Stoke-on-Trent City Council Housing Needs Study 2004

Final Report September 2004

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Housing Needs Study 2004 Final Report Contents

FOREWORD 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 1. Approach 9 2. Current housing 9 3. Housing history 10 4. Income and expenditure 10 5. Particular housing needs 10 6. Moving intentions 11 7. Modelling and addressing housing needs 11

I APPROACH 15 1. Introduction 15 1 2. Study objectives 16 3. Demand, need and aspirations 16 4. Affordability 17 5. Secondary data analysis and literature search 18 6. Stakeholder analysis 18 7. Survey of resident households 19 8. Sample representativeness 19

II SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & POLICY CONTEXT 23 1. Introduction 23 2. Social, economic and political geographies 23 3. Population trends 25 4. Ethnicity 27 5. Student population 27 6. The economy 28 7. Tenure and type of housing 29 8. Owner-occupation 30 9. Social housing 31 10. The planning system 32 11. Local and regional planning 33

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

III HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 36 1. Introduction 36 2. Household composition 36 3. Age and gender 37 4. Ethnicity 38 5. Employment status 39 6. Household size and under/over-occupation 40

IV CURRENT HOUSING 42 1. Introduction 42 2. Type and tenure 42 3. Multiple ownership 43 4. Size and adequacy of accommodation 43

V HOUSING HISTORY 46 1. Introduction 46 2. Length of residency 46 3. Calculating housing need based on housing history 46 4. Pattern of movement between areas 48 5. Type and tenure of previous accommodation 49

2 VI NEIGHBOURHOOD & COMMUNITY SAFETY 51 1. Introduction 51 2. Satisfaction with the neighbourhood 51 3. Safety 53 4. Harassment 54 5. Noise nuisance 55

VII HOUSING COSTS & INCOME 56 1. Introduction 56 2. Rent and mortgage levels 56 3. Financial support 57 4. Income 58 5. Savings 59 6. Fuel costs 59

VIII HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WITH PARTICULAR NEEDS 61 1. Introduction 61 2. Households with a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability 61 3. Adaptations and carers 62

IX MOVING INTENTIONS 65 1. Introduction 65

2. Moving households and new forming households 65 3. Moving for reasons of inadequacy 66 4. Other reasons for moving 66 5. Desired locations 67 6. Unable to move 69 7. Future housing demand 69 8. Supply released by planned movers 71 9. Matching supply and demand 72 10. Affordability and housing need 74

X MODELLING & ADDRESSING HOUSING NEEDS 76 1. Introduction 76 2. The needs assessment model 76 3. Implications for the future housing market 79

XI APPENDICES 83 1. Ward profiles 83 2. Table showing pattern of movement between areas over last two years 83 3. Letter of introduction 83 4. Face-to-face interview schedule 83 3

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

4

Tables Table I-1 Response distribution...... 21 Table I-2 Comparative responses on tenure and type (%) ...... 22 Table II-1 Population by age bands (%)...... 26 Table II-3 Mean net weekly income by household type of RSL tenants...... 29 Table II-4 Households by tenure type (%)...... 30 Table II-5 Housing type by area, region and England & Wales (%) ...... 30 Table II-6 Change in mean house prices for Stoke-on-Trent 2002-2003 ...... 31 Table III-1 Household composition groups ...... 36 Table III-2 Household composition groups for market renewal areas (%)...... 37 Table III-3 Respondent age and gender...... 37 Table III-4 Age profile of household population for market renewal areas (%) ...... 38 Table III-5 Ethnic breakdown of household population for market renewal areas (%)....39 Table III-6 Employment status of respondents (%)...... 39 Table III-7 Adults aged 16-64 in key worker occupations (%)...... 40 Table III-8 Proportion of households by size...... 40 Table III-9 Household size and number of bedrooms (%) ...... 41 Table III-10 Under/over-occupation by Market Renewal Areas (%) ...... 41 Table IV-1 Households by type and tenure (%)...... 42 Table IV-2 Households by type and number of bedrooms (%) ...... 44 Table IV-3 Reasons for inadequacy ...... 45 Table V-1 Previous address of in-migrants over last two years...... 47 Table V-2 Reasons for moving in the last two years...... 48 Table V-3 Newly formed households in Stoke-on-Trent ...... 48 5 Table V-4 Movements between housing types in the last five years (%) ...... 49 Table V-5 Households moving between landlords (%)...... 50 Table VI-1 Feelings of safety (%) ...... 53 Table VI-2 Feelings of safety by age and gender (%)...... 54 Table VI-3 Experience of harassment by Market Renewal Area (%)...... 54 Table VI-4 Experience of harassment by ethnic group (%)...... 55 Table VI-5 Problems with noise nuisance by Market Renewal Area (%)...... 55 Table VII-1 Monthly rent/mortgage ...... 56 Table VII-2 Monthly rent/mortgage by tenure ...... 57 Table VII-3 Monthly rent levels by landlord (%)...... 57 Table VII-4 Financial support by Market Renewal Areas (%) ...... 58 Table VII-5 Household net monthly income...... 58 Table VII-6 Household net monthly income by landlord (%) ...... 59 Table VII-7 Fuel poverty by tenure, landlord and age...... 60 Table VIII-1 Respondents’ particular needs by age (%)...... 62 Table VIII-2 Adaptations needed by respondents’ particular needs (%)...... 63 Table IX-1 Planned moves outside Stoke-on-Trent...... 65 Table IX-2 Main reasons for moving ...... 67 Table IX-3 Desired locations outside Stoke-on-Trent...... 68 Table IX-4 Desired locations within the District...... 68 Table IX-5 Housing demand from existing households wanting to own (%)...... 69 Table IX-6 Demand from existing households wanting social rented properties (%) ...... 70 Table IX-7 Demand from existing households wanting to rent privately (%)...... 70 Table IX-8 Demand from new forming households wanting to own (%)...... 70

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table IX-9 Demand from new forming households wanting social rented properties (%) ...... 71 Table IX-10 Demand from new forming households wanting to rent privately...... 71 Table IX-11 Housing supply in owner-occupied sector (%)...... 72 Table IX-12 Housing supply in social rented sector (%)...... 72 Table IX-13 Housing supply in private rented sector (%)...... 72 Table IX-14 Housing surplus and shortfall in owner-occupied sector...... 73 Table IX-15 Housing surplus and shortfall in social rented sector...... 73 Table IX-16 Housing surplus and shortfall in private rented sector ...... 74 Table IX-17 Housing need ...... 75 Table X-1 Basic Needs Assessment Model: Stages and Sources ...... 77 Table X-2 Housing needs of Stoke-on-Trent ...... 79

Figures Figure 1 Wards and Pathfinder Areas...... 20 Figure 2 North Staffordshire Market Renewal Pathfinder Areas ...... 24 Figure 3 Age group of total population...... 38 Figure 4 Proportion of households by number of bedrooms...... 43 Figure 5 Accommodation not adequate for households’ needs by age...... 45 Figure 6 Feelings of satisfaction with neighbourhood...... 51 Figure 7 Nature of particular needs...... 62 Figure 8 Adaptations done and adaptations required...... 63

6

FOREWORD

The authors are grateful to all the people who have co-operated and contributed to Stoke- on-Trent’s Housing Needs Study 2004.

In particular we would like to thank: ; Tanya Gibson, Denise Grant and Rob Woods of Stoke-on-Trent City Council ; The participants in the stakeholder interviews ; All the residents of Stoke-on-Trent who gave of their time to be interviewed

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not represent the policies of Stoke-on-Trent City Council or any other organisation in the City.

The copyright of this report rests in the hands of the Council.

September 2004

7

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Approach 1.1 In August 2003, Outside was appointed to undertake a Housing Needs Study for Stoke-on- Trent City Council. The previous Housing Needs Study was undertaken in-house in 1998.1 The significant changes in the local housing market since then have meant that a fresh assessment of local housing needs was overdue. These changes include: (i) relatively slow rises in property prices which have seen average house prices in the City rise by 73.7% since December 1998, whilst property prices in the County have risen 90.4% and in the West Midlands have risen by 79.6% (ii) the debate about low demand in the City, which has been informed by a study by the Centre for Urban & Regional Studies2 (iii) the impact of the North Staffordshire Housing Market Renewal Area 1.2 The Housing Needs Study 2004 used a three-stage methodology to address these aims and objectives. The approach brought together the views of residents, the experience of key stakeholders and information contained in secondary data sources. 1.3 In total 3,112 face-to-face interviews were undertaken with resident households. 1.4 The confidence interval for the City as a whole is +/- 1.8%. Consequently this means that the survey can be seen to be representative of the City, statistically valid and highly robust.

2. Current housing 9 2.1 5.8% of households with at least one member aged 75 and over lived in properties where the lowest floor level was above the ground floor. This rose to 12.0% in Market Renewal Area A and 7.0% in Area B. 2.2 3.3% of households where at least one member has particular housing needs lived in properties where the lowest floor level was above the ground floor. 2.3 1.4% of households (1,451) owned another property in Stoke-on-Trent in addition to the one they currently occupy. This was much more common for people living outside the Market Renewal Areas, where 2.3% of households owned another property within Stoke-on-Trent. 2.4 6.0% of households (6,197) felt that their accommodation was not adequate for their needs. This figure is similar to the level of inadequacy recorded in Newcastle-under-Lyme (5.8%), but lower than Staffordshire Moorlands (8.3%). 2.5 The experience of inadequate housing varied across the City with 7.9% of Market Renewal Area C, 6.9% of Area D, 6.4% of Area A, 5.2% of Area B and only 4.3% of the rest of Stoke- on-Trent indicating that they find their homes inadequate for the needs of their household. 2.6 Generally, people in Stoke-on-Trent were very satisfied with the area in which they lived; only 7.3% of households expressed any dissatisfaction with their neighbourhood. Across the City households’ dissatisfaction with their neighbourhoods ranged from 4.8% outside the Market Renewal Areas to 8.3% in Area D and 8.0% in Area B.

1 The Stoke-on-Trent Housing Needs Survey, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, 1998 2 Lee P.W., Leather, P., Goodson, L.J., Phillimore, J.A., Murie, A.S., Developing a Sub-Regional Investment Strategy for North Staffordshire, CURS, The University of Birmingham, 2002

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

3. Housing history 3.1 Stoke-on-Trent has a less stable population than its neighbours. 48.6% of households have lived in their current home for more than ten years; the equivalent figure for Staffordshire Moorlands is 54.7% and for Newcastle-under-Lyme is 59.1%. 3.2 19.1% of households in Stoke-on-Trent have moved within the last two years (19,743) compared to 16.1% in Staffordshire Moorlands and 14.7% in Newcastle-under-Lyme. 3.3 4,581 households move each year because their homes are inadequate for their needs. 3.4 21.3% of recent movers (moved to current home within last two years) were in-migrants. The average proportion of in-migrant households found in Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies is 37.2% and was 36.9% for Staffordshire Moorlands and 29.0% for Newcastle- under-Lyme. 3.5 In the last two years 22.4% of Stoke-on-Trent’s in-migrants came from Newcastle-under- Lyme (942 households) and 18.0% came from Staffordshire Moorlands (758 households). In comparison, a third of Staffordshire Moorlands in-migrant households moved from Stoke–on- Trent (806 households) and 3.4% moved from Newcastle-under-Lyme (82 households).

4. Income and expenditure 4.1 39.1% of Stoke-on-Trent’s households (40,399) were in receipt of one or more form of state financial support. The proportion of households receiving financial support was greatest in Market Renewal Area A (47.8%) and was lowest outside the Market Renewal Areas. 4.2 33.0% of households had a net monthly income of less than £650, which is the amount required to purchase an entry-level property at £40,000. 59.4% of local authority tenants, 54.5% of other public sector tenants and 39.7% of private tenants have monthly net incomes below £650 per month. 10 4.3 16.5% (17,039) of Stoke-on-Trent’s households are experiencing fuel poverty. Although the incidence of fuel poverty is much higher than the average for Outside’s comparable Housing Needs Studies (11.0%), it is very similar to the figure for Newcastle-under-Lyme (18.0%), Cannock Chase (18.4%) and Staffordshire Moorlands (17.2%).

5. Particular housing needs 5.1 In Stoke-on-Trent as a whole, 34.8% of households (35,934) defined themselves as having at least one member with particular needs (i.e. a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability that affects their daily lives). This is much higher than the average for Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies of 26.6%, and is in fact the highest rate recorded in any of Outside’s Housing Needs Studies to date. The comparative rates for Staffordshire Moorlands and Newcastle-under-Lyme are, 28.1% and 28.7% respectively. 5.2 Some households contained more than one person with particular needs giving an average of 1.2 people per household with particular needs. This implies that around 42,811 people in Stoke-on-Trent have a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability, which is 16.3% of the total population. 5.3 96.9% of adapted and purpose-built properties are occupied by households with at least one member with particular needs, leaving approximately 3,199 properties that have been adapted or are purpose-built to meet particular needs occupied by households with no such needs. 21.2% of households where at least one member has particular needs live in adapted or purpose-built properties.

6. Moving intentions 6.1 Within the next two years, 6.6% of existing households (6,842) intend to move. This is lower than the average of 11.8% indicated in Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies and compares with 9.5% in Staffordshire Moorlands and 7.2% in Newcastle-under-Lyme. 6.2 Of the 26.5% (1,813 households) planning to move away from Stoke-on-Trent, 11.3% intend to move to Newcastle-under-Lyme and 11.5% to Manchester. The largest proportion intends to move beyond the region entirely. 6.3 In addition to existing movers, 1.4% of households (1,408) contained members who intend to move out of the household to establish a home of their own. This is very low compared to the average found in Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies, of 5.3%. 6.4 Within the next two years a prospective total of 5,998 households plan to move within Stoke-on-Trent. This is much lower than the number of households that actually moved in the last two years from previous addresses within Stoke-on-Trent (15,537). The estimate of planned new forming households (971) is particularly low compared to the number of households that set up their first home within the last two years from within Stoke-on-Trent (4,277). 6.5 Amongst existing households planning a move within Stoke-on-Trent, 60.0% (3,017 households) want to own their own homes, 32.4% (1,630 households) want to rent from the public sector and 6.6% (332 households) want to rent in the private sector. There was no interest in this survey for the idea of shared ownership. 6.6 Of the 5,027 existing households planning to move and wanting to stay within Stoke-on- Trent over the next two years, 3,137 want to move because their current home is not adequate for their needs. Of these, 37.5% (1,175 over two years, 587 annually) had incomes below £650 per month and 77.1% (2,418 over two years, 1209 annually) had savings below £2,000. 11 6.7 This implies a total of 1,512 households (756 annually) unable to afford a mortgage to buy an entry-level property of £40,000. 3,153 households (1,576 annually) who want to move to a new home within Stoke-on-Trent do not have sufficient savings to reach a £2,000 deposit on a property of £40,000.

7. Modelling and addressing housing needs 7.1 The Housing Needs Model suggests a surplus of affordable housing for Stoke-on-Trent of 988 dwellings. However, this needs to be set in the context of local conditions and what is planned for the next eighteen years to restructure the local housing market. 7.2 Private sector unfitness (11.5%) and non-decency (57.3%) levels in Stoke-on-Trent are significantly above national levels, whilst this picture is even worse in the Pathfinder area where private sector unfitness is 17.3% and non decency 76.7%. Void levels in the Pathfinder area are also running at 9% of stock, some three times a healthy rate and significantly above the City-wide rate. These factors are directly related to the Housing Needs Study findings of surpluses in terraces and flats in the City, which are increasingly unpopular in specific neighbourhoods and are likely to be cleared in future years, most under the Pathfinder initiative. This position also contrasts starkly with the current healthy demand for social housing. 7.3 The Market Renewal Prospectus for North Staffordshire3 proposes radical plans to restructure the local housing market, not the least of which is the clearance of 14,500 properties with 12,500 new homes being built over an 18-year period. The aim is that the

3 Market Renewal Prospectus, Renew North Staffordshire, March 2004

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

affordable housing re-provision will be 40% of the overall total of new homes to be built, which equates to 5,000 new affordable homes. 7.4 Renew North Staffordshire’s Housing Interventions Paper (submitted to ODPM in May 2004) proposes that 27% of new build should be low cost home ownership (equivalent to 3,375 dwellings) and that there will be 1,800 new units of social housing. Consequently this suggests a total of 5,175 new affordable homes in the period; just over the 40% proposed in the Prospectus. 7.5 The need to reduce the housing stock across Stoke-on-Trent is confirmed by this study. The picture is, however, one of a dynamic housing market with significant intervention planned in the Pathfinder area in future years, to provide new and refurbished homes in a range of values, sizes and types better suited to the aspirations and needs of local communities. In such circumstances, and given current trends in house prices set against the City’s low wage economy and household characteristics, affordable provision will remain a cornerstone of planned new development in key intervention areas in Stoke-on-Trent in future years. 7.6 In addition there is evidence that suggests that the picture in Stoke-on-Trent could change quite rapidly. House prices in the City, particularly for terraced houses, which are the prime point of entry into the local housing market, are rising steeply and faster than for England & Wales. The reduction in stock that the Market Renewal Pathfinder will implement, coupled with the City’s low wage economy, means that it is possible that in the not too distant future the surplus presented here could turn into a shortage of housing at prices that are affordable for local residents. Even if all other factors were not to change, should the cost of the entry-level home rise to £50,000, then the overall surplus of affordable housing could fall to 491 and should it rise to £60,000 then the surplus could fall to as low as 127. 7.7 The "surplus of affordable housing" suggested by the Housing Needs Model should therefore 12 be qualified in the Stoke-on-Trent context. This is for four reasons: (i) It is reasonable to assume that the dwellings demolished in the City over this period are likely to be at the lower end of the housing market; those owner-occupied and privately rented dwellings which are currently occupied by residents whose income is close to the margin of affordability. The market dwellings constructed as replacements may well not be within the range of affordability of this group. For some of these residents there will be further issues of special need that will make it impractical for them to return to market housing. At the same time the ongoing reduction in building outside the urban area is likely to increase the demand for housing in the City from those who would have traditionally been the buyers of housing in the surrounding areas, placing further pressure on affordability. (ii) There is evidence that the government’s approach to calculating the need for affordable housing is less applicable in low demand housing markets than in high- pressure markets. The model was in part designed to meet the requirement for target setting for high-pressured markets in London and the South East and becomes increasingly less useful in areas where demand is not necessarily as buoyant. The outcome is that it may be a better tool for predicting shortfalls than surpluses. (iii) The model assumes an income threshold above which, if a household could afford to buy, it would be excluded from council housing. However Stoke-on-Trent does not have such a criteria and the evidence elsewhere in the report confirms there is a demand for the social housing. Therefore the possibility of a real surplus on this scale is diminished. (iv) It is also the case that by modelling housing needs at a citywide level, the differences between areas are masked. It is perfectly possible that there are pockets of the City that are not affordable to local residents and that there is already a shortage of suitable housing.

7.8 For these reasons it is important that the Housing Needs Model is updated annually to ensure that the changes that occur as a result of the Housing Market Renewal Initiative are reflected in the bottom line numbers. This will not only enable monitoring of progress towards a more sustainable and balanced housing market, but also ensure that policy decisions are made on up-to-date information. 7.9 Similarly, in the Areas of Major Intervention envisaged in the Prospectus, the findings of detailed housing surveys will ensure that housing re-provision reflects the needs and aspirations of local communities, particularly in relation to an appropriate level of affordable homes. 7.10 Finally, the Housing Needs Study also clearly demonstrates the extent of unmet special needs in the City, particularly in relation to some of the City’s most vulnerable households, and affordable housing provision and re-provision will be required to address this need, both within and outside the Pathfinder area.

13

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

14

I APPROACH

1. Introduction 1.1 In July 2000, the Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions (now the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) published its long awaited guidance on Local Housing Needs Assessment.4 This set out the reasoning behind housing needs assessment and guidance for local authorities commissioning or undertaking this work. 1.2 The aim of housing needs assessments is to underpin local housing strategies, to support land use planning and to inform other planning processes such as those for community care and regeneration. 1.3 In August 2003, Outside was appointed to undertake a Housing Needs Study for Stoke-on- Trent City Council. The previous Housing Needs Study was undertaken in-house in 1998.5 The significant changes in the local housing market since then have meant that a fresh assessment of local housing needs was overdue. These changes include: (i) relatively slow rises in property prices which have seen average house prices in the City rise by 73.7% since December 1998, whilst property prices in the County have risen 90.4% and in the West Midlands have risen by 79.6% (ii) the debate about low demand in the City, which has been informed by a study by the Centre for Urban & Regional Studies6 (iii) the impact of the North Staffordshire Housing Market Renewal Area 1.4 The Housing Needs Study 2004 used a three-stage methodology to address these aims and objectives. The approach brought together the views of residents, the experience of key 15 stakeholders and information contained in secondary data sources: (i) Secondary data and literature search – review and analysis of key data sources and relevant literature including comparative analysis of the Housing Needs Studies for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands particularly where they impact upon the North Staffordshire Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder (ii) Stakeholders – interviews with key stakeholders looking at issues around the Housing Market Renewal Area (iii) Residents – a face-to-face survey of 3,000 resident households to enable analysis for the four Housing Market Renewal Areas, as well as City-wide 1.5 This three-point approach means the data can be “triangulated”, which enables the comparative validation of each element. 1.6 Although different methods were used to research individual elements, this report brings together the findings from each aspect under thematic headings rather than differentiating the findings by methodology.

4 Bramley, G., Pawson H. with Parker, J., Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice, DETR, 2000 5 The Stoke-on-Trent Housing Needs Survey, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, 1998 6 Lee P.W., Leather, P., Goodson, L.J., Phillimore, J.A., Murie, A.S., Developing a Sub-Regional Investment Strategy for North Staffordshire, CURS, The University of Birmingham, 2002

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

2. Study objectives 2.1 The purpose of the Housing Needs Study is to inform and support the development and implementation of Stoke-on-Trent’s strategic planning and housing policy including: ; the Local Plan ; the Community Plan ; the Housing Market Renewal strategy ; the Housing Strategy ; the Housing Investment Programme submissions ; the Supporting People Strategy 2.2 In addition the findings of the Housing Needs Study should: ; enhance the Council’s enabling role ; provide a projection of housing need for the next five years and an indication for the next ten years ; assess the impact of the Housing Market Renewal process on marginal groups ; be set in the regional and national context 2.3 The Project Brief set out the key objectives of the Study, which can be summarised as follows: ; to analyse the nature and causes of housing need in the City ; to provide information in respect of people’s housing aspirations ; to comment on the operation of the local housing market

16 ; to identify areas which may be vulnerable to future changes in demand ; to assist the Council to make more informed decisions about targeting resources and determining spending priorities ; to assist the Council in developing its approach to meeting housing need cross-tenure, including social rented housing, shared ownership, particular needs and supported housing, accessible and adapted housing, affordable housing and private rented housing ; to assist the Council in developing housing policy in relation to the Council’s Local Plan ; to inform a range of Council strategies including those relating to Housing Market Renewal, Local Agenda 21, Supporting People and Homelessness ; to enable the Council to substantiate and evidence bids for external funding

3. Demand, need and aspirations 3.1 At the beginning, it is important to define the different terms used in housing needs assessment. 3.2 The definitions adopted for the study are those that draw a distinction between demand and need. Overall, one can talk of the housing requirements of a district. The requirements are made up of both demand and need. Households that can enter the general market without intervention of any sort are defined as demand. This is the same as the economic definition of demand in that demand will become apparent in the general housing market and has a cost relationship with supply. On the other hand, households that are unable to enter the general market without some form of intervention by public service providers are defined as need. From the point of view of social housing providers, need is more significant. From the point of land use planning, both demand and need are relevant.

3.3 Need in this case also encompasses aspirations. Much of recent government policy, not only in housing, seeks to empower citizens by taking into account the needs they identify for themselves, as opposed to those identified by “experts”. These aspirations are recognised as a legitimate basis for policy-making and have to be taken into account when assessing the housing requirements of an area. 3.4 The methodology used here aims to identify the professional view of need, expressed demand and individuals’ aspirations, as recommended by ODPM7. This is done by collecting and analysing: (i) household characteristics in terms of size, current property condition and income (ii) respondents’ views on suitability of current housing and preferences for moving or modification (iii) respondents’ housing history as a predictor of future behaviour

4. Affordability 4.1 The concept of affordability is critical in the needs assessment process. Outside use the approach recommended by Bramley et al8 and base our model of affordability on the relationship between net household income and local supply. 4.2 Affordability is defined by the relationship between local incomes and the local general housing market. Affordable housing is housing provided with subsidy for people who would otherwise be excluded from the general housing market due to the relationship between local housing costs and local incomes. In other words, affordable housing is that housing which is provided to meet the needs of the local population. 4.3 There is some debate about a general definition of affordable housing. At a national level, neither Planning & Affordable Housing Circular 6/98 nor Planning Policy Guidance No. 3: 17 Housing 2000 (PPG3) provides a formal definition of affordable housing. However, affordable homes are described as: “both low-cost market and subsidised housing (irrespective of tenure, ownership – whether exclusive or shared – or financial arrangements) that will be available to people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses generally available on the open market.” 9 4.4 While affordable housing in PPG 3 and Circular 6/98 is defined on a ‘tenure neutral’ basis, it is clear from guidance that planning authorities should tailor their affordable housing policies to meet the needs and opportunities presented by the local market. 4.5 PPG 3 states that local authorities’ plan policies should: “…define what the authority considers to be affordable in the local plan area in terms of the relationship between local income levels and house prices or rents for different types of households.” 4.6 It is therefore the local context that is of primary importance. What may be affordable in one region will not be in another. What may be an appropriate form of provision in one region, such as low-cost market housing in the North East, may not be appropriate for authorities in the South East or London. PPG 3 emphasises the role of the local authority in defining affordability with specific reference to incomes, house prices and rents.

7 Bramley, G., Pawson H. with Parker, J., Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice, DETR, 2000 8 Bramley, G et al, ibid, 2000 9 Planning & Affordable Housing Circular 6/98

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

4.7 The proposed changes to PPG 3 are more explicit than previously, rejecting a definition of affordable housing based on tenure: “Local planning authorities should include in local plans, policies to deliver affordable housing and in doing so define what is affordable housing. Affordable housing should be defined in terms of the relationship between local income levels and house prices or rents for different types and sizes of housing, and in terms of housing for identified groups such as key workers, and be based on an up-to-date assessment of housing needs. Affordable housing should not normally be defined by reference to tenure, but only where this would address an identified housing need that otherwise would not be met by other types of affordable housing.”10 4.74.8 This Housing Needs Study seeks to determine what affordability means to a range of household types and assess the various forms of provision most suited to Stoke-on-Trent.

5. Secondary data analysis and literature search 5.1 A range of secondary data and relevant literature was collated and analysed to inform the Housing Needs Model and to set the study in context. These items fall into six broad groups: 5.2 Population Projections from the Office of National Statistics and from Staffordshire County Council’s Research Business Unit to assess future population growth and new household formation. 5.3 Housing and earnings Local, regional and national data; house price information collated from building societies and the Land Registry, rental data from estate agents and letting agencies, CORE11. 18 5.4 Plans and strategies Stoke-on-Trent City Local Plan 2011– City Local Draft (February 2002), Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Explanatory Memorandum February 2002), Peak District National Park Authority: Peak District National Park Local Plan, Adopted Version, March 2001, Stoke-on-Trent Housing Strategy 2003-2006, Housing Investment Programme SSA 2003 5.65.5 2001 Census To make comparisons with the survey data by tenure, house type, household size and ethnicity and, where necessary, re-weight the data to ensure the findings are representative of the population. 5.75.6 Other information/data The 1998 Housing Needs Study, North Staffs HMRA Overall Survey (November 2003), Dataspring information provided by the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge, National Housing Federation CORE New Lettings Data.

6. Stakeholder analysis 6.1 The input of stakeholders into the study adds value to the project, as well as contributing to the process of validation through triangulation.

10 ODPM, PPG3, Housing - Influencing the size, type and affordability of housing, Proposed changes, ODPM, February 2003, p5 11 CORE (COntinuous REcording) is a system developed jointly by the National Housing Federation (NHF) and the Housing Corporation. CORE is used to record information on both Registered Social Landlords (RSL) lettings and sales in England.

6.2 Interviews were undertaken to look at issues around the relationship with the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder Initiative. 6.3 The findings from the stakeholder analysis are built into the body of the report rather than being reported separately.

7. Survey of resident households 7.1 Our normal practice for a Housing Needs Study is to undertake some or all of the household survey by face-to-face interview. Face-to-face interviews are better for Housing Needs Studies because they: ; are less prone to bias ; guarantee a response rate ; enable the collection of information from concealed households ; give better answers on key questions such as income and savings ; enable greater exploration of respondents’ attitudes 7.2 A postal survey cannot provide a guaranteed response rate (it has to be assumed based on previous experience) and has greater bias due to lower response rates; on the other hand they are considerably cheaper. 7.3 Based upon the requirement that the study provide detailed analysis at City-wide level and for five sub-areas, a survey of 3,000 face-to-face interviews with resident households was undertaken. 7.4 The interview schedule included the following topics (a copy of the face-to-face interview schedule is provided at Appendix 4): 19 ; housing characteristics – tenure, house type, number of rooms and facilities; property condition and adequacy of current housing; amenities, forms of heating and energy efficiency levels; adaptations ; household characteristics - income, equity, employment; housing costs; composition by gender, age and ethnicity; car ownership; special needs ; respondents’ housing history in terms of tenure, location and reasons for moving ; views about the local environment and facilities ; characteristics, moving intentions and requirements of existing and new forming households 7.5 The Land & Property Gazetteer was used as the sample frame to draw a random probability sample. Full addresses and postcodes were provided for resident households. 7.6 A letter was sent to all households selected for face-to-face interview prior to being visited (a copy is included at Appendix 3). Up to three calls were made at each address at different times on different days before the household was recorded as a non-response and a further household selected.

8. Sample representativeness 8.1 The Housing Needs Study 2004 was based on a survey of 3,000 face-to-face interviews. In fact, 3,020 households were initially interviewed. An anomaly in the sampling process resulted in some wards being under-represented and a further sample was drawn of 92 addresses bringing the overall number of interviews up to 3,112.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

20

Figure 1 Wards and Pathfinder Areas 8.2 In order to achieve 3,000 successful interviews, 9,000 addresses were selected for interview. 3,895 contacts were made to selected households, 77.5% of which resulted in a successful interview. The reasons for non-response included households refusing to take part in the survey (19.0%), properties being empty (9.0%), non-contact after three visits (57.5%), properties demolished/derelict (3.0%), properties not being residential (3.0%) and other reasons (8.4%).

8.3 A sample of interviews undertaken by each member of the fieldwork team was back checked to ensure fieldwork quality. 8.28.4 The survey responses were grossed up to the total number of households for Stoke-on- Trent, 103,196 households, as indicated in the 2001 Census. In grossing the survey findings, responses were weighted to reflect the household distribution by ward as indicated in the 2001 Census. 8.5 The SPSS dataset that accompanies this report can be analysed through a number of different geographies. As well as a Market Renewal Area identifier, all the records have a postcode and a ward identifier to enable further small area analysis and the potential to use GIS mapping software. The data in the report is primarily presented at City level or in terms of the Market Renewal Areas. However some analysis has been undertaken at ward level and the results of this are presented in Appendix 1. 8.48.6 In terms of survey representativeness there are four factors to take into consideration: geographic distribution, household tenure, household type and ethnicity. Table I-1 Response distribution Stoke Housing Market Housing Housing Land & Weighted Confidence Renewal Areas Needs Needs Property count interval Study Study Gazetteer (count) % % Market Renewal Area A 610 19.6 20.9 21031 +/- 3.2% Market Renewal Area B 693 22.3 22.3 23179 +/- 3.2% Market Renewal Area C 611 19.6 18.0 19006 +/- 3.2% Market Renewal Area D 496 15.9 16.3 15755 +/- 3.3% Remainder of Stoke 702 22.6 22.5 24225 +/- 3.2% 21 All 3112 100.0 100.0 103196 +/- 1.8%

8.7 Table I-1 above shows the geographic representativeness of the survey for the City, prior to weighting the data. The survey response was fairly close to the distribution of households found on the Land & Property Gazetteer. However, it is our practice when grossing the survey figures to the agreed City household figure, to weight the data to the best available household distribution information (in this case the 2001 Census ward distribution) to ensure the highest level of geographic representativeness. The confidence intervals quoted are based on the raw, un-weighted data. 8.68.8 The final column in Table I-1 shows the confidence interval for each of the five areas at the 95% confidence level. These confidence intervals are more than acceptable for a survey of this kind. The confidence interval for the City as a whole is +/- 1.8%. Consequently this means that the survey can be seen to be representative of the City, statistically valid and highly robust. 8.9 Table I-2 shows the representativeness of the un-weighted Housing Needs Study 2004 compared to other available information sources. The Housing Needs Study 2004 is very much in line with the 2001 Census and the weighted data from the previous Housing Needs Study of 1998. There were slightly more owner-occupied properties represented in the 2004 survey then in the previous Housing Needs Study, and correspondingly slightly fewer private rented properties, although more than the proportion reflected in the 1998 Housing Need Study. The split of private to public sector properties was very similar to that in the 2001 Census, 75.3/24.5 compared with 75.6/24.5. 8.10 The survey slightly over represents semi-detached and terraced housing and under represents detached and all types of flats, compared with the 2001 Census.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

8.11 In terms of ethnicity, the proportion of non-White respondents was 3.6% compared with 5.2% indicated in the 2001 Census. In all, 111 responses were from non-White households, which is statistically large enough to warrant separate analysis specifically on the housing needs of ethnic minority households. 8.12 On the basis of these results no special weighting was required to take account of tenure, type or ethnicity bias in the results. Table I-2 Comparative responses on tenure and type (%) Response criteria 2001 HIP 2003 HN Survey HN Survey Census 1998 2003 (after (before weighting) weighting to area) Tenure Owner-occupied 64.9 66.5 65.0 68.1 Renting privately 6.7 7.5 4.0 7.2 Renting – public sector 24.4 26.0 31.0 24.5 Dwelling type Detached 13.3 N/A N/A 10.8 Semi-detached 45.3 50.5 Terraced 32.2 34.0 Flats 9.2 4.4 Other 0.4

22

II SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & POLICY CONTEXT

1. Introduction 1.1 The following chapter sets the local context for the Housing Needs Assessment, drawing upon secondary information sources for Stoke-on-Trent. 1.2 As a central member of the North Staffordshire Market Renewal Pathfinder Initiative alongside Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands, Stoke-on-Trent exemplifies a failing economy and housing market, low demand in unpopular neighbourhoods and dwelling types alongside a concentration of deprivation; characteristics that Pathfinder membership seeks to eradicate. Pathfinder’s main aim, as set out by the Office of Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), is to tackle failing housing markets and “ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to live in a home and environment which is suited to their needs and expectations.”12 1.3 Such a policy statement lies within a nation-wide policy context that addresses social exclusion and seeks community sustainability, whilst also acknowledging an approach to housing need that includes the effect of regional economy. It is the integration of housing, planning and regeneration strategies that is key to the Market Renewal Pathfinder approach, whereby an holistic strategy has been launched to remove the underlying causes of decline. In practical terms the aim to facilitate a sustainable housing market revival is clearly dependent upon coinciding economic development and improvements in the urban environment and transport networks. 1.4 This housing needs assessment follows Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s Housing Strategy 2003- 2006 produced in 2003. The key issues addressed within the housing strategy were 23 identified as tackling poor housing conditions within the private sector, addressing housing market failure, tackling non-decent housing in the social housing sector, tackling social exclusion and promoting excellence in housing management. Such aims are consistent with central government’s housing policy objectives of “meeting the aim of offering everyone a decent home and so promoting social cohesion, well-being and self dependence.”13 Stoke- on-Trent City Council’s Housing Strategy defines the direct policy context within which this report is nested.

2. Social, economic and political geographies 2.1 The Stoke-on-Trent conurbation is located midway between Birmingham and Greater Manchester, and forms the largest built area in the North Staffordshire sub-region including Newcastle-under-Lyme to the West and Staffordshire Moorlands to the East. 2.2 Before 1925 the City was divided unequally into six separate towns: Burslem, Fenton, Hanley, Longton, Stoke and Tunstall. Each of these towns continues to be a focal point of community life and has varying levels of importance in terms of civic administration, retailing and other services and facilities. Hanley functions as the City Centre and together with the adjoining Festival Park has developed as the sub-regional centre for North Staffordshire. 2.3 The Council manages its housing through twelve Area Housing Offices: Tunstall, Chell Heath, Burslem, Norton, Hanley, Abbey Hulton, Stoke, Bentilee, Fenton, Longton, Blurton,

12 www.stoke.gov.uk/council January 2004. 13 A Decent Home. The Revised Definition and Guidance for Implementation, April 2002, Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

and Meir. There are twenty electoral wards. In respect of the Market Renewal Pathfinder Plan, the Stoke-on-Trent conurbation has been partitioned into four areas, shown in Figure 2.

24

Figure 2 North Staffordshire Market Renewal Pathfinder Areas

2.4 The City of Stoke-on-Trent covers a 9,345 hectare area (36 square miles),14 within which there are a series of overlying geographies. Importantly Stoke-on-Trent’s historic value as a coal mining and potteries manufacturer remains significant. The decline in these industries essentially marks the beginning of present economic decline. This in turn has been accompanied by a lack of investment within older housing areas whereby housing and industry were interlocked. Nevertheless, manufacturing remains an important employer within Stoke-on-Trent. ONS ‘Employer surveys’ for the West Midlands region as a whole estimated 442,000 jobs within the manufacturing industries in December 2002. This figure however represents a decline from 532,000 jobs in December 1999; a decline of 16.9%.15 2.5 Stoke-on-Trent has significant brownfield site space, a remnant of industrial geographies. However, the degree to which this can be utilised is restricted due to poor land quality inherited from previous land use. The resultant costs for development can discourage investment. 2.6 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Sustainable communities in the West Midlands (a follow on document from the national equivalent Sustainable communities: Building for the future) outlines the government’s perspective on regional sustainability. 2.7 Stoke-on-Trent as an area that exemplifies low demand will feature, as stated above, within this new regional approach, as a Market Renewal Pathfinder area. North Staffordshire and North West Birmingham/Sandwell form two of the nine national Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders. The sustainable communities initiative is indicative of a new and more holistic approach to tackling the problems of poor housing and low demand housing markets. The West Midlands Housing Board, which includes representatives of the Regional Assembly, the West Midlands Local Government Association, the Housing Corporation, the Regional Development Agency – Advantage West Midlands (AWM) and English Partnerships, has been set up to ensure the delivery of policies set up under the Sustainable Communities Plan. In addition the Board will ensure that the Regional Housing Strategy, now being developed by the Regional Housing Partnership is consistent with and 25 supportive of other regional strategies for land use, transport and economic development.

3. Population trends 3.1 The 2001 Census identified a resident population of 240,636 making Stoke-on-Trent the 44th (out of 376) largest local authority district by population in England & Wales.16 The 2001 Census identified 103,196 household units, a number that corresponds with the Stoke-on- Trent City Council Housing Investment Programme (HIP) 2003 figure for total households. The population of North Staffordshire, defined here as the local authority areas of Stoke- on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands, was identified in the 2001 Census as 457,155 persons resident in 192,733 households. Stoke-on-Trent contains more than half of this population (52.6%) and household units (53.5%).17 As a result Stoke-on- Trent has been ranked 63rd (out of 376) most densely populated local authority area in England & Wales.18 3.2 The age composition of Stoke-on-Trent’s resident population is presented in Table II-1 below alongside that of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands.

14 Stoke-On-Trent City Council Housing Strategy 2003 – 2006, August 2003 Update, p6 15 Labour Market Statistics June 2003: West Midlands, ONS. 16 www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001 17 www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001 18 www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00GL-A.asp

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table II-1 Population by age bands (%)19

Area All People 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75 + Stoke-on-Trent 240,636 18.7 19.3 21.7 18.4 13.4 7.7 Staffordshire Moorlands 94,489 17.0 15.9 21.3 22.5 15.4 7.9 Newcastle-under-Lyme 122,030 17.4 19.2 21.5 19.8 14.4 7.8 North Staffordshire 457,155 18.0 18.6 21.6 19.6 14.0 7.8 West Midlands 5,267,308 19.5 18.6 21.9 19.1 13.6 7.4 England & Wales 52,041,916 18.9 18.8 22.6 18.9 13.3 7.6

3.3 It is apparent from Table II-1 that the age distribution of Stoke-on-Trent is more comparable with that of England & Wales as a whole than that of its neighbouring local authorities within the North Staffordshire sub-region. The proportion of residents aged less than 14 years is greater than that for Newcastle-under-Lyme and for Staffordshire Moorlands, which have a smaller proportion in this age band than England & Wales as a whole. 3.4 The population base utilised in the table above includes the resident student population; this population should not be excluded, given its economic and cultural importance within the City’s population. Section 5 below examines the student population within Stoke-on- Trent in more detail. 3.5 The population of England & Wales as a whole increased by 2.6%, whilst the West Midlands population increased from 5,229,70020 to 5,267,308 (+0.7%) over the period 1991 to 2001. The North Staffordshire sub-region by contrast witnessed a reduction of 1.9%. The local authorities of Newcastle-under-Lyme (+1.0%) and Staffordshire Moorlands (-1.3%) witnessed nominal growth and decline respectively. Stoke-on-Trent by contrast witnessed a 3.5% 26 decrease in population. 3.6 By combining the population estimates of the three North Staffordshire sub-areas a 1.9% decrease in population from 1991 to 2001 is apparent. However, if Stoke-on-Trent is excluded from the North Staffordshire sub-region the resident population remains static. The decrease in Stoke-on-Trent population accounts for 78.2% of the population change over the period 1991 to 2001 within the North Staffordshire sub-region. 3.7 Population migration out of Stoke-on-Trent is significant and further population decline is projected. A recent study21 depicts Stoke-on-Trent’s population as declining by 4.4% by 2022, including the loss of approximately 31,000 people under the age of 45 years. In contrast there is a projected increase in those age over 45, and most significantly those over the age of 65. The ratio of workers to dependents is set to increase significantly given these projections. Mid-2002 resident population estimates22 show Stoke-on-Trent’s population to be 238,600 a drop of 2,000 from 2001 Census counts of the resident population. Between 1996 and 2011 the number of planned new dwellings within the

19 Source: Office for National Statistics (Census 2001) © Crown Copyright. 20 Care must be taken when comparing 1991 Census figures with 2001 figures. The 2001 counts have been adjusted to account for under-enumeration plus definitional changes 1991 – 2001. As a result Mid-year estimates have been used for all comparisons with 2001 Census population estimates, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6541.xls. 21 Developing a Sub-Regional Housing Investment Strategy for North Staffordshire, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Birmingham University, May 2002. 22 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7030.xls

Stoke-on-Trent City Council area was 8,500.23 The number of completed new dwellings within the period 1996 to 1999 was 1,900. 3.8 Average household sizes within Stoke-on-Trent are below the England & Wales (2.40) and West Midlands average (2.45) at 2.33 persons per household.24 This is in line with the national experience; a result of diminishing birth rates, marital breakdown, persons remaining single and a growing elderly population. The mean household size in the West Midlands is projected to fall to 2.31 by 2011 and further to 2.23 by 2021.25

4. Ethnicity 4.1 96.3% of the population of Stoke-on-Trent were born in the United Kingdom, compared to a lower 91.1% across England & Wales as a whole. 94.8% of the Stoke-on-Trent population is White. The next largest ethnic group is that of Asian or Asian British comprising 3.5% of the population; three-quarters of this group (74.3%) is Pakistani (2.6% of the overall population). This is a higher proportion than the England & Wales average of 1.4%.26 4.2 The Stoke-on-Trent Pakistani population is small and concentrated mainly within two wards. The wards of Hanley West and Shelton and Longton South contain the highest concentration of Pakistani households, at 14.6% and 11.4% respectively.27 4.3 Of the 1,497 households with the household reference person (HRP) of Pakistani ethnicity, 73.7% own or are purchasing their dwelling28. This is a high proportion considering that within the White population only 65.1% of the population are in the same position. 12.7% of households with a Pakistani HRP are renting from the social sector compared to 24.4% of White HRP households. 4.4 The tenure mix of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) populations within Stoke-on-Trent is important. 2001 Census data does not indicate the condition of dwellings, but one cannot assume that owner-occupation equates with a lack of housing need. Owner- occupation 27 status can often mask underlying housing need. The conditions of socially rented properties are known and accountable to the organisation from which they are rented. The household units that occupy them are also known. Those in owner-occupation can be argued to be further from or more unaware than their socially renting counterparts of potential housing help, because essentially the condition of their dwelling is accountable only to them.

5. Student population 5.1 The conurbation of Stoke-on-Trent contains two university campuses. The total 2001 Census count of full-time students and school children aged 16 to 74 was 13,27629, 5.5% of the resident population.

23 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011, Explanatory Memorandum, February 2002. Staffordshire County council and City of Stoke-on-Trent Council, p61. 24 Census 2001 www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001 25 Projections of households in England 2021, ODPM, October 1999 www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/page/odpm_house_604206-01.hcsp#P18_639 26 Census 2001 www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001 27 www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/Reports/eng/TableViewer/wdsview/dispviewp.asp?dsid=1519 28 2001 Census Standard Table S111, Tenure and number of cars or vans by ethnic group of Household Reference Person. 29 Note: Students and schoolchildren away from their non term-time household, are counted at their term-time address. Census 2001 www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

5.2 Although this population is relatively small with respect to the working population and the elderly it is no less significant given future growth potential of university places and the added propensity for full-time students to reside in the area of their study. Stoke-on- Trent’s full-time student population comprises 4.5% of the economically active population according to the 2001 Census.

6. The economy 6.1 2001 Census data shows an economically active population (16 to 74 year olds) of 106,281 (61.0%) within Stoke-on-Trent City Council boundaries with an economically inactive population of 67,628 (39.0%).30 Newcastle-under-Lyme by comparison has a higher proportion of the economically active at 64.4%, whilst Staffordshire Moorlands is higher again at 67.8%. 6.2 32.5% of economic activity within the female population (aged 16 to 74) is in part-time work. This figure rises to 36.4% for those aged 25 to 74, and represents both the importance of part-time jobs within the employment market, but also when compared with the relatively low number of part-time male workers, the degree to which the supply of part-time labour is female dominated. 6.3 The highest mean gross weekly earnings as calculated by the 2002 New Earnings Survey are located within London at £634 (34% higher than the Great Britain mean of £464.7), whilst the lowest, measured in the North East was £399 mean gross per week. The West Midlands regional mean lies below the national mean at £427.30 per week. 6.4 In terms of the distribution of earnings across Great Britain, 10% earned less than £215.60 gross per week and 25% earned less than £277.50. At the top end, 10% earned greater than £752.40 gross per week.31 Mean earnings from employment for Stoke-on-Trent were estimated by the New Earnings Survey 2002, as £370.80 gross per week, with 10% earning 28 less than £199.20 and 10% earning over £575.30, thus indicating a lower earnings capacity than that estimated across Great Britain. 6.5 The mean annual household income for Stoke-on-Trent over the year 2000/01 was £14,300, with the median household income of £12,300. This compares to a higher mean annual household income in the Staffordshire Moorlands area of £16,700, with a median household income of £14,100.32 Comparing the mean and the median gives an initial insight into the distribution of incomes throughout the households in both areas. Both areas follow a similar distribution, such that the median (the value falling in the middle of the distribution) lies beneath the arithmetic mean value. This suggests that both distributions express a negative skew, interpreted as a higher propensity of lower scale household incomes than higher. This is important when examining either the ‘mean’ or ‘median’ as a ‘typical’ household income. 6.6 Amongst Registered Social Landlord (RSL) tenants in Stoke-on-Trent over the year 2002/03 the mean net weekly income equalled £157.5333, of RSL tenants in Staffordshire Moorlands the same figure was £155.83. Of 507 Stoke-on-Trent RSL tenants asked whether their

30 2001 Census, Standard Table ST108. Note, total economically active and inactive totals do not equal featured total population for Stoke-on-Trent due to the random rounding up and down of potentially unique populations at ward level as part of confidentiality disclosure. 31 New Earnings Survey 2002, National Statistics, 17/10/02, p6. 32 Dataspring – Source: Inland Revenue. 33 Core – General Needs Lettings Summary Statistics October 2002 – September 2003, National Housing Federation. Figure based on 394 respondents.

income was from state benefits/pensions, 54% indicated that their income was derived wholly through the state. 34 6.7 Table II-2 reveals that the lowest mean weekly income is experienced by single persons aged 60 and above, the highest mean weekly income is held by household units containing two adults with no dependent children. Table II-2 Mean net weekly income by household type35 of RSL tenants Household Type Mean (£) No. of cases Single elder 119.60 47 Elderly couple (at least one aged 60 or over) 205.75 12 Single adult (aged 16 to 59) 140.92 191 Two adults (both aged 16 to 59) with no children 248.69 45 Three or more adults/elders with no children 200.71 14 One adult with at least one child under 16 134.95 61 Two or more adults with at least one child under 197.92 24 16 Total 157.33 394

6.8 The net weekly rent across Stoke-on-Trent RSL tenants within the year 2002/03 was £52.39. 6.9 During May 2003 4,569 (3.1%) of the Stoke-on-Trent working age population were claiming Jobseekers Allowance.36 This compares to a regional West Midlands figure of 3.0% and a lower United Kingdom figure of 2.6%. Of those claimants, 76.0% were male, depicting a greater gender bias breakdown than either the regional, Newcastle-under-Lyme or Staffordshire Moorlands experience. The figures presented by ONS for this time period 29 show a higher but faster diminishing proportion of claimants over the subsequent year to May 2004 than Stoke-on-Trent’s neighbouring North Staffordshire authorities. The proportion of Jobseeker Allowance claimants in Staffordshire as a whole is projected as diminishing, whilst the West Midlands regional figure is growing.

7. Tenure and type of housing 7.1 Pre-1919 terraced housing typifies the private housing stock within Stoke-on-Trent’s City core with newer housing developed in the periphery. Stoke-on-Trent’s 2003 – 2006 Housing Strategy states that 65% of Council stock was built between 1919 and 1964, with only 20% of this being built in the last 40 years.37 7.2 The 2001 Census provides tenure data for household units.38 Table II-3 presents the proportion of households belonging to each tenure type.

34 Core – General Needs Lettings Summary Statistics October 2002 – September 2003, National Housing Federation. 35 Core – General Needs Lettings Summary Statistics October 2002 – September 2003, National Housing Federation. 36 Labour Market Statistics, June 2003, West Midlands, ONS. 37 Stoke-on-Trent Housing strategy 2003 – 2006, updated August 2003, p13. 38 2001 Census www.statistics.gov.uk/Census2001 Key Statistics KS18.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table II-3 Households by tenure type (%) Area Other No. of No. Shared Rented privately authority ownership households Rented RSL Owns with a Rented from Owns outright mortgage/loan Council/transfer Council/transfer England & 21,660,47 29.46 38.76 0.64 13.24 5.95 8.72 3.22 Wales 5 West Midlands 2,153,672 30.25 38.64 0.67 14.26 6.34 6.37 3.47

Stoke-on-Trent 103,196 28.59 35.50 1.11 19.47 4.96 6.66 3.72

Newcastle- 50,738 32.62 38.99 0.88 10.28 9.44 4.80 2.98 under-Lyme Staffordshire 38,799 41.02 42.08 0.35 4.12 4.86 4.81 2.76 Moorlands

7.3 Stoke-on-Trent has a much higher proportion of social rented properties than the neighbouring local authorities of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands, and the larger scale measures for the West Midlands and England & Wales as a whole.

8. Owner-occupation 30 8.1 Proportionally less households within Stoke-on-Trent own or are buying their property than the population of household units within either the Newcastle-under-Lyme or Staffordshire Moorlands authorities. Given the aims presented within Stoke-on-Trent’s Housing Strategy these figures are not unexpected, with low owner-occupation marking possible low demand within the area’s private housing stock. 8.2 The mix of house types within Stoke-on-Trent, presented in Table II-4, shows the relatively small proportion of detached houses within the housing stock, and the relatively high proportion of semi-detached houses, which represent the former presence of Coal Board estates such as Fegg Hayes, built in the early 1950s. Table II-4 Housing type by area, region and England & Wales (%)39 Area Detached Semi Terraced Flat detached Stoke-on-Trent 13.3% 45.3% 32.2% 9.2% West Midlands 23.8% 37.7% 23.9% 14.6% England & Wales 22.8% 31.6% 26.0% 19.6%

8.3 An analysis of property prices and sales enables a more robust indication of private dwelling demand. According to Stoke-on-Trent’s most recent Housing Strategy, mean property price over the year 2002 was £50,830, some 136% lower than the England & Wales mean price.40 At the time of writing, private sector house prices within the report are deemed the 4th

39 Housing Market and Housing Needs Key Indicator Data, Stoke-on-Trent Housing Strategy 2003 – 2006, p55. 40 Stoke-on-Trent Housing strategy 2003 – 2006, updated August 2003.

lowest in England & Wales. This is comparable with the overall Land Registry price for Stoke-on-Trent in the year 2002/03. 8.4 Table II-5 presents the mean house prices and sales within Stoke-on-Trent by type of housing. It is apparent from the table that house prices have increased over the period and that the increases are comparable with the same measure for England & Wales. It could be expected that the low demand for Stoke-on-Trent’s private housing stock would manifest in slower price growth; this does not seem to be the case. Prices for all housing types have risen in line with or above the same measure for England & Wales. Table II-5 Change in mean house prices for Stoke-on-Trent 2002-200341 Type of housing Oct - Dec Volume Oct - Dec Volume % Change Stoke- 2002 (£) of sales 2003 (£) of sales on-Trent (England & Wales) Detached 117,770 281 137,462 229 +16.7 (+23.4)

Semi-detached 60,287 570 76,296 453 +26.6 (+23.6)

Terrace 34,827 777 44,990 688 +29.2 (+18.0)

Flat / maisonette 43,669 34 52,720 23 +20.7 (+12.3)

Overall 57,763 1662 70,500 1393 +22.1 (+18.6)

8.5 The highest price rise over the period shown was for terraced housing. This is not comparable with the England & Wales figures. It is, however, apparent that the volume of sales across all housing types within Stoke-on-Trent has declined over the year. This has 31 been greatest for semi-detached housing. It is apparent that given Stoke-on-Trent’s experience of low demand, price rises over the period have been relatively high. The low price from which they have risen brings the significance of the price change as an indication of supply and demand into interpretation. If price rises incur a real impact then there are important implications for existing residents wanting to purchase property within Stoke-on-Trent. For local residents with relatively low incomes, the high growth in property prices, especially for those house types more accommodating to families, has increased the barriers to enter the housing market. For first-time buyers this situation is particularly significant. 8.6 Having examined information from local estate agents within Stoke-on-Trent it has been assumed that an entry-level property of reasonable quality can be purchased for £40,000. This figure has been used within the Housing Needs Model, presented in Chapter X. This figure is dynamic and market-driven and should be reviewed regularly.

9. Social housing 9.1 21% of Stoke-on-Trent’s housing stock comprises Council (local authority) owned, 6% is Registered Social Landlord owned, and the remainder (73%) is privately owned.42 9.2 During the year 2003/04, Right-To-Buy sales increased dramatically to 616. However, this statement lies in the context of an estimated 37% of Council dwellings lying below the Decent Homes Standard criteria.43

41 Land Registry www.landreg.gov.uk/propertyprice/interactive/ 42 Stoke-on-Trent Housing strategy 2003 – 2006, updated August 2003, p13.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

9.3 11,545 (53.3%) have been classified as low demand dwellings, 3,020 were difficult to let, and 348 lay vacant.44 9.4 Given the relatively high level of social housing within Stoke-on-Trent there is a large number of Registered Social Landlords, whose stock constitutes a mix of pre-1919 and post- war properties. RSL stock is generally of good condition. Older stock in Stoke, Burslem, and Tunstall areas is however of a poorer condition. The results of a stock condition survey conducted during the 2003/04 period provide a useful indication on the stock of RSL properties. Tackling non-decent homes is a priority for Stoke-on-Trent’s housing strategy, with a programme proposed to target investment spatially across the authority. 9.5 On the 1st of April 2003 2,274 households were on the Council’s Housing Register, a 36.5% decrease since 2000, but an increase of 27.0% on the previous year. Households requiring properties with up to two bedrooms comprised the greatest proportion of the demand. 9.6 The National Housing Federation Affordability Rate for Stoke-on-Trent in 2003 for the period October 2002 to September 2003, was 24.2%. It is interpreted that for RSL tenants the gross weekly rent eligible for Housing Benefit is 26.5% of their income.45

10. The planning system 10.1 The Planning Green Paper in 2001 and the subsequent Planning and Compulsory Purchasing Act, which finally received Royal Assent on 13th May 2004, have proposed changes to the planning system. The Green Paper forwarded a proposed eradication of County Structure Plans, so as to simplify the planning hierarchy. This simplification, as a means of improving supply-side market flexibility, was voiced as a key point in the Barker Review of Housing Supply. The Act will come into force via a commencement order two months after Royal Assent; in other words, the legislation will formally be enacted in mid-July.

10.2 The legislation is designed to pave the way for a more flexible and responsive planning 32 system for England and Wales. In brief the Act: 3 introduces a simpler and more flexible plan making system at regional and local level 3 increases the effectiveness and quality of community involvement at regional and local level and enables the provision of financial assistance to Planning Aid 3 improves the development control process by introducing powers for standard application forms and new provisions which change the duration of planning permissions and consents as well as allowing local planning authorities (LPAs) to bring in local permitted development rights via so-called local development orders 3 speeds up the handling of major infrastructure projects 3 removes the Crown’s immunity from planning processes 3 makes the compulsory purchase regime simpler, fairer and quicker to support policies on investment in major infrastructure and on regeneration 10.3 Parts 1 and 2 of the Act contain the measures that change the face of development plan making in England. The new elements are: 3 Each region will have a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) 3 Existing Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) where appropriate will become the relevant RSS

43 Decent Homes Standard, The Housing Corporation, July 2003. 44 Stoke-on-Trent, Housing Investment Programme 2003: Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix, p1. 45 Core – General Needs Lettings Summary Statistics October 2002 – September 2003, National Housing Federation.

3 Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs, which may be elected regional assemblies) must keep the RSS under review and monitor its implementation 3 The RPB will be expected to take advice from county councils and other bodies with strategic planning expertise about preparing draft revisions of RSS as well as their monitoring and implementation 3 The RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS when necessary or expedient or when proscribed 3 Housing allocations will be settled at this strategic level (as well as in sub-regional plans where these are felt to be appropriate) 3 There will be public involvement in the preparation of the RSS 10.4 Below the RSS level there will be a new-look local plan regime. LPAs will prepare Local Development Documents (LDDs). These will effectively replace local plans, unitary development plans and structure plans. Each LPA must prepare and maintain a Local Development Scheme. These schemes will set out what LDDs the LPA will prepare, along with their timetable and whether they are to be prepared jointly with one or more other authorities. LDDs must be in general conformity with the RSS (or in the capital the spatial development strategy for London). 10.5 Part 3 of the Act includes the new formal requirement that plan-makers have a duty to exercise their functions with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. 10.6 There is also provision for the possibility of replacing the s106 regime with a form of planning tariff, although this will not be enacted for some months while the detail of the scheme is agreed with interested parties. It may not come into force, anyway, until next year when the government is due to decide whether it agrees with Kate Barker’s alternative formula involving a form of development tax.46 33

11. Local and regional planning 11.1 In the context of Stoke-on-Trent, Local Development Documents (LDDs) will eventually replace the existing adopted planning policy framework.47 However, in the interim these documents will be ‘saved’ and as such those policies and proposals that conform with modern national planning policy statements or guidance will remain relevant to the determination of planning applications and other planning decisions until: 3 they are replaced by LDDs or the adopted West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy in the case of the Structure Plan, or 3 they become redundant and are withdrawn by the City Council, or 3 three years passes from the time when the relevant section of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act comes into force 11.2 Progression of the 1st Deposit Draft City Local Plan 2011 was put on hold to take account of the emerging policies and programmes arising from Market Renewal Pathfinder and Regeneration Zone designation. The work put into that Draft Plan and representations made will be taken into account during preparation of the LDDs. The 1st Deposit Draft City Local Plan 2011 will be formally withdrawn. 11.3 Subject to the qualifications set out above, the adopted Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 2011 (as adopted on 10 May 2001 and amended in accord with the ruling of

46 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act summary published on 20th May 2004 on www.planningportal.gov.uk. 47 Local Development Scheme, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, July 2004, pp4-5

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

the High Court on 5 February 2002) is saved for three years until September 2007 and will be part of the City Council’s LDF until then. 11.4 The adopted City of Stoke-on-Trent Local Plan 2001 (adopted 1 September 1993) is saved for 3 years until September 2007 and will be part of the City Council’s LDF until then. 11.5 As part of its Local Development Scheme, Stoke-on-Trent City Council will produce the following types of document: 3 LDDs that set out planning policy 3 A Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) 3 An Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 3 Supporting documents for each LDD 11.6 The new planning framework will emphasise the contribution of new development within the City to meeting the objectives of Housing Market Renewal in terms of clearance, re- development and establishing a more balanced and healthy housing market. This includes provision of affordable homes, where appropriate, for households displaced by clearance as well as a broader range of property types and values to create a more balanced and sustainable housing market in the City. 11.7 Affordable housing as set out within the plan, has been defined as; “the range of both subsidised and market housing designed for those whose incomes generally deny them the opportunity to purchase houses on the open market as a result of the local relationship between income and market price”48 11.8 The Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands (RPG 11) stresses that a significant majority of the additional housing provision across the region should take the form of new 34 housing on previously developed land and/or conversions within urban areas.49 RPG 11 proposes that for the period 1996 to 2011 335,000 new dwellings should be provided across the West Midlands region, of which 70,400 should be within the Staffordshire and Stoke-on- Trent plan area.50 Policy H2 of the plan sets a target of 55% of all development across Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent to be on recycled land. An individual Stoke-on-Trent target indicates 85% of total housing provision to be developed on recycled land. This must be interpreted within the context of PPG3 stating that local planning authorities should avoid developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare. Housing densities on new sites should be higher than have been achieved in the past. 11.9 Regional Planning Guidance51 places great weight on the development of the Major Urban Areas (MUAs) for reasons of sustainability and also to facilitate the urban renaissance. Within the North Staffs MUA the broad intention will be to create and retain investment and people by: ; Support for market renewal ; Tackling deprivation and creation of employment in the Regeneration Zone ; Enhancing and protecting the urban environment ; Creating a network of centres as a focus for retail, leisure and office development

48 City Local Plan 2011, First Deposit Draft, Department of Environment and Transport, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, p162. 49 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 – 2011, p59. 50 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 – 2011. 51 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 – 2011, p61.

; Resisting peripheral housing expansion but allowing strategic employment development in support of urban renaissance ; Improving the quality of the transport network 11.10 There has been a significant change in the approach to housing development. It is intended that development of new housing will be focussed into the MUAs and progressively less housing will be provided in the surrounding areas. Within Stoke-on-Trent there will be a target of providing land sufficient to accommodate the construction of a minimum of 600 dwellings per annum through to 2025. This provision is however predicated on the demolition of on average 500 dwelling per annum. Higher levels of provision will be dependent upon capacity to deliver the Housing Market Renewal programme. 11.11 The requirement for new housing development varies across the Plan area. Local needs are greatest to the south of the plan area. It is apparent that pressures from in-migration are not in reality offset by the outflow of households currently from the north. It is argued within the structure plan that the North Staffordshire sub-region forms a separate housing market in this respect. It is anticipated that the supply of new housing to the area will ease out-migration. Sustainable growth in the housing market will be stimulated further by major employment initiatives, and then again in turn the supply of good quality housing. 11.12 The provision of 8,500 dwellings within Stoke-on-Trent is planned between the period 1996 to 2011. In the period 1996 to 2004, 5,357 dwellings were completed and a further 417 were under construction.

35

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

III HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

1. Introduction 1.1 This chapter describes the characteristics of household members in terms of age, gender, employment status and type of household. Using information drawn from the survey about household size and the number of bedrooms, it looks at the level of under and over- occupation found in Stoke-on-Trent. 1.2 The section begins with an analysis of the types and size of resident family groups identified in the Housing Needs Study.

2. Household composition 2.1 Table III-1 shows the main types of household groupings found in the survey. 9.4% of all respondents were single parents. 21.0% of all households with dependent children were single parent households. 22.3% of households were single person households, 15.2% were single people aged over 60. Just under two thirds of all households contained a couple, a third of all households were couples with children living at home and just over a quarter were couples with no children living at home. Table III-1 Household composition groups Household description Number Percent Single parent with at least one dependent child 7750 7.5 Single parent with at least one dependent child and other adults 558 0.5 36 Single parent with non-dependent children 1323 1.3 Single parent with non-dependent children and others 129 0.1 Single person with other adults 3246 3.1 Single person less than 60 years old 7280 7.1 Single person over 60 years old 15647 15.2 Couple with at least one dependent child 30143 29.2 Couple with at least one dependent child and other adults 1032 1.0 Couple with non-dependent children 4685 4.5 Couple with non-dependent children and other adults 208 0.2 Couple with no children, but with other adults 761 0.7 Couple with no children 29744 28.8 Other 690 0.7 Total 103196 100.0

2.2 The 2001 Census figures on household composition for Stoke-on-Trent indicate 11.1% of all households were single parent households, 31.5% single person households, 43.6% couples and 8.3% one family pensioner households and 5.6% other household formations. 2.3 Table III-2 shows that the pattern of household composition varies across the City with the Market Renewal Areas B and C having higher rates of single parents with dependent children and areas A and D having higher rates of single person households where the householder is aged 60 and above.

Table III-2 Household composition groups for market renewal areas (%) Household description Market Renewal Areas Stoke A B C D Other -on- Trent Single parent with dependent children 7.5 10.5 10.8 8.2 4.0 8.0 Single parent with non-dependent children 1.1 1.2 2.7 1.3 0.8 1.4 Single person under 60 7.8 8.0 5.7 8.6 5.6 7.1 Single person aged 60 and above 16.8 15.7 13.9 17.2 12.9 15.2 Couple with dependent children 34.2 27.1 33.8 20.6 33.2 30.2 Couple with non-dependent children 3.5 5.1 4.3 5.3 5.4 4.7 Couple with no children 25.6 29.1 26.5 32.7 33.7 29.5 Other 3.7 3.3 2.1 5.9 4.4 3.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

3. Age and gender 3.1 Common to the majority of Housing Needs Studies, the proportion of female respondents was higher than the proportion of male respondents, 60.4% female and 39.6% male, this difference in gender is more pronounced in a face-to-face survey. The age and gender of respondents is shown in Table III-3. Table III-3 Respondent age and gender Age group Male Female Total % Number % Number % 37 16-17 512 48.6 541 51.4 1053 1.0 18-24 2536 36.4 4422 63.6 6957 6.7 25-34 6436 37.2 10883 62.8 17319 16.8 35-44 7283 36.0 12960 64.0 20243 19.6 45-54 5826 40.6 8516 59.4 14342 13.9 55-64 6964 45.2 8436 54.8 15399 14.9 65-74 6831 42.1 9384 57.9 16215 15.7 75-84 3806 38.0 6213 62.0 10019 9.7 >85 630 38.2 1018 61.8 1648 1.6 Total 40824 39.6 62372 60.4 103196 100.0

3.2 The age spread of the total population is shown in Figure 3. The 2001 Census population figures are shown in Table II-1 on page 26: 18.7% aged 0-14, 40.1% aged 15-44, 31.8% aged 45-74, 7.7% aged 75 and above. The Housing Needs Study figures are close enough to the 2001 Census figures to serve as another validation of the representativeness of the data. 3.3 The average household size, persons per household, was 2.5, slightly higher than the 2001 Census figure of 2.4. This implies a total population of 262,801 compared with the Census figure of 240,636, a difference of 22,165 (9.2% of the 2001 Census population count). The 2001 Census indicated a higher proportion of single person households than found in the Housing Needs Study 2004.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Figure 3 Age group of total population

85+ 1.0%

75-84 5.2%

65-74 9.9%

55-64 10.6%

45-54 11.5%

35-44 14.3%

25-34 12.2%

18-24 7.8%

16-17 4.3%

0-15 23.1%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

3.4 The age profile differs slightly across the City with Market Renewal Area C having a greater proportion of children and a higher average household size of 2.8 compared with Area D, which has an older profile and an average household size of 2.3. 38 Table III-4 Age profile of household population for market renewal areas (%) Household age profile Market Renewal Areas Stoke- A B C D Other on- Trent 0 to 14 years 22.7 23.4 28.3 19.4 20.9 23.1 15 to 44 years 40.7 38.8 37.7 35.8 39.1 38.6 45 to 64 years 20.5 22.5 19.3 27.5 22.6 22.1 65 to 74 years 9.1 9.9 9.2 9.8 11.1 9.9 75 and over 7.0 5.4 5.5 7.6 6.4 6.2 Average household size 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.5

4. Ethnicity 4.1 A total of 3.6% of survey respondents were non-White. The 2001 Census results indicate that 5.2% of Stoke-on-Trent City is non-White. People from an Asian/Asian British background form the largest ethnic group in the City and are located primarily in the Market Renewal Areas B and C.

Table III-5 Ethnic breakdown of household population for market renewal areas (%) Ethnic group Market Renewal Areas Stoke- 2001 A B C D Other on- Census Trent White 97.0 95.5 94.1 98.1 97.3 96.4 94.8 Mixed background 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.9 Asian/Asian British 2.1 3.7 5.6 0.5 1.7 2.7 3.5 Black/Black British 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.4 Chinese/other 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 Total non-White 3.0 4.5 5.8 1.8 2.6 3.6 5.2

5. Employment status 5.1 The employment status of respondents is shown in Table III-6. 43.5% of respondents were employed either full or part-time - of those, 19.1% were in key worker occupations (the same proportion as found in the Staffordshire Moorlands Housing Needs Study). 4.3% of respondents were unemployed, which compares with 4.0% of 16-74 year olds unemployed identified in the 2001 Census. 34.0% of respondents were retired which ties in with the age profile of respondents shown in Table III-3. 4.6% of respondents stated that they suffered long-term sickness and were unable to work, which is much lower than the proportion of 16 to 74 year olds who were permanently sick and/or disabled identified in the 2001 Census (9.6%). The same measure for Newcastle-under-Lyme is 6.7% and for Staffordshire Moorlands is 6.0%. Table III-6 Employment status of respondents (%) Employment status Market Renewal Areas Stoke 39 A B C D Other -on- Trent Employed/self-employed (full-time) 34.1 28.8 28.3 26.7 35.1 31.0 Employed/self-employed (part-time) 10.4 12.9 12.6 12.5 14.0 12.5 Unemployed 5.2 5.7 5.5 4.5 1.2 4.3 Retired 33.4 31.1 32.6 37.5 36.1 34.0 Student 2.4 3.0 1.5 2.8 3.3 2.6 Looking after family/home 9.7 11.9 14.7 11.2 7.4 10.8 Long-term sick/unable to work 4.6 6.3 4.6 4.8 3.0 4.6 Other 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

5.2 Table III-7 shows that in all, 8.3% of households contained at least one member who was employed in a key worker occupation. Key worker information was not asked in Newcastle- under-Lyme Housing Needs Study, but for Staffordshire Moorlands the proportion of key worker households was much higher at 16.0%. The distribution of key worker households is concentrated in the areas outside the Market Renewal boundaries and in Area D.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table III-7 Adults aged 16-64 in key worker occupations (%) Key worker occupations Market Renewal Areas Stoke- A B C D Other on- Trent Police officer 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 Nurse/equivalent health worker 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.7 3.6 1.9 Fire officer 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 Teacher 0.7 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.1 Paramedic 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Care assistant /similar paid role 0.4 1.9 2.2 3.1 2.8 2.1 Total key workers 2.7 4.2 4.9 6.5 9.0 5.5 Total key worker households - 4.0 6.2 7.4 9.5 14.0 8.3 % of all households

6. Household size and under/over-occupation 6.1 The proportion of households that were either single person, two, three, four or five or more person households are shown in Table III-8. Table III-8 Proportion of households by size Household size Number Percent Single person 23530 22.8 Two people 35970 34.9 40 Three people 18212 17.6 Four people 18485 17.9 Five or more people 6999 6.8 Total 103196 100.0

6.2 By looking at the relationship between bedroom size and household size, a crude measure of under/over-occupation can be arrived at. This is shown in Table III-9. 6.3 If it is assumed that to have more than one person per bedroom is an indication of over- occupation, then Stoke-on-Trent has 30.3% of properties that fall into that category. This, however, does not take into account the number of couples sharing a room and children sharing bedrooms. If it is assumed that in each of these cases at least one room is shared, then the proportion of properties that are over-occupied falls to 8.1%. These figures are above the averages for comparable Housing Needs Studies of 21.5% at the highest level and 5.2% at the lowest level. The corresponding figures for Newcastle-under-Lyme were 24.2% and 7.7% and for Staffordshire Moorlands were 19.0% and 3.7%. 6.4 If the number of properties that have more than one additional bedroom per household member defines under-occupation, then there are 7.4% of Stoke-on-Trent households that fall into that category. This figure is well below the average for comparable studies undertaken by Outside of 14.8%. The corresponding figures for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands were 12.8% and 15.7% respectively.

Table III-9 Household size and number of bedrooms (%) Household size Total Single Two Three Four Five or Number of person people people people more bedrooms people One 4.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 Two 12.4 16.6 6.9 3.2 0.6 39.8 Three 5.9 16.0 9.8 12.9 4.3 48.9 Four 0.2 1.1 0.8 1.6 1.3 5.1 Five or more 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.9 Total 22.8 34.9 17.6 17.9 6.8 100.0

6.5 Table III-10 shows that there are higher levels of over-occupation in the Market Renewal Areas A, B and C than in the rest of the City. Table III-10 Under/over-occupation by Market Renewal Areas (%) Household size Market Renewal Areas Stoke- A B C D Other on- Trent Over-occupation 1 33.3 29.9 33.5 24.7 29.2 30.3 Over-occupation 2 9.7 8.6 9.6 6.8 6.1 8.1 Under-occupation 4.9 7.8 6.9 7.9 9.3 7.4 41

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

IV CURRENT HOUSING

1. Introduction 1.1 This chapter describes the characteristics of households in Stoke–on-Trent as revealed by the study. The section refers to weighted data and reports on the City as a whole. 1.2 The following description of Stoke–on-Trent households explores type and tenure of accommodation, car ownership, size and adequacy of accommodation to meet household needs.

2. Type and tenure 2.1 The proportion of household type and tenure has been discussed elsewhere in Chapter I above on methodology and sample representativeness. The proportion of all households that fall into the different mix of tenure and type is shown in Table IV-1. The representativeness of the Housing Needs Study in terms of housing type and tenure is discussed in Chapter I, Section 8. Table IV-1 Households by type and tenure (%)

Type Other Other RSL Rent mortgage mortgage Owns with a with Owns Total percent Total percent Owns outright outright Owns Total households 42 Shared ownership Local Authority Rent Private Landlord Rent Rent Landlord Private Detached 3.3 3.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 6942 Semi-detached 14.5 15.4 0.1 11.2 1.2 1.1 0.4 43.8 45234 Terraced 11.5 10.0 0.0 4.9 0.9 4.4 0.5 32.2 33264 Detached bungalow 3.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 4043 Semi-detached bungalow 3.5 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.6 5803 Terraced bungalow 0.5 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.9 2979 Purpose-built flat/tenement 0.4 0.1 0.0 2.4 1.2 0.3 0.0 4.4 4583 Flat-converted/shared house 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 70 Flat-commercial building 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 243 Caravan/mobile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 Total percent 36.8 30.8 0.1 21.4 3.4 6.2 1.2 100.0 Total households 37990 31760 154 22103 3498 6437 1254 103196

2.2 99.0% of households were self-contained (i.e. all the rooms are behind a door that only the household can use). 2.3 The vast majority of households (95.8%) had the ground floor as the lowest floor level of their accommodation. For 0.8% of households the lowest floor level was the basement and for 3.3% the lowest floor level was the first floor or above. 2.4 When looking specifically at older and more vulnerable people, the survey found that 5.8% of households with at least one member aged 75 and over lived in properties where the lowest floor level was above the ground floor. This rose to 12.0% in Market Renewal Area A and 7.0% in Area B. 3.3% of households where at least one member has particular needs lived in properties where the lowest floor level was above the ground floor. This finding

does not take account of whether or not appropriate means of access were available for household members. 2.5 Stoke-on Trent households have lower levels of car ownership than found in other Housing Needs Studies. 30.1% of households have no car/van. This compares with 34.6% of households having no car/van identified in the 2001 Census. 19.8% of households had more than one car or van. Owning more than one car was more common in the areas outside the Market Renewal Areas, 30.2% compared with just 13.8% in Area A, 17.2% in Area B, 20.2% in Area C and 14.7% in Area D.

3. Multiple ownership 3.1 1.4% of households (1,451) owned another property in Stoke-on-Trent in addition to the one they currently occupy. This was much more common for people living outside the Market Renewal Areas, where 2.3% of households owned another property within Stoke-on-Trent (554).

4. Size and adequacy of accommodation 4.1 The mean average number of bedrooms per household was 2.59; 49.1% of properties had three bedrooms, only 6.1% of properties had more than three bedrooms. Figure 4 shows the proportion of households by number of bedrooms. Figure 4 Proportion of households by number of bedrooms

Five or more One Four bedrooms, bed/bedsit, bedrooms, 1.0% 5.3% 5.1% 43

Tw o bedrooms, 39.5% Three bedrooms, 49.1%

4.2 Table IV-2 shows the breakdown of accommodation by type and bedroom size.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table IV-2 Households by type and number of bedrooms (%) Type One Two Four Total Three percent bedroom bedrooms bedrooms bedrooms bedrooms Five or more Five Detached 0.0 0.8 3.3 2.5 0.4 6.9 Semi-detached 0.3 10.7 31.1 1.6 0.2 43.9 Terrace 0.5 19.7 11.0 0.7 0.2 32.1 Detached bungalow 0.1 1.7 1.7 0.3 0.1 3.9 Semi-detached bungalow 0.6 3.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 5.6 Terraced bungalow 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.9 Purpose-built flat/tenement 1.8 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.4 Flat-converted/shared 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 house Flat-commercial building 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Caravan/mobile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total percent 5.4 39.5 49.0 5.1 1.0 100.0 Total households 5537 40804 50596 5271 988 103196

4.3 6.0% of households (6,197) felt that their accommodation was not adequate for their needs. This figure is lower than is normally recorded for this sort of study, the average being 7.8%, but similar to the level of inadequacy recorded in Newcastle-under-Lyme of 5.8%. In 44 Staffordshire Moorlands as many as 8.3% of households found their current accommodation inadequate for their needs. The reasons given for inadequacy are listed in Table IV-3. 4.4 The main reason, in 67.9% of cases, that people gave for the inadequacy of their homes was that their home was too small. This reflects the high proportion of households that could be said to be over-occupied and the low proportion of housing stock that has more than three bedrooms. The next most cited reasons were homes being too large, 9.3%, and homes being unsuitable for the needs of a disabled person, 6.6%.

Table IV-3 Reasons for inadequacy Reason Number of cases Percentage of households in inadequate housing Home too small 4207 67.9 Other 606 9.8 Home too large 579 9.3 Home not suitable for needs of a disabled person 407 6.6 Poor quality - in need of repairs/improvements 400 6.5 Poor quality of neighbourhood/environment 259 4.2 Home not suitable for needs of an older person 143 2.3 Too far from relatives 124 2.0 Home not suitable for needs of children 117 1.9 Inadequate car parking 105 1.7 Home too costly to heat 58 0.9 Too far from employment 39 0.6 Cost of rent/mortgage 38 0.6 Lack of garden 36 0.6 Total households 6197

4.5 When adequacy is looked at by age profile, households where the respondent was aged 25 to 45 tended to experience higher levels of inadequacy. Older people were far more satisfied with their accommodation (see Figure 5). 45 Figure 5 Accommodation not adequate for households’ needs by age

10.0%

9.0% 8.9% 8.4% 8.0%

7.0%

6.0% 6.1% 5.7% 5.0% 4.3% 4.4% 4.0% 3.7% 3.0% 3.2%

2.0% 1.2%

1.0%

0.0% 16-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85 and over

4.6 It is also interesting to note that whilst 6.0% of households overall found their accommodation inadequate for their needs, this proportion rose to 7.0% of households where the head of household had a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability. 4.7 The experience of inadequate housing varied across the City with 7.9% of Market Renewal Area C, 6.9% of Area D, 6.4% of Area A, 5.2% of Area B and only 4.3% of the rest of Stoke- on-Trent indicating that they find their homes inadequate for the needs of their household.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

V HOUSING HISTORY

1. Introduction 1.1 This chapter looks at the previous housing circumstances of households in Stoke-on-Trent. 1.2 It is important to consider recent housing history alongside households’ declared moving intentions as an indicator of future housing demand. Moving intentions are often aspirational whereas recent history of movements demonstrates a more accurate picture. For the purposes of the Needs Assessment Model (see Chapter X) both recent history and future intentions are compared as alternative estimates for housing need. 1.3 Identifying the level of recent in-migration and those who have moved because their previous property was inadequate enables us to identify the future numbers of new forming households, the future proportion that may move due to inadequate housing and future in- migrant households. All these figures contribute to the Housing Needs Assessment Model for Stoke-on-Trent.

2. Length of residency 2.1 Stoke-on-Trent has a less stable population than its neighbours. 48.6% of households have lived in their current home for more than ten years; the equivalent figure for Staffordshire Moorlands is 54.7% and for Newcastle-under-Lyme is 59.1%. 2.2 One of the key factors identified by people to explain why they like living in their homes is the fact that they have lived there all their lives or that they have lived there for such a 46 long time that they are familiar with the area and comfortable there. For the purpose of this analysis it is the households who have moved within the last five years, 34.8% (35,917) who are of most interest and in particular those who moved within the last two years, 19.1% (19,743).

2.3 The average figure for recent movers (within the last two years) found in Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies is 17.6%. In comparison, for Staffordshire Moorlands and Newcastle-under-Lyme the number of recent movers was 16.1% and 14.7% respectively.

3. Calculating housing need based on housing history 3.1 Looking at the reasons and circumstances of those who have recently moved is one way to predict future housing need. There are a number of factors which are of particular interest in defining newly arising need: ; those who moved because their previous home was not adequate to meet their needs ; those who moved into the City from elsewhere (this group should be balanced by an estimation of out-migration within the same period) ; those who moved to set up their first home ; those who moved to set up a new home following divorce or separation 3.2 Of those who moved to their current accommodation within the last two years (19,743 households), 46.4% (9,162) did so because their previous home was not adequate for their needs. This would imply an annual figure of 4,581 households who moved because their homes were inadequate for their needs. 3.3 Just over a fifth of recent movers (moved to current home within last two years), 21.3% (4,206 households) were in-migrants and 78.7% (15,537 households) moved from elsewhere

in Stoke-on-Trent. This would imply an annual figure of 2,103 in-migrants. The average proportion of in-migrant households found in Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies is 37.2% and was 36.9% for Staffordshire Moorlands and 29.0% for Newcastle-under-Lyme. In the last two years 22.4% of Stoke-on-Trent’s in-migrants came from Newcastle-under-Lyme (942 households) and 18.0% came from Staffordshire Moorlands (758 households). In comparison, a third of Staffordshire Moorlands in-migrant households moved from Stoke–on- Trent (806 households) and 3.4% moved from Newcastle-under-Lyme (82 households). Table V-1 Previous address of in-migrants over last two years Previous address Number Percent Staffordshire Moorlands (inc. Leek, Biddulph & Cheadle) 758 18.0 Stafford area (including Stone) 177 4.2 Newcastle-under-Lyme 942 22.4 Congleton area (including Sandbach) 35 0.8 Crewe and Nantwich area 105 2.5 Manchester 35 0.8 Elsewhere in the North West 236 5.6 Birmingham 159 3.8 Elsewhere in the Midlands 239 5.7 Elsewhere in the UK 1015 24.1 Other 505 12.0 Total 4,206 100.0

3.4 Table V-2 shows that 24.6% of recent movers were establishing their first home (4,865 47 households) and a further 9.0% were setting up a new home following divorce or separation (1,767 households). If in-migrants are excluded from this number, then there were 4,277 first homes established in the last two years and 1,398 new homes. 3.5 Table V-3 shows how the number of newly arising households in the last two years in Stoke- on-Trent might be estimated. The number of in-migrant households is added to the number of first homes excluding in-migrant first homes (to avoid double counting). Added to this figure is the number of new homes excluding in-migrant new homes, divided by two (to account for one existing household being split in two, one of which is likely to replace the existing household). This provides the first sub-total in the table of 9,181 households newly created in the last two years. 3.6 If the number of those who moved because their previous home was inadequate (excluding those already counted in the in-migrants and first and new homes) is added to the previous sub-total then 14,404 new households were created in the last two years in Stoke-on-Trent. The Housing Needs Study 2004 does not give a picture of historical out-migration, so this must be estimated from the planned out-migration of existing households wanting to move within the next two years. If these numbers are taken away from the 14,404 newly created households, then that leaves an estimated 12,300 newly created households within the last two years in Stoke-on-Trent, an annual figure of 6,150.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table V-2 Reasons for moving in the last two years Reason for moving in last two years All movers in last Excluding in- two years migrants No. % No. % Other reason 4973 25.2 3566 23.0 To set up my first home 4865 24.6 4277 27.5 Previous home too small 2965 15.0 2642 17.0 Divorce/separation 1767 9.0 1398 9.0 Too far from employment 877 4.4 149 1.0 Previous home too large 829 4.2 728 4.7 Poor quality of neighbourhood/environment 726 3.7 690 4.4 Poor quality of previous home 637 3.2 6.3 3.9 Too far from relatives 616 3.1 344 2.2 Home not suitable for needs of a disabled person 613 3.1 588 3.8 Cost of rent/mortgage 256 1.3 163 1.0 Too far from schools 251 1.3 67 0.4 Lack of garden 149 0.8 102 0.7 Home not suitable for needs of children 113 0.6 113 0.7 Home not suitable for needs of an older person 71 0.4 71 0.5 Poor access to public transport 35 0.2 35 0.2 Total households 19743 100.0 15537 100.0 48 Table V-3 Newly formed households in Stoke-on-Trent Newly arising need Moved in Moved in Estimated last five last two annual years years moves In-migrants 6322 4206 2103 + First home (excluding in-migrants) 6741 4277 2138 + New home after divorce divided by 2 1582 699 349 = Sub-total 14646 9181 4591 + Moved because previous home inadequate 10945 5223 2611 (excluding, in-migrants, first homes and new homes) = Sub-total 25590 14404 7202 - Estimated out-migrants - 2104 1052 = Total newly arising need 12300 6150

3.7 The estimated annual household formation for Stoke-on-Trent that is used in the Housing Needs Model at Line 8 is the sum of lines 2 (2,138) and 3 (349) from Table V-3.

4. Pattern of movement between areas 4.1 The proportion of recently moved households in Stoke-on-Trent that are in-migrants is fairly low, indicating a high level of movement within the City. By comparing people’s current address with their previous address it is possible to build up a picture of recent

household movement in and around Stoke-on-Trent. A table showing this pattern of movement is included at Appendix 2 to this report. 4.2 Some wards have more internal movement than others. In Blurton, 85.3% of households that moved in the last two years were previous residents of the same ward. In Stoke & Trent Vale and Trentham & Handford wards, proportionally fewer households that moved in the last two years were previously resident in the same ward; 37.9% and 37.5% respectively. 4.3 Where households moved to their current address from a previous address outside the ward boundary there was a difference between wards with in-migrants from elsewhere within Stoke-on-Trent City and those from outside the City. In Longton North and South only 9.3% and 9.1% of recent movers were in-migrants from elsewhere in Stoke-on-Trent compared with 46.7% of recently moved households in East Valley. 4.4 In Fenton 41.7% of households that moved to the area over the past two years were from outside Stoke-on-Trent. However in Northwood & Birches Head and East Valley there were no in-migrants from areas outside of Stoke-on-Trent.

5. Type and tenure of previous accommodation 5.1 It is evident from Table V-4 that when people move there is a considerable degree of change in housing type. Table V-4 Movements between housing types in the last five years (%) Previous housing Current housing type type Detached Semi- Terraced Bungalow Flat detached Detached 34.3 5.5 8.7 10.2 2.0 Semi-detached 40.4 55.1 35.3 45.4 35.3 49 Terraced 25.2 29.9 39.5 26.8 30.1 Bungalow 0.0 2.8 4.8 4.4 1.6 Flat 0.0 6.7 11.7 13.3 30.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

5.2 There is movement in both directions from terraces to detached properties and from detached properties to flats, although there is a tendency towards upward mobility: people in flats move to terraced accommodation, people in terraced accommodation move to semi-detached accommodation and people in semi-detached properties move to detached ones. However, many households move within the same property type, e.g. from one flat or semi-detached to another. 5.3 The movements in housing type are reflected in the movements in tenure. Of those that currently own their own homes, 39.1% previously rented. 5.4 Table V-5 illustrates the percentage of movement between private and public sector over the last two years. Although the majority of tenants remained in the public sector, there was some movement between landlords.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table V-5 Households moving between landlords (%) Current tenure Social rented Private rented Owner- Previous tenure sector sector occupation Social rented sector 73.1 13.6 13.3 Private rented sector 36.6 41.3 22.1 Owner-occupation 11.9 12.6 75.4

50

VI NEIGHBOURHOOD & COMMUNITY SAFETY

1. Introduction 1.1 This chapter of the report deals with people’s attitudes to where they live. It looks at overall satisfaction levels, specific likes and dislikes, feelings of safety, and experience of harassment and noise nuisance.

2. Satisfaction with the neighbourhood 2.1 Generally, people were very satisfied with the area in which they lived as can be seen from Figure 6. Only 7.3% of households expressed any dissatisfaction with their neighbourhood. Across the City households’ dissatisfaction with their neighbourhoods ranged from 4.8% outside the Market Renewal Areas to 8.3% in Area D and 8.0% in Area B. The level of dissatisfaction was lower in Market Renewal Areas A and C at 5.6% and 5.2% respectively. Figure 6 Feelings of satisfaction with neighbourhood

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Don't know 1.5% 4.8% 0.1%

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 6.8% Very 51 satisfied 45.9%

Satisfied 40.9%

2.2 Households identified a variety of factors that influenced what they liked most about the area where they lived. Ranked in order of frequency, factors identified included: ; Good local amenities, including schools ; Peace and quiet ; Good neighbours/local community/close to family ; Good environment ; Familiarity/always lived in area ; Everything ; Garden and house ; Generally satisfied/it is better than elsewhere ; Ease of access to countryside

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

; Good for children ; Safe secure neighbourhood ; Good for personal reasons ; Cost of house ; Access in the home 2.3 The most common factor was the access to good local amenities such as shops, schools, transport (25.7%), followed by the peace and quiet (21.8%). The local community, neighbours and being close to family were also very important factors in what people liked about where they lived (16.7%). Householders also expressed a general liking for their neighbourhood (10.2%) although a number of people felt a half-hearted support for their environment, commenting that it was “OK” and better than other places (2.5%). 5.4% of people commented that there was nothing they liked about the area where they lived. 2.4 Households’ likes about where they live were broadly in line across the whole Stoke-on- Trent area with some slight differences. The importance of people/neighbours and family was more significant in the Market Renewal Areas than the areas outside; 20.6% in Area A, 19.0% in Area B, 14.9% in Area C and 17.2% in Area D compared with 12.0% outside the Market Renewal Areas. A general liking for the local neighbourhood was stronger outside the Market Renewal Areas (15.1%) compared with 9.5% in Area A, 9.1% in Area B, 8.6% in Area C and 7.3% in Area D. Where people felt fairly negative about where they lived and could think of nothing they liked, the lowest rate recorded was in Area C (3.2%) and the highest in Area B (7.2%). 6.4% of those living outside the Market Renewal Areas said there was nothing they liked about where they lived. 2.5 Factors that households disliked about where they lived (again ranked in order of frequency) included: 52 ; Poor environment, e.g. litter, graffiti, area run down ; Youths/children/young people ; Traffic speed, noise, road congestion, large trucks, etc ; Crime/drugs/lack of community safety ; Parking ; Neighbours/local people ; Noise ; Personal reasons including expressions of racism ; Property – house and garden ; Poor access to amenities ; No amenities for children ; Local businesses, e.g. noise and smells ; Isolation and transport issues ; Poor council services, e.g. grass cutting, cleansing, street lights, road maintenance ; Fireworks ; Hills ; Motorbikes 2.6 Just under a third of households could think of nothing they disliked about where they lived. Of those that did comment the main areas of concern were around the area being

run down, unattractive, litter, graffiti, dog mess, etc (13.6%). 11.9% of people were concerned about children and young people and a further 6.3% of households were concerned about crime and in particular about drug use in their area. Households also expressed concern about the level of traffic and the condition of local roads and about parking problems, either being unable to park themselves or having others park in front of their properties. 2.7 There were also a number of people who were concerned about isolation and access difficulties including poor public transport and problems caused by the steepness of the area’s hills. There were specific concerns raised about fireworks and motorbikes and a significant number of people who disliked where they lived for personal reasons including expressions of racism in reference to other members of the local community. 2.8 There were some differences between the relative importance of certain issues across the different areas of Stoke-on-Trent. Concerns about traffic were strongest in Market Renewal Area C (13.5%) and less significant in Area B (5.9%). Households in Area B gave greater weight to issues of poor environment (16.5%) compared with those living outside the Market Renewal Areas (11.0%). Concern about crime and drugs was strongest in Areas D (10.7%) and Area B (8.0%) compared with Area C (3.2%). Dislikes about householder’s own homes and gardens were strongest in Area C (5.2%) compared with 1.7% in Area B and 1.8% in Area A. Area C households also expressed a greater level of concern about their neighbours and the local community than other areas. Dislikes for personal reasons were strongest in Areas A and D. The specific concerns related to fireworks and motorbikes were again strongest in Areas A and D. Isolation and public transport issues were strongest in Area D.

3. Safety 3.1 How safe people felt in their own homes and neighbourhoods is indicated in Table VI-1. 5.4% of households felt fairly or very unsafe in their own homes and 9.4% felt either fairly 53 or very unsafe walking in their neighbourhoods alone after dark. Just over a fifth of households did not go out alone after dark and 17.5% did not go out at all after dark. People living in Market Renewal Area D felt far less safe than those in other areas which reflects the neighbourhood dislikes expressed by households. Feelings of safety were strongest in Area C. Table VI-1 Feelings of safety (%) Safety criteria Market Renewal Areas Stoke A B C D Other -on- Trent Fairly unsafe in home 4.2 4.8 2.3 5.7 3.9 4.1 Very unsafe in home 1.2 0.9 0.9 3.0 1.1 1.3 Fairly unsafe in neighbourhood after dark 4.9 6.6 3.0 6.1 5.3 5.2 Very unsafe in neighbourhood after dark 6.3 4.7 1.5 3.5 4.6 4.2 Do not go out alone after dark 6.7 36.9 20.7 23.8 20.8 22.0 Do not go out at all after dark 25.8 10.7 19.0 20.8 13.4 17.5

3.2 Age and gender have a distinct impact on feelings of safety and people’s corresponding behaviour. Women of all ages tend to feel less safe in their homes and neighbourhoods than men and are less likely to go out alone after dark.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table VI-2 Feelings of safety by age and gender (%) Gender Fairly or very Fairly or very Do not go out Do not go out and age unsafe in home unsafe in alone after at all after neighbourhood dark dark after dark Male 16-24 4.8 6.4 0.0 3.5 25-64 4.4 8.4 8.7 4.2 65-74 3.9 10.3 22.5 20.4 75+ 4.5 6.2 35.5 37.7 Female 16-24 7.3 12.0 18.4 6.6 25-60 6.0 11.3 26.1 14.2 60-74 7.6 7.1 34.3 42.5 75+ 4.5 6.2 34.7 51.3

4. Harassment 4.1 The personal experience of harassment varied across Stoke-on-Trent, with 15.1% of households in Market Renewal Area B having experienced harassment and 9.2% of households living outside the Market Renewal Areas. Views about racial harassment also varied across the City, with people from Market Renewal Areas B and C being more likely to identify racial harassment as an issue than those living in Area A and those outside the Market Renewal boundaries (see Table VI-3). 54 Table VI-3 Experience of harassment by Market Renewal Area (%) Harassment criteria Market Renewal Areas Stoke A B C D Other -on- Trent Experienced harassment 10.5 15.1 9.8 13.9 9.2 11.6 Racial harassment an issue where live 1.8 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.9 1.7 Racial harassment an issue elsewhere 12.0 28.2 34.2 25.0 22.7 24.3 Racial harassment both where live & elsewhere 3.6 8.7 6.3 5.1 3.1 5.3 Fear of harassment in plans to move 47.7 67.3 64.7 61.7 62.1 60.8

4.2 Table VI-4 shows the experience of harassment and views about racial harassment by broad categories of ethnic group and by gender. All ethnic groups had personal experience of harassment, but the incidence of harassment appears to be strongest amongst the Black/Black British households. Fear of harassment was a factor for all ethnic groups in deciding to move to another area. All groups identified racial harassment as an issue both where they lived and elsewhere in Stoke-on-Trent.

Table VI-4 Experience of harassment by ethnic group (%) Harassment criteria Ethnic Group Stoke White Mixed Asian Black Other -on- Trent Male Experienced harassment 11.7 0.0 12.1 27.3 17.6 11.8 Racial harassment an issue where live 1.6 0.0 7.3 27.3 17.6 2.0 Racial harassment an issue elsewhere 24.6 0.0 11.2 0.0 25.6 23.9 Racial harassment both where live & elsewhere 4.2 0.0 21.1 0.0 15.8 4.9 Fear of harassment in plans to move 56.2 0.0 49.3 78.5 59.0 56.0 Female Experienced harassment 11.2 18.2 18.0 23.4 0.0 11.4 Racial harassment an issue where live 1.4 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 1.4 Racial harassment an issue elsewhere 24.7 44.0 12.6 23.4 0.0 24.5 Racial harassment both where live & elsewhere 5.5 21.1 8.8 17.8 0.0 5.6 Fear of harassment in plans to move 64.1 81.4 51.3 64.3 100.0 63.9

5. Noise nuisance 5.1 Nearly a quarter of Stoke-on-Trent households experience problems with noise nuisance. Noise nuisance is felt more strongly in Market Renewal Areas A and B. The main causes of noise nuisance are traffic, children playing and neighbours. Table VI-5 Problems with noise nuisance by Market Renewal Area (%) 55 Problems with noise nuisance Market Renewal Areas Stoke A B C D Other -on- Trent Yes, all the time 6.1 6.6 4.9 3.6 3.2 4.9 Yes, frequently 8.2 10.8 7.2 6.9 6.5 8.0 Yes, but only occasionally 18.1 11.5 9.5 13.9 12.3 13.0 No, not at all 67.6 71.1 78.4 75.5 78.0 74.0

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

VII HOUSING COSTS & INCOME

1. Introduction 1.1 This chapter of the report examines the cost of maintaining households’ current accommodation, detailing rent and mortgage levels and heating costs. It also considers income levels and households receiving financial support. Information about household savings is also included. 1.2 Compared with other questions, response rates tend to be lower for questions about income and expenditure.

2. Rent and mortgage levels 2.1 62.2% of households in the survey were liable either to pay rent or a mortgage. This would imply 64,230 households in Stoke-on-Trent as a whole. Table VII-1 shows the monthly rent/mortgage paid by households. The overall response rate to this question was 80.1% as a proportion of those paying housing costs. Table VII-1 Monthly rent/mortgage Monthly cost Number Percent Cumulative%

< £80 2225 3.5 3.5 £81 - £120 3976 6.2 8.7 £121 - £160 8571 13.3 22.0

56 £161 - £200 12184 19.0 41.0 £201 - £240 18742 29.2 70.2 £241 - £280 9328 14.5 84.7 More than £281 9204 14.3 100.0

2.2 The housing costs for the average entry-level home as described in the Housing Needs Model (Chapter X) would be £160 per month. 2.3 Table VII-2 shows monthly housing costs as a comparison between owner-occupiers paying a mortgage and all those in the rented sector. Mortgage payers are more prevalent amongst those paying under £160 per month on housing. People in the rented sector are more likely to pay between £160 and £280 per month than owner-occupiers.

Table VII-2 Monthly rent/mortgage by tenure Monthly housing Mortgage Rent costs Percent Cumulative Percent Cumulative % % Less than £80 4.2 4.2 2.5 2.5 £81-£120 9.6 13.9 2.8 5.2 £121-£160 20.2 34.1 7.4 12.7 £161-£200 19.4 53.5 18.9 31.5 £201-£240 17.9 71.3 38.8 70.3 £241-£280 11.2 82.6 18.0 88.3 More than £281 17.4 100.0 11.7 100.0

2.4 The difference between rent levels for different landlords is shown in Table VII-3. As might be expected the lowest rents tend to be in local authority housing and the highest in the private sector. Table VII-3 Monthly rent levels by landlord (%) Monthly cost Landlord Local Other RSL Private authority Less than £80 2.8 3.1 0.9 £81-£120 2.6 4.0 2.7 £121-£160 8.4 3.5 6.2 57 £161-£200 22.5 12.4 9.1 £201-£240 44.9 48.1 11.9 £241-£280 16.6 18.2 23.1 More than £281 2.1 10.7 46.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

3. Financial support 3.1 The response rate to the question on financial support was 98.6%. Overall, 39.1% of Stoke- on-Trent’s households (40,399) were in receipt of one or more of the financial supports listed in Table VII-4. The proportion of households receiving financial support was greatest in Market Renewal Area A (47.8%) and was lowest outside the Market Renewal Areas. 3.2 The main financial supports being received were Council Tax Benefit (19.5%), Housing Benefit (17.7%) and Income Support (16.4%). 8.8% of households (9,114) were in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit. 3.3 The main disability and sickness benefits received by households were Disability Living Allowance and Incapacity Benefit. Overall, 7.9% of households (8,184) were in receipt of Disability Living Allowance.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table VII-4 Financial support by Market Renewal Areas (%) Financial support Market Renewal Areas Stoke- A B C D Other on- Trent Housing Benefit 23.0 20.2 19.1 19.1 9.0 17.7 Council Tax Benefit 21.9 23.5 20.7 24.7 9.6 19.5 Supporting People Grant 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Income Support 15.4 22.1 19.3 16.2 9.8 16.4 Job Seekers Allowance 1.3 2.4 1.7 1.3 0.3 1.4 Working Families Tax Credit 15.6 6.0 9.1 4.9 8.1 8.8 Disabled Person’s Tax Credit 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 Disability Living Allowance 9.6 8.3 9.5 7.9 5.0 7.9 Attendance Allowance 2.3 1.4 3.5 3.4 2.5 2.6 Invalid Care Allowance 2.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.3 Incapacity Benefit 4.5 5.5 6.6 6.0 2.4 4.8 Severe Disablement Allowance 1.0 0.1 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.5

4. Income 4.1 55.7% of respondents provided information on the net income of their households. This means enough respondents provided income information to make valid assumptions about the Stoke-on-Trent population as a whole, but generates a greater margin of error if analysed at a sub-area level. 58 4.2 Table VII-5 shows the estimated net monthly household income of respondents. Table VII-5 Household net monthly income Net monthly income Number Percent Cumulative percent Less than £320 3241 3.1 3.1 £321-£475 13393 13.0 16.1 £476-£650 17410 16.9 33.0 £651-£800 12461 12.1 45.1 £801-£950 9620 9.3 54.4 £951-£1100 8949 8.7 63.1 £1101-£1500 15291 14.8 77.9 £1501-£2000 11380 11.0 88.9 £2001-£2500 6153 6.0 94.9 More than £2501 5298 5.1 100.0 Total 130196 100.0

4.3 Looking at the net monthly income of households in the rented sector, 59.4% of local authority tenants, 54.5% of other public sector tenants and 39.7% of private tenants have monthly net incomes below £650 per month.

Table VII-6 Household net monthly income by landlord (%)

Monthly cost Landlord Local authority Other RSL Private % Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumulative % % % Less than £320 7.3 7.3 6.5 6.5 5.9 5.9 £321-£475 26.4 33.7 26.4 32.9 15.7 21.6 £476-£650 25.7 59.4 21.6 54.5 18.1 39.7 £651-£800 16.4 75.8 24.2 78.7 13.6 53.3 £801-£950 9.2 85.0 14.9 93.6 6.4 59.7 £951-£1100 5.3 90.3 6.4 100.0 12.3 72.0 £1101-£1500 6.1 96.4 17.2 89.2 £1501-£2000 2.3 98.7 7.7 96.9 £2001-£2500 0.6 99.3 2.3 99.2 More than £2501 0.7 100.0 0.8 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0

5. Savings 5.1 As an indicator of their ability to enter the housing market, information about households’ savings was collected and analysed. 5.2 Of those households renting, 89.5% (13,959) had enough savings for an entry-level property 59 of £40,000 or above, assuming a 5.0% deposit of £2,000. Of the households who rented from the local authority, 91.5% had enough savings for an entry-level property. This compared to 90.9% of those who rented from a housing association and 82.1% who rented from a private landlord. Overall, across Stoke-on-Trent, 21.3% of households had over £3,500 in savings.

6. Fuel costs 6.1 79.1% of households provided information on their annual fuel costs. 30.1% of surveyed households spent more than £570 per year on fuel. 6.2 By looking at the relationship between net income and fuel costs it is possible to estimate fuel poverty in Stoke-on-Trent. If fuel poverty is defined as any household paying more than 10% of their annual net income on fuel costs52, then approximately 16.5% (17,039) of Stoke-on-Trent’s households fall into this category. Although the incidence of fuel poverty is much higher than the average for Outside’s comparable Housing Needs Studies (11.0%), it is very similar to the figure for Newcastle-under-Lyme (18.0%), Cannock Chase (18.4%) and Staffordshire Moorlands (17.2%). 6.3 Table VII-7 shows the estimated proportion of households that experience fuel poverty for each Market Renewal Area, different tenure groups and households where at least one member is aged 75 and over.

52 Decent Home Standard

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table VII-7 Fuel poverty by tenure, landlord and age Fuel Poverty Number Percent All households 17039 16.5 Market Renewal Area A 3711 17.6 Market Renewal Area B 4070 17.6 Market Renewal Area C 4125 21.7 Market Renewal Area D 3392 21.5 Outside Market Renewal Area 1678 6.9 Tenure Owns outright 6332 16.7 Owns with a mortgage 1074 3.4 Local authority rented 7161 32.4 RSL rented 835 23.9 Private landlord rented 1246 19.3 Households with older resident Head of household aged 75+ 4996 36.5

60

VIII HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WITH PARTICULAR NEEDS

1. Introduction 1.1 This section of the report looks at the housing needs of people with particular needs. In this Housing Needs Study, people with particular needs are defined as people who have a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability that limits their daily activities. 1.2 The survey analysis below looks at the number of people with particular needs, the nature of their particular needs, the proportion of properties that have been adapted to meet their needs, the requirement for adaptations and the requirement for care and support.

2. Households with a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability 2.1 In Stoke-on-Trent as a whole, 34.8% of households (35,934) defined themselves as having at least one member with particular needs. This is much higher than the average for Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies of 26.6%, and is in fact the highest rate recorded in any of Outside’s Housing Needs Studies to date. The comparative rates for Staffordshire Moorlands and Newcastle-under-Lyme are, 28.1% and 28.7% respectively. 2.2 Some households contained more than one person with particular needs giving an average of 1.2 people per household with particular needs. This implies that around 42,811 people in Stoke-on-Trent have a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability, which is 16.3% of the total population. 2.3 When looked at across the different Market Renewal Areas the rates of limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability range from 30.5% in Area A to 39.7% in Area B. This 61 will be a particular issue to address in respect of new development to replace clearance dwellings and accommodate displaced households in the Pathfinder area. 2.4 Figure 7 shows the nature of the particular needs experienced by all household members with a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability. 5.7% of people with a particular need had a physical disability that required them to use a wheelchair. A further 50.3% of people also had a physical disability, but did not use a wheelchair. This implies that there could be up to 23,970 (23.2%) households in Stoke-on-Trent where occupants have mobility problems.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Figure 7 Nature of particular needs

60% 50.3% 50%

40% 37.4%

30%

20%

7.5% 10% 5.7% 5.6% 5.9% 1.6% 0.3% 0% t t r ir ty m n n e r e a li le e e s e s h i b m u th u lc b o rm r is ir sa r i ai m O a ee i p a p l h h d h p o lc w g lt im im h e in a l g o e in n e a n lc h t r h u ri a w o a l s a / n e ta e g : : L n Vi ru D D e H D P P M

2.5 Table VIII-1 shows respondents’ particular needs by age. As might be expected, there is little incidence of limiting long-term illness, health problems or disability occurring amongst the youngest age group (0-25 years). Common with the majority of similar studies, the incidence of disability, illness and mobility problems tends to increase with age. The cases where this is not true concern learning disabilities, mental health problems and substance misuse. Table VIII-1 Respondents’ particular needs by age (%)

62 Particular needs Age group Total <25 25-64 ≥65 % Cases Physical disability: wheelchair user 2.7 56.0 41.3 100.0 1819 Physical disability: not in wheelchair 0.6 38.1 61.2 100.0 24050 Learning disability 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 99 Mental health problem 5.7 87.3 7.0 100.0 2504 Visual impairment 0.0 19.6 80.4 100.0 2649 Hearing impairment 0.0 12.8 87.2 100.0 2559 Drug and/or alcohol misuse 38.7 61.3 0.0 100.0 143 Other 0.9 44.5 54.6 100.0 15816

3. Adaptations and carers 3.1 7.1% (7,308) of all households in Stoke-on-Trent reported that their properties had been adapted to meet the needs of residents with a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability; 0.6% (612) had been purpose-built to meet the requirements of residents with particular needs. This implies a total of 7,919 adapted properties for a potential of 35,934 households with at least one member with particular needs. Of course, many of the people identified as having particular needs through the study will not require any property adaptations. 3.2 96.9% of adapted and purpose-built properties are occupied by households with at least one member with particular needs, leaving approximately 3,199 properties that have been adapted or are purpose-built to meet particular needs occupied by households with no such

needs. 21.2% of households where at least one member has particular needs live in adapted or purpose-built properties. 3.3 When looked at by the nature of households’ particular needs, 64.5% of wheelchair users and 28.2% of people with physical disabilities other than wheelchair users lived in adapted or purpose-built properties to meet their needs. When asked about their requirement for further property adaptations, as Table VIII-2 shows, 32.3% of wheelchair users indicated a requirement for adaptations and 67.7% required no further adaptations. Similarly, of those households where people had physical disabilities other than being a wheelchair user, 83.7% had no requirement for further adaptations. Table VIII-2 Adaptations needed by respondents’ particular needs (%)

Particular needs rails Kitchen Stair lift/ to access extension Bathroom Bathroom vertical lift Wheelchair adaptations adaptations adaptations Ground floor Improvements None required None required Room for carer Room for carer Handrails/ grab PD: wheel-chair user 11.3 5.2 8.4 17.3 7.0 12.2 3.1 0.0 67.7 PD: not in wheelchair 0.2 3.3 1.1 8.5 3.1 7.6 0.4 0.1 83.7 Learning disability 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 91.7 Mental health 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.2 1.1 1.9 0.0 1.3 93.6 Visual impairment 0.0 0.0 1.8 7.4 8.4 6.7 0.0 1.4 80.8 Hearing impairment 0.0 1.9 0.0 2.3 1.5 2.9 0.0 1.3 93.0 Substance misuse 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other 1.2 1.7 1.0 3.7 2.2 4.2 0.7 0.0 91.7 63 Figure 8 Adaptations done and adaptations required

80.0% 74.1%

70.0% % of all adapted 65.6% % of all required 60.0% 49.5% 50.0% 42.9% 40.0%

30.0% 20.9% 19.3% 20.0% 11.4% 9.6% 8.0% 9.8% 10.0% 7.3% 7.0% 4.7% 4.1% 2.4% 1.9% 0.0%

s n ss ils tical lift tatio r carer ptations rab ra o er to acce g f da s/ m a l oo en adap ents h m R Stair lift/v room th Handrai Kitc a B Wheelchair adaptations Ground floor extension Improve 3.4 Figure 8 shows the most common property adaptations and those that are most frequently identified as a future requirement. Overall, 4.4% (4,543) of households indicated that their

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

properties required specific adaptations. The most common property adaptations that have been made are bathroom and handrail/grab rail adaptations. Despite this, these two types of adaptation are also the most frequently identified as outstanding requirements. 3.5 49.7% of households (51,257) had sufficient space for a carer to stay overnight if this was needed. 7.2% of households (7,389) felt that at least one member of the household required care or support to enable them to stay in their home. Of these 43.7% (3,135) did not have space for a carer to stay overnight in their home. 3.6 9.5% of households (9,803) looked after or provided support to family members, friends, neighbours or others because of either long-term physical or mental ill-health or disability, or problems related to old age.

64

IX MOVING INTENTIONS

1. Introduction 1.1 This chapter looks at the expressed moving intentions of existing and new forming households in order to predict future housing demand and housing need. It also looks at the supply of future housing stock released by households planning to move.

2. Moving households and new forming households 2.1 Within the next two years, 6.6% of existing households (6,842) intend to move. This is lower than the average of 11.8% indicated in Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies and compares with 9.5% in Staffordshire Moorlands and 7.2% in Newcastle-under-Lyme. 26.5% of people planning to move in the next two years intend to move outside Stoke-on- Trent and need to be excluded from the following analysis. This leaves a total of 5,027 existing households wanting to move within Stoke-on-Trent over the next two years. 2.2 Of the 26.5% (1,813 households) planning to move away from Stoke-on-Trent, 11.3% intend to move to Newcastle-under-Lyme and 11.5% to Manchester. The largest proportion intends to move beyond the region entirely. Table IX-1 Planned moves outside Stoke-on-Trent

Number Percent Staffordshire Moorlands (including Leek, Biddulph & Cheadle) 119 6.6 65 Stafford area (including Stone) 24 1.3 Newcastle-under-Lyme area 205 11.3 Crewe and Nantwich area 82 4.5 Manchester 209 11.5 Elsewhere in the North West 21 1.2 Elsewhere in the Midlands 81 4.5 Elsewhere in the UK 719 39.7 Other 351 19.4 Total 1813 100.0

2.3 In addition to existing movers, 1.4% of households (1,408) contained members who intend to move out of the household to establish a home of their own. This is very low compared to the average found in Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies, of 5.3%. The corresponding figure for Staffordshire Moorlands was 4.9% and for Newcastle-under-Lyme was 2.1%. Some households contained more than one person establishing a new forming household, giving an average of 1.06 people per existing household containing a new forming household. This would imply a total of 1,492 people setting up 1,408 new households over the next two years. 2.4 However, 20.6% of new forming households plan to move outside Stoke-on-Trent, leaving a total of 1,118 new forming households within Stoke-on-Trent over the next two years. Of these, around 295 new households will be formed with someone else within Stoke-on-Trent. If half of these are excluded from the analysis, then there remain 971 new households forming within Stoke-on-Trent over the next two years, giving an annual figure of 485.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

2.5 Within the next two years, a prospective total of 5,998 households plan to move within Stoke-on-Trent. This is much lower than the number of households that actually moved in the last two years from previous addresses within Stoke-on-Trent, 15,537 (see Chapter V paragraph 3.3). The estimate of planned new forming households (971) is particularly low compared to the number of households that set up their first home within the last two years from within Stoke-on-Trent, 4,277. 2.6 This difference between moving intentions and moving patterns indicated by housing history is apparent in the majority of Outside’s housing needs studies, but is particularly exaggerated in Stoke-on-Trent. This was also true of Newcastle-under-Lyme, but not so for Staffordshire Moorlands. Both the Newcastle-under-Lyme and the Stoke-on-Trent Housing Needs Studies were based entirely on face-to-face interviews whereas the Staffordshire Moorlands Study was a hybrid combining results from a postal questionnaire with a face-to- face survey. It is possible that people answer questions related to planned moving behaviour differently on the door step than they do when completing a postal questionnaire. It is also likely that in areas where there is a depressed housing market people’s perception of their likelihood to move is diminished. 2.7 These differences between moving history and moving intentions may also be partly explained by reasons people give for moving to their current homes. A significant proportion of recent movers moved as a result of changes to their personal circumstances such as divorce or separation. Such circumstances are usually unforeseen. Moving intentions on the other hand, tend to reflect planned moves around foreseeable events and are therefore likely to under-estimate the true number of moves that take place. For example, 2.5% of existing households planning to move in the next two years gave divorce/separation as a reason, whereas of those who recently moved in the last two years, excluding new formed households, 11.9% set up a new home as a result of divorce/separation. 66 2.8 In the last two years there were 4,206 in-migrants, which is higher than the prospective out-migrants from existing households of 1,815 plus new forming households planning to leave the area, 289.

3. Moving for reasons of inadequacy 3.1 In total 50.1% of existing households (3,430) and 27.7% of new forming households (391) are planning to move over the next two years because their current accommodation is not adequate for their needs. 3.2 Of those existing households moving because their current accommodation is inadequate, 91.5% want to stay within Stoke-on-Trent (3,137 households). 94.4% of new forming households who find their current accommodation inadequate want to stay within Stoke-on- Trent (369 households).

4. Other reasons for moving 4.1 The main reasons given for existing and new forming households moving within the next two years are shown in Table IX-2. Over a quarter of existing households want to move because their current home is too small. This ties in with the main reason given for households finding their current accommodation inadequate for their needs (see Chapter IV, paragraph 4.4). 4.2 For existing households planning to move the poor quality of their neighbourhood/environment was given as the main secondary reason for moving. Of new forming households the main secondary reason for moving was their current accommodation being too small.

Table IX-2 Main reasons for moving Reasons Existing New forming households households moving within moving within two years two years No. % No. % Home too small 1883 27.5 0 0.0 Poor quality of neighbourhood/environment 868 12.7 0 0.0 Home too large 519 7.6 41 2.9 Too far from employment 310 4.5 0 0.0 Too far from relatives 261 3.8 0 0.0 Home not suitable for needs of a disabled person 211 3.1 0 0.0 Poor quality of home 186 2.7 0 0.0 To set up new home after divorce/separation 172 2.5 79 5.6 Lack of garden 157 2.3 0 0.0 To set up first home 123 1.8 1153 81.9 Home not suitable for needs of children 86 1.3 0 0.0 Home not suitable for needs of an older person 56 0.8 0 0.0 Cost of rent/mortgage 44 0.6 41 2.9 Too far from schools 34 0.5 0 0.0 Poor access to public transport 0 0.0 58 4.1 Poor access to amenities 0 0.0 36 2.6 Other 1933 28.3 0 0.0 67 Total 100.0 100.0

5. Desired locations 5.1 Table IX-3 shows where people want to move outside Stoke-on-Trent. Of those existing households looking to move outside Stoke-on-Trent, just under half wanted to stay within the North West or the Midlands area. Of new forming households looking to leave Stoke-on- Trent, 39.1% wanted to stay within the North West or the Midlands area. 5.2 Table IX-4 shows the desired locations of households wanting to stay within Stoke-on-Trent. Around a quarter of those planning to move within Stoke-on-Trent either do not mind where they live or do not know where they will live. The most popular areas amongst existing households planning to move were Penkhull and Hartshill and Longton. New forming households picked out Norton and Ball Green, Longton and Trentham and Hanford.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table IX-3 Desired locations outside Stoke-on-Trent Locations Existing households New forming moving within two households moving years within two years No. % No. % Staffordshire Moorlands 120 6.6 0 0.0 Stafford area 24 1.3 74 25.5 Newcastle-under-Lyme 206 11.3 0 0.0 Crewe and Nantwich 82 4.5 0 0.0 Manchester 209 11.5 0 0.0 Elsewhere in the North West 21 1.2 0 0.0 Birmingham 0 0.0 42 14.5 Elsewhere in the Midlands 81 4.5 0 0.0 Elsewhere in the UK 720 39.7 174 60.1 Other 351 19.4 0 0.0 Total 1815 100.0 289 100.0

Table IX-4 Desired locations within the City Locations Existing households New forming moving within two households moving years within two years No. % No. % 68 Tunstall 212 4.2 0 0.0 Chell Heath 187 3.7 44 4.5 Burslem and Corbridge 206 4.1 82 8.4 Norton and Ball Green 44 0.9 142 14.6 Smallthorne and Sneyd Green 148 2.9 0 0.0 Hanley, Shelton and Etruria 218 4.3 0 0.0 Northwood and Birches Head 78 1.6 0 0.0 Abbey Hulton and Milton 0 0.0 94 9.7 Penkhull and Hartshill 650 12.9 0 0.0 Stoke and Trent Vale 187 3.7 0 0.0 Bentilee and Berryhill 86 1.7 44 4.5 Fenton and Fenpark 194 3.8 0 0.0 Longton 538 10.7 129 13.3 Blurton and Newstead 26 0.5 28 2.9 Trentham and Hanford 247 4.9 98 10.1 Meir and Meir Park 464 9.2 54 5.6 Weston Coyney 272 5.4 0 0.0 Anywhere in the City 220 4.4 28 2.9 Don’t know 1051 20.9 228 23.5 Total 5027 100.0 971 100.0

6. Unable to move 6.1 Besides those planning to move over the next two years, 7.7% of households (7,955) expressed a desire to move but an inability to do so. This is below the average of 9.5% found in Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies. Further to this, 1.1% of households (1,187) contained a potential new forming household that would like to move but is unable to do so. Again this is lower than the average of 4.4% found in Outside’s previous Housing Needs Studies. 6.2 The main reason given for preventing a move was to do with the cost of moving and the cost of a larger home.

7. Future housing demand 7.1 One way to estimate the demand for housing within Stoke-on-Trent over the next two years is to look at existing households and new forming households planning to move within Stoke-on-Trent and their expressed desire for accommodation by tenure, type and size. 7.2 Amongst existing households planning a move within Stoke-on-Trent, 60.0% (3,017 households) want to own their own homes, 32.4% (1,630 households) want to rent from the public sector and 6.6% (332 households) want to rent in the private sector. There was no interest in this study for the idea of shared ownership. 7.3 Table IX-5 shows that of those existing households planning to move to an owner-occupied property within the next two years within Stoke-on-Trent, the main housing demand expressed is for three-bedroom semi-detached, four-bedroom detached and two-bedroom terraced properties. This implies a demand of 1,823 properties in these categories. 12.2% of prospective movers were interested in bungalows. Table IX-5 Housing demand from existing households wanting to own (%) 69 Housing type Bedroom size Total Two Three Four Five + Detached 0.0 8.0 18.4 2.0 28.3 Semi-detached 3.5 32.0 3.4 0.0 38.9 Terraced 10.1 7.5 1.7 0.0 19.3 Detached bungalow 4.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 Semi-detached bungalow 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 Purpose-built flat 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Total 25.1 49.3 23.5 2.0 100.0

7.4 Table IX-6 shows that of the demand for rented accommodation in the public sector from existing households moving there is more interest in single bedroom accommodation and less interest in detached and four-bedroom accommodation in contrast to those wanting to own their own homes. 20.6% were interested in bungalows (335).

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table IX-6 Demand from existing households wanting social rented properties (%) Housing type Bedroom size Total One Two Three Four Detached 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3 Semi-detached 0.0 8.2 35.8 6.1 50.1 Terraced 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 17.5 Semi-detached bungalow 6.5 7.3 0.0 0.0 13.8 Terraced bungalow 3.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 Purpose-built flat 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 Flat in converted/shared house 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 Total 17.4 36.4 40.2 6.1 100.0

7.5 The demand from existing households moving for accommodation in the private rented sector shown in Table IX-7 is focussed around two and three-bedroom terraces and semi- detached properties and single bedroom flats. Table IX-7 Demand from existing households wanting to rent privately (%) Housing type Bedroom size Total One Two Three Semi-detached 0.0 20.7 34.3 55.0 Terraced 0.0 14.4 14.1 28.5 Purpose-built flat 16.5 0.0 0.0 16.5 70 Total 16.5 35.1 48.4 100.0

7.6 Amongst new forming households within Stoke-on-Trent, 39.7% (385 households) want to own their new home, 23.8% (231 households) want to move out into socially rented accommodation and 36.6% (355 households) want to rent in the private sector. 7.7 The demand for different types of housing by tenure group is shown in Table IX-8, Table IX-9 and Table IX-10. Because of the low numbers of new forming households there is a much greater margin of error in interpreting these tables. 7.8 Across all new forming households there is no demand for larger properties with four or more bedrooms or for detached properties. Table IX-8 Demand from new forming households wanting to own (%) Housing type Bedroom size One Two Three Total Semi-detached 0.0 18.4 17.4 35.8 Terraced 13.7 0.0 0.0 13.7 Bungalow 0.0 13.7 0.0 13.7 Flat 13.7 23.0 0.0 36.7 Total 27.5 55.1 17.4 100.0

Table IX-9 Demand from new forming households wanting social rented properties (%) Housing type Two Total Bedroom Terraced 37.6 37.6 Flat 62.4 62.4 Total 100.0 100.0

Table IX-10 Demand from new forming households wanting to rent privately Housing type Bedroom size One Two Total Terraced 0.0 42.4 42.4 Flat 38.4 19.1 57.5 Total 38.4 61.6 100.0

7.9 In terms of care and support services required, 3.1% of all existing households (212) planning to move within the next two years and none of all new forming households expressed a requirement for care or support services to enable them to live in their next home. 7.10 21.2% of existing households (1,451) wanting to move are registered on a housing waiting list and 21.9% of new forming households (309) are registered on a waiting list. The majority of those registered on a housing waiting list were registered with Stoke-on-Trent City Council. 71 8. Supply released by planned movers 8.1 The estimated supply of housing that will become available within the City over the next two years through the release of properties vacated by existing households planning to move is shown in Table IX-11, Table IX-12 and Table IX-13. Table IX-11 shows the type and size of properties currently in the owner-occupied sector that will be released into the market within Stoke-on-Trent over the next two years, Table IX-12 shows the housing type and size of properties that are currently rented in the public sector that will become available within the next two years and Table IX-13 shows the housing released in the private rented sector if those planning to move do so. 8.2 These tables do not take account of any new-build properties becoming available within the next two years; they show the “second-hand” dwellings released through planned moves. 8.3 Of the 6,842 existing households planning to move over the next two years, 3,374 currently own their own homes, 1,703 rent in the public sector and 1,669 currently rent in the private sector.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table IX-11 Housing supply in owner-occupied sector (%) Housing type Bedroom size Total Two Three Four Five + Detached 1.3 8.7 4.1 0.0 14.1 Semi-detached 11.6 24.9 4.1 1.2 41.9 Terraced 23.3 12.1 3.7 0.0 39.2 Detached bungalow 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 Semi-detached bungalow 3.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.8 Total 39.2 47.7 11.9 1.2 100.0

Table IX-12 Housing supply in social rented sector (%) Housing type Bedroom size Total One Two Three Semi-detached 0.0 16.2 30.6 46.8 Terraced 0.0 15.0 11.5 26.5 Terraced bungalow 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Flat 15.0 7.4 2.3 24.7 Total 17.0 38.6 44.4 100.0

Table IX-13 Housing supply in private rented sector (%) 72 Housing type Bedroom size Total Two Three Four Five + Detached 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 Semi-detached 2.3 14.1 0.0 0.0 16.4 Terraced 53.9 17.2 1.9 5.5 78.5 Semi-detached bungalow 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 Total 58.6 34.0 1.9 5.5 100.0

9. Matching supply and demand 9.1 One means to estimate the surplus and/or shortfall arising for different housing types is to look at the relationship between the demand for different types of housing (expressed by existing households planning to move within Stoke-on-Trent and new forming households staying within Stoke-on-Trent over the next two years) and the potential supply of properties over the same period (released through existing households moving). This is shown in Table IX-14 and Table IX-15 where the expressed demand for housing has been taken away from the potential supply leaving a surplus in some types of housing and a shortfall in others. 9.2 This measure neither takes account of the likely demand for properties from in-migrants to the area, nor the increase in supply provided through new-build properties that become available within the next two years. These factors are accounted for in Chapter X in the development of the Housing Needs Model.

9.3 Hence, whilst the numbers should not be taken too literally the relationship shown between supply and demand is indicative of future supply and demand by housing size and type and provides a useful context to any discussions around future housing need. Table IX-14 Housing surplus and shortfall in owner-occupied sector Housing type Bedroom size Total One Two Three Four Five + Detached 0 43 52 -416 -60 -380 Semi-detached 0 217 -190 34 40 101 Terraced -53 481 183 74 0 685 Detached bungalow 0 -135 -19 0 0 -155 Semi-detached bungalow 0 -125 26 0 0 -99 Purpose-built flat -53 -128 0 0 0 -181 Total -106 353 53 -308 -20 -28

9.4 Table IX-14 shows that for those wanting to own their own homes, there is an overall shortfall of 28 properties. However, there is a surplus of two and three-bedroom properties, and of terraced properties in particular. The shortage would appear to be at either end of the housing spectrum, single bedroom terraces and flats and four and five- bedroom detached properties. Although there appears to be an overall surplus of two and three-bedroom accommodation, there is a potential shortfall of two-bedroom bungalows. 9.5 Table IX-15 shows that there is a potential shortfall of social rented properties over the next two years. The implication of the figures is that there is a surplus of two bedroom terraces and single and two-bedroom flats and that the shortfall is found in single and two- 73 bedroom bungalows and flats in shared/converted buildings and larger semi-detached and detached accommodation. Table IX-15 Housing surplus and shortfall in social rented sector Housing type Bedroom size Total One Two Three Four Detached 0 0 -71 0 -71 Semi-detached 0 142 -63 -99 -20 Terraced 0 -116 196 0 80 Semi-detached bungalow -106 -119 0 0 -225 Terraced bungalow -23 -54 0 0 -76 Purpose-built flat 205 126 39 0 370 Flat in converted/shared house -71 -144 0 0 -215 Total 5 -166 101 -99 -158

9.6 Table IX-16 shows that there is a likely surplus of private rented properties over the next two years. The majority of this surplus is in two and three-bedroom terraces. The main shortfall in the private rented market is for single bedroom flats of all types.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

Table IX-16 Housing surplus and shortfall in private rented sector Housing type Bedroom size Total One Two Three Four Five + Detached 0 0 44 0 0 44 Semi-detached 0 -30 122 0 0 92 Terraced 0 701 240 31 92 1065 Semi-detached bungalow 0 40 0 0 0 40 Purpose-built flat -55 0 0 0 0 -55 Flat in converted/shared house -47 -68 0 0 0 -115 Flat in commercial building -90 0 0 0 0 -90 Total -191 644 407 31 92 982

10. Affordability and housing need 10.1 When estimating housing need as opposed to housing demand, it is important to consider two groups of people: ; New forming households wanting to stay within Stoke-on-Trent whose income and savings are below the level required to secure a mortgage on an entry-level property of £40,000. ; Existing households planning to move within Stoke-on-Trent who are moving because their current home is inadequate for their needs and whose income and savings are below the level required to secure a mortgage on an entry-level property of £40,000.

10.2 Of the new forming households within Stoke-on-Trent over the next two years, 42.6% 74 provided information on their expected housing costs and 21.9% and 23.7% provided income and savings information. In all, 7.5% (106 new forming households) expected to have housing costs below £160 per month, 24.1% (340 new forming households) had income below £650 per month and 62.7% (946 new forming households) had savings below £2,000. 10.3 If income and savings information is looked at for new forming households within Stoke-on- Trent, then 30.1% (337 over two years, 168 annually) had incomes below £650 per month and 65.7% (735 over two years, 367 annually) had savings below £2,000. 10.4 Of the 5,027 existing households planning to move and wanting to stay within Stoke-on- Trent over the next two years, 3,137 want to move because their current home is not adequate for their needs. Of these, 37.5% (1,175 over two years, 587 annually), had incomes below £650 per month and 77.1% (2,418 over two years, 1209 annually) had savings below £2,000. 10.5 This implies a total of 1,512 households (756 annually) unable to afford a mortgage to buy an entry-level property of £40,000. 3,153 households (1,576 annually) who want to move to a new home within Stoke-on-Trent do not have sufficient savings to reach a £2,000 deposit on a property of £40,000.

Table IX-17 Housing need Housing need groups Nos. Percen Annual over t 2 yrs All new forming households 1408 Expected housing costs below £160 per month 106 7.5 Monthly net income below £650 per month 340 24.1 Savings below £2,000 946 67.2 New forming households within City 1118 Monthly net income below £650 per month 337 30.1 168 Savings below £2,000 735 65.7 367 Existing movers within City 5027 Existing movers within City - current home inadequate 3137 Monthly net income below £650 per month 1175 37.5 587 Savings below £2,000 2418 77.1 1209

75

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

XIIIX MODELLING & ADDRESSING HOUSING NEEDS

1. Introduction 1.1 The guidance issued by DETR in the summer of 2000 provides a model for predicting housing need in a local authority district.53 1.2 This model can be built using a number of different data sources, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. 1.3 Analysis of a number of data sources has been conducted to build the predictive housing needs model. These data sources include: ; 2004 Housing Needs Study ; Housing Investment Programme 2003 ; 2001 Census ; Household projections ; Land Registry data ; Data from local estate agents on rents and sales ; National Housing Federation’s CORE system

2. The needs assessment model 2.1 Table X-1 presents the basic needs assessment model recommended by ODPM. Need and 76 supply are expressed as annual flows, that is, the number of units per year, over the strategy period (e.g. 3-5 years). A flow is a count of households or dwellings that change status over a period of time such as the number of new households forming, or the number of council housing re-lets. 2.2 There are three stages in the model. The first stage is to calculate the backlog of housing need that needs to be addressed and to identify the rate at which the backlog should be reduced. Usually the policy assumption is that the backlog should be reduced over five years, therefore the rate of reduction is 20% per year (B). The second stage is to identify the newly arising need that is being created (N) and is added to the backlog. The third stage is to calculate the supply available to meet that need. 2.3 The model then adds the backlog need to the newly arising need and subtracts the supply (S) to get the overall shortfall or surplus housing need. 2.4 The model can be summarised as: (B + N) – S = Need where B = backlog of need, N = newly arising need and S = supply.

53 Bramley, G., Pawson H. with Parker, J., Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice, DETR, 2000

Table X-1 Basic Needs Assessment Model: Stages and Sources54

Stage in Calculation Data Sources B: BACKLOG OF EXISTING NEED 1. Backlog need existing HN Survey households with unsuitability problems households HC Survey households with serious condition problems HR (administrative) existing applicants (households) with needs (including transfers) 2. minus cases where in-situ HN Survey preferences and severity/type data solution most appropriate or HC Survey preferences and severity/type data don’t want social housing HR (administrative) estimate for insurance/deadwood cases 3. times proportion unable to HN Survey incomes vs. house prices/rents afford to buy or rent in HC Survey incomes vs. house prices/rents market HR (administrative) incomes (if asked, or proxies) CORE incomes information new tenants 4. plus Backlog (non- Priority homeless in temporary accommodation households) Hostel move-on requirements 5. equals total Backlog need (1-2) x 3 +4 6. times quota to reduce Policy judgement (standard assumption 20%) backlog progressively 7. equals annual need to 5 x 6 (carry to line 18) reduce Backlog N: NEWLY ARISING NEED 8. New household formation DETR Household Projections (gross, p.a.) Census or Current Population x Propensities 77 HN Survey potential households/period HN Survey recent moves not previous households 9. times proportion unable to HN Survey incomes of potential households or recent new buy or rent in market households vs. house prices/market rents HR* new applicants (lodgers) net of deletions and those with higher incomes National survey tenure propensities Census etc income proxies vs. house prices 10. plus ex-institutional Community Care plans population moving into community 11. plus existing households HR* new applicants (existing households) with priority need net of falling into priority need deletions Direct re-housing priority cases outside normal housing register (e.g. decants, medical, emergency, referrals, mobility) 12. plus in-migrant households HN Survey recent migrants profile unable to afford market HR data on origins of applicants housing Mobility, key worker and other direct allocations to in-movers 13. equals Newly arising need 8x9+10+11+12 (carry forward to line 18)

54 Bramley, G., Pawson H. with Parker, J., Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice, DETR, 2000

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

S: SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS 14. Supply of social re-lets Lettings/voids system: gross re-lets (terminations), including both p.a. LA and RSLs CORE data for RSLs 15. minus increased vacancies Lettings/voids system & units taken out of Development programmes of LAs & RSLs management 16. plus committed units of Development programmes of LA & RSLs, including conversions, new affordable supply p.a. LCHO 17. equals affordable supply 14-15+16 (carry forward to line 18) 18. Overall shortfall/surplus 7+13-17 * Housing Register (HR) applicants are taken to include transfer and nomination requests, homeless applicants and local RSL lists. HN = ‘Housing Needs’ household survey; HC = ‘House Condition survey; HR = ‘Housing Register’ or waiting list. RSL = ‘Registered Social Landlord’; LCHO = ‘Low Cost Home Ownership’, including shared ownership; ‘CORE’ = Continuous Recording System for new RSL lettings/tenants. 3.12.5 Assessing housing needs is as much an art as a science. There is considerable room for interpretation and assumption within the government model and this needs to be noted when considering the data. It should also be borne in mind that the model is a statistical tool and should be considered alongside the actual experience of housing need as represented by housing register data, homelessness applications and house price information, which in itself is an indicator of demand as against supply of housing. 2.6 For many stages of the model there may be more than one data source. This can be useful for validation purposes, but choosing the appropriate source may be a matter of judgement. For example, the housing register may well under-estimate need as not 78 everyone in need will necessarily register. Also, the way in which housing officers’ knowledge of supply influences applicants’ choices creates a bias towards what is available as opposed to what is needed or desired. 2.7 The model is designed to assess the annual number of affordable housing units required to meet existing and new need, set against projected supply. Bramley et al (2000) describe it as “an annual flow assessment for the affordable/social housing sector”.55 2.8 Outside’s housing needs model is a dynamic tool for predicting housing need in a district, borough or city. The model is built in Excel and what is shown here is a snapshot at the moment this report is published. The aim is that this model is updated annually or as information is known to change; e.g. rises in house prices or changes in new build or lettings. The output from the model is shown in Table X-2. The model shows the annual overall shortfall or surplus in supply to meet housing need to provide a forecast for the next five years.

55 Bramley et al, DETR, 2000, p26

Table X-2 Housing needs of Stoke-on-Trent

79

3. Implications for the future housing market 3.1 Although the Housing Needs Model suggests a surplus of affordable housing for Stoke-on- Trent of 988 dwellings, this needs to be set in the context of what is planned for the next eighteen years to restructure the local housing market. 3.2 As stated earlier in this report, private sector unfitness and non-decency levels in Stoke-on- Trent are significantly above national levels, whilst in the Pathfinder area the picture is even worse with private sector unfitness of 17.3% and non-decency levels of 76.7%. Similarly, void levels in the Pathfinder area at 9% are significantly above the City-wide rate and some three times the vacancy rate which would occur in a healthy housing market. These characteristics of Stoke-on-Trent’s housing market are reflected in the Housing Needs Study findings of surpluses in terraces and flats within the City and this picture in relation to private sector housing contrasts starkly with the current healthy demand of social housing.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

3.3 The Market Renewal Prospectus for North Staffordshire56 proposes radical action to restructure the local housing market, not the least of which is the clearance of 14,500 properties with 12,500 new homes being built over an 18-year period. On the basis of a detailed assessment of housing needs of households most likely to be affected by future clearance programmes, the Prospectus suggests an affordable housing re-provision rate of 40% in respect of new homes to be built, which equates to 5,000 new affordable homes. 3.4 Moreover, Renew North Staffordshire’s Housing Interventions Paper (submitted to ODPM in May 2004) proposes that 27% of new build should be low cost home ownership (equivalent to 3,375 dwellings) and that there will be 1,800 new units of social housing. This equates to a total of 5,175 new affordable homes over the Pathfinder intervention period. This is just over the 40% proposed in the Prospectus. 3.5 The need to reduce the housing stock across Stoke-on-Trent is confirmed by this study. As explained earlier in this report, the picture is however one of a dynamic housing market with significant interventions planned in the Pathfinder area in future years, to provide new and refurbished homes in a range of values, sizes and types better suited to the aspirations and needs of local communities. In such circumstances, and given current trends in house prices set against the City’s low wage economy and household characteristics, affordable provision will remain a cornerstone of planned new development in key intervention areas in Stoke-on-Trent in future years. 3.6 In addition there is evidence that suggests that the picture in Stoke-on-Trent could change quite rapidly. Information set out above (see Chapter II, Table II-5) shows that house prices in the City, particularly for terraced houses, which are the prime point of entry into the local housing market, are rising steeply and faster than for England & Wales. The reduction in stock that the Market Renewal Pathfinder will implement, coupled with the City’s low wage economy, means that it is possible that in the not too distant future the surplus presented here could turn into a shortage of housing at prices that are affordable for local 80 residents. Even if all other factors were not to change, should the cost of the entry-level home rise to £50,000, then the overall surplus of affordable housing could fall to 491 and should it rise to £60,000 then the surplus could fall to as low as 127. 3.7 The "surplus of affordable housing" suggested by the Housing Needs Model should therefore be qualified in the Stoke-on-Trent context. This is for four reasons: (i) It is reasonable to assume that the dwellings demolished in the City over this period are likely to be at the lower end of the housing market; those owner-occupied and privately rented dwellings which are currently occupied by residents whose income is close to the margin of affordability. The market dwellings constructed as replacements may well not be within the range of affordability of this group. For some of these residents there will be further issues of special need that will make it impractical for them to return to market housing. At the same time the ongoing reduction in building outside the urban area is likely to increase the demand for housing in the City from those who would have traditionally been the buyers of housing in the surrounding areas, placing further pressure on affordability. (ii) There is evidence that the government’s approach to calculating the need for affordable housing is less applicable in low demand housing markets than in high- pressure markets. The model was in part designed to meet the requirement for target setting for high-pressured markets in London and the South East and becomes increasingly less useful in areas where demand is not necessarily as buoyant. The outcome is that it may be a better tool for predicting shortfalls than surpluses. (iii) The model assumes an income threshold above which, if a household could afford to buy, it would be excluded from council housing. However Stoke-on-Trent does not

56 Market Renewal Prospectus, Renew North Staffordshire, March 2004

have such a criteria and the evidence elsewhere in the report confirms there is a demand for the social housing. Therefore the possibility of a real surplus on this scale is diminished. (iv) It is also the case that by modelling housing needs at a citywide level, the differences between areas are masked. It is perfectly possible that there are pockets of the City that are not affordable to local residents and that there is already a shortage of suitable housing. 3.8 For all the above reasons, it is important that the Housing Needs Model is updated annually to reflect changing housing market conditions and not least the impact of the implementation of the Housing Market Renewal Initiative. This will not only enable monitoring of progress towards a more sustainable and balanced housing market, but also ensure that policy decisions are based upon the best available information. 3.9 Similarly, in the Areas of Major Intervention envisaged in the Prospectus, the findings of detailed household surveys will ensure the housing re-provision reflects the needs and aspirations of local communities, particularly in relation to an appropriate level of affordable housing. 3.10 Finally, the Housing Needs Study also clearly demonstrates the extent of unmet special needs in the City, particularly in relation to some of the City’s most vulnerable households. Affordable housing provision and re-provision will continue to be required to address this need, both within and outside the Pathfinder area.

81

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc

82

XIVXI APPENDICES

1. Ward profiles

2. Table showing pattern of movement between areas over last two years

2.3. Letter of introduction

4. Face-to-face interview schedule

83

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\final report v4.3.doc APPENDIX 1

STOKE-ON-TRENT HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY WARD PROFILES

1. Introduction 1.1 The following report sets out some of the key issues from the Housing Needs Study by ward. It is not a comprehensive report of the findings, but a complementary document to the main report. 1.2 The majority of the tables presented are straight from the SPSS output. Consequently they may not always correspond directly to the information in the main report due to the way that SPSS handles cross-tabulations; in the main report these differences are ironed out through further manipulation in Excel. 1.3 As the response analysis in the Chapter I shows, there were 3,112 responses analysed in the housing needs survey, which amounts to 3.0% of the total resident households in Stoke-on- Trent (103,196 households according to the Census 2001). Table 1 below shows the number and distribution of responses by local authority ward compared with the 2001 Census ward distribution. Table 1 Survey response compared to household distribution in 2001 Census Housing Needs Survey 2001 Census Ward Number % % Abbey Green 130 4.2 4.7 Bentilee & Townsend 150 4.8 5.0 Berryhill & Hanley East 130 4.2 4.9 Blurton 232 7.5 4.9 Burslem North 150 4.8 5.1 Burslem South 191 6.1 5.5 Chell & Packmoor 136 4.4 4.6 East Valley 152 4.9 4.8 Fenton 140 4.5 5.4 Hanley West & Shelton 135 4.3 4.0 Hartshill &Penkhull 139 4.5 5.3 Longton North 279 9.0 5.4 Longton South 162 5.2 5.4 Meir Park & Sandon 123 4.0 5.1 Northwood & Birches Head 158 5.1 5.2 Norton & Bradeley 127 4.1 4.6 Stoke and Trent Vale 114 3.7 5.4 Trentham & Handford 187 6.0 4.6 Tunstall 162 5.2 5.3 Weston & Meir North 115 3.7 5.1 Total 3112 100.0 100.0

2. Tenure 2.1 Table 2 shows the breakdown of tenure by ward. 2.2 67.7% of Stoke-on-Trent households are owner-occupiers (i.e. either own their home outright or own it with a mortgage or loan), 21.4% rent from the Council and 3.4% rent from a housing association.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

2.3 However, Bentilee and Townsend have a significantly lower level of owner-occupation (32.4%) and the highest rate either renting from the council (49.3%) or from a housing association (12.8%). In comparison, in Trentham and Handford 94.0% of households are in owner-occupation and only 1.6% of rent from the Council and 0.6% rent from a housing association. 2.4 15.8% of households in Stoke and Tent Vale rent privately, compared to only 0.7% in Chell and Packmoor. In Stoke-on-Trent 3.4% of households overall are in private renting.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

Table 2 Tenure by ward

Ward by tenure

% within WARDCODE Does your household own or rent the accommodation? Pay part rent Rent from a and part Rent from a Rent from a Rent from an relative or Own with a mortgage housing private employer or friend of a mortgage (shared Rent from association, landlord or a household household Live here Own outright or loan ownership) the Council etc. letting agency member member rent free Other Don't know Total Abbey Green 35.9% 23.5% .8% 32.0% 4.7% 1.6% 1.6% 100.0% Bentilee & Townsend 19.6% 12.8% .7% 49.3% 12.8% 4.0% .7% 100.0% Berryhill & Hanley East 37.7% 22.3% 23.1% 8.5% 6.9% .8% .8% 100.0% Blurton 33.6% 19.8% 43.5% 1.7% 1.3% 100.0% Burslem North 32.9% 28.2% 27.5% .7% 9.4% 1.3% 100.0% Burslem South 42.1% 30.0% .5% 13.7% 1.0% 7.4% 1.0% 3.7% .5% 100.0% Chell & Packmoor 30.9% 27.9% 35.3% 4.4% .7% .7% 100.0% East Valley 50.7% 31.6% 13.2% 3.3% .6% .6% 100.0% Fenton 39.7% 42.6% 9.6% 2.2% 5.9% 100.0% Hanley West & Shelton 41.7% 25.0% .7% 16.7% 1.5% 10.6% .7% 1.5% 1.5% 100.0% Hartshill & Penkhull 32.6% 42.0% 8.7% 2.9% 12.3% .7% .7% 100.0% Longton North 30.6% 44.3% .4% 17.3% 1.5% 4.8% .7% .4% 100.0% Longton South 45.3% 26.1% 16.8% 2.5% 9.3% 100.0% Meir Park & Sandon 37.6% 30.8% 29.9% 1.7% 100.0% Northwood & Birches Head 44.6% 33.8% 16.6% .6% 1.3% .6% 1.3% .6% .6% 100.0% Norton & Bradeley 35.4% 30.7% 20.5% 4.7% 8.7% 100.0% Stoke & Trent Vale 27.2% 34.2% 19.3% 3.5% 15.8% 100.0% Trentham & Handford 50.3% 43.7% 1.6% .6% 3.3% .6% 100.0% Tunstall 34.2% 32.9% 18.0% 3.1% 11.2% .6% 100.0% Weston & Meir North 34.8% 33.0% 17.4% 12.2% 2.6% 100.0% Total 36.8% 30.9% .1% 21.4% 3.4% 6.2% .0% .2% .5% .2% .3% 100.0%

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

3. Property type 3.1 7.0% of Stoke-on-Trent dwellings are detached. This ranges from 31.7% in Meir Park & Sandon to none in Stoke & Trent Vale. 3.2 Blurton had the most semi-detached properties (81.5%) and Hanley West and Shelton had the least amount (15.0%); for Stoke-on-Trent the proportion was 43.9%. 3.3 70.0% of dwellings in Hanley West and Shelton were terraced houses; if terraced bungalows are included the proportion rises to 74.5%. In addition, in Hanley West and Stanton only 3.0% of dwellings were detached. 3.4 Bungalows make up a significantly larger proportion of the housing stock in Weston & Meir North and Trentham & Handford; 28.6% and 28.5% respectively. Bungalows in these areas are significantly higher than for Stoke-on-Trent overall (12.4%). 3.5 The areas with the highest proportion of purpose-built flats and apartments were Berryhill and Hanley East. In Fenton and Longton South there were no recorded households in purpose-built flats and apartments and in Chell and Packmore there were very few (0.7%). 3.6 Table 3 shows property type by ward.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

Table 3 Property type by ward

% within WARDCODE What type of accommodation does your household occupy? Part of a In a Terraced Terraced converted or commercial A caravan or Semi- (including Semi- (including In a shared house building, e.g. other mobile Detached detached end-terrace) Detached detached end-terrace) purpose-built (includes office, hotel or temporary house house house bungalow bungalow bungalow flat/apartment bed-sits) or shop structure Total Abbey Green 6.2% 60.5% 17.8% 6.2% 5.4% 2.3% 1.5% 100.0% Bentilee & Townsend 3.4% 58.4% 11.4% 2.0% 10.1% 2.7% 10.7% .7% .7% 100.0% Berryhill & Hanley East .8% 31.8% 39.5% 1.5% 7.8% 3.9% 14.0% .8% 100.0% Blurton .4% 81.5% 8.2% 1.3% .4% 7.8% .4% 100.0% Burslem North 4.0% 42.9% 46.3% .7% 2.0% .7% 3.3% 100.0% Burslem South 1.6% 31.5% 59.2% 2.2% 1.1% 1.6% 2.7% 100.0% Chell & Packmoor 19.1% 56.6% 7.4% 7.4% 8.1% .7% .7% 100.0% East Valley 5.9% 53.9% 24.3% 7.9% 1.3% 4.0% 2.6% 100.0% Fenton .7% 27.3% 54.7% 4.3% 9.4% 2.9% .7% 100.0% Hanley West & Shelton 3.0% 15.0% 70.0% 4.5% 6.8% .7% 100.0% Hartshill & Penkhull 9.3% 36.0% 44.6% 1.4% 1.4% 7.2% 100.0% Longton North 5.7% 49.8% 25.4% 11.1% 2.9% 3.2% 1.1% .7% 100.0% Longton South 4.3% 25.3% 40.7% 1.2% 10.5% 17.3% .6% 100.0% Meir Park & Sandon 31.7% 49.6% 13.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 100.0% Northwood & Birches Head 2.5% 33.5% 42.4% 3.8% 4.4% 3.2% 9.5% .6% 100.0% Norton & Bradeley 10.2% 54.3% 18.1% 6.3% 5.5% .8% 4.7% 100.0% Stoke & Trent Vale 40.4% 56.1% .9% 2.6% 100.0% Trentham & Handford 19.9% 48.9% .5% 5.4% 22.6% .5% 2.1% 100.0% Tunstall 6.2% 28.7% 51.2% 3.1% 1.9% 4.4% 3.7% .6% 100.0% Weston & Meir North 6.1% 53.9% 5.2% 13.0% 13.9% 1.7% 6.1% 100.0% Total 7.0% 43.9% 32.1% 3.9% 5.6% 2.9% 4.4% .1% .2% .0% 100.0%

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

4. Household type 4.1 Table 4 shows the different household types by ward. 4.2 In Blurton 18.4% of households were made up of single parent families, which is significantly higher than the total for Stoke-on-Trent (9.4%). In Trentham and Handford there were the least amount of single parent households (3.7%). 4.3 Single people living with other adults were most common in Hanley West and Shelton (9.9%), and least common in Meir Park and Sandon, compared to 3.1% for Stoke-on-Trent overall. Single person households under 60 years old made up 7.1% of Stoke-on-Trent households, ranging from 14.2% in Trentham and Handford to 3.2% in Burslem South. Blurton had the highest incidence of single person households over 60 (22.4%), closely followed by Longton South (22.3%). This compares to only 8.8% in Chell and Packmore. 4.4 Single person households of any age were most common in Trentham and Handford (32.7%) and least common in Norton and Bradeley (14.9%). This compares to only 22.3% in Stoke- on-Trent overall. 4.5 Almost half of households in Northwood and Birches Head (46.8%) consisted of a couple with dependant children, whereas the amount for Stoke-on-Trent overall was 30.2%. In Fenton there were the least amount of households with dependent children (17.9%). Longton South had notably more households with dependent children and other adults compared to other wards (5.7%). The ward with the highest amount of households made up of a couple with non-dependant children with or without other adults was Trentham and Handford (34.2%), whereas the area with the least amount was Northwood and Birches Head (1.9%).

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

Table 4 Household types by ward

% within WARDCODE

Which of the following best describes your household? 60 years old Total old child Other children children other adults & other adults children & others child & other adults children & other adults Couple with no children Couple with non-dependent Couple with non-dependent Single person with other adults Single person over Couple with no children, but with Sinlge person less than 60 years Couple with at least 1 dependent Couple with at least 1 dependent Single parent +1 dependent child Single parent +1 dependent child Single parent with non-dependent Single parent with non-dependent Abbey Green 5.4% .8% 1.5% 3.8% 14.6% 32.3% 1.5% 3.8% 36.2% 100.0% Bentilee & Townsend 11.4% .7% 1.4% 4.2% 9.9% 15.6% 27.0% .7% 4.2% .7% 24.1% 100.0% Berryhill & Hanley East 7.5% .8% 3.3% 10.8% 20.8% 24.2% .8% 3.3% .8% 2.5% 25.0% 100.0% Blurton 15.5% .4% 2.1% .4% 2.6% 5.2% 22.4% 18.1% 3.5% 29.3% .4% 100.0% Burslem North 8.2% .7% 3.4% 5.4% 16.3% 27.9% 1.4% 6.1% .7% 1.4% 28.6% 100.0% Burslem South 11.6% .5% 1.6% 4.8% 3.2% 12.7% 32.8% 1.6% 1.1% 30.2% 100.0% Chell & Packmoor 11.0% .7% 2.2% 2.2% 8.1% 8.8% 29.4% .7% 5.1% 31.6% 100.0% East Valley 4.6% .6% 4.6% 4.0% 16.5% 30.3% .6% 6.6% .6% 1.3% 30.3% 100.0% Fenton 5.8% .7% 4.3% 3.6% 12.2% 16.5% 1.4% 7.2% 1.4% 42.4% 4.3% 100.0% Hanley West & Shelton 3.8% .7% 9.9% 9.1% 18.9% 28.0% .7% 2.3% 1.5% 24.3% .7% 100.0% Hartshill & Penkhull 4.3% .7% 3.6% 12.9% 12.2% 28.8% .7% 3.6% 33.1% 100.0% Longton North 7.2% .4% 2.1% 2.5% 7.2% 11.1% 31.5% .4% 5.0% .4% .4% 31.5% .4% 100.0% Longton South 7.0% .6% .6% .6% 5.1% 22.3% 25.5% 5.7% 3.8% .6% 27.4% .6% 100.0% Meir Park & Sandon 9.8% 2.5% 2.5% .8% 4.9% 13.9% 37.7% .8% 4.9% .8% 16.4% 4.9% 100.0% Northwood & Birches Head 5.7% 1.9% 4.4% 13.9% 46.8% 1.9% .6% 24.0% .6% 100.0% Norton & Bradeley 7.9% 2.4% 2.4% 3.2% 5.5% 9.4% 22.0% 2.4% 4.7% 40.1% 100.0% Stoke & Trent Vale 5.3% 1.8% 4.4% 10.5% 17.5% 33.3% 5.3% .9% 21.0% 100.0% Trentham & Handford 1.1% 2.1% .5% 2.1% 7.5% 13.9% 29.4% .5% 8.6% 1.6% 32.6% 100.0% Tunstall 6.2% .6% 2.5% 14.2% 18.5% 27.8% .6% 5.6% 24.1% 100.0% Weston & Meir North 10.4% 4.4% .9% 1.7% 6.1% 12.2% 33.0% .9% 3.5% .9% .9% 24.4% .9% 100.0% Total 7.5% .5% 1.3% .1% 3.1% 7.1% 15.2% 29.2% 1.0% 4.5% .2% .7% 28.8% .7% 100.0%

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

5. Ethnicity 5.1 100.0% of Household Reference Persons (HRP) in Abbey Green, Bentilee and Townsend, Blurton, and Norton and Bradeley were White. High proportions of households in East Valley (99.4%), Meir Park and Sandon (99.2%), and Weston and Meir North (99.1%) were also White. 96.4% of Stoke-on-Trent households were White. 5.2 In Longton South 17.3% of HRP were Asian or Asian British, which is considerably higher than in Stoke-on-Trent overall where there were 2.8% of responses from this ethnic group. Burslem South (8.4%), Hanley West and Shelton (7.5%) and Tunstall (7.4%) also had a higher proportion of HRP who were Asian or Asian British. Abbey Green, Bentilee and Townsend, Blurton, Fenton, Norton and Bradeley, and Weston and Meir North had no responses from this ethnic group. 5.3 Ethnicity by ward is shown in Table 5.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc

APPENDIX 1

Table 5 Ethnicity by ward

Ward by Ethnicity

% within WARDCODE Ethnicity groups Asian/Asian Black/Black White Mixed British British Chinese/other Total Abbey Green 100.0% 100.0% Bentilee & Townsend 100.0% 100.0% Berryhill & Hanley East 96.2% 3.1% .8% 100.0% Blurton 100.0% 100.0% Burslem North 98.0% .7% 1.3% 100.0% Burslem South 89.5% 1.0% 8.4% .5% .5% 100.0% Chell & Packmoor 99.3% .7% 100.0% East Valley 99.4% .6% 100.0% Fenton 97.9% .7% 1.4% 100.0% Hanley West & Shelton 89.6% 7.5% 2.2% .7% 100.0% Hartshill & Penkhull 95.0% 1.4% 2.9% .7% 100.0% Longton North 98.9% 1.1% 100.0% Longton South 82.7% 17.3% 100.0% Meir Park & Sandon 99.2% .8% 100.0% Northwood & Birches 97.5% 1.9% .6% 100.0% Head Norton & Bradeley 100.0% 100.0% Stoke & Trent Vale 97.4% .9% 1.8% 100.0% Trentham & Handford 97.9% .5% 1.1% .5% 100.0% Tunstall 91.9% 7.4% .6% 100.0% Weston & Meir North 99.1% .9% 100.0% Total 96.4% .3% 2.8% .3% .2% 100.0%

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

6. Satisfaction with area 6.1 86.8% of respondents from Stoke-on-Trent were either very satisfied or satisfied with the area that they were living in. However in Abbey Green (96.1%), East Valley (98.0%) and Northwood and Birches Head (95%) respondents who were satisfied or very satisfied were notably higher. Notably less respondents from Norton and Bradeley (79.2%), Stoke and Trent Vale (78.7%), Tunstall (77.3%) and Weston and Meir North (78.3) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the area that they were living in. 6.2 6.3% of respondents from Stoke-on-Trent in general were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the area that they were living in. However there were no respondents from Abbey Green, Longton North, Northwood & Birches Head and Trentham & Handford who were very dissatisfied with the area that they were living in. Wards where people were most dissatisfied with the area were Bentilee and Townsend (10.7%), Fenton (11.4%), Hartshill and Penkhull (10.7%) and Tunstall (11.1%). 6.3 Table 6 shows households’ satisfaction with the area they live in.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

Table 6 Satisfaction by ward

Ward by satisfaction with the area you live in

% within WARDCODE How satisfied are you with the area you live in? Neither satisfied nor Very Very satisfied Satisfied dissatisfied Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Total Abbey Green 70.5% 25.6% 3.1% .8% 100.0% Bentilee & Townsend 54.0% 30.7% 4.7% 8.0% 2.7% 100.0% Berryhill & Hanley East 63.8% 25.4% 4.6% 4.6% 1.5% 100.0% Blurton 34.1% 55.6% 6.5% 1.7% 2.2% 100.0% Burslem North 30.4% 54.0% 8.1% 6.1% 1.4% 100.0% Burslem South 47.1% 41.9% 5.8% 2.6% 2.6% 100.0% Chell & Packmoor 41.9% 50.0% 5.1% .7% 1.5% .7% 100.0% East Valley 61.2% 36.8% 1.3% .6% 100.0% Fenton 64.3% 21.4% 2.1% 7.1% 4.3% .7% 100.0% Hanley West & Shelton 46.7% 40.0% 7.4% 3.7% 2.2% 100.0% Hartshill & Penkhull 33.8% 42.5% 11.5% 9.3% 1.4% 1.4% 100.0% Longton North 49.6% 42.8% 3.6% 4.0% 100.0% Longton South 61.7% 27.1% 6.8% 4.3% 100.0% Meir Park & Sandon 49.6% 35.0% 9.7% 3.2% 2.4% 100.0% Northwood & Birches 66.5% 28.5% 3.2% 1.9% 100.0% Head Norton & Bradeley 22.4% 56.8% 8.8% 8.0% 4.0% 100.0% Stoke & Trent Vale 22.1% 56.6% 11.5% 8.8% .9% 100.0% Trentham & Handford 58.8% 33.2% 4.8% 3.2% 100.0% Tunstall 14.8% 62.4% 11.7% 9.9% 1.2% 100.0% Weston & Meir North 26.1% 52.2% 15.7% 4.4% 1.7% 100.0% Total 45.9% 40.9% 6.8% 4.8% 1.5% .1% 100.0%

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

7. Adequacy of current home 7.1 In Tunstall only 2.5% of households said that their home was not adequate for the needs of their household. However households in Weston and Meir North (10.0%) and Burslem South (9.0%) were most likely to report that their home was not adequate for the needs of the households. Table 7 Adequacy of current home by ward

Ward by adequacy of current home

% within WARDCODE Do you think that your home is adequate for the needs of your household? Yes No Total Abbey Green 96.9% 3.1% 100.0% Bentilee & Townsend 93.9% 6.1% 100.0% Berryhill & Hanley East 93.0% 7.0% 100.0% Blurton 94.3% 5.7% 100.0% Burslem North 94.6% 5.4% 100.0% Burslem South 91.0% 9.0% 100.0% Chell & Packmoor 93.4% 6.6% 100.0% East Valley 96.0% 4.0% 100.0% Fenton 94.9% 5.1% 100.0% Hanley West & Shelton 94.8% 5.2% 100.0% Hartshill & Penkhull 92.8% 7.2% 100.0% Longton North 94.9% 5.1% 100.0% Longton South 91.2% 8.8% 100.0% Meir Park & Sandon 93.5% 6.5% 100.0% Northwood & Birches Head 95.5% 4.5% 100.0% Norton & Bradeley 94.4% 5.6% 100.0% Stoke & Trent Vale 92.1% 7.9% 100.0% Trentham & Handford 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% Tunstall 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Weston & Meir North 90.9% 9.1% 100.0% Total 94.0% 6.0% 100.0%

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

8. Households with particular needs by area 8.1 In Stoke-on-Trent there are 34.8% of households with at least one member who has particular needs. However this is significantly higher in Blurton and Norton and Bradeley where 50.4% and 47.2% of households respectively have at least one person with particular needs. The ward of Northwood and Birches Head has the lowest number of households with at least one person with particular needs at 22.8%. 8.2 Out of the households in Blurton 44.0% have one person with particular needs and 6.5% have two people with particular needs. In Norton and Bradeley there are 36.2% of households with one person, 10.2% with two people and 0.8% with three people who have particular needs. 8.3 Out of the households in Northwood and Birches Head 19.0% have one person with particular needs and 3.8% have two people who have particular needs. 8.4 In Stoke-on-Trent overall 5.9% of households have two or more members with particular needs. In Norton and Bradley 11.0% of households have more than one member with particular needs. Tunstall and Chell & Packmoor also had higher than average proportions of households with more than one member with particular needs at 9.9% and 9.6% respectively. Fenton had only 0.7% of households with more than one member with particular needs.

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 1

Table 8 Households with at least one member with particular needs Households with particular needs At least one % No members %Total% member with with LLTI LLTI Ward Abbey Green 1297 26.9% 3520 73.1% 4817 100.0% Bentilee & Townsend 2084 40.0% 3127 60.0% 5211 100.0% Berryhill & Hanley East 1814 36.2% 3203 63.8% 5017 100.0% Blurton 2556 50.4% 2513 49.6% 5069 100.0% Burslem North 1639 31.3% 3593 68.7% 5232 100.0% Burslem South 1571 27.7% 4091 72.3% 5662 100.0% Chell & Packmoor 1972 41.9% 2733 58.1% 4705 100.0% East Valley 1656 33.6% 3279 66.4% 4935 100.0% Fenton 1476 26.4% 4108 73.6% 5584 100.0% Hanley West & Shelton 1033 25.2% 3068 74.8% 4101 100.0% Hartshill & Penkhull 1956 36.0% 3481 64.0% 5437 100.0% Longton North 1769 31.9% 3776 68.1% 5545 100.0% Longton South 1746 31.5% 3800 68.5% 5546 100.0% Meir Park & Sandon 1886 35.8% 3386 64.2% 5272 100.0% Northwood & Birches Head 1213 22.8% 4111 77.2% 5324 100.0% Norton & Bradeley 2230 47.2% 2490 52.8% 4720 100.0% Stoke & Trent Vale 2500 44.7% 3088 55.3% 5588 100.0% Trentham & Handford 1332 27.8% 3459 72.2% 4791 100.0% Tunstall 2346 43.2% 3084 56.8% 5430 100.0% Weston & Meir North 1858 35.6% 3354 64.4% 5212 100.0% Total 35934 34.8% 67264 65.2% 103198 100.0%

print: 1-Mar-05 ref: y:\stoke-on-trent cd\appendix 1 ward tables.doc APPENDIX 2

Pattern of movement between areas Same area (xtab qb13 by wardcode layered by qb12grp) Outside the area Current address Length of stay <=2 yrs Abbey Green Bentilee & Townsend & Berryhill Hanley East Blurton Burslem North Burslem South & Chell Packmoor Valley East Fenton Hanley West & Shelton & Hartshill Penkhull Longton North Longton South Meir Park & Sandon Northwood & Birches Head Norton & Bradeley Stoke & Trent Vale Trentham & Handford Tunstall Weston & Meir North Total Previous address Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Col % Goldenhill and Sandyford 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 1.6 Tunstall 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 7.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 5.6 8.3 10.3 0.0 31.9 0.0 5.3 Fegg Hayes and Brindley Ford 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Chell Heath 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 11.5 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.4 Burslem and Cobridge 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 56.3 40.6 7.7 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 8.3 0.0 0.0 6.4 3.8 7.3 Longport and Middleport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Norton and Ball Green 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.8 5.6 37.5 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.0 Smallthorne and Sneyd Green 7.1 0.0 4.2 0.0 3.1 0.0 7.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 12.5 0.0 4.2 2.1 0.0 2.8 Hanley, Shelton and Etruria 14.3 16.1 29.2 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 6.7 0.0 28.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 3.8 38.9 8.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 3.8 7.7 Northwood and Birches Head 14.3 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 Abbey Hulton and Milton 21.4 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 6.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 Penkhull and Hartshill 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 4.2 2.1 0.0 3.6 Stoke and Trent Vale 7.1 3.2 8.3 2.9 0.0 3.1 7.7 6.7 4.2 11.4 18.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 20.7 16.7 2.1 0.0 6.3 Bentilee and Berryhill 0.0 48.4 20.8 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 5.4 2.3 0.0 3.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 5.0 Fenton and Fenpark 7.1 3.2 12.5 2.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.7 29.2 0.0 2.7 7.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.1 Longton 7.1 3.2 0.0 14.7 3.1 0.0 3.8 0.0 8.3 2.9 2.7 51.2 57.6 7.7 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 9.6 Blurton and Newstead 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.6 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 4.1 Trentham and Hanford 7.1 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 37.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 Meir and Meir Park 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 14.0 15.2 53.8 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 2.1 0.0 5.7 Weston Coyney 0.0 3.2 4.2 2.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.2 4.0 Staffordshire Moorlands (inc.Leek, Biddulph & Cheadle) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 2.9 0.0 4.7 3.0 7.7 0.0 4.2 3.4 8.3 8.5 7.7 3.8 Stafford area (including Stone) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.8 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.9 Newcastle-under-Lyme 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 4.7 3.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 13.8 8.3 10.6 0.0 4.8 Congleton area (including Sandbach) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Crewe and Nantwich area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.5 Manchester 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Elsewhere in the North West 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 4.2 0.0 2.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 8.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 Birmingham 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Elsewhere in the Midlands 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.8 1.2 Elsewhere in the UK 7.1 3.2 8.3 2.9 6.3 6.3 3.8 0.0 16.7 20.0 2.7 4.7 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 6.4 0.0 5.1 Other 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 6.3 11.5 0.0 0.0 8.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 APPENDIX 3 Your Ref: My Ref: SR/KB (S Robinson) Date: 12 January 2004 Direct Dial: (01782) 236494

Housing & Consumer HousingProtection Policy Services Department Unit PO Box 634 Civic Centre, Glebe Street Stoke-on-Trent ST4 1RJ Telephone 01782 234567 Fax 01782 232217 DX 21058 Stoke-on-Trent Minicom 01782 232331 Denise Grant Policy & Strategy Manager Steve Robinson Director of Housing and Consumer Protection

Dear Resident

Housing Needs Survey

Stoke on Trent City Council is carrying out a study of people’s housing needs in the City and as part of this we are interviewing 3,000 households. Your household has been randomly selected to be interviewed and I hope that you will be able to assist us.

Not everyone who has been sent this letter will be visited, but we want to let you know what to expect, should an interviewer call.

The interviewer will have an identity card, which you should ask to see. S/he will call between 19th and 30th January 2004. All the answers you give will be confidential and will not be used to identify you or your household. The independent organisation undertaking the study will be the only people to see the information and will retain it only for as long as is required to ensure all interviews have been conducted properly.

The interview will last no more than thirty minutes and will ask about your current home and neighbourhood, where you have previously lived, the needs of the people in your household and any intentions you may have to move. Your answers will help the Council to develop its housing and planning policies to meet the needs of the local people.

There is nothing you need to do in response to this letter.

If you have any queries about the interview, call Janet Lee-Cowling at Outside Research & Development on 0113 278 5755. If you wish to speak to someone at the Council about the study, call Miss A Williams, Housing and Consumer Protection Department on 01782 236494.

Thank you for your help in this important piece of work for the City.

Yours sincerely

Steve Robinson Director of Housing and Consumer Protection Department

672.(2175(17+286,1*1(('6678'< $

$ :KHUHGR\RXOLYHDWSUHVHQW" *ROGHQKLOODQG6DQG\IRUG   7XQVWDOO  )HJJ+D\HVDQG%ULQGOH\)RUG   &KHOO+HDWK  %XUVOHPDQG&REULGJH  /RQJSRUWDQG0LGGOHSRUW   1RUWRQDQG%DOO*UHHQ   6PDOOWKRUQHDQG6QH\G*UHHQ  +DQOH\6KHOWRQDQG(WUXULD   1RUWKZRRGDQG%LUFKHV+HDG   $EEH\+XOWRQDQG0LOWRQ   3HQNKXOODQG+DUWVKLOO  6WRNHDQG7UHQW9DOH  %HQWLOHHDQG%HUU\KLOO   )HQWRQDQG)HQSDUN  /RQJWRQ   %OXUWRQDQG1HZVWHDG  7UHQWKDPDQG+DQIRUG   0HLUDQG0HLU3DUN   :HVWRQ&R\QH\  

$ 3OHDVHZULWHLQWKHUHVSRQGHQW¶VSRVWFRGHIURPODEHO

$ :KDWW\SHRIDFFRPPRGDWLRQGRHV\RXUKRXVHKROGRFFXS\" $ZKROHKRXVHWKDWLV 'HWDFKHG  6HPLGHWDFKHG  7HUUDFHG LQFOXGLQJHQGWHUUDFH   $ZKROHEXQJDORZWKDWLV 'HWDFKHG  6HPLGHWDFKHG  7HUUDFHG LQFOXGLQJHQGWHUUDFH   $IODWPDLVRQHWWHRUDSDUWPHQWWKDWLV ,QDSXUSRVHEXLOWIODWDSDUWPHQW  3DUWRIDFRQYHUWHGRUVKDUHGKRXVH LQFOXGHVEHGVLWV   ,QDFRPPHUFLDOEXLOGLQJ HJLQDQRIILFHEXLOGLQJ RUKRWHORURYHUDVKRS   0RELOHRUWHPSRUDU\VWUXFWXUH $FDUDYDQRURWKHUPRELOHRUWHPSRUDU\VWUXFWXUH  

 $ ,V\RXUKRXVHKROG¶VDFFRPPRGDWLRQVHOIFRQWDLQHG"

$ :KDWLVWKHORZHVWIORRUOHYHORI\RXUKRXVHKROG¶VOLYLQJDFFRPPRGDWLRQ" %DVHPHQWRUVHPLEDVHPHQW  *URXQGIORRU VWUHHWOHYHO   )LUVWIORRU IORRUDERYHVWUHHWOHYHO   6HFRQGIORRU   7KLUGRUIRXUWKIORRU  )LIWKIORRURUKLJKHU 

$ +RZPDQ\FDUVRUYDQVDUHRZQHGRUDYDLODEOHIRUXVHE\RQHRUPRUHPHPEHUVRI \RXUKRXVHKROG" 2QH   7ZR   7KUHH   )RXURUPRUH  1RQH  

$ 'RHV\RXUKRXVHKROGRZQRUUHQWWKHDFFRPPRGDWLRQ" 2ZQRXWULJKW   2ZQZLWKDPRUWJDJHRUORDQ  3D\SDUWUHQWDQGSDUWPRUWJDJH VKDUHGRZQHUVKLS   5HQWIURPWKH&RXQFLO  5HQWIURPDKRXVLQJDVVRFLDWLRQ+RXVLQJ&RRSHUDWLYH &KDULWDEOH7UXVW5HJLVWHUHG6RFLDO/DQGORUG  5HQWIURPDSULYDWHODQGORUGRUOHWWLQJDJHQF\   5HQWIURPDQHPSOR\HURIDKRXVHKROGPHPEHU  5HQWIURPDUHODWLYHRUIULHQGRIDKRXVHKROGPHPEHU   /LYHKHUHUHQWIUHH   2WKHU  'RQ¶WNQRZ 

$ +RZPDQ\EHGURRPVGR\RXKDYHIRUXVHRQO\E\\RXUKRXVHKROG" :ULWHQXPEHULQER[

$ 'R\RXWKLQNWKDW\RXUKRPHLVDGHTXDWHIRUWKHQHHGVRI\RXUKRXVHKROG"

 $ :K\LVLWQRWDGHTXDWH" 2QO\DVNLIUHVSRQGHQWKDVDQVZHUHG12WR4XHVWLRQ$ 5HDGRXWLIQHFHVVDU\&RGHDOOPHQWLRQHG +RPHWRRVPDOO   +RPHWRRODUJH  +RPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIDQROGHUSHUVRQ  +RPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIDGLVDEOHGSHUVRQ  +RPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIFKLOGUHQ   3RRUTXDOLW\±LQQHHGRIUHSDLUVLPSURYHPHQWV   +RPHWRRFRVWO\WRKHDW  +RPHWRRFRVWO\WRUHSDLU  /DFNRIJDUGHQ  &RVWRIUHQWPRUWJDJH  7RRIDUIURPHPSOR\PHQW   7RRIDUIURPUHODWLYHV  7RRIDUIURPVFKRROV   3RRUDFFHVVWRSXEOLFWUDQVSRUW  3RRUTXDOLW\RIQHLJKERXUKRRGHQYLURQPHQW   3RRUDFFHVVWRDPHQLWLHV HJVKRSVGRFWRUVVFKRROV   ,QDGHTXDWHFDUSDUNLQJ   2WKHU 

$ 'R\RXRUDQ\PHPEHURI\RXUKRXVHKROGRZQDQRWKHUGZHOOLQJZLWKLQWKH&LW\RI 6WRNH"

 % 3UHYLRXVKRXVLQJFLUFXPVWDQFHV

% +RZORQJKDYH\RXOLYHGDW\RXUSUHVHQWDGGUHVV" /HVVWKDQPRQWKV  PRQWKVXSWR\HDU  \HDUV  \HDUV  \HDUV  2YHU\HDUV  

% :KHUHGLG\RXOLYHSULRUWRPRYLQJKHUH" -XVWUHDGRXWWKHQXPEHUEHVLGHWKHDSSURSULDWHDQVZHU *ROGHQKLOODQG6DQG\IRUG   7XQVWDOO  )HJJ+D\HVDQG%ULQGOH\)RUG   &KHOO+HDWK  %XUVOHPDQG&REULGJH  /RQJSRUWDQG0LGGOHSRUW   1RUWRQDQG%DOO*UHHQ   6PDOOWKRUQHDQG6QH\G*UHHQ  +DQOH\6KHOWRQDQG(WUXULD   1RUWKZRRGDQG%LUFKHV+HDG   $EEH\+XOWRQDQG0LOWRQ   3HQNKXOODQG+DUWVKLOO  6WRNHDQG7UHQW9DOH  %HQWLOHHDQG%HUU\KLOO   )HQWRQDQG)HQSDUN  /RQJWRQ   %OXUWRQDQG1HZVWHDG  7UHQWKDPDQG+DQIRUG   0HLUDQG0HLU3DUN   :HVWRQ&R\QH\  

6WDIIRUGVKLUH0RRUODQGV LQFOXGLQJ/HHN%LGGXOSK &KHDGOH   6WDIIRUGDUHD LQFOXGLQJ6WRQH   1HZFDVWOHXQGHU/\PHDUHD   &RQJOHWRQDUHD LQFOXGLQJ6DQGEDFK   &UHZH 1DQWZLFKDUHD  

0DQFKHVWHU   (OVHZKHUHLQWKH1RUWK:HVW  %LUPLQJKDP  (OVHZKHUHLQWKH0LGODQGV   (OVHZKHUHLQ8.   2WKHU 

 % :KDWW\SHRIDFFRPPRGDWLRQGLG\RXUKRXVHKROGRFFXS\" $ZKROHKRXVHWKDWLV 'HWDFKHG  6HPLGHWDFKHG  7HUUDFHG LQFOXGLQJHQGWHUUDFH  

$ZKROHEXQJDORZWKDWLV 'HWDFKHG  6HPLGHWDFKHG  7HUUDFHG LQFOXGLQJHQGWHUUDFH  

$IODWPDLVRQHWWHRUDSDUWPHQWWKDWLV ,QDSXUSRVHEXLOWIODWDSDUWPHQW  3DUWRIDFRQYHUWHGRUVKDUHGKRXVH LQFOXGHVEHGVLWV   ,QDFRPPHUFLDOEXLOGLQJ HJLQDQRIILFHEXLOGLQJ RUKRWHORURYHUDVKRS  

0RELOHRUWHPSRUDU\VWUXFWXUH $FDUDYDQRURWKHUPRELOHRUWHPSRUDU\VWUXFWXUH  

% 'LG\RXUKRXVHKROGRZQRUUHQWWKHDFFRPPRGDWLRQ" 2ZQRXWULJKW   2ZQZLWKDPRUWJDJHRUORDQ  3D\SDUWUHQWDQGSDUWPRUWJDJH VKDUHGRZQHUVKLS   5HQWIURPWKH&RXQFLO  5HQWIURPDKRXVLQJDVVRFLDWLRQ+RXVLQJ&RRSHUDWLYH &KDULWDEOH7UXVW5HJLVWHUHG6RFLDO/DQGORUG  5HQWIURPDSULYDWHODQGORUGRUOHWWLQJDJHQF\   5HQWIURPDQHPSOR\HURIDKRXVHKROGPHPEHU  5HQWIURPDUHODWLYHRUIULHQGRIDKRXVHKROGPHPEHU   /LYHWKHUHUHQWIUHH   2WKHU  'RQ¶WNQRZ 

% 'LG\RXPRYHEHFDXVH\RXUSUHYLRXVKRPHZDVQRWDGHTXDWHIRUWKHQHHGVRI\RXU KRXVHKROG"

 % :KDWZDV\RXUPDLQUHDVRQIRUPRYLQJWR\RXUFXUUHQWKRPH" 2QHDQVZHURQO\ 7RVHWXSP\ILUVWKRPH   7RVHWXSDQHZKRPHDVDUHVXOWRIGLYRUFHVHSDUDWLRQ  3UHYLRXVKRPHWRRVPDOO   3UHYLRXVKRPHWRRODUJH  3UHYLRXVKRPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIDQROGHUSHUVRQ  3UHYLRXVKRPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIDGLVDEOHGSHUVRQ  3UHYLRXVKRPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIFKLOGUHQ   3RRUTXDOLW\RISUHYLRXVKRPH±LQQHHGRIUHSDLUVLPSURYHPHQWV   3UHYLRXVKRPHWRRFRVWO\WRKHDW   3UHYLRXVKRPHWRRFRVWO\WRUHSDLU  /DFNRIJDUGHQDWSUHYLRXVKRPH   &RVWRIUHQWPRUWJDJHDWSUHYLRXVKRPH   3UHYLRXVKRPHWRRIDUIURPHPSOR\PHQW  3UHYLRXVKRPHWRRIDUIURPUHODWLYHV   3UHYLRXVKRPHWRRIDUIURPVFKRROV  3RRUDFFHVVWRSXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWSUHYLRXVKRPH   3RRUTXDOLW\RIQHLJKERXUKRRGHQYLURQPHQWDWSUHYLRXVKRPH   3RRUDFFHVVWRDPHQLWLHV HJVKRSVGRFWRUVVFKRROV DWSUHYLRXVKRPH   ,QDGHTXDWHFDUSDUNLQJDWSUHYLRXVKRPH  2WKHU 

 &

& +RZVDWLVILHGDUH\RXZLWKWKHDUHD\RXOLYHLQ" 9HU\VDWLVILHG   6DWLVILHG  1HLWKHUVDWLVILHGQRUGLVVDWLVILHG   'LVVDWLVILHG  9HU\GLVVDWLVILHG  'RQ¶WNQRZ 

& :KDWGR\RXOLNHPRVWDERXWOLYLQJDURXQGKHUH"   

& :KDWGR\RXGLVOLNHPRVWDERXWOLYLQJDURXQGKHUH"   

& +RZVDIHGR\RXIHHOLQ\RXUKRPH" 9HU\VDIH   )DLUO\VDIH  )DLUO\XQVDIH  9HU\XQVDIH  

& +RZVDIHGR\RXIHHOZDONLQJDORQHLQWKLVQHLJKERXUKRRGDIWHUGDUN" 9HU\VDIH   )DLUO\VDIH  )DLUO\XQVDIH  9HU\XQVDIH   'RQRWGRRXWDORQHDIWHUGDUN  'RQRWJRRXWDWDOODIWHUGDUN  

& +DYH\RXRUDPHPEHURI\RXUIDPLO\H[SHULHQFHGKDUDVVPHQWZKHUH\RXOLYH"

& ,VUDFLDOKDUDVVPHQWDQLVVXHZKHUH\RXOLYHRULQRWKHUDUHDVRI6WRNHRQ7UHQW"

 & :RXOG\RXWDNHWKHIHDURIKDUDVVPHQWLQWRDFFRXQWLIGHFLGLQJWRPRYHWRDQRWKHU DUHD"

& 'R\RXKDYHSUREOHPVZLWKQRLVHQXLVDQFH"&2'(21(21/<

& :KLFKRIWKHVHLVWKHFDXVHRIWKHQRLVHQXLVDQFH" &2'($//0(17,21(' 1HLJKERXUV   7UDIILFQRLVH   &DUDODUPV   %XUJODUDODUPV  &KLOGUHQSOD\LQJ  ,QGXVWULDOQRLVH  3XEVFOXEV   6SRUW   'RJVRWKHUDQLPDOV  2WKHUSOHDVHZULWH   BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

 '

' +RZROGDUH\RX"                         DQGRYHU 

' :KLFKRIWKHIROORZLQJEHVWGHVFULEHV\RXUHWKQLFLW\" :KLWH %ULWLVK  ,ULVK   $Q\RWKHU:KLWHEDFNJURXQG  

0L[HG :KLWHDQG%ODFN&DULEEHDQ   :KLWHDQG%ODFN$IULFDQ  :KLWHDQG$VLDQ  $Q\RWKHU0L[HGEDFNJURXQG  

$VLDQRU$VLDQ%ULWLVK ,QGLDQ  3DNLVWDQL   %DQJODGHVKL  $Q\RWKHU$VLDQEDFNJURXQG  

%ODFNRU%ODFN%ULWLVK &DULEEHDQ $IULFDQ  $Q\RWKHU%ODFNEDFNJURXQG 

&KLQHVHRURWKHUHWKQLFJURXS &KLQHVH  $Q\RWKHU 

 ' :KDWLV\RXUFXUUHQWHPSOR\PHQWVWDWXV" (PSOR\HGVHOIHPSOR\HGIXOOWLPH KUVZHHN   (PSOR\HGVHOIHPSOR\HGSDUWWLPH KUVZHHN   8QHPSOR\HG   5HWLUHG  6WXGHQWRURYHURUWUDLQHH  /RRNLQJDIWHUIDPLO\RUKRPH   /RQJWHUPVLFNXQDEOHWRZRUN   2WKHU 

' 'R\RXRUDQ\PHPEHURI\RXUKRXVHKROGZRUNLQRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJRFFXSDWLRQV" 6HOI 2WKHUPHPEHU 3ROLFHRIILFHU    1XUVHHTXLYDOHQWKHDOWKZRUNHU    )LUHRIILFHU   7HDFKHU   3DUDPHGLF   &DUHDVVLVWDQWRUVLPLODUSDLGUROH   

' +RZ PDQ\ SHRSOH OLYLQJ LQ \RXU KRXVHKROG LQFOXGLQJ \RXUVHOI DUH LQ HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJDJHJURXSV"          DQGRYHU 727$/,1+286(+2/'

' :KLFKRIWKHIROORZLQJEHVWGHVFULEHV\RXUKRXVHKROG" 6LQJOHSDUHQWZLWKDWOHDVWGHSHQGHQWFKLOG  6LQJOHSDUHQWZLWKDWOHDVWGHSHQGHQWFKLOG RWKHUDGXOWV  6LQJOHSDUHQWZLWKQRQGHSHQGHQWFKLOGUHQ  6LQJOHSDUHQWZLWKQRQGHSHQGHQWFKLOGUHQ RWKHUV  6LQJOHSHUVRQZLWKRWKHUDGXOWV   6LQJOHSHUVRQOHVVWKDQ\HDUVROG   6LQJOHSHUVRQRYHU\HDUVROG   &RXSOHZLWKDWOHDVWGHSHQGHQWFKLOG   &RXSOHZLWKDWOHDVWGHSHQGHQWFKLOG RWKHUDGXOWV  &RXSOHZLWKQRQGHSHQGHQWFKLOGUHQ   &RXSOHZLWKQRQGHSHQGHQWFKLOGUHQ RWKHUDGXOWV   &RXSOHZLWKQRFKLOGUHQEXWZLWKRWKHUDGXOWV   &RXSOHZLWKQRFKLOGUHQ  2WKHU 

 ( +RXVLQJFRVWVDQGLQFRPH 7R PDNH HIIHFWLYH SODQV IRU IXWXUH KRXVLQJ WKH &RXQFLO QHHGV LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ KRXVLQJFRVWVDQGKRXVHKROGLQFRPHV$OOWKHLQIRUPDWLRQ\RXSURYLGHZLOOEHVWULFWO\ FRQILGHQWLDO

( ,I\RXDUHUHQWLQJZKDWLVWKHUHQWSHUPRQWKZHHNIRU\RXUKRPHLQFOXGLQJDQ\ UHQWSDLGE\+RXVLQJ%HQHILW" 25 ,I\RXSD\DPRUWJDJHZKDWLVWKHPRUWJDJHSHUPRQWKIRU\RXUKRPH LQFOXGLQJ LQWHUHVWDQGRUFDSLWDOUHSD\PHQWVUHSD\PHQWSROLFLHVDQGEXLOGLQJVLQVXUDQFH " /HVVWKDQ SHUPRQWK SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   0RUHWKDQ SHUPRQWK SHUZHHN   'RQ¶WNQRZUHIXVHG 

( $SSUR[LPDWHO\KRZPXFKDUH\RXUWRWDODQQXDOIXHO JDVHOHFWULFLW\RLOHWF ELOOV" /HVVWKDQ                       2YHU   'RQ¶WNQRZUHIXVHG 

( 'RHV\RXUKRXVHKROGUHFHLYHDQ\RIWKHIROORZLQJIRUPVRIILQDQFLDOVXSSRUW" 3URPSWIRUDOODSSOLFDEOH +RXVLQJ%HQHILW   &RXQFLO7D[%HQHILW   6XSSRUWLQJ3HRSOH*UDQW  ,QFRPH6XSSRUW   -RE6HHNHUV$OORZDQFH   :RUNLQJ)DPLOLHV7D[&UHGLW  'LVDEOHG3HUVRQ¶V7D[&UHGLW  'LVDELOLW\/LYLQJ$OORZDQFH   $WWHQGDQFH$OORZDQFH   ,QYDOLG&DUH$OORZDQFH  ,QFDSDFLW\%HQHILW   6HYHUH'LVDEOHPHQW$OORZDQFH   1RQHRIWKHVH 

 ( :KDW LV \RXU KRXVHKROGV¶ DYHUDJH PRQWKO\ QHW LQFRPH IURP DOO VRXUFHV LH WDNH KRPHSD\DIWHUGHGXFWLRQRIWD[QDWLRQDOLQVXUDQFHSHQVLRQFRQWULEXWLRQVHWF " /HVVWKDQ SHUPRQWK SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN  %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   0RUHWKDQ SHUPRQWK SHUZHHN   'RQ¶WNQRZUHIXVHG 

( $SSUR[LPDWHO\KRZPXFKPRQH\GR\RXKDYHLQVDYLQJV" /HVVWKDQ   %HWZHHQ DQG   %HWZHHQ DQG   %HWZHHQ DQG   %HWZHHQ DQG   %HWZHHQ DQG   0RUHWKDQ    'RQ¶WNQRZUHIXVHG 

 ) +RXVLQJIRUYXOQHUDEOHSHRSOH

) 'R \RX KDYH D ORQJWHUP LOOQHVV KHDOWK SUREOHP RU GLVDELOLW\ WKDW OLPLWV \RXU GDLO\ DFWLYLWLHVRUWKHZRUN\RXFDQGR"

) 'RHVDQ\RWKHUPHPEHURI\RXUKRXVHKROGKDYHDORQJWHUPLOOQHVVKHDOWKSUREOHP RUGLVDELOLW\"

) :KDWLVWKHQDWXUHRI\RXUKLVKHUORQJWHUPLOOQHVVKHDOWKSUREOHPRUGLVDELOLW\" &RGHDOOPHQWLRQHGIRUHDFKSHUVRQ 5HVSRQGHQW 0HPEHU 0HPEHU 3K\VLFDOGLVDELOLW\ZKHHOFKDLUXVHU    3K\VLFDOGLVDELOLW\QRWLQZKHHOFKDLU    /HDUQLQJGLVDELOLW\    0HQWDOKHDOWKSUREOHP    9LVXDOLPSDLUPHQW    +HDULQJLPSDLUPHQW    'UXJDQGRUDOFRKROPLVXVH    2WKHU 

) +DV\RXUFXUUHQWKRPHEHHQDGDSWHGRUSXUSRVHEXLOWIRUDSHUVRQZLWKDORQJWHUP LOOQHVVKHDOWKSUREOHPRUGLVDELOLW\"

) :KLFKRIWKHVHDGDSWDWLRQVKDYHEHHQFDUULHGRXWLQ\RXUKRPHWRPHHWWKHQHHGVRI DSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\RUOLPLWLQJORQJWHUPLOOQHVV" &RGHDOOPHQWLRQHG :KHHOFKDLUDGDSWDWLRQV   6WDLUOLIWYHUWLFDOOLIW  .LWFKHQDGDSWDWLRQV  %DWKURRPDGDSWDWLRQV  ,PSURYHPHQWVWRDFFHVV   +DQGUDLOVJUDEUDLOV   *URXQGIORRUH[WHQVLRQ EHGURRPRUEDWKURRP   5RRPIRUFDUHU  

 ) :KLFKLIDQ\RIWKHVHDGDSWDWLRQVQHHGWREHFDUULHGRXWWR\RXUKRPHWRPHHWWKH QHHGVRIDFXUUHQWPHPEHURI\RXUKRXVHKROG" &RGHDOOPHQWLRQHG :KHHOFKDLUDGDSWDWLRQV   6WDLUOLIWYHUWLFDOOLIW  .LWFKHQDGDSWDWLRQV  %DWKURRPDGDSWDWLRQV  ,PSURYHPHQWVWRDFFHVV   +DQGUDLOVJUDEUDLOV   *URXQGIORRUH[WHQVLRQ EHGURRPRUEDWKURRP   5RRPIRUFDUHU   1RQHRIWKHVH 

) ,V WKHUH VXIILFLHQW VSDFH LQ \RXU KRPH IRU D FDUHU WR VWD\ RYHUQLJKW LI WKLV ZDV QHHGHG"

) 'R\RXRUDQ\RWKHUPHPEHURI\RXUKRXVHKROGUHTXLUHFDUHRUVXSSRUWWRHQDEOH \RXKLPKHUWRVWD\LQWKLVKRPH"

) 'R \RX ORRN DIWHU RU JLYH DQ\ VXSSRUW WR IDPLO\ PHPEHUV IULHQGV QHLJKERXUV RU RWKHUVEHFDXVHRI ¾ ORQJWHUPSK\VLFDORUPHQWDOLOOKHDOWKRUGLVDELOLW\RU ¾ SUREOHPVUHODWHGWRROGDJH" 'RQRWFRXQWDQ\WKLQJ\RXGRDVSDUWRI\RXUSDLGHPSOR\PHQW

 * 0RYLQJLQWHQWLRQV

* $UH\RXDQG\RXUKRXVHKROGLQWHQGLQJWRPRYHLQWKHQH[WWZR\HDUVDQGLIVR ZKHQ"

* ,I<(6WR*GR\RXLQWHQGWRPRYHEHFDXVH\RXUKRPHLVQRWDGHTXDWHIRUWKH QHHGVRI\RXUKRXVHKROG"

* ,I<(6WR*ZKDWLV\RXUPDLQUHDVRQIRUZDQWLQJWRPRYH RQHDQVZHURQO\ "

,VWKHUHDVHFRQGDU\UHDVRQ RQHDQVZHURQO\ " 0DLQUHDVRQ 6HFRQGDU\ UHDVRQ 7RVHWXSP\ILUVWKRPH   7RVHWXSDQHZKRPHDVDUHVXOWRIGLYRUFHVHSDUDWLRQ  +RPHWRRVPDOO   +RPHWRRODUJH  +RPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIDQROGHUSHUVRQ  +RPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIDGLVDEOHGSHUVRQ  +RPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIFKLOGUHQ   3RRUTXDOLW\±LQQHHGRIUHSDLUVLPSURYHPHQWV   +RPHWRRFRVWO\WRKHDW  +RPHWRRFRVWO\WRUHSDLU  /DFNRIJDUGHQ  &RVWRIUHQWPRUWJDJH  7RRIDUIURPHPSOR\PHQW   7RRIDUIURPUHODWLYHV  7RRIDUIURPVFKRROV   3RRUDFFHVVWRSXEOLFWUDQVSRUW  3RRUTXDOLW\RIQHLJKERXUKRRGHQYLURQPHQW   3RRUDFFHVVWRDPHQLWLHV HJVKRSVGRFWRUVVFKRROV   ,QDGHTXDWHFDUSDUNLQJ   2WKHU 

* ,I<(6WR*GR\RXLQWHQGWRPRYHZLWKLQ6WRNHRQ7UHQW"

 * ,I12WR*ZKHUHGR\RXH[SHFWWRPRYH" 2QHDQVZHURQO\ 6WDIIRUGVKLUH0RRUODQGV LQFOXGLQJ/HHN%LGGXOSK &KHDGOH   6WDIIRUGDUHD LQFOXGLQJ6WRQH   1HZFDVWOHXQGHU/\PHDUHD   &RQJOHWRQDUHD LQFOXGLQJ6DQGEDFK   &UHZH 1DQWZLFKDUHD  

0DQFKHVWHU   (OVHZKHUHLQWKH1RUWK:HVW  %LUPLQJKDP  (OVHZKHUHLQWKH0LGODQGV   (OVHZKHUHLQ8.   2WKHU 

* ,I 12 WR * ZRXOG \RX OLNH WR PRYH GXULQJ WKH QH[W WZR \HDUV EXW IRU VRPH UHDVRQFDQQRWGRVR"

* ,I<(6WR*ZKDWLVSUHYHQWLQJDPRYH" &RGHDOOPHQWLRQHG5HDGRXWLIQHFHVVDU\ /LPLWHGFKRLFHRIORFDWLRQ   &DQQRWVHOOKRPH  1RVXLWDEOHSURSHUW\  /LPLWHGFKRLFHRIODUJHUSURSHUWLHV   )DPLO\UHDVRQV   &RVWRIPRYLQJ  1HJDWLYHHTXLW\   &RVWRIDODUJHUKRPH   8QOLNHO\WREHUHKRXVHGE\&RXQFLORU+RXVLQJ$VVRFLDWLRQ   2WKHUSOHDVHGHVFULEH  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

* ,VDQ\PHPEHURI\RXUKRXVHKROGLQWHQGLQJWRPRYHWRKLVRUKHURZQVHSDUDWH KRPHLQWKHQH[WWZR\HDUVDQGLIVRZKHQ"

 * ,I<(6WR* GRHV VKH LQWHQG WR PRYH EHFDXVH WKH FXUUHQW KRPH LV QRW DGHTXDWHIRUKLVKHUQHHGV"

* ,I<(6WR* ZKDW LV KLVKHU PDLQ UHDVRQ IRU ZDQWLQJ WR PRYH RQH DQVZHU RQO\ "

,VWKHUHDVHFRQGDU\UHDVRQ RQHDQVZHURQO\ " 0DLQUHDVRQ 6HFRQGDU\ UHDVRQ 7RVHWXSP\ILUVWKRPH   7RVHWXSDQHZKRPHDVDUHVXOWRIGLYRUFHVHSDUDWLRQ  +RPHWRRVPDOO   +RPHWRRODUJH  +RPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIDQROGHUSHUVRQ  +RPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIDGLVDEOHGSHUVRQ  +RPHQRWVXLWDEOHIRUQHHGVRIFKLOGUHQ   3RRUTXDOLW\±LQQHHGRIUHSDLUVLPSURYHPHQWV   +RPHWRRFRVWO\WRKHDW  +RPHWRRFRVWO\WRUHSDLU  /DFNRIJDUGHQ  &RVWRIUHQWPRUWJDJH  7RRIDUIURPHPSOR\PHQW   7RRIDUIURPUHODWLYHV  7RRIDUIURPVFKRROV   3RRUDFFHVVWRSXEOLFWUDQVSRUW  3RRUTXDOLW\RIQHLJKERXUKRRGHQYLURQPHQW   3RRUDFFHVVWRDPHQLWLHV HJVKRSVGRFWRUVVFKRROV   ,QDGHTXDWHFDUSDUNLQJ  

* ,I<(6WR*GRHVVKHLQWHQGWRPRYHZLWKLQ6WRNHRQ7UHQW"

 * ,I12WR*ZKHUHGRHVVKHH[SHFWWRPRYH"2QHDQVZHURQO\ 6WDIIRUGVKLUH0RRUODQGV LQFOXGLQJ/HHN%LGGXOSK &KHDGOH   6WDIIRUGDUHD LQFOXGLQJ6WRQH   1HZFDVWOHXQGHU/\PHDUHD   &RQJOHWRQDUHD LQFOXGLQJ6DQGEDFK   &UHZH 1DQWZLFKDUHD  

0DQFKHVWHU   (OVHZKHUHLQWKH1RUWK:HVW  %LUPLQJKDP  (OVHZKHUHLQWKH0LGODQGV   (OVHZKHUHLQ8.   2WKHU 

* ,I12WR*ZRXOGVKHOLNHWRPRYHGXULQJWKHQH[WWZR\HDUVEXWIRUVRPH UHDVRQFDQQRWGRVR"

* ,I<(6WR*ZKDWLVSUHYHQWLQJDPRYH" &RGHDOOPHQWLRQHG5HDGRXWLIQHFHVVDU\ /LPLWHGFKRLFHRIORFDWLRQ   &DQQRWVHOOKRPH  1RVXLWDEOHSURSHUW\  /LPLWHGFKRLFHRIODUJHUSURSHUWLHV   )DPLO\UHDVRQV   &RVWRIPRYLQJ  1HJDWLYHHTXLW\   &RVWRIDODUJHUKRPH   8QOLNHO\WREHUHKRXVHGE\&RXQFLORU+RXVLQJ$VVRFLDWLRQ   2WKHUSOHDVHGHVFULEH  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

,IQHLWKHUWKHZKROHKRXVHKROGQRUPHPEHUVRIWKHKRXVHKROGLQWHQGWRPRYH WKHQ 7+$1.$1'&/26( 2WKHUZLVHJRWR 6HFWLRQ+IRUH[LVWLQJKRXVHKROGVPRYLQJ DQGRU 6HFWLRQ,IRUQHZKRXVHKROGVPRYLQJ

 + $ERXWH[LVWLQJKRXVHKROGVPRYLQJ 2QO\ FRPSOHWH WKLV VHFWLRQ LI WKH UHVSRQGHQW KDV DQVZHUHG   RU  DW 4XHVWLRQ *

+ :KDWW\SHRIDFFRPPRGDWLRQGR\RXWKLQN\RXUKRXVHKROGZLOOQHHG" $ZKROHKRXVHWKDWLV 'HWDFKHG  6HPLGHWDFKHG  7HUUDFHG LQFOXGLQJHQGWHUUDFH  

$ZKROHEXQJDORZWKDWLV 'HWDFKHG  6HPLGHWDFKHG  7HUUDFHG LQFOXGLQJHQGWHUUDFH  

$IODWPDLVRQHWWHRUDSDUWPHQWWKDWLV ,QDSXUSRVHEXLOWIODWDSDUWPHQW  3DUWRIDFRQYHUWHGRUVKDUHGKRXVH LQFOXGHVEHGVLWV   ,QDFRPPHUFLDOEXLOGLQJ HJLQDQRIILFHEXLOGLQJ RUKRWHORURYHUDVKRS  

0RELOHRUWHPSRUDU\VWUXFWXUH $FDUDYDQRURWKHUPRELOHRUWHPSRUDU\VWUXFWXUH  

+ :RXOG\RXUHTXLUHKRXVLQJZLWKFDUHRUVXSSRUWVHUYLFHV"

+ +RZPDQ\EHGURRPVZRXOG\RXQHHG" :ULWHQXPEHULQER[

+ 'R\RXH[SHFWWRRZQRUUHQWWKHDFFRPPRGDWLRQ" 2ZQRXWULJKW   2ZQZLWKDPRUWJDJHRUORDQ  3D\SDUWUHQWDQGSDUWPRUWJDJH VKDUHGRZQHUVKLS   5HQWIURPWKH&RXQFLO  5HQWIURPDKRXVLQJDVVRFLDWLRQ+RXVLQJ&RRSHUDWLYH &KDULWDEOH7UXVW5HJLVWHUHG6RFLDO/DQGORUG  5HQWIURPDSULYDWHODQGORUGRUOHWWLQJDJHQF\   5HQWIURPDQHPSOR\HURIDKRXVHKROGPHPEHU  5HQWIURPDUHODWLYHRUIULHQGRIDKRXVHKROGPHPEHU   /LYHKHUHUHQWIUHH   2WKHU  'RQ¶WNQRZ 

 + :KLFKLIDQ\KRXVLQJZDLWLQJOLVWVDUH\RXUHJLVWHUHGRQ" &RGHDOOPHQWLRQHG 6WRNHRQ7UHQW&LW\&RXQFLO  $QRWKHU&RXQFLO  +RXVLQJ$VVRFLDWLRQ+RXVLQJ&RRSHUDWLYH &KDULWDEOH7UXVW5HJLVWHUHG6RFLDO/DQGORUG  +20(6  1RWUHJLVWHUHGRQDQ\OLVWV 

+ :KHUHLQWKH&LW\ZRXOG\RXSUHIHUWROLYH" 6HOHFWRQHRQO\ *ROGHQKLOODQG6DQG\IRUG   7XQVWDOO  )HJJ+D\HVDQG%ULQGOH\)RUG   &KHOO+HDWK  %XUVOHPDQG&REULGJH  /RQJSRUWDQG0LGGOHSRUW   1RUWRQDQG%DOO*UHHQ   6PDOOWKRUQHDQG6QH\G*UHHQ  +DQOH\6KHOWRQDQG(WUXULD   1RUWKZRRGDQG%LUFKHV+HDG   $EEH\+XOWRQDQG0LOWRQ   3HQNKXOODQG+DUWVKLOO  6WRNHDQG7UHQW9DOH  %HQWLOHHDQG%HUU\KLOO   )HQWRQDQG)HQSDUN  /RQJWRQ   %OXUWRQDQG1HZVWHDG  7UHQWKDPDQG+DQIRUG   0HLUDQG0HLU3DUN   :HVWRQ&R\QH\  

$Q\ZKHUHLQWKH&LW\   'RQ¶WNQRZ 

 , 3HRSOHOHDYLQJKRPH 2QO\ FRPSOHWH WKLV VHFWLRQ LI WKH UHVSRQGHQW KDV DQVZHUHG   RU  DW 4XHVWLRQ *

, +RZPDQ\SHRSOHLQ\RXUKRXVHKROGZLOOEHOHDYLQJKRPHSHUPDQHQWO\ZLWKLQWKH QH[WWZR\HDUVWROLYHHOVHZKHUH GRQRWLQFOXGHVWXGHQWVOHDYLQJIRUDWHUPWLPH DGGUHVV " :ULWHLQQXPEHU

, +RZPDQ\QHZKRXVHKROGVZLOOWKH\EHVHWWLQJXS" :ULWHLQQXPEHU

, ,V WKH QHZ KRXVHKROG EHLQJ IRUPHG ZLWK VRPHRQH HOVH FXUUHQWO\ OLYLQJ LQ \RXU KRXVHKROGHOVHZKHUHLQWKH&LW\RURXWVLGHWKH&LW\" ,IPRUHWKDQRQHKRXVHKROGLVEHLQJIRUPHG VHH, XVHFROXPQIRUQGDQGUG KRXVHKROGV VWKRXVHKROG QGKRXVHKROG UGKRXVHKROG

$VNWKHIROORZLQJTXHVWLRQVRIWKH),567QHZKRXVHKROG21/<WKDWLVOLNHO\WRIRUP LQWKHQH[WWZR\HDUV

, :KDWW\SHRIDFFRPPRGDWLRQZRXOGWKHQHZKRXVHKROGQHHG" $ZKROHKRXVHWKDWLV 'HWDFKHG  6HPLGHWDFKHG   7HUUDFHG LQFOXGLQJHQGWHUUDFH  

$ZKROHEXQJDORZWKDWLV 'HWDFKHG  6HPLGHWDFKHG   7HUUDFHG LQFOXGLQJHQGWHUUDFH  

$IODWPDLVRQHWWHRUDSDUWPHQWWKDWLV ,QDSXUSRVHEXLOWIODWDSDUWPHQW   3DUWRIDFRQYHUWHGRUVKDUHGKRXVH LQFOXGHVEHGVLWV   ,QDFRPPHUFLDOEXLOGLQJ HJLQDQRIILFHEXLOGLQJ RUKRWHORURYHUDVKRS  

0RELOHRUWHPSRUDU\VWUXFWXUH $FDUDYDQRURWKHUPRELOHRUWHPSRUDU\VWUXFWXUH  

 , :RXOGKRXVLQJZLWKFDUHRUVXSSRUWVHUYLFHVEHUHTXLUHG"

, +RZPDQ\EHGURRPVZRXOGWKHQHZKRXVHKROGQHHG" :ULWHQXPEHULQER[

, :RXOGWKHQHZKRXVHKROGH[SHFWWRRZQRUUHQWWKHDFFRPPRGDWLRQ" 2ZQRXWULJKW   2ZQZLWKDPRUWJDJHRUORDQ  3D\SDUWUHQWDQGSDUWPRUWJDJH VKDUHGRZQHUVKLS   5HQWIURPWKH&RXQFLO  5HQWIURPDKRXVLQJDVVRFLDWLRQ+RXVLQJ&RRSHUDWLYH &KDULWDEOH7UXVW5HJLVWHUHG6RFLDO/DQGORUG  5HQWIURPDSULYDWHODQGORUGRUOHWWLQJDJHQF\   5HQWIURPDQHPSOR\HURIDKRXVHKROGPHPEHU  5HQWIURPDUHODWLYHRUIULHQGRIDKRXVHKROGPHPEHU   /LYHKHUHUHQWIUHH   2WKHU  'RQ¶WNQRZ 

, :KLFKLIDQ\KRXVLQJZDLWLQJOLVWVLVWKHQHZKRXVHKROGUHJLVWHUHGRQ" &RGHDOOPHQWLRQHG 6WRNHRQ7UHQW&LW\&RXQFLO  $QRWKHU&RXQFLO  +RXVLQJ$VVRFLDWLRQ+RXVLQJ&RRSHUDWLYH &KDULWDEOH7UXVW5HJLVWHUHG6RFLDO/DQGORUG  +20(6  1RWUHJLVWHUHGRQDQ\OLVWV 

 , :KHUHLQWKH&LW\ZRXOGWKHQHZKRXVHKROGSUHIHUWROLYH" 6HOHFWRQHRQO\ *ROGHQKLOODQG6DQG\IRUG   7XQVWDOO  )HJJ+D\HVDQG%ULQGOH\)RUG   &KHOO+HDWK  %XUVOHPDQG&REULGJH  /RQJSRUWDQG0LGGOHSRUW   1RUWRQDQG%DOO*UHHQ   6PDOOWKRUQHDQG6QH\G*UHHQ  +DQOH\6KHOWRQDQG(WUXULD   1RUWKZRRGDQG%LUFKHV+HDG   $EEH\+XOWRQDQG0LOWRQ   3HQNKXOODQG+DUWVKLOO  6WRNHDQG7UHQW9DOH  %HQWLOHHDQG%HUU\KLOO   )HQWRQDQG)HQSDUN  /RQJWRQ   %OXUWRQDQG1HZVWHDG  7UHQWKDPDQG+DQIRUG   0HLUDQG0HLU3DUN   :HVWRQ&R\QH\  

$Q\ZKHUHLQWKH&LW\   'RQ¶WNQRZ 

, ,I WKH QHZ KRXVHKROG LQWHQGV WR UHQW ZKDW UHQW SHU ZHHNPRQWK ZLOO VKH H[SHFWWRSD\" 25 ,I WKH QHZ KRXVHKROG LQWHQGV WR EX\ ZLWK D PRUWJDJH ZKDW PRUWJDJH SHU PRQWK ZLOO VKH H[SHFW WR SD\ LQFOXGLQJ LQWHUHVW DQGRU FDSLWDO UHSD\PHQWV UHSD\PHQWSROLFLHVDQGEXLOGLQJVLQVXUDQFH " /HVVWKDQ SHUPRQWK SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   0RUHWKDQ SHUPRQWK SHUZHHN   'RQ¶WNQRZUHIXVHG 

 , :KDWZLOOWKHQHZKRXVHKROG¶VDYHUDJHPRQWKO\QHWLQFRPHIURPDOOVRXUFHVEH LH WDNH KRPH SD\ DIWHU GHGXFWLRQ RI WD[ QDWLRQDO LQVXUDQFH SHQVLRQ FRQWULEXWLRQV HWF " /HVVWKDQ SHUPRQWK SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   %HWZHHQ DQG SHUPRQWK  SHUZHHN   0RUHWKDQ SHUPRQWK SHUZHHN   'RQ¶WNQRZUHIXVHG 

, $SSUR[LPDWHO\KRZPXFKPRQH\GRHVWKHQHZKRXVHKROGKDYHLQVDYLQJV" /HVVWKDQ   %HWZHHQ DQG   %HWZHHQ DQG   %HWZHHQ DQG   %HWZHHQ DQG   %HWZHHQ DQG   0RUHWKDQ    'RQ¶WNQRZ 



Moorfield Court 11a Alma Road Headingley Leeds LS6 2AH t: 0113 278 5755 f: 0113 278 5756 e: [email protected] www.outsideuk.com

Registered in England & Wales 5096945