A Profile of Fuel Poverty in Tees and Durham LASP Region and Member Districts

William Baker, Ian Preston & Graham Starling

Report to Tees and Durham LASP

March 2003

Centre for Sustainable Energy The CREATE Centre Smeaton Road Bristol BS1 6XN

Tel: 0117 929 9950 Fax: 0117 929 9114 Em ail : i [email protected] Web: www.cse.org.uk Registered charity no.298740 PROFILE OF FUEL POVERTY IN TEES & DURHAM

EX ECUTIV E S UMM ARY

• This report describes the distribution of fuel poverty in the Tees & Durham Local Authority Support Project (LASP) area and the constituent districts. • The fuel poverty profiles are based on the Bristol University/Centre for Sustainable Energy’s fuel poverty indicator. The indicator, developed with funding from electricity supplier SWEB, is based on a statistical model that uses 1991 Census and 1996 English House Condition Survey data. • CSE plans to update the indicator in the near future by repeating the modelling work with 2001 Census and 2001 English House Condition data. The new data should be available in early 2004 on CSE’s website. • The average level of fuel poverty in Tees and Durham is 25%, i.e. one in four households live in fuel poverty. This is slightly higher than the English average of 23%. • The incidence of fuel poverty in Tees and Durham is highly polarised between wards with extremely high levels and wards with relatively low levels of fuel poverty. The range of scores in the LASP region is 39% (from 7% to 46%). This is close to the range for the whole of England at 45%. • 46 wards in Tees and Durham feature within the ‘worst’ 10% of wards in England. • The highest levels of fuel poverty are concentrated in the urban and industrial areas surrounding the Tees Estuary, e.g. Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees and Redcar & Cleveland. • Middlesborough and Hartlepool have the highest rates of fuel poverty among the 12 districts in the LASP region with a mean score of 29% each. Many wards in Middlesborough have particularly high scores, e.g. nearly 5 out of 10 households in Southfield ward live in fuel poverty. • Although high levels of fuel poverty tend to be more associated with the urban, ‘built up’ areas, several rural areas also have high levels, e.g. the predominantly rural district of Wear Valley has the third highest mean incidence of fuel poverty at 26%. • Tackling fuel poverty is particularly difficult in rural areas. Man y rural properties do not have access to gas, the cheapest fuel for heating homes. Further, people in rural areas tend not to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. This also prevents them from accessing energy efficiency grants, such as Warm Front. • The profiles outlined in this report should help Councils and regional bodies identify areas with the ‘worst’ problems of fuel poverty. This information, in combination with the results of the updated indicator (planned for late 2003/early 2004), should help facilitate the targeting of anti-fuel poverty programmes, both within the individual districts and across the LASP region.

2 Contents

EXECUTIVE SU MMAR Y ...... 2 Introduction...... 4 Structure of report...... 4 Fuel poverty in Tees and Durham LASP...... 5 Map 1: A profile of fuel poverty in Tees and Durham LASP...... 6 Fuel poverty in Chester-le-Street...... 9 Map 2: A profile of fuel poverty in Chester-le-Street...... 10 Fuel poverty in Darlington...... 11 Map 3: A profile of fuel poverty in Darlington...... 12 Fuel poverty in Derwentside...... 13 Map 4: A profile of fuel poverty in Derwentside...... 14 Fuel poverty in Durham City...... 16 Map 5: A profile of fuel poverty in Durham...... 17 Fuel poverty in Easington...... 18 Map 6: A profile of fuel poverty in Easington ...... 19 Fuel poverty in Hartlepool...... 21 Map 7: A profile of fuel poverty in Hartlepool...... 22 Fuel poverty in Middlesbrough...... 23 Map 8: A profile of fuel poverty in Middlesborough...... 24 Fuel poverty in Redcar and Cleveland...... 25 Map 9: A profile of fuel poverty in Redcar and Cleveland...... 27 Fuel poverty in Sedgefield...... 28 Map 10: A profile of fuel poverty in Sedgefield...... 29 Fuel poverty in Stockton-on-Tees...... 30 Map 11: A profile of fuel poverty in Stockton-on-Tees ...... 31 Fuel poverty in Teesdale...... 33 Map 12: A profile of fuel poverty in Teesdale ...... 34 Fuel poverty in Wear Valley...... 35 Map 13: A profile of fuel poverty in Wear Valley ...... 36 Conclusion...... 38 Appendix: The Bristol University/CSE fuel poverty indicator methodology..... 40

3 Introduction

This report analyses the distribution of fuel poverty1 in the Tees and Durham LASP region, using the Bristol University/Centre for Sustainable Energy Fuel Poverty Indicator (FPI). The indicator is based on a model developed by Bristol University’s Centre for International Poverty Research and the Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE) and funded by electricity supplier, SWEB. Statistical modelling techniques were used to match 1991 Census and 1996 English House Condition variables, from which the level of fuel poverty was predicted for every ward in England. A more detailed account of the methodology is given in the Appendix.

The indicator is based on the best current available data, i.e. the 1991 Census. The indicator will not therefore reflect changes since 1991 in demographics, income levels or housing improvement. Nevertheless, the indicator gives a better indication of fuel poverty levels than more general deprivation indicators, such as the Multiple Deprivation (IMD). This is because the latter relies extensively on benefit data and many of the fuel poor are not entitled or do not claim benefits.

The IMD also includes a ‘housing deprivation domain’ that bears either little or even inverse relationship to fuel poverty. For example ‘overcrowding’ forms one element of the domain. However, ‘under-occupation’, rather than overcrowding, is an important contributory cause of fuel poverty.

The indicator is broadly indicative of fuel poverty levels within individual wards. It is also likely to give an accurate reflection of the relative rank of wards within the LASP region. Such information can be very useful for deciding priorities when targeting anti-fuel poverty programmes.

CSE and Bristol University plan to update the FPI in the near future by repeating the modelling exercise with 2001 Census and 2001 EHCS data. The updated indicator is likely to prove a very powerful predictor of fuel poverty, not least because of the new approach to outputting Census data by Output Area (see Appendix). An updated indicator will also show where improvements have taken place and where future targeting of programmes is needed.

Structure of report

The report includes a fuel poverty profile for the overall LASP region and each of the districts within the LASP2.

Each profile consists of a map and commentary that describes the distribution of fuel poverty within the area in question. The maps are themed by equal

1 Fuel poverty occurs when a household needs to spend 10% or more of their household income on fuel to maintain satisfactory heating and use of energy services. 2 The profiles use 1991 boundaries and ward names. However, current district boundary information was imposed over the data.

4 quartiles of wards within the county/district/unitary authority. Quartiles are based on the distribution of fuel poverty within the particular area being described. Thus the worst quartile of wards (coloured red) in the Middlesbrough area of the Tees and Durham LASP map, for example, will not necessarily correspond with the ‘worst’ quartile of wards in the ‘stand alone’ Middlesbrough map.

The commentary accompanying the maps covers the following factors:

• Highlights of any particular features of fuel poverty within the area, e.g. urban/rural comparisons, notable concentrations of fuel poverty3. • Comparison of the ‘worst’ wards with the ‘worst 10%’ of wards in England • Commentary on the ‘worst’ 10% of wards within the counties • Comparison of the district means with the county and English means • Commentary on the range of fuel poverty scores found within individual districts (the difference between the highest and lowest scoring wards).

Fuel poverty in Tees and Durham LASP

Map 1 overleaf shows that there are large concentrations of fuel poverty (shown in red) in the main urban areas of the LASP region (around the coastal/industrialised areas of Middlesbrough, Stockton on Tees, Darlington and Hartlepool). However, a number of rural wards also feature in the worst quartile, e.g. in Derwentside, Sedgefield and Wear Valley.

Map 1 also shows that the more ‘fuel rich’ areas (shown in green) predominate in the rural South of the LASP region, plus the more affluent wards of Stockton and Middlesborough. It is notable that not one ward in Teesdale or Derwentside appear in the ‘worst’ LASP quartile.

3 This report follows the Countryside Agency’s definition of ‘rural’ areas. The Agency also classifies wards into ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ and districts into ‘remote rural’, ‘accessible rural’ and ‘urban. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently leading a project to re-define urban and rural areas. This will lead to a greater differentiation of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’. The revised classification will be based on land use characteristics alone.

5 Map 1: A profile of fuel poverty in Tees and Durham LASP

6 Table 1 gives the mean fuel poverty score and range for each of the districts.

Table 1: Fuel poverty in Tees & Durham and Districts

District Mean fuel Highest Low est Range poverty score scoring ward scoring ward Chester-le-Street 21% 30% 9% 21% Darlington 25% 37% 14% 23% Derwentside 25% 31% 18% 13% Durham City 22% 34% 10% 24% Easington 26% 34% 16% 18% Hartlepool 29% 42% 16% 26% Middlesbrough 29% 46% 9% 37% Redcar & Cleveland 25% 39% 9% 30% Sedgefield 23% 30% 16% 14% Stockton-on-Tees 23% 40% 7% 33% Teesdale 22% 28% 14% 14% Wear Valley 26% 32% 18% 14% Tees & Durham 25% 46% 7% 39% England 23% 52% 7% 45%

Table 1 shows that the mean fuel poverty score for Tees and Durham LASP is slightly higher than the English average, with one in four households living in fuel poverty.

Middlesborough and Hartlepool have the highest mean scores among the 12 LASP districts at 29% each. Chester-le-Street has the lowest mean score at 21%. It is notable that the third highest scoring district, Wear Valley (26%), is predominantly rural in nature. It is also notable that the two Government- sponsored Warm Zone pilots, Stockton and Redcar & Cleveland, do not have the highest fuel poverty scores in the LASP region.

Fuel poverty scores vary substantially across Tees and Durham, with a range of 39% (7% to 46%). This is close to the range for the whole of England at 45% (7% to 52%). This suggests that the incidence of fuel poverty is highly polarised across the LASP region between ‘fuel rich’ and ‘fuel poor’ wards. The degree of polarisation is particularly pronounced given that there are only 275 wards in the LASP region, compared to 8596 in England (the number of wards in 1991).

The LASP region contains wards close to both ends of the English spectrum of fuel poverty scores. Southfield ward in Middlesborough has a score of 46% and ranks 13 out of England’s 8,596 wards. By contrast, Ingleby Barwick has a score of 7% and is the lowest ranking ward in both the LASP region and in England as a whole.

Polarisation is also found within several of the districts themselves, e.g. Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees have ranges of 37% and 33% respectively. These figures are particularly dramatic given the relatively small number of wards within each district.

7 By contrast, the range of fuel poverty scores in Derwentside is fairly low at 13%. This would suggest that fuel poverty is more evenly spread across the district.

The degree of contrast of fuel poverty scores between the different quartiles and between the highest and lowest scoring wards has implications for targeting policy within individual districts. The larger the range or degree of differentiation between quartiles, the more appropriate it becomes to consider area-based targeting of anti-fuel poverty programmes4. A narrow range of scores would suggest that fuel poverty is fairly evenly spread within a district. In such circumstances it becomes less appropriate to target programmes on an area basis.

Table 2: ‘Worst’ 10% of wards in Tees and Durham LASP

% in fuel No. in fuel LASP District Ward name poverty poverty rank Middlesbrough Southfield 46 845 1 Hartlepool Owton 42 873 2 Middlesbrough Westbourne 42 764 2 Middlesbrough Gresham 40 832 4 Middlesbrough North Ormesby 40 889 4 Stockton-on-Tees Parkfield 40 1154 4 Hartlepool Stranton 39 904 7 Redcar & Cleveland Coatham 39 723 7 Middlesbrough St.Hildas' 39 856 7 Hartlepool Brus 38 855 10 Middlesbrough Beechwood 38 776 10 Redcar & Cleveland Grangetown 38 524 10 Darlington Eastbourne South 37 539 13 Middlesbrough Pallister 37 616 13 Redcar & Cleveland South Bank 37 959 13 Stockton-on-Tees Portrack And Tillery 37 969 13 Hartlepool Rossmere 36 779 17 Middlesbrough Thorntree 36 1186 17 Darlington Central 36 498 17 Middlesbrough Park End 36 740 17 Middlesbrough Berwick Hills 36 651 17 Darlington Northgate North 36 635 17 Middlesbrough Ayresome 35 895 23 Hartlepool St.Hilda 35 993 23 Darlington Cockerton West 35 464 23 Darlington Park East 34 755 26 Durham Pelaw 34 353 26

Table 2 shows that fuel poverty is particularly concentrated in Middlesbrough. The district accounts for 11 of the 27 ‘worst 10%’ of wards in the LASP region. Darlington and Hartlepool account for a further 5 wards each.

4 Area-based targeting refers to the practice of prioritising programmes according to the level of deprivation within an area. Thus all households within an area defined as having high levels of deprivation may be deemed eligible for help. It represents an alternative approach to targeting, for example, by households’ benefit status.

8 Table 2 also demonstrates the particularly high levels of fuel poverty found in the ‘worst’ wards. Around four out of ten households live in fuel poverty in the 16 ‘worst’ wards. The proportion approaches five out of ten households in Southfield’s case. The high scores reflect the combined influences of high levels of deprivation, poor housing and poor quality heating systems that are major problems within these wards.

46 wards in the LASP region (17% of all wards) fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of wards in England (scores for the latter start at 30.7%).

Fuel poverty in Chester-le-Street

Map 2 overleaf suggests that fuel poverty is concentrated in the West of the district (shown in red). The more ‘fuel rich’ wards are concentrated in the North of the district (shown in green).

Table 3: Fuel poverty scores for wards in Chester-le-Street

% in fuel No. in fuel Ward name poverty poverty LASP rank Grange Villa 30 153 52 Chester West 29 519 68 Pelton Fell 28 290 80 Edmondsley 28 70 86 Sacriston 26 470 124 Chester South 24 416 149 Plawsworth 24 137 151 Pelton 24 460 158 Chester Central 24 173 162 Chester North 21 348 190 Lumley 19 325 208 Holmlands Park 19 264 209 Bournmoor 18 227 223 Ouston 15 172 254 Urpeth 11 167 269 North Lodge 11 97 270 Waldridge 9 91 273 Chester-le-Street 21 4379

Chester-le-Street has the lowest mean fuel poverty score (21%) among the 12 districts within the LASP. This is also below the English average of 23%. However, it remains the case that over one in five households in the district live in fuel poverty.

Table 3 shows that there is a degree of differentiation of fuel poverty scores between the four quartiles (scores range from 9 to 30%, i.e. 21%). This suggests that the incidence of fuel poverty is fairly polarised across the district (although not as pronounced as some of the other LASP districts, e.g. Middlesborough, with a range of 37%).

9 Map 2: A profile of fuel poverty in Chester-le-Street

10 The range of fuel poverty scores in Chester-le-Street has implications for the targeting of anti-fuel poverty programmes. It suggests that it would be appropriate to target programmes on an area basis, focusing on the ‘worst’ quartile of wards.

Table 2 also shows that Waldridge ward has a relatively low score of 9%. This is the third lowest score in the LASP region.

Note that Edmonton ward, with the third highest score (28%) in the district (alonglside Pelton Fell), is classified by the Countryside Agency as a rural ward. Rural fuel poverty tends to be more dispersed than the high concentrations found in urban areas. Area-based indicators, such as the fuel poverty indicator, are not designed to identify rural problems. It is therefore quite significant when a rural ward does have a high score.

Tackling fuel poverty is particularly difficult in rural areas. Man y rural properties do not have access to gas, the cheapest fuel for heating homes. Further, people in rural areas tend not to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. This also prevents them from accessing energy efficiency grants, such as Warm Front.

Fuel poverty in Darlington

Map 3 overleaf shows that fuel poverty is concentrated in the 6 central urban wards of Darlington town (shown in red). By contrast, the more ‘fuel rich’ wards (shown in green) are found in the outer, more rural wards. Fuel poverty scores in the ‘worst’ quartile range from 34 to 37%. All 6 wards fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of English wards (scores for the latter start at 30.7%). 5 wards fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of wards in the LASP region.

Note that Map 1 shows that there are a larger number of wards in Darlington in the ‘worst’ quartile of the LASP region as a whole – 10 in total.

Table 4 overleaf shows that the average fuel poverty score for Darlington is 25%, higher than the English average of 23%, i.e. one in four households in the district live in fuel poverty.

Table 4 also shows that there is a degree of differentiation of fuel poverty scores between the four quartiles. Fuel poverty scores range from 14 to 37%, i.e. 23%. This suggests that the incidence of fuel poverty is fairly polarised across the district (although not as pronounced as some of the other LASP districts, e.g. Middlesborough, with a range of 37%). This has implications for the targeting of anti-fuel poverty programmes. It suggests that it would be appropriate to target programmes on an area basis, focusing on the ‘worst’ quartile and, to some extent, the second quartile of wards.

Table 4 shows that fuel poverty in the ‘worst’ wards is particularly high. Nearly one in four households in Eastgate South, Central and Northgate North wards live in fuel poverty.

11 Map 3: A profile of fuel poverty in Darlington

12 Table 4: Fuel poverty scores for wards in Darlington

% in fuel No. in fuel Ward name poverty poverty LASP rank Eastbourne South 37 539 13 Central 36 498 19 Northgate North 36 635 22 Cockerton West 35 464 25 Park East 34 755 27 Northgate South 34 526 30 Eastbourne North 30 349 56 North Road 29 526 64 Lascelles 29 420 71 Bank Top 28 437 74 Lingfield 26 451 114 Cockerton East 25 582 137 Pierremont 24 595 150 Harrowgate Hill 23 487 173 Park West 22 343 177 Haughton West 22 406 179 College 22 294 182 Haughton East 21 669 194 Hurworth 18 257 225 Middleton St.George 18 191 226 Whessoe 16 133 242 Sadberge 16 93 247 Mowden 15 233 253 Hummersknott 14 224 258 Heighington 14 98 259 Darlington 25 10,205

Fuel poverty in Derwentside

Map 4 overleaf suggests that fuel poverty is concentrated around the two towns of Consett and Stanley (shown in red) and the rural ward of Burnhope (the ward is classified as ‘rural’ by the Countryside Agency). The more ‘fuel rich’ wards tend to be rural in nature, e.g. Castleside, Lanchester.

The fuel poverty scores for the 5 wards making up the ‘worst’ quartile range from 29 to 31%. Note that none of these wards fall within the ‘worst’ quartile for the LASP region as a whole (see Map1).

Table 5 overleaf shows that Derwentside has a higher mean level of fuel poverty (25%) than England (23%), i.e. one in four households in the district live in fuel poverty. 3 wards fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of English wards (scores for the latter start at 30.7%5). However, none fall within the ‘worst’ 10% for the LASP region as a whole.

5 South Moor, with a score of 30.6% lies just outside the ‘worst’ 10% in England. Scores in this profile are generally not given to the first decimal point because it would suggest a spurious degree of accuracy.

13 Map 4: A profile of fuel poverty in Derwentside

14 Table 5: Fuel poverty scores for wards in Derwentside

% in fuel No. in fuel Ward name poverty poverty LASP rank South Stanley 31 599 42 Consett South 31 547 44 Craghead 31 354 46 South Moor 31 511 48 Burnhope 29 139 69 Annfield Plain 27 457 88 Leadgate 27 471 89 Stanley Hall 27 475 90 Catchgate 27 314 103 Blackhill 26 464 105 Delves Lane 26 474 112 Cornsay 26 158 115 Consett North 26 318 119 Dipton 26 299 122 Esh 25 445 130 Havannah 25 570 133 Crookhall 25 187 139 Ebchester and Medomsley 23 444 166 Tanfield 20 333 206 Benfieldside 20 418 207 Castleside 18 109 215 Burnopfield 18 357 218 Lanchester 18 351 219 Derwentside 25 8,794

Table 5 shows that the range of scores in the district at 13% is very low. This is the lowest range in the LASP region. The differentiation of scores between the 4 quartiles is also low. It is notable that the score for the most ‘fuel rich’ wards is quite high at 18%. The general picture, therefore, suggests that fuel poverty is fairly evenly spread across the district.

This has implications for targeting policy. It suggests that the area targeting of programmes would be problematic, due to the lack of differentiation between quartiles. However, there are grounds for focusing on the ‘worst’ quartile.

Note that the rural ward of Burnhope has the 5th highest score in the district. Rural fuel poverty tends to be more dispersed than the high concentrations found in urban areas. Area-based indicators, such as the fuel poverty indicator, are not designed to identify rural problems. It is therefore quite significant when a rural ward does have a high score.

15 Fuel poverty in Durham City

Map 5 overleaf suggests that fuel poverty is concentrated around the urban centre of Durham and the rural wards of Bearpark and New Brancepeth6 (shown in red). The more ‘fuel rich’ wards form a central ring around Durham city.

Fuel poverty scores for the 6 wards in the ‘worst’ quartile range from 26 to 34%. Note that only 2 wards in Durham fall within the ‘worst’ quartile for the LASP region (see Map 1).

One ward, Pelaw, falls within the ‘worst’ 10% of wards in England and in the LASP region.

Table 6: Fuel poverty scores for wards in Durham

% in fuel No. in fuel Ward name poverty poverty LASP rank Pelaw 34 353 26 Bearpark 29 216 67 New Brancepeth 28 144 75 Elvet 28 279 82 Gilesgate 27 426 98 Coxhoe 26 513 117 Shadforth 25 147 129 Deerness 25 368 135 Brandon 24 601 153 Sherburn 24 319 155 Framwellgate Moor 23 357 168 Cassop-cum-Quarrington 23 426 170 Ushaw Moor 22 367 178 Pittington and West Rainton 21 319 189 Witton Gilbert 21 207 192 Croxdale 21 120 193 Langley Moor & Meadowfield 20 232 205 Framwelgate 19 356 212 Nevilles Cross' 18 303 220 Carrville 18 214 227 Gilesgate Moor 17 195 235 Shincliffe 12 76 266 Newton Hall 11 221 268 Belmont 10 132 271 Durham City 22 6,891

Table 6 shows that the mean level of fuel poverty in Durham, at 22%, is lower than that for the LASP region (25%) and England (23%). However, it remains the case that over one in five households in the district live in fuel poverty.

6 This follows the Countryside Agency’s classification of rural wards.

16 Map 5: A profile of fuel poverty in Durham

17 Table 6 also shows that there is a degree of differentiation of fuel poverty scores between the four quartiles (scores range from 10 to 34%, i.e. 24%). However, it is very striking that there is a large jump from the ‘worst’ ward to the 2nd ranking ward (from 34 to 29%). Similarly there is a large jump from the scores of the lowest ranking 3 wards to the 4th lowest ranking ward (from 12 to 17%).

This suggests that the incidence of fuel poverty is fairly polarised at the extremes, with a narrower range across the middle (from 17 to 29%, i.e. 12%). Thus one ward, Pelaw, stands out for its particularly high fuel poverty levels, with one in three households living in fuel poverty.

This has implications for the targeting of anti-fuel poverty programmes. It suggests that Pelaw should be particularly prioritised for area-based anti-fuel poverty programmes. Further area targeting of programmes is more problematic since there is less differentiation between wards. However, it may be appropriate to target programmes on the remaining wards in the ‘worst’ quartile and, to some extent, the second quartile of wards.

Note that the rural wards of Bearpark and New Brancepeth have the 2nd and 3rd highest scores in the district (29 and 28% respectively). Rural fuel poverty tends to be more dispersed than the high concentrations found in urban areas. Area-based indicators, such as the fuel poverty indicator, are not designed to identify rural problems. It is therefore quite significant when a rural ward does have a high score.

Fuel poverty in Easington

Map 6 overleaf suggests that fuel poverty is concentrated around Peterlee and the former mining towns of Easington Colliery and Horden (shown in red). Note that the more ‘fuel rich’ wards are adjacent to the most ‘fuel poor’ (although scores for the former also tend to be quite high).

Fuel poverty scores for the 6 wards in the ‘worst’ quartile range from 30 to 34%. Note that 8 wards in Easington fall within the ‘worst’ quartile in the LASP region as a whole (see Map 1).

2 wards (Deneside and Horden North) fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of wards in England and 1 ward (Deneside) falls within the worst 10% of wards in the LASP region.

18 Map 6: A profile of fuel poverty in Easington

19 Table 7: Fuel poverty scores for wards in Easington

% in fuel No. in fuel Ward name poverty poverty LASP rank Deneside 34 616 32 Horden North 31 665 45 Easington Colliery 30 676 49 Horden South 30 441 50 Dawdon 30 654 57 South 30 193 59 High Colliery 29 203 62 Wheatley Hill 29 421 66 Shotton 28 484 79 Deaf Hill 28 161 84 Eden Hill 27 561 91 Thornley 27 327 92 Blackhalls 27 682 104 Murton West 26 379 106 South Hetton 26 290 123 Wingate 26 377 125 Haswell 25 174 136 Hutton Henry 24 180 140 Seaham 24 405 143 Dene House 24 383 156 Acre Rigg 24 333 163 Park 22 168 185 Murton East 22 622 187 Howletch 21 289 196 Easington Village 21 202 199 Passfield 16 296 240 Easington 26 10,182

The mean level of fuel poverty in Easington, at 26%, is slightly above the mean for both the LASP region and England (25%). It has the third highest mean of the 12 districts in the LASP region, alongside Wear Valley.

Table 6 also shows that there is a degree of differentiation of fuel poverty scores between the four quartiles. Fuel poverty scores range from 16 to 34%, i.e. 18%. However, it is very striking that there is a large jump from the lowest ranking ward to the 2nd lowest ranking ranking ward (from 16 to 21%). Similarly there is quite a large jump from the ‘worst’ ward to the second ranked ward (from 34 to 31%).

This suggests that the incidence of fuel poverty is fairly polarised at the extremes, with a narrower range across the middle (from 21 to 31%, i.e. 10%). Thus one ward, Deneside, stands out for its particularly high fuel poverty levels, with one in three households living in fuel poverty. By contrast, Passfield ward has a significantly lower level of fuel poverty than the remaining wards (although 16% is still fairly high).

20 This has implications for the targeting of anti-fuel poverty programmes. It suggests that Deneside should be particularly prioritised for area-based anti- fuel poverty programmes. Further area targeting of programmes is more problematic since there is less differentiation between wards. However, it may be appropriate to target programmes on the remaining wards in the ‘worst’ quartile and at the second quartile of wards.

Fuel poverty in Hartlepool

Map 7 overleaf shows that fuel poverty is very much concentrated in the certain urban wards Hartlepool (shown in red). The more ‘fuel rich’ wards (shown in green) are rural in nature, e.g. Elwick, Greatham. Fuel poverty scores in the ‘worst’ quartile range from 36 to 42%. Note that Map 1 shows that there are a larger number of wards in Hartlepool in the ‘worst’ quartile of the LASP region as a whole – 9 in total. This is a particularly large number, given the small number of wards in Hartlepool, at 17.

8 wards in Hartlepool fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of English wards, 5 within the ‘worst’ 10% of LASP wards.

Table 8: Fuel poverty scores for wards in Hartlepool

% in fuel No. in fuel LASP Wardname poverty poverty rank Owton 42 873 2 Stranton 39 904 7 Brus 38 855 10 Rossmere 36 779 17 St.Hilda 35 993 24 Dyke House 34 891 28 Jackson 34 774 29 Brinkburn 32 735 37 Park 29 661 60 Fens 23 567 167 Grange 23 531 169 Rift House 21 472 188 Throston 21 515 191 Seaton 19 394 210 Greatham 17 155 232 Elwick 16 97 241 Hart 16 240 246 Hartlepool 29 10436

Table 8 shows that Hartlepool has a particularly high rate of fuel poverty at 29%. This is the highest in the LASP region, alongside Middlesborough, and is considerably higher than the English average at 23%. 3 in 10 households in the district live in fuel poverty.

21 Map 7: A profile of fuel poverty in Hartlepool

22 Table 8 overleaf also shows that Owton, Stranton and Brus wards have particularly high rates of fuel poverty – around 4 in 10 households in these wards live in fuel poverty. Owton has the second highest incidence of fuel poverty in the LASP region and is ranked 37th out of 8596 wards in England.

Table 8 also shows that there is a degree of differentiation of fuel poverty scores between the four quartiles. Fuel poverty scores range from 16 to 42%, i.e. 26%). This suggests that the incidence of fuel poverty is fairly polarised across the district (although not as pronounced as some disticts, e.g. Middlesborough, with a range of 37%).

This has implications for the targeting of anti-fuel poverty programmes. It suggests that it would be appropriate to target programmes on an area basis, focusing on the ‘worst’ quartile and second quartile of wards.

Note that the lowest scoring ward, Hart, still has a relatively high score of 16%.

Fuel poverty in Middlesbrough

Map 8 shows that fuel poverty is very much concentrated in the North of the district (shown in red), plus the central ward of Beechwood. The more ‘fuel rich’ wards (shown in green) are found in the South West and South East of the district.

Fuel poverty scores for the 6 wards in the ‘worst’ quartile range from 38 to 46%. Note that Map 1 shows that there are a larger number of wards in Middlesborough in the ‘worst’ quartile of the LASP region as a whole – 15 in total. This is a particularly large number, given that there are only 25 wards in the district.

14 wards in Middlesborough fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of English wards, 11 within the ‘worst’ 10% of LASP wards.

Table 9 overleaf shows that Middlesborough has a particularly high rate of fuel poverty at 29%. This is the highest in the LASP region, alongside Hartlepool, and is considerably higher than the English average at 23%. 3 in 10 households in the district live in fuel poverty.

Middlesbrough contains four of the five ‘worst’ ranking wards in the LASP region (see Table 2). Around four in ten households in the ‘worst’ quartile live in fuel poverty. Southfield ward (46%) is the ‘worst’ ward in the LASP region and is ranked 13 out of the 8596 wards in England

23 Map 8: A profile of fuel poverty in Middlesborough

Table 9: Fuel poverty scores for wards in Middlesbrough

% in fuel No. in fuel LASP Wardname poverty poverty rank Southfield 46 845 1 Westbourne 42 764 3 Gresham 40 832 4 North Ormesby 40 889 5 St.Hildas' 39 856 9 Beechwood 38 776 11 Pallister 37 616 14 Thorntree 36 1186 18 Park End 36 740 20 Berwick Hills 36 651 21 Ayresome 35 895 23 Easterside 33 597 34 Grove Hill 32 684 35 Beckfield 32 746 38 Park 29 528 63 Linthorpe 28 550 77 Hemlington 27 498 95 Stainton & Thornton 25 500 126 Acklam 18 365 213 Kirby 18 348 222 Newham 18 868 224 Kader 18 412 228 Brookfield 14 336 262 Marton 12 218 267 Nunthorpe 9 163 272 Middlesborough 29 15,863

Table 9 shows that there is a high degree of differentiation between the quartiles. There is also a very large range of scores, from 9 to 46%, i.e. 37%. This is the largest range among the 12 districts in the LASP region. It reflects a major polarisation of the incidence of fuel poverty between ‘fuel rich’ and ‘fuel poor’ wards. Nunthorpe ward has the 4th lowest score in the whole of the LASP region. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that fuel poverty in even the third quartile is still quite high, for example the score for Grove Hill is 32%.

This has implications for the area targeting of anti-fuel poverty programmes. It suggests that if area targeting takes place at a regional level, many wards in Middlesborough would benefit (including most wards in the ‘worst’ 3 quartiles). Area targeting at a district level should of course prioritise the highest scoring wards. However, even wards in the 3rd quartile have high scores and therefore should be considered for area-based programmes.

Fuel poverty in Redcar and Cle veland

Map 9 overleaf shows that fuel poverty is concentrated in the North East of the borough around Redcar itself (shown in red).

25 The more ‘fuel rich’ wards are concentrated towards the South of the district (shown in green).

Fuel poverty scores for the 6 wards in the ‘worst’ quartile range from 29 to 39%. There are also 6 wards in Redcar & Cleveland that fall within the ‘worst’ quartile of the LASP region as a whole (see Map 1).

5 wards in Redcar & Cleveland fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of English wards, 3 within the ‘worst’ 10% of LASP wards.

Table 10: Fuel poverty in Redcar and Cleveland

% in fuel No. in fuel LASP Wardname poverty poverty rank Coatham 39 723 8 Grangetown 38 524 12 South Bank 37 959 15 Skinningrove 33 228 33 Newcomen 31 583 43 Church Lane 29 496 61 Guisborough 28 793 81 Dormanstown 27 702 93 Kirkleatham 27 868 96 Redcar 27 543 97 Loftus 27 750 100 Saltburn 26 687 107 Bankside 26 610 120 Easton 26 561 121 Overfields 24 456 141 Lockwood 24 337 144 Skelton 24 603 154 St.Germains' 22 411 184 Teesville 22 526 186 Brotton 20 390 200 West Dyke 20 615 204 Normanby 17 320 230 Ormesby 17 247 236 Longbeck 16 498 238 Belmont 14 415 261 Hutton 9 126 274 Redcar & Cleveland 25 13,971

Table 10 shows that Redcar & Cleveland has a higher rate of fuel poverty than the English average of 23%. One in four households in the district live in fuel poverty.

Table 10 also shows that there is a degree of differentiation between the quartiles. There is also a large range of scores, from 9 to 39%, i.e. 30%. However, it is notable that there is a large jump from the lowest ranking ward, Hutton (9%), to the second lowest, Belmont (14%). Hutton has the second lowest score in the whole of the LASP region.

26 Map 9: A profile of fuel poverty in Redcar and Cleveland

27 The range of fuel poverty scores and differentiation between quartiles suggests that the incidence of fuel poverty is polarised between ‘fuel rich’ and ‘fuel poor’ wards. This has implications for the targeting of anti-fuel poverty programmes. It suggests that it would be appropriate to target programmes on an area basis, focusing on the ‘worst’ quartile and, to some extent, the second quartile of wards.

Redcar and Cleveland is of course one of the Government’s pilot Warm Zones (although work started much later than the original 5 pilots). While the Warm Zone aims to systematically tackle fuel poverty on a ward by ward basis, it relies extensively on Warm Front and ‘priority EEC’, which are targeted according to households’ benefit status. However, the Zone also receives a considerable financial input from the local authority. It is not yet clear whether the Zone will be able to provide measures to all fuel poor households by integrating these different funds (i.e. Warm Front, EEC and local authority).

The Fuel Poverty Indicator can benefit possible future Zones in two ways (particularly when the indicator is updated with 2001 Census and 2001 EHCS data). First, it can be used for deciding which wards should be tackled first (according to severity of fuel poverty). Second, it can be used for predicting which wards might have a large number of households who are fuel poor but not eligible for Warm Front or EEC.

This can be done by comparing wards’ scores on the fuel poverty indicator with their scores on the ‘income domain’ within the Index of Multiple Deprivation (which is based on households claiming benefits). A high score on the fuel poverty indicator, coupled with a low score on the income domain, might suggest there is likely to be a large number of households who are not eligible for Warm Front or EEC.

Fuel poverty in Sedgefield

Map 10 overleaf shows that fuel poverty is scattered around the district, with the largest concentration around Shildon (shown in red). Note that the five highest scoring wards are all defined by the Countryside Agency as ‘rural’. The more ‘fuel rich’ wards are concentrated towards the rural South of the district (shown in green).

Fuel poverty scores for the 6 wards in the ‘worst’ quartile range from 25 to 30%. Only 1 ward in Sedgefield, Sunnydale, falls in the ‘worst’ quartile of the LASP region as a whole (see Map 1). No wards in Sedgefield fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of English wards or within the ‘worst’ 10% of LASP wards.

Table 11 overleaf shows that Sedgefield has the same rate of fuel poverty as England at 23%. This is below the LASP average of 25%.

Table 11 also shows that the degree of differentiation between the quartiles is fairly small. The range of scores of scores is also quite low, from 16 to 30%, i.e. 14%. This suggests that fuel poverty is fairly evenly spread across the district.

28 Map 10: A profile of fuel poverty in Sedgefield

29 Table 11: Fuel poverty in Sedgefield

% in fuel No. in fuel Wardname poverty poverty LASP rank Sunnydale 30 387 58 Thickley 29 574 73 Low Spennymoor & Tudhoe Grange 26 499 111 Byerley 26 380 113 Cornforth 26 306 116 Old Trimdon 25 315 131 Ferryhill 25 507 132 Broom 25 567 134 Tudhoe 25 347 138 Chilton 24 560 159 Neville 24 282 160 Fishburn 24 218 164 Middlestone 23 427 171 West 23 514 172 Simpasture 23 179 175 Shafto 22 235 181 New Trimdon & Trimdon Grange 22 160 183 Spennymoor 19 466 211 Middridge 18 320 217 Sedgefield 16 328 243 Woodham 16 494 244 Bishop Middleham 16 84 245 Sedgefield 23 8,149

The narrow range of scores in Sedgefield has implications for targeting policy. It suggests that the area targeting of programmes is problematic, due to the lack of differentiation between quartiles. However, there are grounds for focusing on the ‘worst’ quartile.

Note that the ‘worst’ quartile is predominantly rural. Tackling fuel poverty is particularly difficult in rural areas. Many rural properties do not have access to gas, the cheapest fuel for heating homes. Further, people in rural areas tend not to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. This also prevents them from accessing energy efficiency grants, such as Warm Front.

Fuel poverty in Stockton-on-Tees

Map 11 overleaf shows that fuel poverty is much concentrated in the central wards of Stockton town itself, plus Charltons ward in the North (shown in red). The more ‘fuel rich’ wards (shown in green) form a central strip through the middle of the district and in the South of the district.

Fuel poverty scores for the 7 wards in the ‘worst’ quartile range from 31 to 40%. Note that that there are 9 wards in Stockton in the ‘worst’ quartile of the LASP region as a whole (see Map 1).

30 Map 11: A profile of fuel poverty in Stockton-on-Tees

31 6 wards in Stockton fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of English wards, 2 within the ‘worst’ 10% of LASP wards.

Table 12: Fuel poverty in Stockton-on-Tees

% in fuel No. in fuel Ward name poverty poverty LASP rank Parkfield 40 1154 6 Portrack And Tillery 37 969 16 Victoria 34 741 31 Newtown 32 764 39 Charltons 32 656 40 Hardwick 32 612 41 Mile House 31 712 47 Blue Hall 30 781 54 Roseworth 29 624 70 St.Cuthberts' 28 664 78 St.Aidans' 28 591 85 Mandale 27 708 101 Grange 26 423 118 Stainsby 25 607 127 Village 24 510 145 Norton 24 624 147 Grangefield 23 481 165 Fairfield 18 330 229 Preston 17 187 231 Elm Tree 17 306 233 Bishopsgarth 15 431 250 Whitton 15 179 251 Northfield 15 284 252 Marsh House 14 462 255 Egglescliffe 14 426 256 Glebe 14 344 257 Wolviston 14 128 263 Hartburn 13 338 264 Yarm 13 426 265 Ingleby Barwick 7 163 275 Stockton 23 15,625

Table 12 shows that the average level of fuel poverty in Stockton is the same as that for England at 23%.

Stockton has the second largest range of fuel poverty scores in the LASP region at 33% (after Middlesborough). The district contains wards at both ends of the spectrum. Parkfield ward, with a score of 40%, has the sixth highest incidence of fuel poverty in the LASP region, whereas Ingleby Barwick has the lowest (7%). This is also has the lowest score in England.

The range of fuel poverty scores and differentiation between quartiles suggests that the incidence of fuel poverty is polarised between ‘fuel rich’ and ‘fuel poor’ wards. This would normally have implications for the targeting of anti-fuel poverty programmes in that it would suggest programmes could be

32 focused on an area basis. However, Stockton is a Warm Zone that has almost completed its work. All wards have now gone through the assessment process, with many households in fuel poverty receiving measures (the Warm Zone has been able to help many fuel poor households not eligible for Warm Front or priority EEC through a ‘gap fund’). Arrangements are also in place to set up a ‘Comfort Zone’ to ‘mop up’ properties not already tackled.

A full evaluation of the Zone’s work, in terms of impact on fuel poverty, has yet to be completed. However, it is likely that many households will remain in fuel poverty, despite the relatively generous level of funding for measures in the Warm Zone (see the EST/CSE/NEA evaluation of Warm Zones). It is suggested that the Comfort Zone uses the updated indicator as a means of setting priorities for future programmes.

Fuel poverty in Teesdale

Map 12 overleaf shows that fuel poverty is concentrated in the centre and North West of the district (shown in red). The more ‘fuel rich’ wards (shown in green) form a central strip through the middle of the district.

Fuel poverty scores for the 5 wards in the ‘worst’ quartile range from 24 to 28%. Note that none of these wards fall within the ‘worst’ quartile of the LASP region as a whole (see Map 1).

There are no wards in Teesdale that fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of English ward or ‘worst’ 10% of LASP wards.

Table 13: Fuel poverty in Teesdale

% in fuel No. in fuel LASP Wardname poverty poverty rank Evenwood with Ramshaw 28 250 83 Middleton-in-Teesdale 27 172 94 Cockfield 27 186 99 Barnard Castle East 26 251 108 Staindrop 24 147 157 Barnard Castle West 23 239 174 Etherley 21 156 197 Greta 21 48 198 Cotherstone with Lartington 20 56 201 Romaldkirk 20 66 202 Lynesack 20 123 203 Hamsterley & South Bedburn 18 40 214 Ingleton 18 47 221 Startforth East 17 42 234 Gainford and Winston 17 112 237 Toft Hill and Lands 16 36 239 Eggleston 16 60 248 Streatlam with Whorlton 16 43 249 Startforth with Boldron 14 51 260 Teesdale 22 2125

33 Map 12: A profile of fuel poverty in Teesdale

Table 13 shows that the average level of fuel poverty in Teesdale, at 22%, is slightly lower than the English average of 23%. However, it remains the case that over one in five households in the district live in fuel poverty.

Table 13 also shows that the range of scores in the district, at 14%, is quite low. The differentiation of scores between the 4 quartiles is also low. This suggests that fuel poverty is fairly evenly spread across the district.

This has implications for targeting policy. It suggests that the area targeting of programmes is problematic, due to the lack of differentiation between quartiles. However, there are grounds for focusing on the ‘worst’ quartile.

The Countryside Agency defines Teesdale as a ‘remote rural’ district. Every ward in the district, bar one, is also defined as rural. Rural fuel poverty tends to be more dispersed than the high concentrations found in urban areas. Area-based indicators, such as the fuel poverty indicator, are not designed to identify rural problems. It is therefore quite significant when high scores occur in rural wards, such as Middleton-in-Teesdale or Evenwood with Ramshaw.

Fuel poverty in Wear Valley

Map 13 overleaf shows that fuel poverty is concentrated in the South of the district (shown in red), coupled with a couple of central wards. The more ‘fuel rich’ wards (shown in green) are found in the sparsely populated West of the district, plus several central wards.

Fuel poverty scores for the 5 wards in the ‘worst’ quartile range from 29 to 32%. All of these wards also fall within the ‘worst’ quartile of the LASP region as a whole (see Map 1).

One ward in Wear Valley, Coundon Grange, falls within the ‘worst’ 10% of English ward but does not fall within the ‘worst’ 10% of LASP wards.

Table 14 overleaf shows that the average level of fuel poverty in Wear Valley, at 26%, is higher than the English average of 23% and slightly above the LASP average of 25%. Wear Valley has the fourth highest score among the 12 districts in the LASP, alongside Easington.

35 Map 13: A profile of fuel poverty in Wear Valley

36 Table 14: Fuel poverty in Wear Valley

% in fuel No. in fuel LASP Ward name poverty poverty rank Coundon Grange 32 299 36 Tow Law 30 265 51 St.Helens' 30 291 53 Woodhouse Close 30 634 55 Henknowle 29 336 65 Wheatbottom & Helmington Row 29 387 72 Willington East 28 455 76 Bishop Auckland Town 28 465 87 Stanley 27 179 102 Coundon 26 481 109 Willington West 26 329 110 Crook North 25 174 128 Wolsingham 24 345 142 Crook South 24 459 146 West Auckland 24 270 148 St. Johns Chapel' 24 139 152 Howden 24 204 161 Hunwick 22 137 176 Stanhope 22 219 180 Cockton Hill 21 421 195 Escomb 18 160 216 Wear Valley 26 6,649

Table 14 shows that the range of scores in the district, at 14%, is quite low. The differentiation of scores between the 4 quartiles is also low. It is notable that the lowest scoring ward, Escomb, still has a relatively high score of 18%. The low range of scores suggests that fuel poverty is fairly evenly spread across the district.

The Countryside Agency defines Wear Valley as a ‘remote rural’ district. 13 of Wear Valley’s 21 wards are also defined as rural. Rural fuel poverty tends to be more dispersed than the high concentrations found in urban areas. Area- based indicators, such as the fuel poverty indicator, are not designed to identify rural problems. It is therefore quite significant when high scores occur in rural wards, such as Henknowle or Wheatbottom & Helmington Row.

37 Conclusion

The profiles of fuel poverty described in this report show that fuel poverty varies considerably across the 12 districts making up the Tees & Durham LASP region. The region contains a number of urban industrialised areas with very high levels of fuel poverty. However, a number of rural areas also have fairly high levels. Furthermore, there are high levels of fuel poverty in some of the former mining towns.

There is also a wide range of fuel poverty scores across the LASP region. Some wards have extremely high levels. Southfield in Middlesborough, for example, has the 13th highest score in the whole of England (46%). Nearly five out of ten households in the ward live in fuel poverty. By contrast, Ingleby Barwick in Stockton-in-Tees has the lowest score in England (7%).

The extent of polarisation between ‘fuel rich’ and ‘fuel poor’ wards within individual districts also varies considerably. The range of fuel poverty scores across Middlesborough and Stockton, for example, is 37% and 33% respectively. By contrast, the range of scores in Derwentside is only 13%. In some districts, the range of scores would be lower if not for a few wards having significantly higher or lower scores at each end of the district range, e.g Durham City, Easington.

The profiles suggest that the degree of differentiation between quartiles, or size of range, within districts has implications for targeting policy. If the range is fairly narrow, it becomes less appropriate to consider the area targeting of programmes. This is because the profiles would suggest that fuel poverty is fairly even spread7. Paradoxically, Middlesborough provides a partial exception to this approach. Although the borough has a very large range of scores, it also has very high scores right down to the third quartile (which are still higher than the scores for the ‘worst’ wards in some districts).

Middlesborough would therefore benefit should a regional approach to the area targeting of programmes be adopted. Many wards in the borough would be likely to benefit. However, area targeting at a district level is more problematic, due to the many wards with very high levels of fuel poverty.

The area targeting of programmes can help programme deliverers prioritise resources. Nevertheless, it should always be appreciated that there will be many fuel poor households who live in areas defined as ‘fuel rich’. Conversely, areas defined as having high levels of fuel poverty will include fuel rich households8. It is therefore important that non-area specific anti-fuel poverty programmes are run alongside area-targeted programmes to try and make sure that the maximum number of fuel poor households is covered.

7 Of course, there may well be ‘pockets’ of more concentrated fuel poverty at the sub-ward or neighbourhood level. 8 This becomes less of a problem in higher scoring wards. For example, it is quite likely that a large proportion of the remaining 54% of households in Southfield ward in Middlesborough live just below fuel poverty levels.

Rural fuel poverty is a significant problem in some of the rural areas in Tees & Durham, for example, certain wards in Wear Valley, Teesdale or Sedgefield. Because rural fuel poverty tends to be fairly dispersed, area-based indicators such as the fuel poverty indicator, tend not to identify the problem9. The problem becomes hidden leading to a lack of policy initiatives10.

The problem is exacerbated by the difficulties of tackling fuel poverty in rural areas. Many rural properties do not have access to gas, the cheapest fuel for heating homes. Further, people in rural areas tend not to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. This also prevents them from accessing energy efficiency grants, such as Warm Front.

Warm Front often has little to offer to the type of fuel poverty that is characteristic of rural housing. Warm Front has most impact when a gas condensing boiler and cavity wall insulation can be offered. Lack of gas and solid walls (common in many rural properties) mean that these measures cannot be offered to many rural fuel poor households.

CSE and Bristol University plan to update the fuel poverty indicator by repeating the modelling work with 2001 Census and 2001 English House Condition Survey data. The new indicator should show where improvements have taken place since 1991. Thus, profiles based on the updated indicator will show the extent of progress in the intervening period and where targeting is still required.

9 It is therefore particularly significant when rural wards do score highly on the indicator. 10 See Baker, W (2002), Rural fuel poverty: defining a research agenda, eaga Charitable Trust

39 Appendix: The Bristol University/CSE fuel poverty indicator methodology

Basic overview

The fuel poverty indicator (FPI) uses statistical modelling techniques to match data from the 1991 Census and 1996 English House Condition Survey. The research underpinning the FPI identified a weighted set of 8 variables which, in combination, provide a reasonable proxy of fuel poverty, as shown in the table below:

Weightings applied to 1991 Census variables to predict fuel poverty (derived from 1996 EHCS) 1991 Census Variable 1996 EHCS Total Fuel Cost (N=13,711) Unemployed 2.9 Under occupied (> 5 rooms per person) 2.6 No car 2.5 Single Pensioner 2.4 No central heating 2.4 Private renter 2.1 Lone parent 2.1 Disabled 1.6 Source: Gordon, 2002; 1991 Census; 1996 EHCS

The variables selected are based on similar questions used in both the 1991 Census and 1996 English House Condition Survey. In effect, the FPI predicts the level of fuel poverty within any given area (e.g. enumeration district, electoral ward, local authority district, region).

The methodology was explored at a recent Ofgem-hosted expert seminar with favourable reaction. Validation of the indicator is ongoing. Some validation has already been undertaken, e.g. comparison of predicted fuel poverty levels with limited ward results from one of the Warm Zones (the results showed a close match).

Inevitably there will be some anomalies with the FPI, as with all deprivation indicators. Discrepancies are also likely to arise due to the age of the datasets used. Despite these problems, the FPI gives a more accurate ‘picture’ of fuel poverty than the use of general deprivation indicators, e.g. the IMD, particularly with respect to comparing the relative positions of wards within any given district.

The indicator will become a lot more powerful when the above methodology is applied to the 2001 Census and 2001 EHCS datasets. Because the new Census Output Areas are based on homogenous housing areas (defined by housing type and tenure), it is anticipated that the 2001 FPI will identify small areas with very high predicted levels of fuel poverty. CSE and Bristol University plan to start this work in the near future.

40 Technical overview

The small area estimation of fuel poverty involved the creation of a synthetic model using both 2001 Census data and 1996 EHCS survey data. The 1996 EHCS was used to produce a multi-variate logistic regression model of the characteristics of the fuel poor in England. A calibrated version of this model was then fitted to ward level data from the 1991 Census, using a harmonised (as far as possible) set of variables that were measured in a similar way in both the 1996 EHCS and the 1991 Census.

A full account of the methodology is described in a report available from the Centre for Sustainable Energy11. This also profiles fuel poverty in the South West and describes the plans for updating the indicator.

11 Baker, W.; Starling, G. & Gordon, D (2003), Predi cti ng fuel poverty at the local level , Centre for Sustai nabl e Energy