The State of the Borough An Economic, Social and Environmental Audit of Bracknell Forest

April 2007

the local futures group 30 Little Russell Street London WC1A 2HN T +44 020 7440 7360 F +44 020 7440 7370 Contents

Contents

CONTENTS ...... I 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.2 This Report ...... 2 2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ...... 3 2.1 Introduction ...... 3 2.2 Macro-Economic Performance ...... 4 2.3 Industrial Structure...... 8 2.4 Business and Enterprise...... 10 2.5 Education and Skills ...... 11 2.6 Labour Market...... 12 2.7 Summary ...... 14 3 SOCIAL PROFILE ...... 15 3.1 Introduction ...... 15 3.2 Demography and Migration ...... 16 3.3 Occupational Profile...... 20 3.4 Prosperity...... 21 3.5 Deprivation and Inequality ...... 22 3.6 Health ...... 23 3.7 Crime ...... 24 3.8 Summary ...... 26 4 ENVIRONMENT ...... 27 4.1 Introduction ...... 27 4.2 Housing Affordability, Tenure and Condition...... 28 4.3 Commercial and Industrial Property ...... 29 4.4 Transport and Connectivity...... 30 4.5 Local Services ...... 31 4.6 Local Amenities ...... 32 4.7 Natural Environment...... 33 4.8 Summary ...... 34 5 CONCLUSIONS : THE FINAL ‘S CORECARD ’ AND POLICY DISCUSSION ...... 36 5.1 Introduction ...... 36 5.2 The Final ‘Scorecard’...... 36 5.3 Policy Implications ...... 38

the local futures group

Introduction

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

In its Sustainable Community Plan (2005), the Bracknell Forest Partnership expressed its vision for 2015. Recognising some of the existing strengths of its local economy, the plan argued that Bracknell Forest will be ‘self-confident, socially cohesive, economically buoyant’. In addition, reflecting a series of wider priorities, the plan argues that:

‘Living and working in Bracknell Forest will mean having an excellent quality of life. Local people will be safe and healthy. They will have a home that meets their needs and be able to travel easily around the borough, particularly by public transport. The distinctive, quality environment of Bracknell Forest will be enhanced and the community and learning will be valued throughout people’s lives’ 1

This second community plan was produced by the Bracknell Forest Partnership and identified eight priorities that were developed following extensive consultation. The priorities aim to address the community’s concerns and aspirations and work towards a vision of the borough in 2015. The priorities are:

• Promoting learning and training for all ages

• Protecting and enhancing the environment

• Improving health and well-being

• Providing decent and affordable housing

• Developing a town fit for the 21 st Century

• Improving travel and transport

• Promoting community safety

• Improving community engagement

This report can aid reflection on achievements in Bracknell Forest to date and inform progress towards the priorities outlined in the Sustainable Community Plan.

1 Bracknell Forest Partnership (2005) Bracknell Forest Sustainable Community Plan. p 2.

the local futures group 1

Introduction

1.2 This Report

The Local Futures Audit has been developed in collaboration with the Audit Commission, the Local Government Association, and individual local authorities and partnerships. The basic thrust of the Audit is to compare and benchmark the performance of Bracknell Forest against a selection of comparator districts, Berkshire, the South East of England and the rest of Britain. Performance is assessed according to how well the district scores on a range of carefully selected benchmark indicators of economic, social and environmental well-being.

The results of the Audit can be used to inform local policy development and to act as a framework for monitoring and evaluating progress towards its various policy goals. This report can also be used as an evidence base in order to advance Bracknell Forest’s economic and social development priorities with strategic and funding bodies.

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 – Economic Development , covering: economic performance, industrial structure, business and enterprise, education and skills, and the labour market;

• Chapter 3 – Social Profile , covering: age and occupational structure, prosperity, deprivation and inequality, health, and crime;

• Chapter 4 – Environment , covering: housing, commercial and industrial property, transport and connectivity, services and amenities, and the natural environment;

• Chapter 5 – Synthesis and Conclusions , draws together the three broad sets of findings and discusses their implications for Bracknell Forest.

The main body of the report draws on a selected number of benchmark indicators. This should be considered in conjunction with a Data Annex, published as a separate report that provides a wider and more detailed set of economic, social and environmental indicators for Bracknell Forest to use at its own discretion.

the local futures group 2

Economic Development

2 Economic Development

2.1 Introduction

We begin by assessing the present state of the Bracknell Forest economy, in terms of its competitiveness at the sub-regional, regional and national levels. Strong economic foundations are critical to the future success of the district, creating quality employment opportunities for local people. The Audit examines five aspects of economic development that need to be ‘joined-up’ in the context of strategy, partnership and practical initiatives. The five aspects, each with their own benchmark indicators, are as follows:

• Macro-economic performance;

• Industrial structure;

• Business and enterprise;

• Skills and education;

• Labour market.

The results of our analysis of how Bracknell Forest performs in respect of each of these aspects are presented below. At the end of the chapter we provide a composite picture which shows how these aspects inter-relate, and summarise our key findings on economic development in the borough.

the local futures group 3

Economic Development

2.2 Macro-Economic Performance

Macro-economic performance has been examined using indicators for economic scale, productivity, and change. The indicators here are primarily to give context to the other findings in the economic section; they enable us to identify the true economic drivers in the comparator group and therefore the relative importance of their growth and productivity.

Beginning with economic scale , the Audit assesses scale in terms of both output and employment (workplace-based). The results are presented in Table 1.

• Bracknell Forest has an economy of above average size, ranked as the 121st largest of 408 districts in Great Britain.

The Bracknell Forest economy – measured by its share of national Gross Value Added (GVA) and employment – is just above the average for the whole of Berkshire but two-thirds the size of the average local economy in the South East of England. In terms of the size of its economy, Bracknell Forest falls squarely along with Wokingham within the middle of a group of comparator districts. Bracknell Forest and Wokingham are around the average size of local economies in Great Britain whereas Reading, West Berkshire, Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead and Guildford are at least a fifth larger than the average for Britain. Runnymede, Woking, Rushmoor, Surrey Heath and Hart are around a fifth smaller than the British average sized local economy.

Table 1: Economic Scale

Share of total Economic Share of national scale score national employment, Economic rank (out of LAD GVA, 2004 2005 scale score 408) Reading 0.48 0.37 172.36 50 West Berkshire 0.39 0.30 139.05 72 Slough 0.37 0.29 132.51 78 Windsor and Maidenhead 0.37 0.29 132.27 79 Guildford 0.34 0.27 122.50 87 Wokingham 0.30 0.23 107.84 117 Bracknell Forest 0.30 0.23 107.10 121 Runnymede 0.23 0.18 82.80 169 Woking 0.23 0.18 81.67 172 Rushmoor 0.17 0.18 72.13 198 Surrey Heath 0.20 0.16 71.27 204 Hart 0.13 0.13 52.03 294 Berkshire 2.22 1.71 104.13 18 out of 53 South East 15.61 14.18 163.86 2 of 11 Great Britain 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

the local futures group 4

Economic Development

Our second measure of macro-economic performance is productivity . Table 2 shows the results.

• Bracknell Forest scores well above the average on our productivity score and is ranked 11 th out of 408 districts in Great Britain.

The figures in Table 2 show that productivity in Bracknell Forest is approaching twice the national average, is well above that for the South East of England and above that for Berkshire. Average earnings in Bracknell Forest are the fourth highest among our comparator group. Average earnings in Bracknell Forest are a third higher than the national average and also compare very favourably with those for Berkshire and the South East of England.

A similar pattern of comparative performance is found with respect to Bracknell Forest’s record for GVA. Here the borough is placed third among our comparator group of local authorities being twice the British and South East England average and well above the average figure for Berkshire.

Looking at the comparator group, all of the districts record earnings per head above the national average, confirming the affluence of districts functionally linked into the London economy. The GVA per head figures for the comparator group are more variable with Rushmoor and Hart close to the South East of England average.

Table 2: Productivity and Earnings

Average gross w eekly earnings Gross (w orkplace value Econom ic Productivity based), added per productivity score rank LAD 2006 head, 2004 s core (out of 408) Windsor and Maidenhead 608.20 40,754.3 191.34 9 Wokingham 626.50 41,980.6 189.04 10 Bracknell Forest 602.90 40,399.2 187.96 11 Slough 554.00 37,122.5 177.43 15 Runnymede 598.20 33,102.0 170.59 17 West Berkshire 523.40 35,072.0 164.16 20 Reading 513.10 34,381.9 161.55 21 Woking 566.10 31,325.7 155.95 22 Surrey Heath 511.80 28,321.0 144.83 29 Guildford 517.00 28,608.7 143.10 32 Rushmoor 612.20 24,415.3 139.17 36 Hart 549.00 21,894.8 124.25 56 Berkshire 570.77 38,251.0 178.20 2 of 53 South East 461.20 20,931.2 115.28 2 of 11 Great Britain 442.80 18,272.5 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

the local futures group 5

Economic Development

The final measure of macro-economic performance in our Audit is economic change in the past few years (see Table 3).

• The Bracknell Forest is ranked 186th of 408 districts in Britain for economic growth.

Bracknell Forest has experienced slightly above average growth according to our measure of economic change, scoring 106.4 on the index with Great Britain as 100. This index is based on growth in the numbers of jobs, which increased in Bracknell Forest by around 10 per cent over the 1998 to 2005 period; nationally the increase was 9 per cent, in Berkshire it was 8 per cent and in the South East it was 10 per cent. Thus Bracknell Forest’s employment change record is very close to whichever of these benchmarks one takes.

In general terms our comparator group of local authorities have economies which, whilst not among the very top performers recently, in terms of employment and earnings growth are nevertheless within the top 50 per cent or so of local authorities. The fastest growth in employment has taken place in the generally smaller local authorities within the comparator group – Runnymede, Woking and Hart. This is likely to reflect a pattern that has existed for sometime in Britain whereby smaller settlements have experienced faster employment growth than larger ones, as significant elements of business activity continue to decentralise within the urban system. One of the comparator districts has a poor performance which actually places it in the bottom decile of authorities. It is therefore noteworthy that several comparator local authorities among this generally buoyant part of the British economy have experienced sluggish growth and, in the case of Slough, even a drop in average earnings.

Changes in earnings in Bracknell Forest again place it in the middle of our comparator local authorities but actually compare a little more favourably with the Berkshire, South East England and Great Britain benchmarks than we saw for employment growth. Nationally, earnings grew at 4.4 per cent in 2005-2006 while in the South East and Berkshire they grew at 5.3 per cent. At 6.1 per cent Bracknell Forest’s growth in earnings is somewhat higher than these figures although less than half of the growth rate recorded in Hart, Rushmoor and Wokingham, where growth in earnings has been highest. The fact that earnings have grown more rapidly than employment is also a positive sign and tends to underline the healthy GVA figures reported in table 2 above.

the local futures group 6

Economic Development

Table 3: Economic Change

Change in % change gross in average value gross % change in Econom ic added per w eekly total Econom ic change head, 1995- earnings, employment change score rank LAD 2004 2005-2006 1998-2005 s core (out of 408) Runnymede 84.77 2.80 26.52 291.91 29 Woking 84.77 8.30 20.02 220.28 66 Hart 61.74 13.80 18.71 205.93 73 Guildford 84.77 6.10 13.40 147.46 134 Rushmoor 61.74 12.00 10.19 112.14 178 Bracknell Forest 93.53 6.10 9.67 106.41 186 Wokingham 93.53 13.60 9.19 101.12 196 Reading 93.53 2.40 9.11 100.29 198

West Berkshire 93.53 4.60 8.11 89.29 213 Windsor and Maidenhead 93.53 5.00 7.94 87.43 215 Slough 93.53 -1.40 6.09 66.98 256 Surrey Heath 84.77 2.30 -4.67 -51.36 377 Berkshire 93.53 5.30 8.31 91.43 64 of 53 South East 68.70 5.30 10.15 111.70 6 of 11 Great Britain 56.76 4.40 9.09 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

A summary of Bracknell Forest’s macro-economic performance is shown in Figure 1. The spider chart is a way of showing how the district rates against its peers. Every British district’s data is converted into a percentile, with the top-ranked area scoring 100, and the bottom zero. These can then be plotted on the chart to give a ‘web’ for each area. In general the bigger the web, the better the area is performing on each set of indicators. In this chart, Bracknell Forest’s scores are compared with the British median.

Figure 1 makes it clear that Bracknell Forest consistently scores above the national median across all of the indicators considered. It is closest to the median British local authority economy in terms of recent changes in employment and earnings. Nevertheless the average performance in this respect represents an addition to an already very strong performance in terms of GVA per head, productivity and change in GVA per head which place Bracknell Forest among the leading local economies nationally and may be taken as an indication of the knowledge content of economic activity taking place locally.

the local futures group 7

Economic Development

Figure 1: Macro-Economic Performance

Bracknell Forest

Share of national GVA, 2004 Great Britain Average 100

Economic change score Share of total national employment, 2005 75

50

% change in total employment 1998-2005 Economic scale score 25

0

% change in average gross weekly earnings, Average gross weekly earnings (workplace 2005-2006 based), 2006

Change in gross value added per head, 1995- Gross value added per head, 2004 2004

Economic productivity score

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures 2

2.3 Industrial Structure

Throughout the global economy, the critical structural economic trend is the growth of the knowledge economy across and within all sectors. The Local Futures Audit assesses Bracknell Forest’s industrial structure from this knowledge economy perspective. We distinguish between knowledge-based production (aerospace, electrical machinery manufacture, printing & publishing, and chemicals & energy), and knowledge-based services (telecommunications, computing, R&D, finance & business services, and recreational & cultural services). These industrial groupings are based upon European Commission and OECD definitions, where individual industries are classified as knowledge-based if graduates make up at least 25 per cent of their workforce. The results of our assessment of the industrial structure of Bracknell Forest are shown in Table 4.

• Bracknell Forest ranks 8 th out of 408 districts on our overall industrial structure score.

The knowledge economy in Bracknell Forest accounted for 40.0 per cent of total employment in 2005 (compared to 23.7 per cent in Great Britain, 27.2 per cent in the South East of England and 36.2 per cent in Berkshire). These figures also place Bracknell Forest top among our comparator local authorities in terms of a favourable industrial structure. The significance

2 The chart displays the national ranking of Bracknell Forest, converted to a percentile score (i.e. the top ranking sub-region scores 100% and the bottom ranking 0%)

the local futures group 8

Economic Development

of the knowledge economy among the comparator group of districts is uniformly high with all of the districts falling within the top quartile of authorities nationally.

Table 4: Industrial Structure

Proportion of employment in Proportion of Proportion of % change in Industrial Knowledge- employment in employment in knowledge Proportion of % change in structure driven Knowledge- Knowledge- driven sector employment in public services Industrial score rank production, driven services, driven sectors, employment, public employment structure rank (out of LAD 2005 2005 2005 1998-2005 services, 2005 1998-2005 score, 2005 408) Bracknell Forest 1.34 38.66 40.00 12.12 16.09 9.66 168.64 8 Wokingham 5.87 33.41 39.29 46.86 21.88 6.33 165.61 9 Windsor and Maidenhead 3.41 34.96 38.37 19.58 18.70 15.92 161.77 10 Rushmoor 4.64 31.12 35.76 27.12 15.69 -13.11 150.75 18 Reading 5.26 30.21 35.47 6.28 22.56 42.93 149.52 20 Hart 3.26 31.92 35.18 28.41 16.61 20.18 148.29 21 Slough 4.73 29.77 34.50 7.53 15.15 40.54 145.42 23 Surrey Heath 5.48 28.35 33.83 -13.91 20.60 9.34 142.61 29 Woking 1.89 31.60 33.49 10.54 15.96 14.24 141.16 31 Runnymede 2.15 30.31 32.46 30.53 24.07 5.11 136.84 34 West Berkshire 2.33 29.15 31.48 14.71 16.38 43.04 132.72 42 Guildford 4.33 22.37 26.70 25.06 29.84 16.60 112.57 81 Berkshire 3.90 32.33 36.23 15.70 18.62 26.27 152.71 2 of 53 South East 3.85 23.30 27.15 16.30 24.75 17.02 114.44 2 of 11 Great Britain 3.42 20.30 23.72 17.04 27.06 24.01 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

On the one hand, despite the generally strong performance of the local economy reported in Figure 1 above, the growth rate in employment in knowledge-driven sectors in Bracknell Forest is lower than the Berkshire, South East England and British averages. Whilst employment in Bracknell Forest is dominated by knowledge-driven sectors further growth appears slow. At 12.12 per cent, the growth in knowledge economy jobs in Bracknell Forest between 1998 and 2005 is among the lowest of the comparator group of districts and is outstripped by the likes of Wokingham, Rushmoor, Hart, Runnymede, West Berkshire and Windsor and Maidenhead.

On the other hand, Bracknell Forest’s reliance on the public sector for jobs is comfortably below the national, South East England and Berkshire averages and growth in this sector of the economy has also been well below that found nationally, in the South East and Berkshire. Since reliance on public sector employment is often considered to ‘crowd out’ and have other adverse affects on private sector employment and productivity, the figures here help to confirm a very positive picture of the local economy. Indeed all the comparator local authorities compare favourably in respect of the significance of public sector employment, although Bracknell Forest’s performance is considerably better than for example Guildford, Reading, Runnymede, Wokingham and Surrey Heath - where the share of public sector employment is considerably higher and in some instances continuing to grow strongly.

the local futures group 9

Economic Development

2.4 Business and Enterprise

A dynamic local enterprise culture is vital for the long-term competitiveness and overall success of any local economy. Table 5 shows the results of our Audit of business and enterprise in Bracknell Forest.

• Bracknell Forest is ranked 33 rd out of 408 districts in Great Britain on our overall index of business and enterprise.

This ranking confirms that, according to a number of indicators, Bracknell Forest is a good place to do business. Business density in the district is just above the national average (40.14 firms per 1,000 population compared to 37.4 in Great Britain) but below the average for Berkshire and the South East of England. Conditions do not vary markedly across the comparator group of districts with Windsor and Maidenhead perhaps standing out with a business density over 50 per cent greater than the national average. A dependence on larger businesses might be a cause for concern and among the comparator districts Bracknell Forest has one of the larger average business sizes at around twice the national average. However, there is not a great deal of variation among the comparator districts and figures here are not greatly in excess of those found elsewhere in the South East of England or Berkshire.

Whilst Bracknell Forest had one of the highest business closure rates in 2005, differences in these rates among the comparator group of districts are minor. They are in any case more than offset by rates of new business formation, which are the second highest among our comparator group and above the national, South East England and Berkshire averages.

The Local Futures Enterprise Index is composed of the new business formation rate, the sub- regional survival rate and the growth in business stock over the last 5 years. On this index, where the Great Britain average is 100, Bracknell Forest scores 118.3. The district’s business survival rate (sub-regional) is around the national average and the stock of businesses has been added to steadily over the last 5 years.

the local futures group 10

Economic Development

Table 5: Business and Enterprise

Change in New VAT business Businesse Ne w registered survival Business Business & s per 000 Average business Business Se lf business rate (24 and enterprise population, business form ation closure em ploym ent stock, 2001- m onths enterprise score rank LAD 2005 s ize , 2005 rate s , 2005 rate , 2005 rate , 2006 2006 from 2000) s core (out of 408) Slough 34.07 16.89 14.47 9.86 8.50 6.31 79.18 128.38 12 Bracknell Forest 40.14 13.40 11.08 9.66 9.30 6.89 79.18 118.27 33 Rushmoor 33.22 14.09 9.94 8.46 8.30 8.37 80.41 112.77 60 Hart 54.72 7.86 9.02 8.76 10.60 6.97 80.41 110.45 74 Surrey Heath 55.32 9.20 10.74 9.62 10.90 4.62 81.87 110.14 77 Wokingham 48.16 8.60 9.58 8.56 8.40 8.27 79.18 110.10 78 West Berkshire 59.33 9.41 9.24 8.22 10.20 8.86 79.18 106.63 112 Windsor and Maidenhead 63.63 8.83 9.79 8.87 12.60 6.51 79.18 103.83 142 Reading 37.52 14.86 10.75 10.86 6.80 2.18 79.18 103.29 154 Woking 47.80 10.64 10.37 9.08 8.90 3.99 81.87 102.50 160 Guildford 52.16 9.90 8.63 8.46 14.10 3.27 81.87 97.77 236 Runnymede 47.89 12.37 9.45 7.40 9.90 3.85 81.87 95.15 263 Berkshire 47.75 11.35 10.39 9.14 9.21 6.73 79.18 109.57 19 of 53 South East 43.85 9.98 9.59 8.52 10.50 6.10 81.09 104.09 2 of 11 Great Britain 37.39 5.69 9.82 8.43 9.20 5.70 79.34 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

2.5 Education and Skills

The knowledge economy is powered, above all, by human capital, and a good blend of academic and vocational skills will be critical to the future success of Bracknell Forest. In the Local Futures Audit, local levels of education and skills are assessed in terms of the qualifications profile of the working age population (i.e. the available workforce). The results are presented in Table 6.

• Bracknell Forest performs well in respect of education and skills, ranking 101 st out of 408 districts on our overall score.

The Local Futures skills and qualifications score is a composite measure based on each of the four NVQ levels, with greater weighting attached to the higher levels. In-line with the picture presented so far, on this measure Bracknell Forest falls very close to the national, South East of England and Berkshire averages.

At 28.3 per cent, the proportion of residents in “skills poverty” (below NVQ 2) in Bracknell Forest is below the national and South East England averages but just above that for Berkshire. Whether we speak of skills poverty levels or the proportion of residents more skilled (NVQ 4 and above or 5 or more GCSEs at grade A), Bracknell Forest appears middling within our group of comparator districts.

Skills levels are another area where conditions within the comparator group do not appear to vary markedly, creating a picture of a buoyant set of local economies driven by a favourable industrial structure, which in turn rests on good skills levels. Nevertheless, whilst Bracknell Forest falls just within the top quartile of districts nationally, in terms of our skills and qualifications score, it compares less favourably with several of the comparator districts –

the local futures group 11

Economic Development

notably Guildford, Woking, Wokingham and Windsor and Maidenhead – which fall within or around the top decile.

Table 6: Education and Skills

Proportion of em ployees Proportion w ho have Percentage of w orking Proportion Proportion Proportion received of pupils population of w orking of w orking of w orking job training achieving Skills & qualified population population population in las t 13 5+ GCSEs Skills & qualifications below NVQ w ith NVQ 2 w ith NVQ 3 w ith NVQ w eeks, grades A*- qualification score rank LAD 2 2004 2004 2004 4+ 2004 2006 C 2005/06 s score (out of 408) Wokingham 21.21 19.55 20.01 39.23 25.30 64.20 113.62 12 Windsor and Maidenhead 21.98 20.43 17.73 39.86 22.90 63.30 111.92 24 Woking 22.90 18.65 13.53 44.92 19.50 64.30 110.77 37 Guildford 24.30 21.04 20.42 34.24 28.60 62.60 109.89 44 West Berkshire 24.39 21.19 18.69 35.73 28.70 64.40 109.33 50 Runnymede 25.36 22.87 23.35 28.42 16.10 60.20 108.69 59 Hart 25.12 21.22 18.54 35.12 27.60 70.10 108.54 61 Bracknell Forest 28.25 20.69 17.86 33.20 24.70 59.40 105.39 101 Surrey Heath 26.76 22.83 12.79 37.62 24.50 72.40 104.81 115 Reading 30.37 18.74 20.28 30.61 27.20 54.90 104.62 120 Rushmoor 36.01 15.05 17.93 31.01 23.40 47.50 99.87 236 Slough 38.97 22.00 17.73 21.30 23.00 62.40 93.77 330 Berkshire 27.22 20.38 18.83 33.57 25.47 61.50 106.80 4 of 11 South East 29.19 21.49 19.83 29.49 24.10 58.91 104.53 2 of 11 Great Britain 33.30 21.60 18.71 26.39 22.00 58.50 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

2.6 Labour Market

The final aspect to be considered within the economic development section of the Local Futures Audit is the labour market characteristics of Bracknell Forest. Compared to the EU average, Britain has a less regulated labour market and enjoys relatively high employment rates and low unemployment. Table 7 provides a summary of labour market conditions in the district.

• Bracknell Forest performs well above average in respect of its labour market performance, ranking 45 th out of 408 districts in the country.

The employment rate in Bracknell Forest stood at 82.5 per cent in 2006, a figure above that for the nation (74.2 per cent), the South East of England (79 per cent) and Berkshire (80.4 per cent). The figure is some way ahead of the EU Lisbon Strategy target of 70 per cent. Only one district (Slough) in the comparator group recorded below national average employment rates. A further two districts (Reading and Runnymede) have rates comparable to the South East as a whole. The distribution of employment rates across Britain is highly skewed, with densely populated areas generally having low employment rates and sparsely populated rural areas high employment rates.

When combined with the strong productivity performance in the local economy and the healthy industrial structure and skills levels noted earlier, the additionally strong employment rate in Bracknell Forest indicates that the local economy is not only dynamic but socially

the local futures group 12

Economic Development

inclusive. However, the fact that the growth in this employment rate appears to have stalled in the face of continued growth among other comparator districts may indicate that further efforts may be needed in this regard.

ILO-defined unemployment among our comparator districts does tend to vary. ILO-defined unemployment in Bracknell Forest is at the national average but some way above the average for the South East of England and Berkshire. This is because levels of ILO unemployment are actually very low or minimal in several of the comparator districts – indicating the persistent threat of overly tight labour markets and a degree of overheating in these economies.

As one might expect given the emphasis of the discussion regarding the Bracknell Forest economy so far, breaking unemployment down into youth and long-term unemployment reveals a picture which is slightly better than the national average. Indeed figures relating to long-term unemployment are also better than the South East England and Berkshire averages. However, of some cause for concern – perhaps when connected to the stalling in employment rates recently – is the rate of youth unemployment in Bracknell Forest, which is above the South East England and Berkshire rates. Despite the generally good economic performance then, these developments underscore the value of the emphasis on learning and training within Bracknell Forest’s Sustainable Community Plan.

Table 7: Labour Market

Long term Proportion Inactivity unemployment of 16-24 year due to long- ILO Unem ploy as a proportion olds w ho are % change in Labour term Unemployed ment rate, of all unemployed, employment Labour market Employm ent sickness, 2006 (res February unemployment, 2006 (res rate 2005 - market score rank LAD rate, 2006 2006 based) 2007 February 2007 based) 2006 score (out of 408) Surrey Heath 86.20 0.00 2.30 0.80 10.92 0.00 6.82 114.00 7 Rushmoor 84.10 0.00 8.20 1.40 12.80 21.20 1.20 111.22 23 Guildford 83.90 0.00 5.10 1.00 13.91 17.80 6.07 110.96 24 West Berkshire 83.90 6.00 2.90 1.00 14.58 9.60 1.57 110.96 24 Woking 83.80 0.00 0.00 1.20 10.40 0.00 3.71 110.83 26 Hart 83.60 0.00 3.50 0.70 11.02 12.10 1.21 110.56 30 Bracknell Forest 82.50 7.00 5.00 1.10 14.90 12.60 -0.60 109.11 45 Windsor and Maidenhead 82.00 4.10 2.90 1.20 15.21 8.00 4.06 108.45 54 Wokingham 81.90 3.50 2.70 0.70 15.47 4.80 0.61 108.31 57 Runnymede 79.90 0.00 0.00 1.00 14.14 0.00 -2.08 105.67 107 Reading 77.80 4.20 4.90 2.30 20.29 12.90 0.52 102.89 165 Slough 73.80 3.50 5.40 2.80 15.44 11.00 -1.73 97.60 274 Berkshire 80.39 4.98 3.87 1.49 16.63 9.91 0.83 106.32 13 of 53 South East 79.00 7.80 4.00 1.64 15.05 10.80 -0.13 106.67 1 of 11 Great Britain 74.20 7.30 5.10 2.61 16.16 13.50 -0.27 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

the local futures group 13

Economic Development

2.7 Summary

A summary of Bracknell Forest’s economic development profile is presented in Figure 2. Bracknell Forest has a sizeable, socially inclusive and modestly growing economy with considerable strengths in terms of very high levels of productivity by national standards, a very favourable industrial structure underpinned by a strong business environment and to a lesser extent by healthy local skills levels.

Figure 2: Economic Development Summary

Bracknell Forest

Economic scale score Great Britain Average 100

75 Labour market score Economic productivity score 50

25

0

Skills & qualifications score Economic change score

Business and enterprise score Industrial structure score, 2005

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures 3

3 The chart displays the national ranking of Bracknell Forest, converted to a percentile score (i.e. the top ranking sub-region scores 100% and the bottom ranking 0%)

the local futures group 14

Social Profile

3 Social Profile

3.1 Introduction

The Local Futures Audit assesses six aspects of Bracknell Forest’s social profile, including:

• Demography and migration;

• Occupational structure;

• Wealth;

• Deprivation and inequality;

• Health;

• Crime.

The results of this analysis are presented below; at the end of the chapter we provide a composite picture of our findings and summarise the discussion.

the local futures group 15

Social Profile

3.2 Demography and Migration

Bracknell Forest’s demographic characteristics have a fundamental influence on the district’s social and economic development. Table 8 shows the age profile of Bracknell Forest.

• The average age in Bracknell Forest was 35.44 years, ranking the district as the 388 th “oldest” of 408 in Britain (where 1 st is the oldest).

At 35.4 years in 2001, the average age in Bracknell Forest is below the national average of 38.7 years in Great Britain, 39.1 years in the South East of England and 36.7 years in Berkshire. The majority of the comparator group fall within the upper quartile of authorities with the youngest populations and, among them, only Rushmoor and Slough have a younger average age of population than Bracknell Forest. In line with this, Bracknell Forest has the lowest proportion of the comparator districts in the population in the 65+ age group (just 11.5 per cent). Partly as a result, the dependency ratio in Bracknell Forest is also the lowest in the comparator group of districts.

The other factor associated with a younger population than nationally is a comparatively high birth rate, however the number of live births per 1,000 of the population is 13 in Bracknell Forest, which is broadly in line with the national, regional and county averages. This places Bracknell Forest in the middle of the comparator group and may be indicative of the established nature and smaller family sizes in relatively affluent localities.

Table 8: Age Profile

Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion of of of of of Live births Average population population population population population per 000 Dependency age, 2001 aged 0-14, aged 15-24, aged 25-44, aged 45-64, aged 65+, population, ratio, Average rank (out LAD 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 GB=100, 2005 age, 2001 of 408) Runnymede 15.74 15.24 28.84 24.06 16.12 10.70 93.81 38.94 225 Windsor and Maidenhead 18.40 11.62 30.01 24.82 15.15 12.43 98.77 38.91 229 Guildford 16.57 14.45 29.73 24.28 14.98 10.99 92.87 38.53 260 Surrey Heath 19.22 10.65 29.13 26.19 14.81 11.34 100.18 38.33 278 Woking 18.52 11.25 31.20 24.15 14.88 13.97 98.35 38.00 305 Hart 19.16 11.29 29.76 26.11 13.68 11.86 96.68 37.98 307 West Berkshire 19.33 11.20 29.30 26.23 13.93 12.39 97.93 37.76 319 Wokingham 18.96 12.70 29.71 25.73 12.90 11.13 93.79 37.09 353 Reading 16.83 16.21 35.31 19.38 12.28 14.90 85.68 35.70 384 Bracknell Forest 19.66 12.75 33.03 23.07 11.49 12.97 91.71 35.44 388 Rushmoor 18.95 13.90 32.85 22.09 12.22 13.94 91.75 35.38 391 Slough 20.07 13.44 34.18 20.66 11.65 17.93 93.38 34.84 399 Berkshire 18.81 12.98 31.79 23.43 12.98 13.50 93.59 36.71113 of 53 South East 18.03 12.40 27.93 25.06 16.58 11.58 101.87 39.08 5 of 11 Great Britain 17.87 13.02 28.48 24.52 16.09 12.12 100.00 38.65

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

the local futures group 16

Social Profile

The second aspect of Bracknell Forest’s demographic profile relates to migration and population change . The results are displayed in Table 9.

• The population of Bracknell Forest increased by 13.35 per cent between 1991-2005, ranking 49 th out of 408 districts in Great Britain.

The South East of England as a whole has grown in population by 7 per cent – 2 per cent above the national average over the period 1991-2005 and Bracknell Forest has seen a growth in population of roughly twice that of the South East of England. In comparison to the trends we have seen generally, so far, there is actually quite a range of trajectories among the comparator group of districts, with respect to population change. Woking, Rushmoor, Windsor and Maidenhead and Surrey Heath have rates of population growth below the national average. The remainder experience more positive rates of growth - it being notable that Bracknell Forest has experienced the greatest population growth of our comparator districts, falling just outside the top decile of districts nationally.

The absence of data in Table 9 precludes a conclusive discussion on the components of this population change in Bracknell Forest although we can suggest that it reflects a combination of the average birth rates seen above and the modest net in-migration detailed in table 9 below.

Table 9: Migration and Population Change

Proportion of Proportion of residents residents Proportion of moved into moved into residents Change in Population the area from the area from moved out of Net resident change within the outside the the area, migration, population score rank LAD UK, 2001 UK, 2001 2001 2001 1991-2005 (out of 408) Bracknell Forest - - - 0.52 13.35 49 Slough - - - 0.43 11.48 73 Hart 3.95 0.29 4.50 0.89 9.07 115 Wokingham - - - 0.70 8.86 120 Reading - - - 1.59 7.64 146 Runnymede 4.96 0.67 5.40 2.25 7.13 163 West Berkshire - - - 0.17 5.40 208 Guildford 4.90 0.80 5.44 1.90 4.92 217 Woking 4.81 0.31 4.25 1.06 4.50 228 Rushmoor 5.17 0.59 5.38 0.41 3.84 249 Windsor and Maidenhead - - - 0.81 3.59 253 Surrey Heath 5.44 0.59 5.74 -0.10 2.39 279 Berkshire - - - 0.72 8.02 31 of 53 South East 3.88 0.63 3.87 0.98 7.01 5 of 11 Great Britain 3.57 0.51 3.50 0.65 4.75

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

the local futures group 17

Social Profile

The third aspect of Bracknell Forest’s demographic profile assessed in the Audit relates to ethnicity . Table 10 shows the results.

• The non-white population in Bracknell Forest is very low, and the district ranks 114 th out of 408 districts in terms of ethnic diversity.

In 2001, 95 per cent of the resident population of Bracknell Forest were classified as white, above the national and Berkshire figures of 91.9 and 88.7 per cent respectively and about the same as for the South East as a whole. This indicator is highly skewed across Britain, with large ethnic populations in the large urban areas and few elsewhere. This helps to explain why Bracknell Forest’s white population is above the national average. It also helps to explain why the picture is more diverse among the comparator group where two districts – Reading and Slough - fall within or close to the top decile in terms of ethnic diversity. Bracknell Forest’s ethnic minority population is fairly evenly spread across the non-white ethnic categories of mixed, Asian, Black and Chinese and other.

Table 10: Ethnicity

Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion of of Proportion Proportion of of population Proportion population of of population population classified of classified population population classified classified as Chinese population as non- classified classified as Asian or as Black or or Other classified White rank, as White, as Mixed, British British Ethnic as non- 2001 (out of LAD 2001 2001 Asian, 2001 Black, 2001 group, 2001 White, 2001 408) Slough 63.70 2.33 27.94 5.06 0.96 36.30 10 Reading 86.82 2.38 5.20 4.14 1.45 13.18 47 Woking 91.27 1.37 5.81 0.50 1.05 8.73 63 Windsor and Maidenhead 92.43 1.38 4.58 0.49 1.11 7.57 77 Wokingham 93.89 1.14 3.08 0.89 0.99 6.11 91 Runnymede 94.99 1.18 1.95 0.47 1.41 5.01 113 Bracknell Forest 95.05 1.22 1.91 1.02 0.79 4.95 114 Surrey Heath 95.38 1.06 2.05 0.42 1.09 4.62 121 Rushmoor 95.57 1.09 1.75 0.63 0.96 4.43 125 Guildford 95.90 0.94 1.38 0.62 1.16 4.10 128 West Berkshire 97.37 0.87 0.71 0.48 0.57 2.63 167 Hart 97.69 0.72 0.81 0.26 0.52 2.31 183 Berkshire 88.68 1.54 6.82 1.97 0.99 11.32 16 of 53 South East 95.10 1.07 2.32 0.71 0.78 4.90 6 of 11 Great Britain 91.90 1.18 4.08 2.01 0.83 8.10

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

the local futures group 18

Social Profile

The fourth and final aspect of Bracknell Forest’s demography to be considered is household structure (see Table 11).

• Average household size in Bracknell Forest is high, with the district ranked 29 th out of 408 districts in the country (where 1 st has the largest household size).

The average household size in Bracknell Forest in 2001 was 2.53 people, above the national and South East of England figures of 2.41 and 2.43 respectively. Several of the comparator districts have yet higher average household sizes, so that Bracknell Forest together with Slough, Wokingham, Rushmoor, Hart, Surrey Heath, West Berkshire fall within the top decile of districts nationally. With the exception of Woking, the remainder of comparator districts also record high household sizes and fall within the top quartile of districts nationally. The reasons for the high average household size appear to revolve around the high proportion of married couples with children. This stands well above the national, regional and county levels whereas the proportion of one person households, the proportion married couples without children and the proportion of lone parent households in Bracknell Forest are all around or below one or more of the national, regional or county averages.

Table 11: Household Structure

Proportion o f Proportion of households households com prising com prising Proportion of m arried of m arried Proportion Average of one couples couples w ith of lone household person w ith no dependent parent Average size rank, households, children, children, households, household 2001 (out L A D 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 5 s ize , 2001 of 408) S lo u g h 27.64 8.98 19.57 6.30 2.65 2 Wokingham 22.63 16.43 25.08 6.30 2.62 4 Rushmoor 25.03 13.75 21.84 10.40 2.58 11 Hart 22.39 17.70 25.05 5.60 2.57 13 Surrey Heath 23.74 16.65 23.58 2.80 2.53 24 Bracknell Forest 27.05 13.78 22.60 3.60 2.53 29 West Berkshire 24.54 16.27 21.70 5.90 2.52 31 Guildford 29.07 13.97 19.37 3.20 2.48 77 Reading 30.06 10.86 15.76 6.40 2.47 82 Runnymede 29.58 13.05 18.31 3.10 2.47 93 Windsor and Maidenhead 27.94 14.57 19.87 3.30 2.46 97 W o kin g 28.29 13.86 21.75 6.00 2.43 155 Berkshire 26.58 13.63 20.73 5.37 2.54 5 of 53 South East 28.52 14.09 18.97 5.40 2.43 2 of 11 Great Britain 30.27 12.97 17.48 7.20 2.41

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

the local futures group 19

Social Profile

3.3 Occupational Profile

The occupational profile of Bracknell Forest is a useful indicator of the district’s progress towards developing a diverse, prosperous, knowledge-based economy. Knowledge-driven activities generate increased demand for ‘higher end’ occupations including managerial, professional and technical workers. In the Local Futures Audit, occupational structure is considered in terms of the proportion of the resident workforce employed in the four main NVQ-linked occupational groups (based on the standardised competences and skills requirements of each occupation). Table 12 shows the results.

• Bracknell Forest performs well above the national average in respect of the proportion of knowledge workers in the workforce, ranking 36 th out of 408 districts in Great Britain.

Bracknell Forest performs well above the national average on the proportion of knowledge workers amongst the employed workforce, falling along with four other comparator districts within the top decile of districts nationally. Bracknell Forest’s performance in this respect is also above that of the South East of England and Berkshire as a whole.

Looking at the four occupational groups, the level of managerial and professional occupations in Bracknell Forest is well in excess of the national and regional averages and above the figure for the county. A similar though less pronounced performance relative to the nation, the region and the county emerges in the case of skilled technical occupations. At the other end of the scale, the pattern is reversed, with Bracknell Forest having levels of elementary occupations and lower skilled occupations below the national, regional and county averages.

Table 12: Occupational Profile

Sk ille d Low er M anager and technical skilled Elem entary Know ledge professional occupations occupations occupations Know ledge w orker occupations (le ve l 3), (le ve l 2), (le ve l 1), w orker score rank L A D (le ve l 4), 2006 2006 2006 2006 s co r e (out of 408) W oking 45.20 28.20 16.80 9.80 144.68 12 Windsor and Maidenhead 43.05 27.51 23.25 6.05 143.43 14 Wokingham 44.90 24.62 22.63 7.62 141.25 15 Surrey Heath 40.00 29.46 24.09 6.24 138.40 18 Bracknell Forest 37.02 29.81 24.36 8.65 129.50 36 Hart 32.28 35.65 25.53 6.54 123.52 58 West Berkshire 36.22 26.59 27.44 9.63 122.15 59 Guildford 27.94 30.21 30.92 10.35 115.65 91 Rushmoor 31.53 28.51 29.12 10.84 112.22 105 Reading 32.77 25.42 29.94 11.48 112.07 106 Runnymede 29.98 25.80 28.26 16.22 108.19 124 Slough 24.62 24.96 35.51 15.08 89.16 271 Berkshire 36.97 26.39 26.91 9.58 124.16 5 of 53 South East 31.05 27.92 30.49 10.39 111.46 2 of 11 Great Britain 27.52 26.74 34.12 11.35 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

the local futures group 20

Social Profile

3.4 Prosperity

The Local Futures Audit considers prosperity in terms of a range of indicators, including total income, house prices, and social data such as the number of cars per household. Table 13 shows the results.

• Prosperity in Bracknell Forest is far in excess of the average, with the district ranked 14 th out of 408 districts on our overall score.

Nationally, there is a strong correlation between the presence of knowledge workers and levels of prosperity in the local population. Levels of prosperity in Bracknell Forest appear to reflect the generalised strength of the local economy, and in particular its industrial structure (as seen earlier) as well as the occupational profile considered immediately above. In 2006 the average income in Bracknell Forest was £31,351; well above the national figure (£23,026) but also above the figures for the region and for the county. All of the comparator group districts have average household incomes well above the national average and fall within the top decile of districts nationally, underlining the strength of this group of local economies surrounding Greater London.

Despite the uniformly good income figures across the comparator group and despite their generally similar performance across most of the indicators considered so far there are some anomalies in recent income growth (2005-06). Woking and Windsor and Maidenhead have actually experienced declines in average household incomes recently. At nearly twice the average increase experienced in Berkshire, Bracknell Forest had the third largest increase in average household income but was some way behind the increase recorded in Rushmoor.

Another strong relationship found nationally is that between household incomes and house prices. In fact, despite the overall strength of the Bracknell Forest economy and its competitive position with respect to comparator districts, the average house price in the district is on the low side when set against the regional, county and other comparator district benchmarks. This may help explain why Bracknell Forest has continued to build upon an already established and healthy economy through the steady increases in employment and population seen earlier.

the local futures group 21

Social Profile

Table 13: Prosperity

Average Average residence house Proportion Average % change based price , of all num ber of in average annual October - households room s per total Prosperity incom e, Decem ber w ith 2+ cars, household, incom e Prosperity score rank L AD 2006 2006 2001 2001 2005 - 2006 s co r e (out of 408) Wokingham 32,578 296,381 53.23 6.17 3.50 141.49 10 Rushmoor 31,834 202,030 39.91 5.36 14.00 138.26 12 Windsor and Maidenhead 31,626 356,906 46.01 5.84 -5.10 137.35 13 Bracknell Forest 31,351 237,605 45.14 5.61 5.80 136.16 14 Runnymede 31,106 339,831 45.24 5.52 0.30 135.09 15 Woking 29,437 297,919 42.82 5.66 -8.20 127.85 18 Slough 28,808 198,700 32.08 4.78 1.20 125.11 21 Hart 28,548 294,789 55.50 6.25 3.80 123.98 22 West Berkshire 27,217 276,197 47.10 5.86 8.30 118.20 27 Guildford 26,884 335,307 44.44 5.75 0.40 116.76 29 Reading 26,681 214,201 27.90 5.17 3.30 115.88 30 Surrey Heath 26,614 310,091 54.85 6.21 3.00 115.58 31 Berkshire 29,680 266,028 42.08 5.60 2.85 128.90 3 of 53 South East 23,982 248,003 37.95 5.57 3.50 104.16 2 of 11 Great Britain 23,026 189,538 28.77 5.29 4.20 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

3.5 Deprivation and Inequality

The Government’s standard measure of deprivation and inequality in England is the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The IMD covers a number of aspects of deprivation, including disadvantage in education; income; employment; health; and housing. In this Audit we consider the IMD as a whole, as well as each of its individual components. Table 14 displays the results.

• Overall levels of deprivation are very low – Bracknell Forest is ranked as the 319 th most deprived district of 354 in England.

Continuing the trend of there being greater variation in the social than in the economic profile among our comparator group of districts coming to light in this section, there is a range of experiences of deprivation indicators within the comparator group. Slough and Reading have multiple deprivation indexes at or above the national average whereas the remainder of comparator districts have deprivation index levels well below the national and regional levels. Slough and Reading aside, Bracknell Forest actually has one of the highest levels of multiple deprivation but, as already pointed out, this is well below national, regional and county levels. Several of the comparator districts – notably Wokingham, Surrey Heath and Hart - have among the very lowest levels of multiple deprivation nationally.

The IMD differentiates between types of deprivation. Repeating a pattern that we have already seen – especially regarding the economy - Bracknell Forest records very favourable scores across the various ‘domains’ of deprivation and generally falls within the middle of the group of comparator districts.

the local futures group 22

Social Profile

Improving health and well-being has emerged as one of eight priorities for Bracknell Forest Partnership’s Sustainable Community Plan – there being a particular concern over inequalities within the borough. 4 The Local Futures inequality indicator is designed to highlight any large differences in deprivation, as district wide data can sometimes mask pockets of deprivation at the small area level. The inequality indicator is measured as the difference between the highest and lowest ranking SOA in each district. On this measure Bracknell Forest has a level of inequality below the national and South East England averages and just above the county average. Once again, it sits in the middle of the comparator group with respect to levels of inequality although it is outside the top quartile of districts nationally.

Table 14: Deprivation and Inequality

Indices of Indices of Indices of Indices of Deprivation, Deprivation, Indices of Deprivation, Indices of Deprivation, Education, Barriers to Indices of Deprivation, Index of Income Deprivation, Health Skills and Housing and Deprivation, The Living Multiple Deprivation Employment Deprivation Training Services Crime Environment Deprivation, Inequality Domain Deprivation and Disability Deprivation Deprivation Domain Deprivation Average (range of Average Domain Domain Domain Domain Average Domain Deprivation SOA Score, IMD ranks), SOA Score, Average SOA Average SOA Average SOA Average SOA SOA Score, Average SOA Inequality Deprivation score rank LAD 2004 2004 2004 Score, 2004 Score, 2004 Score, 2004 Score, 2004 2004 Score, 2004 score score (out of 354) Slough 20.87 23,569 0.14 0.08 -0.18 20.35 27.45 0.67 24.31 94.00 110.56 129 Reading 18.78 26,755 0.11 0.06 -0.49 23.25 25.81 0.65 26.59 106.70 99.49 153 Rushmoor 10.37 26,386 0.07 0.05 -0.74 21.52 18.41 -0.66 11.58 105.23 54.94 287 Bracknell Forest 8.61 23,260 0.06 0.04 -0.99 14.48 19.53 -0.46 6.87 92.76 45.61 319 Guildford 8.34 23,969 0.06 0.04 -1.37 10.14 24.78 -0.60 11.04 95.59 44.18 322 Windsor and Maidenhead 8.22 20,780 0.06 0.04 -1.40 6.91 16.99 0.05 15.60 82.87 43.55 325 West Berkshire 7.92 21,832 0.06 0.04 -1.36 11.64 22.82 -0.48 8.90 87.07 41.96 329 Runnymede 7.76 19,323 0.06 0.04 -1.24 11.29 17.32 -0.77 17.92 77.06 41.11 331 Woking 7.29 23,637 0.06 0.04 -1.15 8.93 17.57 -0.75 12.15 94.27 38.62 335 Wokingham 5.09 21,271 0.04 0.03 -1.82 5.46 18.35 -0.52 7.39 84.83 26.96 352 Surrey Heath 4.93 17,435 0.04 0.03 -1.47 6.74 16.52 -1.17 9.18 69.53 26.12 353 Hart 4.17 11,131 0.03 0.03 -1.86 4.49 18.59 -0.99 7.44 44.39 22.09 354 Berkshire 11.58 22,911 0.08 0.05 -1.04 13.68 21.83 -0.01 14.94 91.37 61.36 86 of 47 South East 13.19 32,125 0.09 0.06 -0.71 15.75 22.80 -0.39 14.58 99.43 59.35 9 of 9 Great Britain 18.88 25,075 0.12 0.10 -0.16 19.76 21.79 -0.22 18.59 100.00 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

3.6 Health

Nationally, there have been major improvements in public health over the course of the last century, with big increases in life expectancy. However, this overall picture masks significant geographical variations and health inequality. Poor health has a detrimental impact on quality of life and restricts peoples’ ability to participate fully in the labour market. Table 15 presents a set of key indicators showing the state of public health in Bracknell Forest.

• Bracknell Forest is a healthy area as measured by life expectancy, ranking 110 th out of 408 districts in Great Britain.

Average life expectancy in Bracknell Forest was 80.15 years in 2003-05, compared to 78.75 years nationally and 80.05 in the South East of England. Within the comparator group, only in Reading is life expectancy lower than the national average. If we look at some of the main

4 Bracknell Forest Partnership (2005) Sustainable Community Plan, p .10.

the local futures group 23

Social Profile

determinants of good health – the incidence of obesity, smoking, cancer and circulatory disease mortality – we see that Bracknell Forest actually has a mixed performance. While levels of smoking and circulatory disease are lower than nationally, Bracknell Forest performs poorly with respect to the proportion of the population who are obese and with respect to rates of cancer, though neither of these figures are excessive in a national context. This generally good record on health translates into very low levels of worklessness, with rates of incapacity benefit claimants in the borough below the national, regional and county averages. Interestingly, despite this, Bracknell Forest compares quite poorly with the majority of the comparator group of districts, due to the fact that worklessness appears to be concentrated in a few districts – Reading, Slough and Rushmoor. Life expectancy is one of two national targets in the Public Service Agreements framework, the other being infant mortality. On this indicator Bracknell Forest also performs very well with a figure of 1.4 per 1,000 live births compared to 5.1 nationally.

Table 15: Health

Circulatory Incapacity Cancer disease benefits mortality mortality claimants Proportion Proportion rates per rates per per 1000 Average of of 100,000 100,000 working life residents residents population population age Infant expectancy Standardised who who are under 75 under 75 population, Health Mortality (years) Mortality smoke, obese, years, 2003- years, 2003- August Health score rank LAD Rate, 2004 2003-2005 Ratio, 2005 2001 2001 05 05 2006 score (out of 408) Hart 3.90 81.75 83.00 16.59 20.08 105.50 59.20 17.12 103.81 4 Wokingham 1.10 81.60 84.00 16.45 19.52 97.30 55.70 18.27 103.62 7 Guildford 2.00 81.50 81.00 20.42 19.18 101.20 68.00 30.30 103.49 11 Woking 4.30 80.90 83.00 19.83 19.72 104.30 62.80 26.94 102.73 38 Surrey Heath 0.00 80.60 94.00 17.37 19.41 98.80 60.60 24.21 102.35 65 Runnymede 5.90 80.50 89.00 21.59 20.23 113.80 77.60 20.68 102.22 74 Windsor and Maidenhead 3.10 80.50 91.00 18.42 18.89 99.00 76.30 28.73 102.22 74 West Berkshire 4.70 80.40 89.00 20.38 21.72 112.00 67.90 29.93 102.09 85 Bracknell Forest 1.40 80.15 95.00 22.11 21.51 110.90 70.30 31.70 101.78 110 Rushmoor 6.80 79.75 94.00 26.90 22.72 115.80 83.50 39.28 101.27 149 Slough 3.40 79.00 92.00 25.27 22.34 107.90 107.30 56.04 100.32 220 Reading 6.60 78.80 97.00 28.82 20.52 115.10 97.20 41.34 100.06 238 Berkshire 3.45 80.12 91.08 21.80 20.67 106.81 78.28 33.70 101.74 18 of 53 South East 3.90 80.05 93.00 23.03 21.43 111.80 77.02 43.85 101.65 2 of 11 Great Britain 5.07 78.75 100.00 24.18 20.49 102.94 79.14 245.24 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

3.7 Crime

Table 16 considers a set of indicators regarding crime within Bracknell Forest.

• Overall levels of crime are low in Bracknell Forest and the district ranks 180 th out of 354 districts in England (where 1 st has the highest levels of crime).

In 2005/06 there were 33.7 offences per 1,000 of the population in Bracknell Forest, compared to 41.8 in England & Wales as a whole, and 34.2 in the South East and 44.9 in Berkshire. As might be expected of a generally affluent set of comparator districts, crime is

the local futures group 24

Social Profile

generally low although the larger and more diverse urban areas of Reading and Slough again stand out. Looking at different types of crime, the figures are below the national, regional and county averages in every category in Bracknell Forest.

Despite having generally low crime levels, the pattern of change in crime across the comparator districts is quite variable. Six of the comparator districts have recorded decreases in crime levels over the period 2000-05. Those recording decreases have done so on both existing high and low base levels of crime. Elsewhere there have been a couple of cases (Runnymede and Surrey Heath) of double digit increases in crime levels, albeit that these have come on top of low existing base rates of crime. In Bracknell Forest, the number of crimes per 1,000 of the population increased by 2.9 per cent over the period 2000 to 2005. This is a figure worth monitoring given the decreases in crime levels reported nationally and in the county over this period and given the potential for larger increases even in low crime areas noted above. This increase is in the context of the introduction, in 2002, of the National Crime Recording Standard, which has had the effect of boosting crime figures nationally.

Table 16: Crime

% change in total Total Vehicle Violent Dw elling offences offences crim es per crim es per burglaries offences per 1000 1000 1000 per 000 per 1000 Crim e population, population, population, population population, Crim e score rank LAD (2005/06) (2005/06) (2005/06) 2005/06 2000-2005 s cor e (out of 354) Reading 72.64 27.71 31.82 13.11 -4.24 173.66 19 Slough 66.60 27.10 28.58 10.93 -12.14 159.23 25 Windsor and Maidenhead 45.96 21.38 18.60 5.98 6.06 109.88 91 Rushmoor 38.69 8.16 26.29 4.24 -7.23 92.51 136 Bracknell Forest 33.73 12.25 17.50 3.98 2.90 80.65 180 Runnymede 28.25 12.46 10.65 5.15 10.24 67.54 223 Woking 27.35 8.68 15.44 3.23 4.75 65.38 237 West Berkshire 26.87 10.73 11.69 4.45 15.83 64.25 245 Wokingham 25.91 10.73 10.10 5.08 -10.61 61.93 255 Guildford 24.48 6.99 14.51 2.98 -3.73 58.52 272 Hart 20.87 5.86 12.34 2.66 -4.54 49.89 315 Surrey Heath 19.66 6.71 9.78 3.17 10.77 46.99 326 Berkshire 44.85 18.17 19.42 7.26 -2.74 107.22 38 of 47 South East 34.24 10.90 19.20 4.14 1.94 81.86 8 of 10 Great Britain 41.83 13.51 22.66 5.67 -1.12 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

the local futures group 25

Social Profile

3.8 Summary

Figure 3 presents a summary spider diagram showing key indicators of the social profile of Bracknell Forest.

Bracknell Forest has a mix of social conditions consistent with a generally prosperous part of the nation. Strikingly, its population is very young by national standards for a prosperous area and has been growing steadily over the last 14 years or so – perhaps reflecting the economic basis of the district in the new knowledge-based sectors. The district has one of the largest average household sizes in Britain. As we might expect, correspondingly levels of deprivation, health conditions and crime levels in Bracknell Forest generally compare favourably with the national picture.

Figure 3: Social Profile Summary

Bracknell Forest Average age, 2001 Great Britain Average 100

Proportion of population classified as Crime score 75 non-White, 2001

50

25 Change in resident population 1991- Health score 2005 0

Deprivation score Average household size, 2001

Prosperity score Knowledge worker score

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures 5

5 The chart displays the national ranking of the district, converted to a percentile score (i.e. the top ranking sub- region scores 100% and the bottom ranking 0%)

the local futures group 26

Environment

4 Environment

4.1 Introduction

The third and final section of the Local Futures Audit looks at a number of aspects of the environment and quality of life in Bracknell Forest. In this Audit we consider the environment in terms of:

• Housing;

• Commercial and industrial property;

• Transport and connectivity;

• Access to services and amenities;

• The natural environment.

The results of this analysis are presented below. As previously, we provide a composite picture of the environment in Bracknell Forest at the end of the chapter, together with a short summary of the key points.

the local futures group 27

Environment

4.2 Housing Affordability, Tenure and Condition

In the Local Futures Audit, housing is considered in terms of affordability (assessed on the basis of the ratio between average earnings and average house prices), and housing condition information. Table 17 shows the results.

• Bracknell Forest is around the average in terms of housing affordability, ranking 212 th of 354 districts in England & Wales (where 1 st is the most affordable).

The average house price in Bracknell Forest was £237,605 in July-December 2006, more than the national average by some margin (£48,067) but below the South East and Berkshire averages. Combining the average house price with average earnings yields an affordability index; the higher the score the more affordable housing is in the area. On this measure (where GB = 100) Bracknell Forest performs quite well with a score of 95.5 and a national ranking of 212 out of 354 districts. However, it must also be borne in mind that this figure is relative to the GB average and levels of affordability have reduced considerably over the last few years nationwide.

In 2006 the ratio of house prices to earnings in Bracknell Forest stood at very nearly 7.6 to 1, less than the national figure of around 8.2 to 1 but still high and inconsistent with the mortgage lending rule of thumb of 4 times earnings. Since 1998 house prices in Bracknell Forest have increased by over 100% although at a rate approximately two-thirds of that nationally. These rates of house price inflation are the second lowest among the comparator group of districts and have a bearing on the affordability of housing in the district and doubtless an effect in terms of the modest population growth via net in-migration seen earlier.

Bracknell Forest actually has one of the higher proportions of rented housing and one of the lowest proportions of owner occupied housing among the comparator districts. As might be expected given the social indicators considered earlier, rates of unfit dwellings across the comparator districts are generally very low and this is the case for Bracknell Forest.

the local futures group 28

Environment

Table 17: Housing

Proportion Average Proportion of house of total Proportion households % change price, dwelling of owner Proportion sold, in average % change in October - stock occupied of rented October - house affordability Affordability December which is households households, December price, 1998- index, 1998- Affordability ratio rank LAD 2006 unfit, 2004 , 2001 2001 2006 2006 2006 ratio (out of 354) Slough 198,700 6.20 67.01 32.99 1.23 142.88 117.83 99.19 183 Reading 214,201 0.00 66.67 33.33 1.61 135.64 91.84 97.23 197 Bracknell Forest 237,605 2.00 72.97 27.03 1.43 109.52 86.40 95.49 212 Rushmoor 202,030 2.70 72.93 27.07 1.80 127.46 113.49 95.39 213 Hart 294,789 0.90 81.39 18.61 1.76 110.93 27.87 90.92 238 Wokingham 296,381 2.10 83.80 16.20 1.77 106.79 42.88 89.49 251 Woking 297,919 2.00 76.89 23.11 1.74 121.23 43.95 88.96 256 Surrey Heath 310,091 0.30 81.00 19.00 1.63 105.95 42.61 87.87 263 Windsor and Maidenhead 356,906 1.00 73.09 26.91 1.42 104.53 21.82 87.72 266 West Berkshire 276,197 3.60 74.78 25.22 1.64 123.13 64.59 85.89 281 Guildford 335,307 2.70 73.93 26.07 1.33 134.99 41.40 77.13 320 Runnymede 339,831 4.50 76.11 23.89 1.55 112.53 64.13 73.27 341 Berkshire 266,028 2.41 73.28 26.72 1.53 116.89 62.88 86.52 35 of 53 South East 248,003 3.39 73.96 26.04 2.14 128.57 59.29 95.10 8 of 9 Great Britain 189,538 4.08 68.29 31.71 1.38 151.57 96.32 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

4.3 Commercial and Industrial Property

Table 18 considers land use within Bracknell Forest, showing how the amount of industrial and commercial floorspace has changed over time.

• Bracknell Forest has seen a growth in its stock of commercial and industrial floorspace over recent years, ranking 103 rd out of 370 districts in England & Wales.

The supply of commercial property in Bracknell Forest is geared strongly towards office space, with retail space slightly less than the national figure and industrial space much less than that nationally. Bracknell Forest’s office space provision is the 3 rd highest in the comparator group while its provision of industrial space is middling among these comparator districts. In comparison to the rest of the group, Bracknell Forest’s provision of retail space is also middling.

Between 1999 and 2006, Bracknell Forest’s commercial and industrial property profile has expanded steadily across the board – within a context that has seen quite wide variation of increases and decreases in retail and industrial floorspace provision nationally and among the comparator group of districts. The overall expansion of commercial and industrial floorspace was the 4 th largest among our comparator group. On the one hand, nationally, there has been little growth in retail and industrial space. Some of the comparator districts – notably Reading - have made significant quantitative and qualitative additions to retail floorspace by way of recent developments. Despite the need to create ‘a town fit for the 21 st Century’ and the expansion of retail floorspace that this may entail, Bracknell Forest actually has added floorspace at rates in excess of these very modest national increases. On the other hand, growth in office floorspace provision in Bracknell Forest has been below the quite significant

the local futures group 29

Environment

rates of increase found nationally. As a result Bracknell Forest experienced the second lowest increase in office floorspace among the comparator group of districts. Any longer-term undersupply of office space may be a cause for concern in connection to the continued growth of the knowledge economy in the district.

Table 18: Commercial and Industrial Property

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

4.4 Transport and Connectivity

The Local Futures Audit assesses an area’s accessibility and connectivity using a composite of measures including distance from London, a ‘Local Hub’ Index (the concentration of transport hubs such as motorway junctions, airports, ports and mainline railway stations), and the ‘Contiguity Index’ (a score based on an area’s proximity to transport hubs in neighbouring districts). Table 19 shows the results for Bracknell Forest.

• Bracknell Forest has a middling score on our overall accessibility and connectivity index with a score of 72.97 on an index with Great Britain as 100 and a rank of 127th.

Our overall connectivity score is heavily skewed so that cities and large towns do very well and rural areas do very poorly, with little in between. As might be expected, Bracknell Forest’s accessibility score is buoyed by its proximity to London despite the relatively small population base and settlement size represented by the borough in comparison to some of its neighbouring local authorities. With a low connectivity score we often find a higher proportion of people travelling to work by car and a lower proportion of people travelling to work by public transport and this is indeed the case in Bracknell Forest. Less than 30 per cent of workers

the local futures group 30

Environment

use public transport or foot or bicycle – a proportion which is below the national, regional and county averages.

The district has a Net Commuting score higher than 100, indicating that the area is a net importer of labour. The proportion of residents who work elsewhere is also high; 48.5 per cent of Bracknell Forest’s resident workforce leave the district each morning to work elsewhere. Taken together these figures indicate the geographical complexity of employment patterns in the districts which form the dynamic outer edges of a vast polycentric global city regional complex that is greater London. Fully half of jobs are taken by non-residents in Bracknell Forest – this figure being well above the national average. Our measure of journeys per sq km is a proxy for general transport stress; on this measure Bracknell Forest records a result well over the national, regional and county levels and ranks 5 th among the comparator districts.

Table 19: Transport: Accessibility and Mobility

Proportion Proportion of people of people Proportion Proportion Average Proportion who travel who travel of jobs of travel to of people to work by to work by Net taken by residents work time who travel public foot or Commuting, Journeys non- who work (in Connectivity Connectivity

to work by transport, bicycle, 2001, per sq km, residents, elsewhere minutes), score, Score rank LAD car, 2001 2001 2001 GB=100 2001 2001 , 2001 2002-2003 GB=100 (out of 408) Slough 67.77 9.59 13.27 139.10 2183.88 55.07 44.52 19.00 379.61 18 Reading 52.77 18.73 19.48 155.46 2344.80 50.73 37.11 25.00 338.04 20 Rushmoor 67.40 7.10 14.84 105.36 1349.44 50.19 47.46 20.00 239.63 38 Woking 63.86 14.20 10.84 104.84 640.72 46.94 52.96 23.00 201.95 53 Runnymede 68.82 8.24 11.54 117.00 561.31 61.48 56.79 21.00 158.06 68 Surrey Heath 72.31 6.62 8.76 117.69 450.16 56.46 56.34 21.00 104.66 98 Bracknell Forest 71.33 6.25 11.52 122.92 565.22 49.94 48.53 21.00 72.97 127 Windsor and Maidenhead 66.27 8.41 11.97 131.04 357.67 50.28 48.53 23.00 68.64 132 Wokingham 69.41 9.80 8.65 84.97 365.19 45.53 56.18 25.00 55.54 142 Guildford 62.35 11.86 13.71 113.12 251.72 46.55 45.66 23.00 44.02 167 Hart 70.93 6.81 9.70 87.61 169.54 48.39 58.68 22.00 40.69 178 West Berkshire 67.68 8.43 11.32 114.36 111.70 37.03 36.06 20.00 11.86 285 Berkshire 65.70 10.35 12.64 125.95 350.19 47.86 44.99 22.17 90.45 13 of 53 South East 64.84 10.21 12.98 105.49 193.90 38.22 41.02 21.88 91.84 2 of 11 Great Britain 61.18 14.81 13.03 100.00 155.82 39.37 39.62 20.32 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

4.5 Local Services

A number of indicators are used to evaluate the quality or attractiveness of local services. We look at school exam results, recycling levels, and Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) scores. A summary is presented in Table 20.

• The standard of local services in Bracknell Forest is well above average – the district ranks 107 th of 354 districts in England on our overall score.

Local services are of a standard well above the national average in Bracknell Forest. School performance is above national and regional averages, with 59.4 per cent of pupils achieving at least five GCSE grades A*-C in 2005/06 (compared to 58.5 per cent nationally). The level

the local futures group 31

Environment

of household recycling – 18.7 per cent of waste in 2005/06 – is above the national average and broadly in line with the average of the comparator districts. There is a mixture of CPA scores in the comparator group, in which Bracknell Forest records a good score above the national and regional averages. On access (in terms of geographical proximity) to key services such as GPs, schools and supermarkets, the district performs well. Although it is not among the top performing districts in the comparator group it nevertheless has a score that is above the national, regional and county averages. .

Table 20: Local Services

Percentag e of pupils %

achieving household Local 5+ GCSEs w aste Access to Local services grades A*- recycled, services services score rank LAD C 2005/06 2005-06 2005 CPA 2004 score (out of 354) Guildford 62.60 25.20 84.09 5.00 134.24 5 Runnymede 60.20 17.88 94.77 5.00 122.71 28 Wokingham 64.20 21.90 89.61 4.00 115.98 59 Windsor and Maidenhead 63.30 21.48 95.13 4.00 114.99 69 Woking 64.30 19.70 107.02 4.00 112.87 81 Bracknell Forest 59.40 18.69 100.67 4.00 109.31 107 Reading 54.90 18.30 111.30 4.00 106.80 127 Rushmoor 47.50 19.75 114.12 4.00 105.69 134 West Berkshire 64.40 14.39 83.18 4.00 105.30 137 Slough 62.40 14.51 108.10 4.00 104.61 142 Hart 70.10 21.05 82.09 3.00 103.09 155 Surrey Heath 72.40 19.56 90.92 3.00 101.95 167 Berkshire 61.50 18.32 97.57 4.00 109.69 6 of 47 South East 58.91 19.94 94.22 3.87 122.25 1 of 9 Great Britain 58.50 14.33 100.00 3.10 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

4.6 Local Amenities

In this Audit we consider local amenities through a combination of indicators, including the density of national heritage sites and listed buildings, the availability of cultural amenities (such as cinemas, theatres and libraries) and a café culture, and employment in hotels and restaurants. A summary is presented in Table 21.

• Bracknell Forest is ranked 85 th out of 408 districts in Great Britain in respect of the quality of its local amenities.

In terms of local amenities, Bracknell Forest’s modest score of 88.6 (where Britain = 100) nevertheless places it in the top quartile of districts nationally. This is to be expected since this indicator is heavily skewed towards large cities and in particular London. There is a mixture of scores in this regard across the comparator districts in which Bracknell Forest generally compares favourably. In terms of cultural amenities, Bracknell Forest is below the national index figure but some way above the regional and county averages. The proportion

the local futures group 32

Environment

of employment in hotels and restaurants in Bracknell Forest is the second highest among the comparator districts and well above the national, regional and county averages. Bracknell Forest’s share of national heritage sites is also above the national, regional and county shares. Less positively, the district has a low score for café culture and a low proportion of listed buildings compared to other comparator districts and the national, regional and county averages.

Table 21: Local Amenities

Cultural National Am enities Proportion of Listed Heritage per 1000 employment Buildings Local sites per sq km , in Hotels and per 1000 Café Local am enities 1000 sq 2002, Restaurants, sq km , culture, am enities rank (out LAD k m , 2002 GB=100 2005 2004 July 2004 s core of 408) Reading 75.00 350.09 6.20 26.28 4.00 187.25 20 Slough 90.91 121.84 4.40 4.42 0.00 101.60 70 Bracknell Forest 45.87 89.76 9.58 3.83 1.00 88.59 85 Windsor and Maidenhead 30.46 65.70 9.88 10.52 3.00 85.14 89 Runnymede 51.28 53.39 4.40 8.21 0.00 61.64 128 Guildford 22.14 25.60 6.70 8.20 4.00 58.18 146 Surrey Heath 31.58 35.07 6.97 3.69 1.00 53.81 176 Wokingham 39.11 46.44 4.86 7.39 0.00 52.40 185 Hart 23.26 9.07 8.37 8.68 0.00 48.40 207 Woking 0.00 86.73 4.41 5.38 1.00 47.73 211 Rushmoor 0.00 80.05 5.62 4.41 0.00 47.11 216 West Berkshire 24.15 19.37 6.94 5.67 1.00 44.84 239 Berkshire 32.49 70.96 6.91 7.13 1.50 82.08 12 of 53 South East 20.66 59.60 6.77 8.36 1.18 90.82 2 of 11 Great Britain 9.96 100.00 6.75 14.22 1.69 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

4.7 Natural Environment

The final aspect to be considered under the Environment section of the Local Futures Audit is the quality of the natural environment in Bracknell Forest. Clearly, the natural environment is a subjective topic which makes benchmarking problematic, yet the knowledge economy is associated with a more decentralised geography of employment and population change as knowledge workers try to find a good work-life balance. Table 22 shows the results of our audit of the natural environment in Bracknell Forest.

• Bracknell Forest performs slightly below average on our natural environment score, ranked 207 th of 354 districts in England.

The overall quality of the natural environment in Bracknell Forest is below average, and the district ranks 207 th of 354 districts in England. Once more indicators on the quality of the local environment are heavily skewed across the country with towns, cities and urban areas scoring badly and areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Lake District and Devon and Cornwall, scoring well. As such the results in table 21 are to be expected. On the first

the local futures group 33

Environment

indicator, Natural Beauty, Bracknell Forest scores 6.5 on an index with GB as 100; this figure is far below the national figure but is actually in line with all but four of the comparator districts. Levels of tranquillity in Bracknell Forest are also below average for the nation and for the county but actually above those for the South East as whole. In line with the findings on journeys per sq km from the transport section, levels of air quality in Bracknell Forest are to be expected (the higher the score, the worse the air quality). Figures here are some way above the national, regional and county averages but actually the 4 th best among the comparator districts.

Table 22: Natural Environment

Natural Be auty (access Natural and Tranquility, Average Natural environm ent contiguity), 2004 (GB = w eather, Air quality environment score rank LAD GB=100 100) 2006 2001 s core (out of 354) West Berkshire 126.74 507.35 100.49 0.85 116.06 76 Hart 81.00 222.34 102.52 0.93 79.54 153 Guildford 34.14 193.95 102.50 1.00 71.98 179 Rushmoor 81.00 52.43 102.52 1.15 68.25 197 Bracknell Forest 6.49 92.64 102.60 1.08 66.36 207 Surrey Heath 6.73 117.87 102.60 1.14 57.26 245 Windsor and Maidenhead 6.72 126.15 102.60 1.14 52.66 277 Wokingham 7.38 119.84 102.90 1.07 52.63 278 Woking 6.73 72.93 102.60 1.13 48.58 302 Runnymede 6.73 93.43 102.52 1.32 48.46 303 Reading 6.72 32.72 102.52 1.22 43.81 324 Slough 6.49 31.93 102.52 1.52 41.78 332 Berkshire 128.06 129.75 102.25 0.97 98.44 28 of 47 South East 193.24 83.18 105.99 0.89 114.18 2 of 9 Great Britain 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.80 100.00

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures

4.8 Summary

A summary of Bracknell Forest’s environmental profile is presented as a spider chart in Figure 4.

Bracknell Forest has mixed, though generally favourable results in this section of the report. This is due in part to the range of issues covered and the potential conflict, for example, between good transport connectivity (and the high levels of journeys made) and the natural environment (leading to poorer air quality).

With respect to housing affordability and the natural environment, the district performs below the national average. However, with respect to the bulk of the indicators – floorspace change, connectivity, local services and local amenities it has a position above the national average. The district has seen a broad-based expansion in commercial and industrial floorspace. By virtue of the relative proximity to London, connectivity is good relative to other districts in

the local futures group 34

Environment

Britain and well above the national average. While there may be scope for improvement in the provision of local services and local amenities, these are nevertheless good by national standards.

Figure 4: Environment Summary

Affordability ratio 100 Bracknell Forest

Great Britain Average 75

Natural environment score 50 Floorspace change score

25

0

Local amenities score Connectivity score, GB=100

Local services score

Source: localknowledge , Local Futures 6

6 The chart displays the national ranking of the district, converted to a percentile score (i.e. the top ranking sub- region scores 100% and the bottom ranking 0%)

the local futures group 35

Conclusions

5 Conclusions: The Final ‘Scorecard’ and Policy Discussion

5.1 Introduction

This Local Futures Audit of Bracknell Forest has captured the ‘State of the Borough’ at a particular point in time – it is basically a set of snapshots of local economic, social and environmental conditions. It also provides a ‘woods from the trees’ perspective on the state of Bracknell Forest by looking at how the borough compares with the county of Berkshire, the South East of England as a whole, and also how it performs compared to the rest of Britain. The results of the Audit, therefore, provide a basis for an informed discussion on the challenges and issues facing Bracknell Forest – now and over the coming years.

This final chapter of the report provides a synthesis of the Audit findings in the form of a final ‘scorecard’, which shows how Bracknell Forest stands within Britain (compared to 408 districts) and in relation to the South East of England and Berkshire.

5.2 The Final ‘Scorecard’

The final ‘scorecard’ – shown in Table 22 – assesses the state of Bracknell Forest in terms of the three main dimensions of sustainable development. The scores represent the quintile where the district falls on each of the measures (‘A’ representing the strongest performance, ranging to ‘E’ representing the weakest).

• Economic Development – Bracknell Forest sits within a group of comparator districts which are some of the best performing and most prosperous local authorities nationally and this should be borne in mind when viewing the very solid performance. The performance of the district is best described as middling or better, since all but one of the scores are A, B or C whether the benchmark is the nation, the region or the county. Perhaps the most notable strength of the district is its ‘A’ rating (falling within the top quintile) nationally, across the South East and in the county with respect to its industrial structure. It is this disposition towards knowledge economy sectors which is likely to have had knock-on effects elsewhere in terms of economy and society – in terms of, for example, economic change.

• Social Profile – Social conditions in the district are less strong when compared to the economic indicators and might be characterised as middling. However, again a strong performance nationally with respect to knowledge workers, prosperity and deprivation actually compare less favourably at the regional and county benchmarks, given the overall strength of the region and sub-region in these respects. Despite the above national average presence of knowledge workers, and the strength of the local economy

the local futures group 36

Conclusions

in terms of its industrial structure, this actually translates into a more modest performance compared to other districts – underlining the strong contribution of the group of comparator districts to the national economy. One challenge then is to ensure that its favourable industrial structure fully translates into the development of knowledge worker skills and broad-based prosperity that is exceptional not only in the national context, but also the context of highly successful neighbouring districts.

• Environment & Quality of Life – The nature of the environmental indicators used in this analysis give rise to an above average profile for Bracknell Forest. Housing affordability is around or just above the average when compared to the national, South East of England and Berkshire averages. Indicators covering the growth in commercial and industrial floorspace are good regardless of whether the national, London or East London comparison is considered. The borough is reasonably well connected and enjoys good access to amenities by national and regional standards. The economically successful comparator group of local authorities are not noted for the quality of their natural environment, but here again Bracknell Forest appears to enjoy a middling status.

the local futures group 37

Conclusions

Table 22: The Sustainable Development ‘Scorecard’ for Bracknell Forest

District Report Card - Bracknell Forest

Sub Region Region National

Economy

Economic scale E B B

Productivity C A A

Economic change A C C

Industrial structure A A A

Business & enterprise B A A

Skills & qualifications D B B

Labour market B B A

Society

Knowledge workers C A A

Prosperity D B A

Deprivation D B A

Inequality D B B

Health D C B

Crime C D C

Environment

Housing affordability C B C

Floorspace change B B B

Connectivity C C B

Services D C B

Amenities C A A

Natural environment B E C

the local futures group 38

Conclusions

5.3 Policy Implications

The knowledge economy sits at the heart of the Government’s economic development and competitiveness policy agenda. Through the former ODPM’s sustainable communities programme, the knowledge economy is also filtering into social and environmental policy, and acts as the driving force behind a number of local authorities’ Community Strategies. Several of the eight priorities contained in the Bracknell Forest Sustainable Community Plan (2005) that can be reinforced under a number of themes to emerge within this report:

• An educated, skilled and flexible workforce – built around the LSC strategic area reviews and workforce development strategies, including improvements in IT skills and reducing education deprivation;

• Infrastructure – although not covered by the Audit, Bracknell Forest’s knowledge economy will require an advanced electronic infrastructure and a variety of e-services for a more technology-based economy and society.

• Entrepreneurship, business clusters and networks – strengthening the supporting economic institutional framework (economic partnerships, and service agencies such as the Small Business Service/Business Link, and Jobcentre Plus) which is essential to residents’ ability to participate in the knowledge economy;

• Improvements in social and environmental conditions – there is some scope for broad- based improvements such as health, deprivation and crime as well as improvements to the urban environment and conservation of the natural environment can help make Bracknell Forest a better place for creating and sharing prosperity, playing their role in improving the environment for investment.

Significantly, the emphasis in the Bracknell Forest Sustainable Community Plan is not upon the economy. Whilst the Local Futures Audit reveals significant strengths in the local economy these should not be taken for granted and are the basis for the socially inclusive nature of local prosperity. Importantly, these ‘pillars’ of Bracknell Forest’s knowledge economy need to be synchronised – that is, policies need to be joined up across all four areas of economic development strategy.

The future knowledge economy of Bracknell Forest must remain socially inclusive . To date, the strengths of the Bracknell Forest economy have been shared reasonably equitably. However given national trends the focus within the Sustainable Community Plan on the likes of learning and training for all ages and improving health and well-being are appropriate.

The final strategic imperative is to ensure that economic and social development in Bracknell Forest is sustainable . Improvements in certain facets of the environment of the district can assist in further strengthening the already significant Bracknell Forest economy. The environment and quality of life in Bracknell Forest will be key in attracting and retaining the workers that the district needs in order to develop its knowledge economy.

the local futures group 39