Live in Sheffield Sheffield City Council

Document Sample
Live in Sheffield Sheffield City Council Powered By Docstoc
					                  Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

State of Sheffield 2011 – Background Document - Live in Sheffield

Since 2001 Sheffield has experienced a rapid change in its population, with an
increasing overall size and an increasing diversity. Housing provision has both
affected this population change (in terms of where people live) and been affected
by it (in terms of demand for type and quantity). Increased challenges and
opportunities for the future are likely to relate directly to this changing population –
in respect of employment, housing and community cohesion.

Population Change

Sheffield has a population of 555,500. It is the third largest of the core cities,1 with
which many of the comparisons in this document are made. At 15.4%, Sheffield
has the highest proportion of the eight cities of people aged 65 and over;
Manchester and Birmingham have a higher proportion of children aged 0-15. This
means that Sheffield’s working age population is relatively low. Only Birmingham’s
is lower.
Sheffield’s population is growing at an unprecedented rate. It has increased by
over 42,000 in nine years. Most of this growth has been in the latter half of the
decade and has been driven by an increase in young adults. Since 2002 there has
been an increase of over 33,000 people aged 20-29, mostly through increases in
the student population and through economic migration.
The total population is projected to exceed 600,000 by 2020. The number of
children will increase by a further 14 % from 2010 and the 65+ population by
around 13 %. The biggest challenge for service provision is the 80+ population
which is projected to increase by 22 %. The working age population will only go up
by around 9 %.

 The Core Cities are the 8 largest English cities outside London: Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham,
Bristol, Nottingham and Newcastle.

                                  Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

Figure 1: Sheffield Population Change

                                                    Sheffield Population Change: 1981-2010



     Total Population


































Characteristics of Sheffield residents
Almost half of Sheffield’s households fit within four of the 15 Mosaic Public Sector
                       G – Young well educated city dwellers (13.4%)
                       O – Families in low-rise social housing with high levels of benefit need (12.3%)
                       E – Middle income families living in moderate suburban semis (11.4%)
                       K – Residents with sufficient incomes in right-to-buy social housing (10.6%)
All of the 15 Groups are represented to some degree.

Housing Supply
A growing population will place increasing demands on housing. Sheffield’s
population is increasing whilst households get smaller. Providing sufficient homes
that people can afford is one of the key challenges for the city over the next ten
years. Sheffield currently has a housing stock of around 238,400 homes, of which
three quarters are in the private sector. There are just over 41,600 Council homes.
New housing completions have been falling from a peak of 2,882 completions in
2007/8, to 919 in 2010/11. In the last four years, these figures have included over
1,400 purpose-built student flats, and although there has been an increase in new
affordable homes in the social sector, this has not been sustained. The number of
affordable homes provided through developer contributions was only 21 in the last
three years. The demand for affordable homes far outstrips the supply, which is
one of the city’s key challenges. Since 2008 we have delivered 687 new social
sector homes. This includes 27 new council homes in Shirecliffe, which are the
first new council houses to be built in Sheffield in last 20 years. These new homes
have been designed and built to the highest standard, and include a mix of

            Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

detached and semi-detached houses, bungalows and apartments.

Figure 2: National mortgage lending information
                    Current   3 months      12       3 month   12 month
                                 ago      months     change     change
 Average %
                      20%        20%        21%       0.00%     -1.00%
 deposit - FTBs
 Average %
 deposit - home       31%        33%        32%      -2.00%     -1.00%
 Average income
                      3.14       3.13       3.26      +0.01      -0.12
 multiple – FTBs
 Average income
 multiple – home      2.82       2.87       2.91      -0.05      -0.09
 All new
 mortgages for      120,200    100,600    131,200    +16.31%    -9.15%
 house purchase

 FTB mortgages       46,400     36,900     49,600    +20.47%    -6.90%

The City Council has recently established the Sheffield Housing Company, which is
a partnership between the council, Keepmoat Limited and Great Places Housing
Group. Over the next 15 years the Sheffield Housing Company plans to build
around 2,300 new homes on 60 hectares of council land in the north and south of
Sheffield. The first phase of development is due to start in July 2012 and this will
deliver around 300 homes in the areas of Norfolk Park, Shirecliffe and the Manor.
In 2010/11 the annual number of active bidders for Sheffield Council homes was
18,500, whilst 3,550 lettings were made. The average waiting time for a non-
priority council house, in Sheffield, is 84 months.
The number of homeless presentations to the council has halved over the past five
years. However, despite this fall the number of people becoming homeless has
considerably increased in the past year. A key concern for the city is the number of
young people becoming homeless with almost half of priority homeless cases aged
16-24 years. Tackling youth homelessness is a priority for the city’s Homelessness
Strategy 2010-13.

            Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

Figure 3: Homeless Presentations

House prices and property sales have remained fairly static in the last two years,
but sales have fallen by over 20% in the last year. This is largely due to difficulties
for first-time buyers in finding deposits, with most lenders asking for 20% (source:
Council of Mortgage Lenders, 2011). The housing market is largely driven by first-
time buyers. Schemes such as ‘Lend a Hand’ can provide support for some first-
time buyers, but this currently doesn’t apply to newly built homes. The number of
households facing low or negative equity is also increasing, making it more difficult
for some people who are already home owners to move on. Some home owners
are putting their houses and flats into an increasingly buoyant private rental market.
The static housing market and difficulty obtaining mortgages means that more
people are opting for to rent privately rather than own.

                                   Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

Figure 4: Housing Market Changes

                                  Housing market changes - Sales value & volume
 average house prices

                        145,000                                                               1200


                        130,000                                                               800


                                                                                                    sales volume

                        115,000                                                               400

                        110,000       Average price   Sales volume

                        100,000                                                               0

























Shared ownership is an increasing option, but the Home Truths research carried
out in the city demonstrates a lack of faith in shared-ownership schemes, with
many people saying it was too complicated and causing problems when selling on.
More recent anecdotal evidence suggests that more buyers are beginning to look
at this option.
The number of repossessions of homes has been falling since 2010. This has been
due to an increased leniency by lenders towards home owners with large levels of
mortgage arrears. The current weak nature of the housing market means that
many lenders would not be able to recoup money owed if they did repossess many
mortgaged properties.
Many Council and social housing properties have been brought up to the decent
homes standard and this work is continuing, although there are growing pressures
on funding. Other properties on several estates across the city have been
demolished in recent years. Housing renewal programmes have transformed
some of the most deprived areas of the city, such as parts of the Manor and Park
Hill. Former residents of these areas have often been unwilling or unable to return
following regeneration. This may be linked to the comparatively high cost of
housing in regenerated areas, or the fact that former residents are more happy
where they have since moved to.
The condition of the private housing stock is of even greater concern. The
increasing cost of living in relation to earnings means that property maintenance
often takes a lower priority. More than 37 % of the private sector housing was
classed as non-decent; 45 % of the private rented stock in 2009.
The highest level of non-decency at 48 % was in the South West Community
Assembly area. For properties inhabited by over 75s, the rate was 44 %. There is
an issue with asset rich but income poor households, with many older residents
living in high value homes but unable to afford to maintain them properly.

            Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

The total cost of bringing all private sector homes up to the decency standard is
estimated to be £447 million. Sheffield has a target of ensuring that 70 % of
vulnerable households will live in homes of a decent standard by 2010. The
shortfall currently stands at 5,640 properties. Bringing those homes up to standard
would cost over £32 million. 19% of private households are in fuel poverty in
Sheffield compared to approximately 13% in England.
More than 25 % of all households in Sheffield are dependent on Housing and/or
Council Tax Benefit. This is higher than Leeds or Bristol but lower than the other
core cities. Around 24 % of Sheffield’s dependent children live in these households
and 28 % of the 60+ population.

Figure 5: Council Tax Benefit Recipients

In three of Sheffield’s wards - Burngreave, Firth Park and Manor Castle – over 40
% of households are receiving housing benefits, with over 30 % also receiving
other income related benefits. In the Ecclesall and Fulwood wards, the equivalent
figures are less than 10 % and under 5 %, respectively.

            Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

Figure 6: Income Support Claimants

Sheffield also has similar claimant rates to other core cities for income or disability
related benefits. Only Leeds and Bristol have lower proportions of their populations
dependent on these benefits. More than a quarter of Sheffield’s pensioners have
their pensions topped up with Pension Credits.

                                                 Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

Figure 7: Claimant Rates Compared



    Percentage Claimants

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Core Cities
                           2.0                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Sheffield City Region

                           1.0                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     South Yorkshire

                                                                               May 2008
                                                               February 2008

                                                                                          August 2008

                                                                                                                                        May 2009

                                                                                                                                                                                                 May 2010

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          May 2011
                                                                                                                        February 2009

                                                                                                                                                                                 February 2010

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          February 2011
                                 August 2007

                                                                                                                                                   August 2009

                                                                                                                                                                                                            August 2010

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     August 2011
                                               November 2007

                                                                                                        November 2008

                                                                                                                                                                 November 2009

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          November 2010


Source: Nomis (2011)

Successful engaged communities
Local communities are very important to Sheffield people. Most residents identify
closely with their communities and it is common to find several generations of the
same family living in the same area. The last Place Survey showed that 81% of
Sheffield residents said they were satisfied with the area where they lived, whilst
87% were satisfied with their home. However, there is considerable variation
across the city. In the South West, 98% were satisfied with their local area, but is
the North East this dropped to only 55%. Satisfaction with the home was much
closer, with a variation of 97% to 75% for the same two areas.
Sheffield’s seven Community Assemblies provide a link between local communities
across the city and the City Council. The Assemblies engage local residents in a
variety of ways about plans for their local area. There is a heavy reliance on
meetings – but getting people to attend meetings is difficult. Local events and
more imaginative ways to involve people are often more successful. Community
Assemblies have their own budgets to allocate on local projects and residents have
a say on the projects that are supported.

            Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

In 2009, only 28% of people agreed that they could influence decisions affecting
their local area. Of those who disagreed only 11% said they wouldn’t want to,
whilst the majority felt that it would depend on the matter in question. This
suggests that there is a need to target engagement and involvement processes so
people can get involved over the issues that matter most to them.
One obvious form of engagement with the decision making process is through the
ballot box, but turnouts for local elections are consistently low. Although more than
half of electors voted in every ward in the 2010 General Eelection, in the 2011 local
government elections only 5 out of the city’s 28 wards had a turnout of over 50 %
of their electorates.

Diversity and involvement
Sheffield is a diverse city, both ethnically and culturally. The black and minority
ethnic population in the city has increased significantly since the 2001 Census,
from around 10.9% to 16.9% in 2009. Different ethnic communities have emerged
and grown through immigration for employment and for education. More recent
economic migration from Europe has further diversified the Sheffield population, as
has an increasing number of refugees. Sheffield now has a relatively recently
arrived Burmese community in the north of the city, for example.
Based on Office for National Statistics figures, the White Other group has
increased by 72 % since 2001. This is nothing compared to the Indian community,
which has quadrupled over the same period. The Chinese community and the
‘Other’ group, which in Sheffield includes a large Yemeni community, also have
trebled between 2001 and 2009. Overseas students account for a large proportion
of the Indian and Chinese increases. Throughout all of this the Pakistani
community has increased more modestly but remains Sheffield’s largest non-white
ethnic group.
More than 128 languages are now spoken by Sheffield’s school children and all
groups are represented to a greater or lesser extent in the city’s industrial,
commercial, political, cultural and sporting activities.
Most of Sheffield’s minority ethnic communities have been established in the city
for many years. They form an integral part of the city’s diverse cultures.
Engagement with, and involvement of, these communities is now widespread and
reasonably effective. Sheffield has avoided much of the tensions and unrest seen
in other cities in recent years, in part as a result of this engagement. Involvement
and integration of some of Sheffield’s newer communities is a challenge.

Thriving District and Local Centres
Sheffield’s residents rely heavily on a number of district centres which provide for
many of the needs of their local residents. Evidence suggests that many of
Sheffielders use these centres more than the city centre itself, and in this sense
Sheffield differs from other major cities.
District centres vary in their make up, reflecting their location and local population.
Some, like Stocksbridge, Chapeltown and Crystal Peaks, are on the edge of the
city and represent town centres in their own right. Others, like Woodseats and

            Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

Hillsborough, are distinct town centres within the city and provide a full range of
shops and facilities. Others are close to the city centre and provide a more
specialist extension to it, especially in the evenings.

Figure 8: District Centres

Not everything within these district centres is perfect. The City Council has been
working with community organisations, local traders, other public organisations
and, most of all, local residents to address a range of local problems. These have
been identified in a programme of consultation events, where engagement has
been very successful. As a result, Community Assemblies have produced plans
for improvement to the district and local centres, aimed at dealing with issues such
as vacancy rates, range of shopping, improved public facilities, safety, pedestrian
access and parking. Implementation of the plans will be measured and monitored
through further consultation and engagement with local communities.

            Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

Rural Communities
Sheffield has a number of rural and smaller settlements, some of which are
situated within the Peak District National Park. Sheffield City Council has an aim of
ensuring that these communities, as far as possible, have the same opportunities
as others in other parts of Sheffield.
These communities are diverse in their characteristics and the challenges they
face. Housing affordability is a common issue, but has subtle distinctions; Bradfield
has the greatest affordability gap but very little social housing, whilst Oughtibridge
and Stocksbridge has a greater supply of social housing but it is still not always
possible for local people to access it. Green Belt and National Park restrictions on
land development mean that it is often not possible to provide housing at any price.

Community safety
Sheffield has the lowest rate of recorded violence against the person of all of the
core cities at 11.4 per 1,000 people at the end of 2010. The next lowest are Leeds
and Newcastle at 14.5; the highest is Bristol at 25.6. In the 2008 Place Survey,
51% said that they feel very or fairly safe whilst out at night, the highest proportion
of all the core cities.
The 2010 Indices of Deprivation recorded relatively high levels of crime and
disorder in some parts of the city. This analysis was based on recorded crime
statistics in 2008. Recorded crime in Sheffield actually has fallen significantly since
2006/07 having decreased by over 27% by 2010. Three groups of crimes
dominate these statistics: criminal damage, offences against vehicles and other
theft, although the last two have reduced dramatically since 2007. Both criminal
damage and violence against the person with injury had increased up to that point.

Figure 9: Recorded Crime Rates

            Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

The recorded crime rate in Sheffield in 2003 was the lowest of all the core cities.
By 2010, recorded crime rates in the eight core cities were much closer together,
with only Birmingham remaining lower than Sheffield. On the basis of these recent
trends, Sheffield will have the lowest recorded crime rate of all of the core cities
once again within the next year or two.

Anti-social Behaviour, damage and low-level offending
What does this include?
    Anti-social behaviour, especially persistent ASB and repeat victims
    Criminal damage and other low-level offending
    Deliberate fire-setting
    Restorative and neighbourhood justice
Anti-social behaviour remains a priority for local people. Although in general, anti-
social behaviour has reduced in Sheffield, some types remain of concern and
cases reported in national media have highlighted the importance of addressing
anti-social behaviour directed at the most vulnerable in society.
In Sheffield, around 60% of anti-social behaviour reported to the Police via the non-
emergency contact number is about rowdy, inconsiderate behaviour, including
youth nuisance, problem individuals and other anti-social behaviour. There are
many interventions used to tackle these behaviours, including letters to inform
parents of a young person’s behaviour, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, a range
of diversionary activity and, in a few cases, court orders such as ASBOs.
Criminal damage, which includes damage to dwellings, other buildings and other
types of damage, can have a negative effect on communities and individuals’
quality of life. Nuisance and anti-social fires, often started from litter or refuse,
affect people’s environmental surroundings and feelings of safety, but are
preventable. We have achieved huge reductions in deliberate fires over the last
few years but some areas still suffer higher numbers alongside other forms of anti-
social behaviour.

             Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

Figure 10: IMD Crime & Disorder Map

Restorative Justice
There is an increasing awareness that the use of restorative methods of dealing
with anti-social and low-level offending behaviour can have excellent results,
reducing the likelihood of re-offending and empowering communities to be directly
involved in the justice process. The introduction of restorative justice methods in
Sheffield will be supported by the Partnership.

Overall deprivation levels in Sheffield compare favourably to other cities. Around
34% of Sheffield’s population lives in areas of high deprivation, compared to over
50% of the populations of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Nottingham.
Further, compared to all other core cities, Sheffield has the highest percentage of
its population living in the least deprived 20% of areas in England.
Whist Sheffield’s overall deprivation and inequality profiles are generally positive
when compared with other core cities, Sheffield’s spatial manifestation of
deprivation differs considerably from many of them. In Sheffield the geographical
divide is very clear, with a more highly deprived eastern area and an area of
relatively low deprivation in the south west of the city as illustrated in the following

            Knowledge & Research – Sheffield City Council – 05/01/12

Figure 11: Overall IMD Map

With the clear geographical divisions and particular concentrations of deprivation
levels in Sheffield the following key issues need to be considered:
    ‘Neighbourhood effects’ whereby multiple spatial concentrations of issues
     have a compounding effect upon residents.
    Service provision in areas of concentrated deprivation suffering due to a
     reduction in private sector activity reducing competition and raising prices for
     residents, whilst also reducing local centres of employment.
    Access to networks being limited for jobseekers, leading to a ‘culture of
    Educational disadvantage being both a cause and result of area
     disadvantage: Schools struggling to secure sufficient resources, low
     educational performance limiting opportunities for school leavers and social
     problems exerting downward pressures on pupil performance.
    Crime and anti-social behaviour – resulting from peer group effects among
     younger people, reduced social penalties and opportunity costs associated
     with criminal activity.
    Health and well-being. Health of residents suffering due to neighbourhood
     environmental and social effects.


Shared By: