New Communities Scoping Workshop 28.07.15

Cambridgeshire

New Communities JSNA

Angelique Mavrodaris - Consultant in Public Health, CCC

Wendy Quarry - JSNA Programme Manager, CCC

Iain Green - Health Improvement Specialist, CCC

28 July 2015

Welcome, introductions & housekeeping

Angelique Mavrodaris

Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Iain Green

Health Improvement Specialist

What is the JSNA?

Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs) are used to identify the health and well being needs of a local population and steer the commissioning of services to meet these needs.

They aim is to establish a shared, evidence based consensus on key local priorities to support commissioning to improve health and wellbeing outcomes and reduce inequalities.

Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA)

Commissioners & Local Authorities jointly describe health, care & wellbeing needs & service delivery

Focus on:• Outcomes• Partnership working• Consultation

Drives commissioning process

The JSNA Process

Objectives of this WorkshopScope of the New Communities JSNA

Stakeholder contribution: Bring their knowledge and experience to the JSNA

Key issues: what are they?

Current work: its contribution?

The Evidence: data sources?

Claire Astbury

External Affairs Manager

National Housing Federation

Planning and Health

Juliet Richardson- Growth and Development Business ManagerCharlotte Humble – New Communities Manager

The role and purpose of Town Planning

The planning system helps us to decide who can build what, where and how. It makes sure that buildings and structures that the country needs (including homes, offices, schools, hospitals, roads, train lines, power stations, water pipes, reservoirs and more) get built in the right place to the right standards. A good planning system is essential for the economy, environment and society.’

A plain English guide to the Localism Bill

DCLG 2011, page 10

Good Planning ensures…..

Right Development……….

Right place…………….

Right time……..

Cambridgeshire Growth

Locations of north west and southern fringe developments in relation to Cambridge city

50 000 houses over next 20 yearsEconomic hub of UK, international centre of excellenceShortage of housing supplyAffordable housing shortage

Why do we need to increase house building?Average house price in Cambridge £357,639. Average Cambridge salary £35KNew houses built per year Cambridgeshire approx 2000

dependant on market conditions.Greater Cambridge job total 516,000 (rapid growth since

2000)Cambridge has 30% of the county jobs27% increase in jobs 2011 -2031 in Cambridge areaNot including Astra Zeneca………

Section 106 Often referred to as ‘developer contributions’ Legally binding agreement between developer and other parties. Can be enforced by injunction Agreement runs with the land Cover the following areas;

Restrict the development or use of the land in any specific way

Require specified operations or activities to be carried out in, or under or over the land

Require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates.

Section 106 funding of New Communities & urban extensions Land Value

£10k per acre agriculture Greenfield £150k per acre (with planning permission) Brownfield £500k per acre

Transport 100m single estate road £150k

Dual Carriageway £10m per mile-Complete £1200 per linear mile tarmac (no junction) £5m per junction

How to make new communities successful

Image and branding Community cohesion Balancing communities, not all young families! Timely infrastructure eg roads, education, community and health facilities Access to jobs Connectivity with adjoining settlements (all modes) Affordability Quality urban design and sense of place Community activities

More to planning than Planning

Learning lessons from the past

Explaining these patterns: a focus on buildings not people?Planning concentrates on buildings and land - creating a

pleasant built environment. Planning tends not to look beyond the houses being builtFocus on community development not community building

Resulting in:Early residents feel displaced & isolatedSupportive services are underpreparedSupport is difficult to findSocial networks take time to form

So how should we plan to support new communities

Funding service provision

High demand for services

Growth at a time of austerity

Delay in government funding

Reducing developer contributions

Workshop 1: What are the health and wellbeing needs/issues of a new community in Cambridgeshire

NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SURVEYS 2006‐2012

SUMMARY of findings

Sue BeecroftCambridge housing sub-region

BackgroundBetween 2006 and 2012, surveys of new

developments across the Cambridge housing sub‐region.

Carried out by Cambs County Research Group9,287 surveys were sent out (over time)2,784 were returned, slightly under 30%This gives us an overall confidence rating of

+/-3% @ 95% confidence, normal for this kind of survey.

Sites were classed as

New town: dwelling stock doubled

Substantial extension: dwelling stock increased by >20%

Infill: dwellings increased by <20%

When were the surveys done?

Cambourne 2006 Huntingdonshire

2007 East Cambs 2009/10 Fenland 2010 Cambridge 2012 Red Lodge in Forest

Heath 2011 St Edmundsbury

2011

2006





2011

2006

2007





2011

2006

2007

2009/10





2011

2006

2007

2010

2009/10





2011

2006

2007

2010

2009/10 2011

2011





2011

2006

2007

2010

2009/10 2011

2012

2011

People were askedWhere they were moving from & reasons for

leavingHousehold structure on the new development -

to help assess change to population, additional demand for school spaces, size and types of homes needed.

Where they work, study and shop and how they travel to these locations.

Opinions about the area, positive and negative

Findings: why do people move “overall”“Push” factors

To move to a larger or smaller home

Wanting to set up own home

To move nearer to work or new job

“Pull” factors Like the design of the

new home or development

Price / affordability compared to neighbouring areas

Like the idea of living in a new development

Findings: specific issues

Attracts School with good rep Access to good quality shopping,

entertainment, education & health care

Links to e.g. Cambridge, Peterborough and Bury St Edmunds (employment and non-food shopping)

Good public transport. More satisfied with public transport where there is rail and less satisfied where only served by

bus

DetersA lack of facilities

poor range of shops lack of post office lack of pub lack of sporting facilities

The most popular reasons for wanting to move was “to find a larger or smaller home”

… which implies a mix of property sizes helps encourage moves, and so may help attract people.

Findings – sizes of homes

Some people were positive about the mix of social groups and tenures on their development.

However some mentioned mix as a negative factor.

Typically people were negative about the amount of social housing developed

However in Cambridge some respondents felt there were too many privately rented properties!

Findings – mixed tenure, mixed feelings

Findings – design of homes, design of developmentLikesThe most popular reason for choosing a new home was

design or appearance of the home or development. 2nd most popular reason was price or affordability

compared to neighbouring areasThe idea of living in a new development was also

attractive for many.Quality of the development and its landscape and

maintenance is important for satisfaction, also mentions that new homes are cheaper to run.

Findings – design of homes, design of development

Dislikes

Include lack of privacy due to being overlooked, small garden or no garden and living on a partially finished development

High on the list are anti‐social and youth behaviour - though not clear if design contributes to this.

Terms such as “friendly” and “good community spirit” were mentioned more than the negative terms such as “unfriendly” and “no community spirit”.

However, some people said that they felt isolated, though not clear whether design is a contributory factor.

New towns and substantial developments higher numbers of under‐16s than in the ‘host’ district. higher proportion of 30‐44 year olds lower proportion of older people.

In‐fill sites slightly older population than new towns and substantial

developments with more people aged 60+ … though proportion of 60+ lower than the ‘host’ district

Findings – population comparison

Some 77% of new development residents in the sub‐region travel to work/study by car (alone or shared)

Across all new development surveys, new housing development residents have a slightly higher number of cars per household, compared to the ‘host district’ population – but Cambridge, East Cambridgeshire and Fenland are exceptions where fewer cars per household compared to all residents.

Interesting variations between districts…

Findings – travel

How do you travel to work?


Car alone


Car alone

Carshare


Car alone

Carshare

Walk


Car alone

Carshare

Walk

Cycle


Car alone

Carshare

Walk Bus

Cycle


Car alone

Carshare

Walk Bus

Cycle

Train


Car alone

Carshare

Walk Bus

Cycle

TrainWFH

New Housing Development SurveysFind summary, and reports for each district, at http://www.cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/new-homes-communities-data

Housing priority: new homes & communitiesFind out more at http://www.cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/housing

http://www.cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/new-homes-communities-data



http://www.cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/housing



School for Public Health Research

Relocation to New Environments (RENEW): New Communities JSNA Stakeholder Scoping

Workshop

Calum Mattocks, Cambridge Institute for Public Health, University of Cambridge

This is an outline of independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research’s School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR).

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

28th July 2015


Relocation to New Environments (RENEW)

• Pilot study to assess the feasibility of using new housing developments to investigate the impact of changes to the environment on PA, active travel and well-being

• Semi-structured interviews with participants and key stakeholders


Qualitative study participants

• 17 women and 4 men with an average age of 52 years (range 25-73)

• Largely middle-class either working or retired professionals

• Moderate to high awareness of lifestyle as a determinant of health


Topic areas examined

• Neighbourhood preferences• Physical activity and travel • Green space• Reasons for moving• Reasons for choosing


Neighbourhood preferences• Younger people

• Proximity to transport and amenities important

• Tended to be practical and less community minded

“I guess I wasn’t really looking for anything in particular but it would help that I lived in a location where they had good bus service and good cycle paths, etc,”

Female, single, 20s

“I would say the younger … people who have got no children or anything like that couldn’t give a monkeys, bluntly. It’s when you get children … you begin to take some interest in the local community…”

Local authority housing manager


Neighbourhood preferences• Established couples:

• Access to good transport links important

“when I go to old towns and cities you can feel the difference as a pedestrian or a cyclist of how you’re… less well taken care of…even down to things that look quaint like cobblestones which are great for the tourists but as a cyclist they’re a nightmare… I think it’s helpful for everyone to get dedicated paths.”

Male 30s, married

“…this is one of the reasons why it took us so long, we only wanted to live a mile from the train station and it just got widened and widened … because we just either couldn’t afford what we wanted or it was just absolutely awful … so we would have preferred this place to be a bit closer really”

Female 30s, partner


Neighbourhood preferences• Older people

• Amenities or family within easy reach • Often concerned about traffic

“I mean for us …, we’re looking out for … reasonable distance and ease of getting to the doctors, the chemist, and basic shops and so on”

Retired male, married, grown-up children and grandchildren

“… I don’t drive, I used to but I don’t drive anymore, I don’t like driving and I haven’t driven for a long time so I definitely need to be able to access places, shops, public facilities and things like that. I like to walk and I like to walk in a pleasant place particularly so really that’s my main aims.”

Retired female, married, grown-up children and grandchildren


Stakeholder priorities and aspirations

• Differing priorities among developers and local authorities around planning

• All were keen to provide healthy, sustainable communities

• Access to transport, green space, bike storage etc

• Weight attached to each aspect often differed among stakeholders


Stakeholder pressures and barriers

• Commercial pressures mean aspirations of developers and local government not always aligned

• Not always stereotypical• For example developers’ connectivity plan

compromised trunk road traffic• How can stakeholders collaborate to build healthy

communities?


Collaboration on future studies- how should we proceed?

• Can stakeholders work in a more collaborative way with academics to conduct research?

• What form might that take?• E.g. Collaborating to frame research questions, study

design and recruitment strategies?• What are the key research questions?

• North West Cambridge development opportunities• Institute of Public Health advised on writing the tender

for NWC Elderly Living Facility


• The University of Sheffield

• The University of Bristol

• The University of Cambridge

• University College London

• The London School for Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

• The Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry

• The LiLaC collaboration between the Universities of Liverpool and Lancaster

• Fuse; The Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, a collaboration between Newcastle, Durham, Northumbria, Sunderland and Teesside Universities

The National Institute for Health Research’sSchool for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR)

is a partnership between:


David Ogilvie, UoC (PI) Jamie Anderson, UoC Fiona Bull, UWA Conny Guell, UoC Felicia Huppert, UoC Andy Jones, UEA Calum Mattocks, UoC Nick Osborne, UoE Jenna Panter, UoC April Saunders, UoC

http://www.cedar.iph.cam.ac.uk/renew/

[email protected]

Collaborators


Physical activity and active travel

• Many participants physically active• Most cited walking as a convenient

activity• Walking and cycling in city parks or in the

country side• Active travel or public transport preferred

travel choices where convenient• Enjoyment, health, environmental concerns

and convenience were all reasons given


Physical activity and active travel

“I’d like to think I don’t do too many journeys that I really couldn’t do under my own steam, I do have a bicycle and I’m fairly fit so I like to think I can do the ones I can in a fairly green way so I’m a fairly environmentally aware bloke”

Male, 30s, partner no children

“I like to walk and I like to walk in a pleasant place particularly so really that’s my main aims.”

“My confidence in cycling in Cambridge, … I don’t like how much traffic there are, is now. I mean in the twenty years since I lived here and have moved back I can’t believe the difference.”

Retired female, husband, grown-up children

“I think the decision to cycle is for convenience but it makes me feel good that I get some health benefits.”

Female 20s, single


Green space and the outdoors

“Well I’m interested in … my environment and probably more so as I’m getting older and probably more so as I’m looking for possibly … the last place that I might be going to live, you know. So I’m quite specific about what I’m looking for regarding access to public transport, walking, lifestyle ... ”

Retired female, married, grown-up family

“…some of them were kind of drop dead issues, so closer to recreational facilities, if we include the park in that …, we weren’t going to move somewhere that just had no green spaces…”

Male, 40s, married

“Not particularly” (when asked if green space was an issue)

Female, 20s, single

Swanwick, Land Use Policy, 26, S62-75, 2009


Green space and the outdoors

• Reasons for wanting green space varied • some liked the idea of being closer to nature and observing seasons• a place to exercise was important for others

“You can see how the seasons develop, if you have open space and green space and woods and rivers …, they’re different nearly every day and I think nature is … amazing really, … how everything gets to the stage it wants to be at the right time … I think it’s fascinating, yeah.”

Retired widower

• Green spaces were also thought of as general resources that were appreciated for what they could offer the community

“…you see dog walkers, at Jesus Green I’ve seen circus acts going on, … I’ve seen the primary school children playing and the boot camp early morning … and just relaxation as well and open space I think are very important to peoples’ wellbeing”

Female, married, 30s


Collaboration on future studies- how should we proceed?

• Recruiting participants for RENEW was very challenging

• The need to recruit prior to moving was key• Gatekeepers were vital to the process• Gatekeeper engagement varied• Participant uptake was low


Stakeholder views

• Stakeholders involved in the provision of housing • Physical activity provision• Views on attitudes to green space and public

space• Priorities and attitudes of movers• Priorities of stakeholders themselves


Perceptions of buyers’ views

• Awareness of buyers aspirations from the commercial sector

• Often heavily marketed in advertising material• Some contrasting views on what customers want from

new developments• E.g. cost and house type dominates all other factors

• Awareness that new developments should not just be a collection of houses

Workshop 2:What does a successful/resilient new community in Cambridgeshire look like?

Evidence starting pointsWhat are the local assets?Are there local and national examples of

successful new communities we can learn from?

What data and information sources do we have?

What do you have?

Workshop 3:What evidence/intelligence do you need to plan services in a new community?

Prioritise

Have a look at the ideas for the scope of

this JSNA and why.

Which are the most important issues You have 3 sticky dots to put against the

topics you feel are most important.

Next steps – producing the JSNA togetherData capture and analysis Writing Final Report Key Findings Workshop Full report to Health and Wellbeing Board Dissemination to general stakeholders

Early dissemination of key findings Dissemination to wider groups

Thank you for your time.

Let’s work together on this exciting piece of work.

Healthcare

New Communities Scoping Workshop 28.07.15