4 housing market assessment - this is redcar ... housing market assessment introduction 4.1 this...

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Greater Eston – Sustainable Communities Plan

April 2005

Private & Confidential 77 April 2005

4 HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION 4.1 This chapter considers the profile of the housing stock and the households living in Greater

Eston, it examines the supply and demand balance and draws conclusions on the outlook for

each tenure form.

4.2 As far as possible, comparisons are made between Greater Eston and the wider sub-region

and region. However, data limitations mean that this information may not be available for the

study area. In these cases, relevant information at the local authority level is used as an

alternative.

4.3 In addition, we have drawn upon findings from the Household Survey, undertaken as part of

this study by Kwest Research with the following specific objectives:

▪ To determine residents’ views of the present conditions of their housing and

neighbourhood

▪ To ascertain future housing plans and aspirations

▪ To compare levels of resident satisfaction with other residents surveyed by Kwest

▪ To compare the views of different groups within the population, for example, residents

living in different areas

▪ To provide benchmarks against which changes can be measured over time

Overview of the Housing Stock

4.4 According to the 2001 Census, there are a total of 59,923 dwellings in the Redcar and

Cleveland area, of which 15,334 are located in the Greater Eston area. Occupancy levels

within the Greater Eston are not dissimilar to that across the Borough overall. Around four per

cent of the stock is vacant, with less than one per cent used as ‘second or holiday homes’. A

different picture emerges when the neighbourhoods within the Greater Eston area are

considered. South Bank, Grangetown and Ormesby all have vacancy rates above the Greater

Eston average (Table 4.1).


April 2005


Table 4.1: All Housing stock by occupancy, 2001

Area Vacant Occupied All household spaces

Eston (part) 3% 97% 3,037

Grangetown (part) 6% 94% 2,102

Normanby (part) 2% 98% 2,885

Ormesby (part) 6% 94% 924

South Bank 7% 93% 3,473

Teesville 2% 98% 2,913 Gre

ater

Est

on

Total 4% 96% 15,334

Outwith study area 4% 96% 44,589

RCBC Total 4% 96% 59,923 Source: Census UV53-15-3082

Tenure

4.5 Figure 4.1 below displays the tenure of the housing stock in the study area. In particular it

highlights the relative concentration of social housing compared to all of the benchmark

areas. Social housing makes up 36% of the total stock of Greater Eston compared to 28%

across the North East and just 19% nationally.

4.6 This reliance on social housing means that the study area has a smaller number of

households in other tenures. This difference is most pronounced in the numbers who own

their property outright (24% in the study area, compared to 29% in England & Wales) those

who are buying their property (35% locally compared to 39% in England & Wales) and the

size of the private rental market (5% locally compared to 12% in England & Wales).

4.7 The household residents in Teesville and Normanby are more likely to be owner-occupiers

and have highest proportion owning property outright than people living elsewhere in the

Redcar and Cleveland area. Grangetown and South Bank residents are most likely to

currently rent their property from a Registered Social Landlord. One in ten households in

South Bank lives in the private rented sector, almost as high as the national average.


April 2005


Figure 4.1: Housing Tenure, 2001

177

3527

19

3624

30 27 25 29

40

20

42

33

30

38

35

40 4038

39

38

66

19

3341

23

3623 23

28 19

6 7 4 7 103 6 7 7 9 12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Eston

Grange

town

Norman

by

Ormes

by

South

Bank

Teesv

ille

Greater

Eston

Redca

r and

Clev

eland

Tees V

alley

North E

ast

Englan

d & W

ales

Owns outright Mortgage / loan Social rented Private rented

Source: Census 2001 Property Type

4.8 As shown in Table 4.2, property types in Redcar and Cleveland are broadly similar to the rest

of the North East region, except that the borough does have a higher proportion of semi

detached houses and bungalows, and fewer flats or maisonettes.

Table 4.2: All Dwellings by type, 2001

Area Detached house / bungalow

Semi House/ bungalow

Terraced Flat / maisonette

Total Number

Eston 9% 36% 38% 17% 3,014

Grangetown 7% 59% 31% 4% 2,106

Normanby 15% 53% 22% 10% 2,889

Ormesby 11% 33% 41% 15% 918

South Bank 5% 49% 36% 10% 3,436

Teesville 10% 61% 24% 5% 2,909

Greater Eston 9% 50% 31% 10% 15,272

Outwith study area 18% 43% 30% 9% 44,459

RCBC 16% 45% 30% 9% 59,731


April 2005


Area Detached house / bungalow

Semi House/ bungalow

Terraced Flat / maisonette

Total Number

TEES VALLEY 15% 39% 30% 10% 194,381

NORTH EAST 17% 42% 32% 14% 1,113,214

ENGLAND 23% 32% 26% 19% 21,096,376 Source: Census UV56-15-498

4.9 Compared with the national and regional averages, Greater Eston as a whole has a

significantly fewer detached houses or bungalows (9% compared with 17% for the North East

and 23% for England), and a higher than average number of semi-detached properties (50%

for Greater Eston compared with 42% for the North East and 32% for England). Of equal

interest is that only 10% of the housing stock in Greater Eston and Tees Valley is made up by

flats or maisonettes, compared with 19% average for England. This suggests that regionally,

flatted accommodation has either not been as popular, or that the market has not traditionally

supported their development to the volumes seen elsewhere in England.

4.10 Notably, there is a clear disparity in the profile of the housing stock within Greater Eston:

▪ Although Grangetown and South Bank in particular have a lower than average

proportion of detached houses, both areas have a fairly high levels of semi-detached

and bungalow style housing. In Grangetown the majority of this stock will be located in

the social rented sector (indeed 66% of the total stock is in the sector), while in South

Bank housing quality is poor.

▪ In Eston and Ormesby the proportion of terraced housing is well above the Borough

and Greater Eston averages (Eston 38%, Ormesby 41% compared with 30% and 31%

respectively); yet it is in South Bank where there has been the greatest problems with

street terraced housing (36% of the stock in South Bank is terraced).

▪ Eston is distinctive also due to the high proportion of flatted dwellings present there

(17% compared to 10% overall in Greater Eston).

▪ Grangetown, Normanby and Teesville all have a greater proportion of houses

(detached and semi) within their overall stock profiles than other sub-areas within

Greater Eston.

▪ Of all the Greater Eston sub-areas, Normanby best replicates the regional pattern of

distribution of dwelling types; although this is marked by a bias towards semi-detached

properties rather than terraced properties in this area.

4.11 At a purely theoretical level, assuming that the achievement of sustainable communities in

Greater Eston lies in the replication or simulation of similar patterns of dwelling type provision

as can be seen nationally, the following adjustments would be required to each area in terms


April 2005


of its stock profile (dwelling type) balance:

▪ Eston: increased numbers of detached properties, and fewer terraced properties required

▪ Grangetown: increased numbers of detached and flatted properties required, fewer semi-

detached properties, and maintain the current proportion of terraced properties

▪ Normanby: increased numbers of detached properties, fewer semi-detached properties,

slightly more terraced properties and more flats required

▪ Ormesby: more detached properties, fewer terraced properties, and maintain the current

proportions of semi-detached properties and flats

▪ South Bank: increased proportion of detached properties and flats, and decreased

proportion of semi-detached and terraced properties required

▪ Teesville: increased proportion of detached properties and flats, fewer semi-detached

properties required and maintain the current proportion of terraced properties.

4.12 However, at this stage it is important to understand that this is a purely statistical-based

overview of the current situation regarding the type of dwellings currently seen within various

parts of Greater Eston, and merely expresses a view about the possible adjustments required

within the current housing stock in Greater Eston.

4.13 The findings of the Kwest Household, undertaken as part of the study methodology, show a

clear variation in property type across tenures. Households who own their home are more

likely to live in a semi-detached property than those renting their home. Those renting their

home (either private rented or social rented) are more likely to live in flatted properties than

homeowners. A notable proportion of private renters occupy terraced housing – 37%

compared to 27% overall.

Figure 4.2: Property type by tenure

27

12

17

13

18

41

51

29

23

40

7

8

4

2

6

24

27

29

37

27

1

1

19

25

8

0

1

2

0

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Owns outright

Mortgage / loan

Social rented

Private rented

All Households

Bungalow Semi-detached Detached Terraced Flat Other

Source: Household Survey, 2004


April 2005


4.14 From reviewing the data in Figure 4.2, certain trends can be discerned, in as much as private

rented housing stock is more likely to be terraced, semi-detached or flatted accommodation,

and those properties owned outright or with a mortgage are more likely to be semi-detached.

Council Tax Bands

4.15 The high proportion of social housing units in the study area is reflected in the value assigned

to properties in order to create council tax bands. Band A relates to the lowest value housing

(based upon a valuation of what the property would have been worth in 1991) and Band H the

highest.

4.16 As Figure 4.3 illustrates, Greater Eston has a larger proportion of Band A properties than the

local authority area overall, reflecting the generally lower value accommodation available

here. The proportion of properties in Band A does broadly compare with the North East

overall, suggesting some similarities in terms of the high proportion of lower value housing.

Figure 4.3: Council Tax Bands, 2001

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Study Area Redcar and Cleveland Tees Valley North East England & WalesSource: 2001 CensusBand A Band B Band C Band D Band E Band F Band G Band H

Source: Census 2001

Private House Sales

4.17 Greater Eston contains four postcode sectors. Of these, three (TS6 0, TS6 6 and TS6 9) are

located entirely within the study area boundary. The postcode sector TS6 7 does include land

outside the study area. However, as all the residential areas fall within the study area


April 2005


boundaries, we believe that it is representative. These four postcode sectors therefore

provide the most relevant information on house price activity within the study area.

4.18 During 2003 a total of 636 properties were sold in Greater Eston, of which 293 were terraced

and 276 were semi-detached properties. Very few detached or flatted properties were

purchased. The volume of sales dropped by 11% between 2002 and 2003, compared to 6%

in Redcar and Cleveland overall (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3: Volume of House Sales, 2002 and 2003

Detached Semi-Det Terraced Flat/Mais Total

Sector 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003

%

change

Normanby area

TS6 0 58 22 134 124 32 34 3 7 227 187 -18%

South Bank area

TS6 6 - - 21 9 129 108 - - 150 117 -22%

Grangetown area

TS6 7 - - 47 45 23 60 - - 70 105 50%

Eston area

TS6 9 37 27 105 74 69 63 4 3 215 167 -22%

Study area 100 54 329 276 279 293 7 13 715 636 -11%

Redcar &Cleveland - - - - - - - - 3,439 3,225 -6%

Source: Land Registry

4.19 As shown in Figure 4.4, the average house price in Redcar and Cleveland is £83,004

compared to £94,414 across the North East. Indeed there is a price differential between

Redcar and Cleveland and the regional average across all types of housing.

4.20 Average prices were lowest within South Bank and Grangetown. In terms of house type,

terraced properties exhibited the lowest prices. Detached housing was the most expensive,

although no detached properties were sold in either South Bank or Grangetown.


April 2005


Figure 4.4: House Prices by Postcode Sector, 2003

£0

£20,000

£40,000

£60,000

£80,000

£100,000

£120,000

£140,000

£160,000

£180,000

Detached Semi-Det Terraced Flat/Mais

Normanby (TS6 9) South Bank (TS6 6) Grangetown (TS6 7) Eston (TS6 9)

Source: Land Registry

Household Profile

4.21 A total of 14,698 households live in Greater Eston (based on the 2001 Census), representing

a quarter of Redcar and Cleveland households. Table 4.4 shows the geographic distribution

of households by ward, and from this it is clear that the largest number of households lives in

South Bank (3,225) and the smallest number in Ormesby (860).

Table 4.4: Household Numbers by Tenure

Area Owns outright

Mortgage / loan Social rented Private

rented Total No of households

Eston 492 1,179 1,126 164 2,961

Grangetown 134 403 1,304 149 1,990

Normanby 972 1,170 548 126 2,816

Ormesby 234 280 286 60 860

South Bank 617 961 1,330 317 3,225

Teesville 1,011 1,078 660 87 2,836

Greater Eston 3,460 5,071 5,254 903 14,688

Redcar and Cleveland 17,294 22,699 13,163 4,285 57,441 Source: 2001 Census

4.22 Further analysis of Table 4.4 demonstrates that with around three quarters of homes either

owned outright or owned with a mortgage, Normanby and Teesville represent

neighbourhoods with robust home ownership credentials.


April 2005


4.23 According to the 2001 Census, the composition of households in the Greater Eston is very

similar to the regional and national benchmarks, as shown below in Table 4.5. The one

significant exception to this is the relatively large proportion of single parent families in the

study area (single parent families make up 9% of households in the study area, compared

with 7% Redcar and Cleveland and 6% nationally). The relative concentration of this group is

offset to some extent by a slight under-representation in the number of adult couples.


April 2005


Table 4.5: Household Composition

Area Single Elderly

Single Adult

Elderly Couple

Adult couple with no children

Adult couple

with dependent

children

Adult couple

with non dependent

children

Lone parent with dependent

children

Lone parent with

non dependent

children

Other

South Bank 12% 19% 5% 12% 21% 7% 13% 4% 8% Grangetown 12% 16% 5% 11% 20% 5% 19% 4% 9% Eston 17% 13% 9% 16% 21% 9% 7% 3% 6% Teesville 16% 9% 13% 16% 22% 11% 4% 4% 5% Normanby 17% 15% 9% 18% 19% 9% 7% 3% 4% Ormesby 14% 12% 13% 17% 18% 9% 8% 4% 5% Greater Eston

15% 14% 9% 15% 20% 8% 9% 4% 6%

Redcar and Cleveland

15% 13% 10% 17% 21% 8% 7% 3% 5%

England & Wales

14% 16% 9% 18% 21% 6% 6% 3% 7%

Source: 2001 Census

4.24 Map 4.1 below shows the concentration of single parent families spatially across the study

area. There is a strong correlation between the concentration of single parent families and

the areas with the highest concentration of social housing, and poor performance on

employment and qualifications.


April 2005


Map 4.1: Greater Eston % Single Parent Families by Output Area


April 2005


HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

4.25 As mentioned previously, this report draws upon findings from a Household Survey of Greater

Eston residents, which aimed:

▪ To determine residents’ views of the present conditions of their housing and

neighbourhood

▪ To ascertain future housing plans and aspirations

▪ To compare levels of resident satisfaction with other residents surveyed by Kwest

▪ To compare the views of different groups within the population, for example, residents

living in different areas

▪ To provide benchmarks against which changes can be measured over time

4.26 The research was carried out by specialist sub-contractors, Kwest Research, who used a

postal methodology, as this is an efficient and cost effective method of contacting a large

number of residents. A sample of 7,879 households were invited to take part in the research,

and all those included were mailed questionnaires, together with an introductory letter from

Kwest and a reply-paid envelope for returning completed survey forms. To encourage

participation, a prize draw incentive was offered to all those taking part. After responses to

the first mailing had tailed off, a reminder questionnaire was sent to all non-respondents.

4.27 On completion of the project, a total of 2,534 replies had been received, representing a

response rate of 32%. This is broadly in line with postal research undertaken with the general

public (for example, the ODPM’s General User Surveys). As an additional point, a lower than

average response rate was anticipated for the Redcar and Cleveland project due to extensive

on-going consultation with residents in recent times.

4.28 The accuracy of the data when using 2,534 replies to measure the views of Redcar and

Cleveland’s 16,312 households as a single group is excellent at 1.8%. To explain, an

accuracy level of 1.8% means that if 50% of respondents answer “yes” to a yes/no question,

then we know that between 48.2% and 51.8% would give the same response, including those

who were not involved in the research.

4.29 Further analysis has also been undertaken by area and the accuracy for this data also has

relatively good accuracy, as shown below:

▪ Eston - 3.3%

▪ Grangetown - 4.8%

▪ Normanby - 4.4%

▪ Ormesby - 5.6%

▪ South Bank - 6%

▪ Teesville - 4%


April 2005


4.30 For the purposes of this report, we have drawn upon the key findings of the Household

Survey research, but more detailed discussion is available in the separate Household Survey

report, which has been compiled and submitted to Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council in

conjunction with this report.

4.31 The key findings from the Household Survey report are important when considering the

current dynamics of the Greater Eston housing market. Findings throughout the research

indicate that the quality of homes are generally regarded as meeting local residents’ needs,

although the poorly perceived local environment is encouraging people to move away from

some communities. More importantly, some local problems are contributing to the poor

reputation of certain areas within Greater Eston.

4.32 In terms of the “non-housing” issues affecting respondents’ views of Greater Eston, one

interesting discernible trend is that satisfaction ratings for the neighbourhood are fairly similar

between types of tenure, but substantially different between the neighbourhoods surveyed.

Residents in Normanby and Teesville are the most likely to express satisfaction, whilst

Grangetown residents are the least likely to be satisfied.

4.33 Indeed, Grangetown appears to suffer from problems more than other areas surveyed, for

example, an above average proportion cite litter, rubbish and dog mess, disturbance from

children and fear of crime as their main concerns. Further consideration of Household Survey

findings is included in the following sections.

Employment and Income

4.34 Six in ten respondents and their partners have a combined weekly net income of between £60

and £259, whilst only small proportions receive either under £60 (4%) or £600 or more (8%).

This varies across the sub areas, with notably lower incomes in South Bank and Grangetown.

This reflects the tenure profile of the area (Figure 4.5).


April 2005


Figure 4.5: Resident and Partner Weekly Net Income

2

1

3

4

5

8

4

25

29

31

36

48

46

35

23

24

18

27

22

27

23

18

16

19

16

13

14

16

21

18

19

12

8

5

14

12

13

9

6

5

1

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Teesville

Normanby

Eston

Ormesby

South Bank

Grangetown

Total

Under £60 £60 -£159 £160-£259 £260-£399 £400-£599 £600+

Source: Household Survey 2003

4.35 Around four in ten residents have their income wholly derived from state benefits/pensions,

whilst three in ten respondents partly derive their income from this source. Around a third

does not receive any state benefit / pension.

4.36 A third of residents receive Housing Benefit and around one tenth of these has their rent or

mortgage interest fully paid for by this source of income. A similar proportion (15%) has their

rent/mortgage partly paid for by Housing Benefit. Receipt of housing benefit is highest in

Grangetown (49%) and South Bank (46%) and lowest in Normanby (22%) and Teesville

(13%).

Length of Time in Current Accommodation 4.37 Around a third of respondents have lived in their present home for 21 years or longer, whilst a

quarter have lived in their current property for between 11 and 20 years. Three in ten

residents have lived in their present home for between three and ten years and 6% have

recently moved and have lived in their home for under a year.


April 2005


Table 4.6: Length of Time in Current Home

Length of Time in Home % Residents

Under 1 year 6%

1-2 years 8%

3-5 years 14%

6-10 years 15%

11-20 years 24%

21 + years 35%


4.38 People who own their home outright are most likely to have lived in their home for over 20

years (suggesting that they have paid off their mortgage), whilst the great majority of private

rented tenants have lived in their home for no more than five years.

Satisfaction with Current Home

4.39 The Household Survey asked residents how satisfied they were with their current home.

Overall, the majority of residents are happy with their property, 81% expressing satisfaction,

compared to 7% who are dissatisfied.

Figure 4.6: Overall Satisfaction with Accommodation

42 41

9 4 305

1015

2025

3035

4045

Very satisfied Fairly satified Neither Fairlydissatisfied

Verydissatisfied

% re

spon

dent

s


4.40 However, the overall findings mask differences across the local communities. Residents in

Teesville are most likely to be very satisfied with their current accommodation, while

Grangetown are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their home.


April 2005


Figure 4.7: Overall Satisfaction with Accommodation by Area

56

45

43

37

39

30

37

41

43

45

40

42

3

7

8

10

11

15

2

4

3

5

5

6

2

3

2

2

5

7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Teesville

Normanby

Eston

Ormesby

South Bank

Grangetown

Very satisfied Fairly satified Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied


4.41 There are also lower levels of satisfaction amongst those living in terraced dwellings; 71%

stated they were satisfied with their current home, compared to 83% overall. Those living in

private rented housing and social rented housing also have lower levels of satisfaction with

their home.

Future Moves

4.42 At present, a fifth of Greater Eston study area residents have plans to move, with 30% of

these intending to move within a year. Single parent families are the most likely group looking

to move, whilst residents aged 60 or over look most likely to want to stay. Of those who are

planning on moving a quarter are on the waiting list for social rented housing. The desire to

move varies according to area, with those in Grangetown most likely to be considering this

option, and those in Teesville least likely to do so.

4.43 Interestingly, a higher proportion of owners with a mortgage than social rented tenants stated

that were planning to move (26% compared to 21%). Private renters were the most likely to

want to move; 41% had plans to move from their present home. Outright owners are least

likely to have plans to move; only 15% stated this was the case.

4.44 For people who have plans to move, just 11% would most like to live in their current

neighbourhood, suggesting that for many the key driver behind the move is “the area” itself.

This is supported by findings elsewhere in the research, which confirm that most commonly

cited reason given for wishing to move is for “a better neighbourhood”.


April 2005


4.45 The preferred locations for a move vary, with four in ten wishing to live elsewhere in Greater

Eston, whilst 15% will look to live elsewhere in Redcar and Cleveland. Three in ten people

(31%) wishing to move will look outside Redcar and Cleveland. Those currently living in

Teesville and Ormesby are far more likely to want to move outwith Redcar and Cleveland

entirely. Grangetown and South Bank residents are the least likely to wish to remain in the

current neighbourhood. However, a very high proportion wishes to remain in Greater Eston.

Figure 4.8: Where People Considering a Move Would Most Like to Live by Current Location

13

21

16

14

8

2

11

30

38

33

20

52

64

44

13

15

17

12

13

17

15

45

26

34

55

27

18

31

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Teesville

Normanby

Eston

Ormesby

South Bank

Grangetown

Total

Current neighbourhood In Greater EstonElsewhere in Redcar and Cleveland Outside Redcar and Cleveland


4.46 Table 4.7 below highlights the harsh realities regarding public perception of local areas within

Greater Eston. Clearly, there are two areas that suffer badly in terms of reputation and

perception, namely Grangetown and South Bank. Almost half of all respondents indicated

that they would least like to live in Grangetown, and a third do not want to live in South Bank.

By comparison, just 7% say they would least like to live in Eston - the next highest proportion.

This finding emphasises the scale of the challenge ahead, in terms of redefining local resident

and “outsider” views of these neighbourhoods as aspirational destinations for home-movers.

4.47 Having said that, it is notable that residents who already live in Grangetown or South Bank

are less likely to be negative about these locations as places to live than those who live

outside these areas. This perhaps suggests that the area’s reputation is actually worse than

the reality. As such, this should be seen as a positive note, and an indication that these areas

are salvable.


April 2005


Table 4.7: Area People Would Least Like To Live % Residents

Areas % Residents

Grangetown 48%

South Bank 32%

Eston 7%

Normanby 6%

Ormesby 2%

Lazenby 2%

Teesville 2%

Whale Hill 2%

Source: Household Survey, 2003

Type of Property Residents Would Prefer

4.48 In order to ensure future housing stock meets residents’ needs, people were asked what type

of property and tenure they would ideally like when they move, and what type of property they

could realistically expect. Whilst a third would like a detached house, and a fifth of residents

ideally want a semi-detached house, it is perhaps surprising that the greatest proportion of

residents would ideally like to move to a bungalow. The ideal housing choice also clearly

indicates an almost unanimous rejection of flats (just 3% would most like to live in this type of

property) and maisonettes.

4.49 Analysis by household composition indicates that “age” is an important driver of housing

choice, with older residents far more interested in a bungalow than families with children .

When asked which type of property people expect that they would realistically move into,

results are more spread. The greatest proportion realistically expects to move to a semi-

detached house, whilst a fifth will expect to move to a detached house. Just a fifth will

realistically expect to move to a bungalow (compared to 34% who would ideally prefer to live

in a bungalow). A comparison of findings between the types of property people would ideally

and realistically like to live is tabled below.


April 2005


Table 4.8 Comparison of types of property households would ideally & realistically like to live

Type of Property % Residents ideally like when move

% Residents realistically expect

when move Maisonette 0% 0%

Bungalow 34% 20%

Semi-detached 21% 37%

Detached 33% 17%

Terraced 4% 13%

Mobile home / caravan 1% 0%

Flat 3% 8%

Sheltered / other for elderly 2% 2%

Other 2% 2%


4.50 Two points clearly emerge from the data:

27% currently live in a terraced house, whilst 13% realistically expect to move to a

terraced property.

6% currently live in a detached home, yet 17% realistically expect to move to a detached

house.

4.51 When looking to move, about four in ten residents in each case say they will require either

two or three bedrooms. Table 4.9 below illustrates this point, and indicates an increasing

need for two bedroomed and four bedroomed accommodation, with slight decreases in the

need for one or three bedroom properties.

Table 4.9: Comparison of current size of property and size required in future accommodation Type of Property % residents in current

accommodation % residents need in future accommodation

One 9% 7%

Two 29% 39%

Three 56% 42%

Four 5% 12%

Five or More 1% 0%



April 2005


Type of Tenure

4.52 To provide further context to the questioning, people were asked the type of tenure they

would ideally like when they move home. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the greatest proportion

would wish to buy a home outright (45%), whilst substantial minorities would ideally like to buy

with a mortgage, or rent from a Housing Association.

4.53 When comparing the ideal outlined above with the expectation of potential movers, almost

half (45%) will look to buy with a mortgage, whilst three in ten will rent from a Housing

Association. Fewer will look to buy a home outright (14%), rent from a private landlord (7%),

or live in elderly accommodation (4%). The ideals and expectations of residents are

compared for easy reference below in Table 4.10:

Table 4.10: Comparison of tenure of property households would ideally & realistically like to live

Tenure of Property Expressed Preference Realistic Expectation

Buy home outright 45% 14%

Buy with mortgage 23% 45%

Rent from HA /LA 27% 30%

Rent from private landlord 1% 7%

Shared ownership 1% 0%

Lodge / live with someone N/A 0%

Sheltered 1% 0%

Elderly accommodation 2% 4%


Reasons for Wishing to Move

4.54 Respondent’s motivations to move are frequently diverse and complex. The findings from the

research support this. The most commonly cited reason for wishing to move is for “a better

neighbourhood”, although just over one in ten (12%) mention this reason. The next most

frequently cited reasons are “needing a larger home” (6%), “needing a smaller home” (5%), or

“to be nearer friends/relatives” (5%).

4.55 Analysis by household composition reveals that motivations vary according to respondents’

age. For example, the following trends were identified:

Families with children are most likely to wish to move for a better neighbourhood or a

larger home;

Elderly residents are slightly more likely to want to move to a smaller home or for greater

care provision.


April 2005


4.56 From this we can conclude that the current residential offering within Greater Eston is

generally not meeting current residents’ expectations and aspirations, and that in order to

achieve successful, sustainable communities within Greater Eston, there is at least an implied

requirement for greater diversity in terms of the types of property available, in terms of various

property sizes, across all tenures. It is also concluded that, given the volume of people

expressing “better neighbourhoods” as a reason for wanting to move, any housing market

renewal strategy for Greater Eston will require to address not just the physical housing

conditions, but the broader, attendant issues that comprise a good neighbourhood.

SOCIAL RENTED STOCK

Overview 4.57 Using the Census, Household Survey and Housing Management Data, this section provides

more detail on the social rented stock in Greater Eston.

4.58 As at 2001 there were 5,254 social rented dwellings in Greater Eston accounting for 36% of

the housing stock in the Greater Eston area, which is relatively high by comparison with the

authority overall 23%. This density of social renting is also significantly higher than regional

and national levels, as shown in table 4.11 below.

Table 4.11: Social Rented Stock, April 2001

Area LA RSL Total % of total stock

in area

Greater Eston 4,557 697 5254 36%

Redcar and Cleveland 11,234 1,929 13,163 23%

North East 238,583 56,140 294,723 28%

England & Wales 2,868,529 1,288,722 4,157,251 19%

Note: this analysis as based on Census does not take account of the transfer of Redcar and Cleveland Borough

Council housing stock to Coast & Country Housing in July 2002

Source: 2001 Census

4.59 Map 4.2 below highlights the areas within Greater Eston where there are the highest

concentrations of social housing. The principal concentration of social housing is located in

broadly the same areas as those as having particularly low employment and skill levels,

namely South Bank and Grangetown. In this northern part of the study area, social housing

makes up between 72% and 92% of all housing stock.


April 2005

Private & Confidential 98

Map 4.2: Greater Eston Social Housing as % of Total by Output Area


April 2005


4.60 There are also variations in the proportion of social rented housing within Greater

Eston. Only 19% of the housing stock falling within the Normanby ward (the part that

falls within Greater Eston) is social rented, compared to 66% in Grangetown. See

Table 4.12 below. The level of social rented housing in Grangetown is notably twice

that seen in Eston and Ormesby, and around 3 times that seen in Teesville and

Normanby; as such it can be seen as a signal of the market imbalance in that

particular part of Greater Eston.

Table 4.12: Social Rented Housing within Greater Eston, 2001 Study Area Ward name Total % social rented housing

Eston (part) 1,126 38%

Grangetown (part) 1,304 66%

Normanby (part) 548 19%

Ormesby (part) 286 33%

South Bank 1,330 41%

Gre

ater

Est

on

Teesville 660 23%

Greater Eston total 5,254 36%

Redcar and Cleveland total 13,163 23%

Note: relates to all social housing as at April 2001. This is pre-stock transfer

Source: 2001 Census

4.61 There are six social landlords operating within the Greater Eston area. These are:

Coast and Country Housing Ltd

Tees Valley Housing Group

Accent North East

Anchor Housing

North British Housing

Guinness Trust

4.62 Housing data has been provided by three of the above providers, and this is

summarised below:


April 2005


Coast and Country Housing Ltd

Stock Profile

4.63 Coast and Country own and manage 11,125 properties which were transferred into

their ownership through the LSVT from Redcar and Cleveland Council in 2002, 43%

(4,756) of these properties are located in Greater Eston. Figure 4.9 shows the size of

dwellings owned by Coast and Country. The most notable difference between

Greater Eston and the rest of Redcar and Cleveland is the higher proportion of three

bedroomed dwellings.

Figure 4.9: Coast and Country Stock by Size

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 + Bed

Greater Eston Outwith study area Total

Source: Coast and Country Housing Management Systems, June 2004

4.64 Coast and Country has taken steps towards dealing with ‘at risk’ stock. Since the

transfer of the housing stock in July 2002, a total of 77 housing units have been

demolished. All of these have been located in the Greater Eston area.

4.65 Right-To-Buy sales have also had an impact on the availability of Coast and Country

housing in Greater Eston. During the first year after stock transfer around 38% of the

Right-To-Buy sales were in Greater Eston. This appears to have increased, although

the full year’s data for 2004/05 will be required to confirm this. See Table 4.13.


April 2005


Table 4.13: Right to Buy Sales

Area July 2002 to March 2003

2003 – 2004 April to June

2004 Total

Greater Eston 36 115 24 175

Redcar and Cleveland 95 289 51 435

% of RTBs in Greater Eston 38% 40% 47% 40% Source: Coast and Country Housing Management Systems

Supply

4.66 Table 4.14 provides a profile of lettings made within the Redcar and Cleveland

borough over the last decade. Turnover has remained at around 10% during this

period.

Table 4.14: Summary of Lets and Turnover

Year Stock Lets Turnover

1991 14299 1350 9%

1992 13989 1368 10%

1993 13778 1407 10%

1994 13563 1606 12%

1995 13349 1689 13%

1996 13162 1548 12%

1997 12917 1543 12%

1998 12649 1417 11%

1999 12477 1589 13%

2000 12295 1651 13%

2001 12143 1717 14%

2002 11570 1203 10%

2003 11463 1394 12% Note: Stock figures for 2002 and 2003 are estimated figures

Source: Supply and Demand – A Strategy for Coast and Country Housing & HIP Returns 2003

4.67 A total of 1,081 lets were made during 2003/04, of which 489 (see Table 4.15) were

in Greater Eston. In Greater Eston 61% of applicants are listed on Coast & Country’s

waiting list, 20% are seeking a transfer and 15% are homeless. As shown in Figure

4.10 below lettings to single people and families are more common in Greater Eston

than across Coast & Country’s stock overall.


April 2005


Figure 4.10: Lettings by Household Type, 2003/04

Source: Coast and Country Housing Management Systems

4.68 For 2000, turnover was just under 10%, a slight decrease by comparison with the

previous year. Although higher than Coast and Country stock overall, turnover was

not significantly higher in Greater Eston (10.4%).

4.69 The greatest proportion of lettings made is to households who have previously lived

with family/friends. There is also a significant movement across tenures, with 11%

moving from private rented accommodation and 6% from owner occupation. A

further 9% had moved from another RSL.

Table 4.15: Lets during 2003/04 by Previous Tenure

Type Greater Eston C &C

Transfer 20% 21%

Bed and Breakfast 5% 8%

Hostel Tenant 2% 3%

Living with Family/Friends 39% 32%

LA Tenant 3% 3%

Lodgings/Digs 1% 1%

No Fixed Abode 2% 1%

Other RSL 9% 7%

Owner Occupier 6% 8%

Private Tenant 11% 13%

Other 3% 3%

Total No 489 1081

Turnover Rate 10.4% 9.7% Source: Coast and Country Housing management data 2003/04

12%

5%0%

47%

7%

28%

20%

4%1%

43%

10%

23%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Aged Couple Disabled Family Mat Couple Single

Greater Eston Coast and Country


April 2005


4.70 The total number of tenancy terminations during 2003/04 was 1,155. This is 6%

higher than the previous year. Just under half of these were in the Greater Eston

area.

4.71 Twenty-nine per cent of terminated tenancies were a result of movement within the

stock, transfers or Right to Buys. The next most significant reasons for tenancy

terminations are deaths and abandonments. Abandonments (where a tenancy is

voluntarily surrendered, and the landlord reclaims the property by due legal process)

are more common in Greater Eston (13% compared to 9% overall). There is

evidence of movement between the social rented and private rented sector – 7% of

terminations in Greater Eston involved a transfer to private renting.

Table 4.16: Terminations, 2003/04

Reason No in Greater

Eston No in Coast and Country

% in GE % in C&C

Death 72 202 14% 17%

Transfer 129 291 26% 25%

Buying Own Home 14 33 3% 3%

Eviction 20 31 4% 3%

Abandoned Property 65 107 13% 9%

Move to other RSL 12 36 2% 3%

Renting Private Sector 35 114 7% 10%

Unable to Afford 8 10 2% 1%

Harassment 38 64 8% 6%

Domestic Violence 3 7 1% 1%

Left Area 16 34 3% 3%

Dislike Area 12 33 2% 3%

Live with Family/Friends 24 65 5% 6%

Prison 2 0% 0%

Residential Care/Hospital 26 94 5% 8%

Unknown 24 32 5% 3%

Total 498 1155 100% 100% Source: Coast and Country Housing management data

4.72 As at April 2004 a total of 184 Coast & Country properties were void and lettable, of

which 75 were in Greater Eston. The void rate within Greater Eston is broadly the

same as the rest of Redcar and Cleveland, around 2%. Void rates are highest for

bedsits and larger properties, although these account for a relatively small proportion

of the Greater Eston housing stock.


April 2005


Figure 4.11: Coast and Country Stock Void Rate, April 2004

Source: Coast and Country Housing Management Systems

Demand

4.73 Demand for social housing in Redcar and Cleveland, as expressed through the

housing lists, has changed over the last four years. In 2000 the number of applicants

on the housing list totalled 2,777. By 2003 this had increased to 2,9391. This may be

the result of the stock transfer and changes in how households perceive the

organisation.

4.74 Data provided by Coast and Country (Table 4.17) suggests that the list has continued

to increase and currently stands at 3,795. Over a quarter of all applicants on the list

currently live in Greater Eston.

Table 4.17: Current Waiting List - end July 2004

Applicant type All Applicants Living in Greater Eston Waiting List 2,522 (66%) 690 (27% of waiting list applicants) Transfer 873 (23%) 356 (41% of transfer applicants)

Waiting List/RSL 159 (4%) 30 (19% of waiting list RSL applicants)

HEMS 9 (<1%) - Homeless 232 (6%) - Total 3,795 (100%) 1,076

Source: Coast and Country Housing management data

4.75 The table below details area choices according to where the applicant currently lives.

As applicants are able to make more than one ‘choice’, the total number of choices

does not match the applicant total. We can see that certain letting areas are more

popular with household already living in Greater Eston. For example, 68% of 1 ODPM HIP Returns

3%

1% 1% 1%

2%

3%

2%

1% 1%

2%

0%1%1%2%2%3%3%4%

bedsit / 1 Bed

2 Bed 3 Bed 4 + Bed Total

Housing Stock By Size

Void Rate

Greater Eston C&C


April 2005


applicants who have chosen the “Station Road” letting area live in Greater Eston.

This compares to only 38% in Ormesby.

Table 4.18: Areas of Choice

Area Choices within Greater Eston All Applicants Apps from GE Area

Percentage of applicants in Greater Eston choosing area

Ormesby 266 100 38% Coniston Road Estate 140 54 39% Overfields 285 113 40% Spencerbeck South 342 149 44% Spencerbeck North 346 151 44% South Bank Street Properties 173 93 54% Redcar Road East Area 149 81 54% Maxton Rd/Shinwell Crescent Area 178 99 56% North Church Lane Area 296 169 57% North Grangetown 161 93 58% Police Station Area 167 99 59% South Church Lane Area 330 198 60% Central Grangetown 202 126 62% Holmefields Rd/Oakley Wk Area 468 299 64%

Whale Hill Area 343 222 65% South Grangetown 207 134 65% Moorcock/Woodcock Cl Area 475 308 65% Teesville East 459 302 66% Jubilee Road Area 516 342 66% Nightingale Road Area 288 192 67% Old Teesville/Lowfields 295 197 67% Normanby 523 350 67% Station Road Area 522 356 68%

Source: Coast and Country Housing management data

TEES VALLEY HOUSING GROUP

4.76 Tees Valley owns and manages 601 units within Redcar and Cleveland. Of these 175

are located in the Greater Eston area (128 in South Bank, 31 in Eston and 16 in

Normanby). The greatest proportion of the stock are one bedroom flats (223), two

bedroom houses (153) and three bedroom houses 109).

4.77 As at April 2004, a total of 91 properties were vacant, representing 15% of the

housing stock. The majority of void properties are classified as ‘unlettable’ – 87 in

total and most of these are located in Mannion Court, South Bank; proposals have

been made to demolish these properties.

4.78 Stock turnover appears to be high. During 2003/04 a total of 140 properties were re-

let, equivalent to 23% of the Greater Eston housing stock. The average re-let time


April 2005


during 2003/04 and was 36 days, however, indications suggests this has shortened in

2004/05. This may be as a result of the worst properties being classified as

unlettable. A total of 72 properties were previously held in the Grangetown older

housing clearance area. These were transferred to the Council for demolition.

4.79 Consultation with TVHA suggests that this is dropping and turnover is stabilising.

This trend has been the result of three key factors: affordability of private sector

housing, the removal of low demand properties through regeneration, and the

increased number of households receiving ‘notice to quit’ from private sector

landlords.

THE GUINNESS TRUST

4.80 The Guinness Trust owns and manages 292 properties in Redcar and Cleveland, of

which 161 are located in South Bank. The properties in South Bank consist primarily

of small terraced houses – 123 are two bedroomed houses.

4.81 A total of 35 properties were void as at April 2004, all of which were located in South

Bank. This is equivalent to 21% of the housing stock in South Bank. During 2003/04

a total of 46 re-lets were made, representing a turnover rate of 29%. The Guinness

Trust has demolished 13 properties in the last five years.

ACCENT NORTH EAST

4.82 Accent own and manage 413 properties in Redcar and Cleveland. Of these, 132 are

in South Bank, 90 in Grangetown, 14 are in Normanby and 1 in Teesville. The

majority of the stock consists of one or two bedroomed flats.

4.83 As at April 2004 51 properties were vacant, of which 37 were unlettable properties.

This equates to a total void rate of 12% and lettable void rate of 9%.

Balance of Supply and Demand in the Social Rented

4.84 Finally, the study considered the overall balance in demand and supply for the social

rented sector over the next two years. To estimate future demand for social rented

housing, calculations have been made based on the likely future intentions expressed

in the household survey. It should be noted that these calculations draw on the

moving expectations of households as expressed through the survey and do not


April 2005


necessarily capture actual trends2. Household numbers are based on the 2001

Census – these numbers are shown in Table 4.2. The calculations also draw on

Coast and Country’s records to estimate unanticipated moves from the sector.

Supply of social rented housing

4.85 The supply of properties will come from existing tenants leaving social housing in

Greater Eston, either as a planned moved, or unexpectedly (as a result of death,

eviction or abandoning their tenancy).

4.86 The survey found that overall, 22% of social rented tenants are planning a move, and

78% are likely to move within the next two years – an estimated 860 tenants. Of

these 75% (645 households) say they are likely to move within the Greater Eston

area, while 25% (215) households wish to move out of Greater Eston altogether.

4.87 Of the tenants planning to move but stay within Greater Eston (645 households), 72%

say they are likely to be social rented tenants in the property they move to (around

465 households - leaving 180 households who do not expect to be in social housing).

Just over a half 329 households say they would ideally wish to live in the social

rented sector (which means 316 do not have social rented housing as their first

choice). This means that between 180 and 316 households plan to leave the social

rented sector within two years. This is broadly in line with the Coast and Country

data, which shows that around 292 Coast & Country tenants per year have made

planned moves out of social rented housing.

4.88 In addition, Coast and Country records indicate that a number of tenants leave the

sector unexpectedly – due to death or eviction. These terminations amount to around

200 per annum. Assuming these levels of unplanned terminations are maintained,

this suggests that between 581 and 716 tenants will leave the sector over the next

two years: low estimate = (181+ (200*2)); high estimate = (316+ (200*2)).

Demand for social rented housing

4.89 Demand for social rented housing comes from four sources: existing households

wanting to move into social rented housing from other tenures, newly formed

households, homeless households entering the sector, and households from outside

Greater Eston wanting to move into the sector.

2 The calculations are based on small sample sizes so need to be treated with caution.


April 2005


4.90 Some 14% of households, not currently in social rented housing, intend to move in

the next two years (an estimated 1,332 households) and 14% of these say they are

likely to be social rented tenants (an estimated 194 households). It is noteworthy that

around 58% of these (114 households) want to move within Greater Eston.

4.91 The survey did not collect any information on concealed households. It is therefore

assumed that in Greater Eston 5% of social rented households include someone who

might like to move out in the next two years. This translates into an estimate of 734

households. Using the same moving profile of all households, it has been assumed

that 72% of concealed households would be likely to move into social rented

accommodation. This is circa 528 households.

4.92 It is not expected that all concealed households would emerge as individual

households: some will join together, while others will move into an existing

household. Assuming that half of the concealed households will join to form new

households, this would mean approximately 400 newly forming households moving

into the social rented sector.

4.93 There were around 162 homeless households housed by Coast and Country in the

last year. It is reasonable to assume that these households would not be identified

within the survey as 'planned' moves, so homeless households could add another

324 entrants to the social rented sector over the next two years.

4.94 It is not known how many households from outside Greater Eston want to move into

social renting within the area. This is assumed to be nil.

4.95 This gives an overall demand for social rented housing of 838 (114+400 (estimated

concealed)+324). This would rise to 966 (114 + 528 + 324) assuming that all

concealed households emerged as separate households.

Balance

4.96 Clearly the demand for social housing is slightly greater than the supply: 838 (or 966)

compared to 518 (or 716).

4.97 In practice the difference may be smaller. For example, more people may actually

leave the sector than say they expect to in the survey.


April 2005


SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES – HOUSING

Local Housing Need

• As seen in the socio-economic analysis and the population and household

projections outlined in Chapter 3, some 1,250 additional households are expected

to be generated in the Greater Eston area between 2001 and 2015.

• There is evidence of a rising demand for social housing in Redcar and Cleveland

– albeit not for what is currently on offer in the areas of market failure.

Demographic Flows

• In terms of emerging migration patterns, there is a strong body of evidence to

suggest that housing market confidence (of current home-owners in the Greater

Eston area) is being eroded, with 26% of owners indicating they have plans to

move; backed up by the Tees Valley HMA study, additional evidence suggests

that this move is likely to be out of the borough and into either nearby new

Teesside conurbations (e.g. Ingleby Barwick) or South into North Yorkshire.

• Those who currently live in Eston, Teesville or Ormesby are most likely to wish

for a move not just out of Greater Eston but also out of Redcar and Cleveland

completely – and it appears that the problems associated with Grangetown/South

Bank may be a significant contributory factor.

• Those who currently live in Grangetown or South Bank are most likely to wish for

a move elsewhere in Greater Eston, but least likely to wish to stay in their current

neighbourhood.

Current Challenges in Greater Eston

• RSLs currently operating in the Greater Eston area are typically encountering

serious management challenges, in the form of high rates of turnover, and higher

than average voids, as well as high levels of nuisance or anti-social behaviour

complaints

• Greater Eston as an area has a higher level of Council Tax Band A properties

than is prevalent regionally, and proportionately twice as many properties as the

national average

• The current supply of social rented housing in Greater Eston is geographically

weighted towards Grangetown/South Bank. These are unpopular due to the type

of housing available, and the reputation of the area

• Grangetown and South Bank are widely regarded as undesirable areas with 48%

of survey respondents indicating they would least like to live in Grangetown, and

32% saying the same of South Bank


April 2005


Household Aspirations

• The household survey clearly shows the tenure of aspiration is home ownership,

although suitable opportunities may not currently be available within Greater

Eston, with more appealing alternatives available elsewhere (Ingleby Barwick,

Stockton etc)

• Whilst bungalow or detached housing may be the majority aspiration of

respondents, most do indicate that they would realistically expect to move to

semi-detached housing

• Indications from our Household Survey suggest that those in private rented or

social rented accommodation are most likely to be dissatisfied with their home as

opposed to the general trend of people expressing dissatisfaction with the local

area

• Most residents are looking for either two or three bedroom accommodation

Household mix

• One measure of the sustainability of an area is to look at how the area compares

to national trends; the study area has a significant imbalance in the provision of

different dwelling types with a higher than national average level of semi-

detached houses and bungalows, and a significantly lower representation of

detached or flatted properties in Greater Eston.

• The majority of households in the area currently live in either semi-detached or

terraced housing and given the regionally declining population and the connected

increase in smaller households, this raises the likelihood of future mismatch

between dwelling type and size with household’s actual requirements

Which housing sub markets need restructuring/house type restructuring

• On the basis of their current tenure and dwelling profiles, taken together with

feedback from the household survey, both South Bank and Grangetown clearly

emerge as the two parts of Greater Eston in greatest need of intervention to bring

about sustainable communities

• However, there remains sufficient concern locally among residents that Eston

also requires some intervention, although to a lesser extent than in South Bank or

Grangetown

• There is also evidence across the entire Greater Eston area that various

measures are required to bring about greater tenure and dwelling type balance,

not only to bring these areas into line with national and regional averages, but

also to equip them for the longer term and secure a sustainable future


April 2005


Achieving a 70:30 tenure split

• Across the Greater Eston area, current tenure pattern is weighted towards social

renting with the amount of social housing stock in Greater Eston higher than both

the regional and national averages

• Grangetown and South Bank with 66% and 41% of their stock respectively in the

social rented sector are tipping the Greater Eston tenure distribution away from

the desired 70:30 private to social ratio that is typical nationally, and is now

increasingly becoming the political objective of government policy

Which sub markets need dwelling type changes?

In order to bring Greater Eston’s tenure and dwelling type balance more into line with

national averages, the following adjustments would be required to each area in terms

of its stock profile (dwelling type) balance:

• Eston: increased numbers of detached properties, fewer terraced properties

required

• Grangetown: increased numbers of detached and flatted properties required,

fewer semi-detached properties, and maintain current proportion of terraced

properties.

• Normanby: increased numbers of detached properties, fewer semi-detached

properties, slightly more terraced properties and more flats.

• Ormesby: increased detached properties, decrease terraced properties, maintain

current proportions of semi-detached properties and flats.

• South Bank: increase proportion of detached properties and flats, decreasing

proportion of semi-detached and terraced properties.

• Teesville: increase proportion of detached properties and flats, fewer semi-

detached properties and maintain current proportion of terraced properties.

Which sub markets need tenure changes?

• Eston, Grangetown and South Bank: reduction of social housing stock required to

match 70:30 ratio target, which in case of Grangetown will require significant

reduction from present levels (66% social rented), with a matching increase in the

number of private home ownership opportunities across the area.

• Normanby: increased social rented opportunities required to balance tenure in

line with the 70:30 ratio target, although given limited development opportunities

in Normanby, this may require alternative strategies, perhaps including a suitable

allowance being made in the case of Eston, Grangetown and South Bank for this

purpose.


April 2005


• Ormesby: other than minor reductions to current levels of social rented stock little

change is required in Ormesby.

• Teesville: More social rented opportunities required in this area to bring it into line

with the desired 70:30 owner-occupier to social rented tenure split.


April 2005


5 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

PURPOSE OF THE CONSULTATION PROGRAMME 5.1 Our proposal methodology for this commission included a commitment to undertake a

programme of consultation with a range of key housing and regeneration

stakeholders. This section presents the key findings from the consultation

programme.

5.2 The purpose of the consultation programme was to:

Provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to identify the key issues and priorities

for both housing provision and the Greater Eston area;

Provide vital information for the generation of the key issues against which the

options will be assessed;

Provide stakeholders with an early opportunity to express their views on the

possible interventions to be assessed.

5.3 The consultation programme involved a series of workshops with a number of

interested parties identified by DTZ Pieda Consulting in conjunction with the Council.

A full list of the individuals and organisations consulted is contained in Appendix B. All

consultees were provided with relevant background information and a note of the

topics to be discussed prior to the meeting.

5.4 Consultees were drawn from:

• Tenants and residents

• Regeneration and housing staff

• Education department

• Police and fire services

• Neighbouring local authorities

• Local housing providers

• Council Cabinet and Local councillors

• Strategic partners, such as Tees Valley Living, the Housing Corporation and

neighbouring Council areas (Middlesbrough Council)


April 2005


5.5 It should be noted that the issues identified through the consultation process have not

been attributed to specific individuals. Instead, a number bracketed after each

comment denotes the group of consultees from which the comment came:

1. Denotes wider strategic consultees (Council staff, other strategic players such as

Tees Valley Living and the Housing Corporation);

2. Denotes individuals or organisations serving the community (schools, police,

education);

3. Denotes those involved in housing management (local RSLs);

4. Denotes tenants and residents;

5. Denotes private sector landlords

6. Denotes Cabinet and ward members

5.6 Furthermore, it should be emphasised that this report does not cover the views,

concerns and opinions of all residents, although we are able to make reasonable

deductions about the strength or direction of local opinion on certain issues by

reference to the Household Survey, which was completed as part of the wider

stakeholder engagement process.

5.7 We have set out stakeholders’ comments as follows:

• Housing and the Physical Environment

• Supply and Demand for Affordable Housing

• The Greater Eston Community

• Views on the Options

Housing and the Physical Environment Condition and Investment

5.8 It was clear to all consultees that despite previous investment in the Greater Eston

housing stock, it still has significant needs. These comments applied to both public

and private sector housing.

5.9 However, it was recognised that housing stock quality is not analogous across the

entirety of the Greater Eston area. Consultees regarded South Bank and

Grangetown as continuing to have the greatest problems with abandonment,

disrepair and obsolescence: “the areas have gone downhill rapidly over the last

twenty years” (4).


April 2005


5.10 The ongoing decline of the two areas has meant that social landlords feel there is

very little rationale in investing in the stock, as it would simply be too costly to meet

the Decent Homes Standard: “there is simply no value in undertaking any works in

these areas” (3)

5.11 Both South Bank and Grangetown have been subject to Single Regeneration Budget

Initiatives (SRB) since the early 1990s, with a proportion of this funding being used to

undertake demolition and refurbishment. However, a significant proportion of

stakeholder opinion indicated that they felt investment decisions had been poorly

made in the past and the housing was seen as having a direct impact on the area

itself (1, 4).

5.12 Changes within the private rented sector were also seen as having had an impact on

house condition. Over the last 10 years, private landlords have moved out of the

market, with many being replaced by absentee landlords, buying ‘unseen’ (1, 5). It

was believed that many new landlords do not want to invest in their properties, and

this is compounded by the lack of strong tenant-landlord relationships (5). Private

landlords felt that properties in Grangetown and South Bank were particularly poor: “I

wouldn’t touch those areas with a bargepole”.

5.13 Most landlords did not feel they had the “vast amounts of money” required to improve

the standard of housing, and that there was simply no incentive for inward

investment. Private landlords did note that investing in their housing stock could have

a positive impact on the sustainability of the tenancy: “The nicer the housing you

provide, then the nicer the tenant” (5).

5.14 In contrast to this focus on housing condition, other consultees believed that the

quality of the housing was not the main ‘driver’ of housing demand. Some expressed

the view that: “the same type of housing would be popular in other areas” (4). Another

stated: “it is not the quality of the housing on offer; it is the quality of the location” (1).

5.15 This debate over the importance of the quality and condition of the housing stock is

revealing. In areas of high housing pressure, it is the case that households may be

forced to tolerate poor quality housing condition due to lack of choice. However, the

consultation exercise revealed the current type of housing choice, especially in the

social rented sector, was not meeting the needs of local people. As one consultee

stated: “it is unrealistic to say people want this type of social housing in Greater

Eston” (1).


April 2005


5.16 It was considered that future investment should be delivered “locally” and that new

housing provision must meet the needs and aspirations of residents (1, 2, 4).

However, the general view expressed by all is that investment alone will not

necessarily tackle social issues. Instead, it is felt that these require a much wider

strategy, one that went beyond ‘purely cosmetics' (1).

Physical Environment Landscape

5.17 Some consultees felt that the wider environment in Greater Eston had benefited from

investment over the last decade through the demolition of the poorest stock (1, 3, 4,

6). However, high numbers of unoccupied properties continue to have a negative

impact on the local environment (1, 3). It was felt that parts of Greater Eston,

especially those with a high concentration of social rented stock, are visually

unappealing. This type of environment was, some felt, to be “enticing for vandalism”

and “gives the impression of a community in decline” (3).

5.18 Such problems were accentuated due to the fact that there is no financial assistance

available to undertake further demolition. A social landlord operating in South Bank

who is currently ‘mothballing’ low demand properties stated: “the dilapidation of the

local environment that accompanies this (mothballing) is clearly unacceptable.

Something has to happen next year; but until something does, RSLs are faced with a

problem of crisis management” (3).

5.19 Consultees agreed that past demolition activities have resulted in a significant

amount of open space, the majority of which is being maintained by the local authority

(1, 4). Issues around derelict land were not just concentrated in the South Bank and

Grangetown – Eston was also highlighted as having a large amount of open space.

5.20 Some consultees commented that the standard of maintenance is poor and this is

primarily due to a lack of resources (1, 2). Furthermore, much of the open space

“does not have an identity”, and is therefore not providing any “purpose” within local

communities (1).

5.21 Local residents have undertaken a number of innovative projects, such as community

gardens, in an attempt to use open space more effectively. However, not all

consultees were convinced that these projects were effective (1, 4). It was noted that

money is often wasted on projects such as these, as they are quickly vandalised (4).

Others believed that there was too much green space, and indeed this has been


April 2005


confirmed in the Council’s Green Space Strategy.

5.22 The decline of the chemical and steel industries, which previously provided the

foundation for communities in Grangetown and South Bank, has left its mark on the

physical environment. Tenants spoke of aspiring to move away from the dense

industrial landscape in the north, towards Eston and Teesville where it was perceived

to be “more attractive” and has views of the Eston hills (4).

Spatial Boundaries

5.23 Greater Eston has strong physical boundaries that impact on how it is perceived.

Three major roads divide the area: the A66 in the north, the A1085 through the centre

of the area and the A174 to the south.

5.24 There was a general feeling from consultees that these physical boundaries create a

separation between neighbouring communities (4). It was pointed out that South

Bank and Grangetown are both seen in terms of their physical position relative to the

Trunk Road and that “many people won’t go past that point” (3).

5.25 At a more local level, footpaths were regarded as being poorly lit and even

dangerous, with too many unsecured paths (4). CCTV systems were considered to

have improved security and prevented crime and had, to a certain extent, acted as a

deterrent (1,3).

Perceptions of the Greater Eston Housing Market

5.26 Consultees discussed how people perceive Greater Eston as an area, and how it ‘fits’

within the wider area. Some found it difficult to think about Greater Eston as a whole

(3, 4). One consultee who voiced this view stated: “local people have an

understanding of the housing market in South Bank or Eston, but not for Greater

Eston”. Another stated that they “did not feel comfortable with the concept of the

Greater Eston area” (3).

5.27 The main concern raised by consultees was that the study for Greater Eston must

drill down to look at local areas (1, 3, 4). This concern was especially focused on

Teesville, Eston and Normanby, as consultees felt that these areas may get “lost in

all this talk about Grangetown and South Bank” (1). Nonetheless, it was difficult for

consultees to focus on issues beyond these two areas, given the extent of the

problems being experienced.


April 2005


5.28 The difficulties with understanding spatial boundaries were acknowledged. For

example, local people have always considered Church Lane, Eston as being within

the Grangetown ward. A recent ward boundary change has now placed it in Eston,

which does not match local people’s perceptions of where it should ‘fit’ (3).

5.29 In contrast to this perspective, others felt that although it was important to consider

local areas, the problems facing these communities could not (and have not) been

resolved within these boundaries (1). The problems run much deeper, and the reality

facing Greater Eston communities is that housing market failure can spread. It was

therefore felt that there must be an attempt to think beyond these local boundaries

and how Greater Eston fits into the wider regional context. One consultee concluded

by stating that: “it is sensible to have a broader area; it may be a bit alien to some

people but that does not matter” (1).

5.30 Consultees agreed that there was a gap between the housing market in

Grangetown/South Bank and the rest of Greater Eston (all). It was pointed out that

identical properties were perceived differently across Greater Eston. For example,

Normanby has the same type of properties as are found in Grangetown or South

Bank, but they are regarded as desirable properties (2). It seems therefore that

transport links, poor shopping facilities, environmental aspects, general deprivation

and high concentrations of social rented tenure are the key drivers behind people’s

perceptions of different locations within the study area, rather than it being about the

type of housing available locally (3).

5.31 Some felt that South Bank and Grangetown have become stigmatised over the last

decade and such entrenched perspectives are difficult to change (1). Given all the

problems in these areas (social, economic and physical) it was difficult for consultees

to predict whether tackling the social problems in the area would reveal a good

location (1, 6).

5.32 Eston and Normanby are considered the “aspirational” areas within Greater Eston.

The A174 corridor is perceived as being more attractive area and Fabians Road is

seen locally as “a boundary of decent area” (3).

5.33 Given the diversity within the Greater Eston area, there was still uncertainty over how

Tees Valley Living would define the intervention areas and whether Greater Eston as

a whole area will be represented (1, 2).


April 2005


SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Supply and Demand

5.34 Overall, it was felt that there was a lack of housing pressure within Greater Eston

(all). By reducing the stock numbers, the demolition programme has at a basic level

dealt with oversupply issues (1, 4). However, others felt that the demolition

programme has been insufficient for tackling oversupply and that there was still too

much stock, especially social rented and ‘street’ housing (1, 3). The concentration of

social housing in specific areas was also recognised as a problem, especially in

South Bank where the housing market is clearly failing (all).

5.35 Void properties continue to be a significant problem for landlords (1,3,4,5).

Consultees felt that without “speedy intervention”, voids can trigger crime and anti-

social behaviour. It was also thought that voids could be a driver for out-migration,

thereby perpetuating the problem further (1).

5.36 Consultees felt that the number of households being housed through the homeless

route has increased significantly in recent years, resulting in a concentration of

vulnerable households in specific areas. They pointed to this as a possible further

factor that is, in some cases, perpetuating low demand. It was felt that many of these

households could make a direct application (3, 4). It was felt that a “local lettings

policy” needs to be adopted by the Council and RSLs to achieve diverse communities

in specific parts of Greater Eston, so as to circumvent allocating strictly on needs

basis, which is merely exacerbating poverty, deprivation and vulnerability in the area.

5.37 The availability of affordable housing in the private rented sector has meant that

people who wish to move out-with the area can. Interestingly, right to buy sales in the

social rented sector were thought to have increased in recent years, and one of the

factors influencing this is the affordable housing in the area (3). However, it was

noted that what is perceived as “affordable” is relative. As a result, there is a

concentration of households living in the private sector who are effectively “trapped”

in parts of Greater Eston, many of whom will have properties in negative equity (1).

5.38 There is evidence of more aspirational homeownership appearing – the most

commonly cited being Ingleby Barwick. It was agreed that the households moving into

the private sector do not see street terraced housing as the “first rung” of the property

ladder, but aspire towards semi-detached houses. In some areas, there have been

some positive trends within the housing market and house prices have grown.


April 2005


However, rises have been specific to “good locations” (1).

5.39 Movement within the social rented stock and between tenures was thought to have

had a destabilising affect on the housing market (3, 5). An element of competition

between RSLs and private landlords has emerged. Some consultees felt that the

private rented sector has become inverted and is now housing households who

‘traditionally’ would have chosen the social rented sector (5). Households appear to

be moving in both directions and one RSL confirmed that they are re-housing more

households from the private rented sector than they are losing (3).

5.40 Movement across local authority boundaries was also regarded as an issue. Given

the close proximity between Greater Eston and Middlesbrough, it was felt that tenants

are moving across the boundary (1, 3).

5.41 One of the factors thought to drive movement between tenures / areas has been rent

arrears, general household debt and anti-social behaviour. Households are using the

availability of housing in the area to ‘escape’ debt or other social problems. This in

turn is contributing to instability within the area (2, 3).

5.42 Social landlords commented on the high level of transfers within the sector. This was

also thought to increase instability in the area, as well as being costly in terms of

housing management and contributing to rising voids (3). In response to these very

high levels of re-letting (two thirds of a particular housing estate in one year) one

landlord has developed a local flexibility in allocations, which included:

▪ Waiving income limits in South Bank

▪ Rent reduction scheme of 5%

▪ Permitting under occupation of properties

5.43 They believe that this has reduced the number of transfers within their stock,

counterbalancing the instability in the local community which they felt was brought

about by transfers having been too easy to obtain previously.

Households 5.44 There has been an increase in new younger households who may present greater

housing management problems (1, 3, 4). One consultee saw a split between older

and younger residents and felt that they did not take the time to listen to each other

(4). Housing for the elderly tends to be more stable.


April 2005


5.45 One landlord felt that although young people tend to have shorter tenancies, this is

not necessarily a bad thing – provided it is managed properly (3). Another consultee

also found shorter tenancies to be an increasingly common occurrence. They felt this

was most frequently a result of the landlord exerting greater pressure on tenants who

are not complying with tenancy conditions, particularly rent arrears and anti-social

behaviour (3).

5.46 Allocation policies were also attributed to the social problems prevalent in Greater

Eston (4, 3). It was felt that the most vulnerable households are often allocated

properties in the worst areas, simply because they cannot wait for an alternative offer.

5.47 Housing benefit dependency was acknowledged as being a major issue, both within

the private rented and social rented sector. Private sector landlords also felt that there

had been a dramatic increase in the proportion of tenants in receipt of housing benefit

(5). Aspirations

5.48 A local RSL has recently undertaken a ‘Sustainability Pilot Study’ to look at the

sustainability of the neighbourhood. Key findings revealed that residents want

gardens, in-curtilage parking and lounge-diner style homes. Old-fashioned terraced

housing is simply not wanted anymore (3).

5.49 Other consultees emphasised that people have higher expectations, especially since

the links between the area’s industrial background and community has been broken:

“People don’t want to be looking at industrial landscapes from their bedroom window,

or living in the shadow of the foundry. When industry was alive, this wasn’t so much

of an issue, but now people clearly expect more” (3).

5.50 This rise in aspirations has not been met with new provision, and consultees

concluded that new homes are needed (1, 3).

5.51 Consultees felt that a key consideration was to ensure that, even in the event of

wholesale demolition, an adequate number of affordable housing units are

maintained and that housing should meet the needs and aspirations of all tenants (1,

3, 4). Elderly bungalow accommodation was also highlighted as a particular priority in

the area, especially for the active elderly (3). It is worth noting that this view contrasts

with the fact that there is extremely low demand in South Bank and Grangetown for

elderly accommodation, suggesting that the quality of the area is preventing older

people from taking up vacancies in suitable housing in that area.


April 2005


5.52 Consultees debated the extent to which mixed tenure developments can assist in

creating sustainable communities. The difficulties of marketing private housing within

mixed tenure estates was noted, especially in areas of relatively low pressure where

second hand housing is affordable: “people just don’t want to buy next door to social

housing” (3). One consultee noted that age demographics can influence people’s

perspective, and private purchasers may be more willing to purchase within a housing

scheme for older people. Shared ownership schemes had not been successful in the

Greater Eston area, and consultees felt that they only work in high demand areas (3).

5.53 Some argued that the emphasis should not be on ‘creating’ mixed tenure estates, but

on nurturing communities. One consultee described a community as: “something that

binds the individuals within it” (3). This may be where the problem for Greater Eston

lies – as the ‘bind’ (which was the steel / chemical industry) has now disappeared.

THE GREATER ESTON COMMUNITY Community Services and Facilities

5.54 The quality of the local amenities was a common theme within the consultation

process. These were seen as being of a very poor quality, especially the outside of

the properties (1, 2, 3, 4). One consultee felt that people judge the shops from the

way they look on the outside (4). The ASDA supermarket was regarded as being an

essential resource for the Greater Eston community. At present there are essentially

four centres within Greater Eston. Consultees felt there was a need to invest in one

core centre, with smaller, good quality local shops (2).

5.55 Good public transport was also considered to be of importance to Greater Eston

residents (1, 2, 3). During the day the frequency of bus services was regarded as

good. However, the quality and routes provided by the service was criticised. Buses

are not direct and therefore tend to take a long time to travel from one part of Greater

Eston to another. Some consultees felt that Arriva was dictating the service and

there should be more involvement from the local community (3).

5.56 The majority of consultees felt that there was no real shortage of community facilities

(3). Community services were thought to be too dispersed and not meeting the

needs of local communities. This reflects the fact that there is no community ‘core’ or

central location. This fragmentation of services was also thought to apply to social

care services (1).


April 2005


Youth Issues

5.57 Truancy was a major issue for the schools. However, more worryingly, absenteeism

(absence approved by parents) and high exclusion rates were also common (1).

Consultees also noted that many young people are leaving school without basic life

skills and such issues require strategies that provide assistance and help to parents,

especially single parents.

5.58 GCSE results had been positive in the recent years, and consultees hoped to build on

this success. The need to avoid a “yo-yo” effect between different local schools as

they improve was regarded as vital (1).

5.59 As part of the overall rationalisation of school provision in the region, there has been

a reduction in the number of schools in recent years (1). There has been investment

in schools in recent years, and a PFI is being developed for new build provision.

However, consultees did note concern over the level of provision for further education

/ Sixth Form College. Normanby had to fight to keep the Sixth Form College open, but

it has since been relocated to Guisborough (4).

5.60 Most importantly, all the consultees agreed that a school should represent a focal

point for a community. In Greater Eston this is clearly missing, with schools closing

during essential periods such as weekends and holiday periods (4).

5.61 Vandalism is a key concern to all consultees, and this was often attributed to young

people. Consultees all felt that vandalism is becoming more and more frequent in the

area. One consultee felt that “many young people are simply out of hand” (4).

Consultees were particularly concerned over the visible increase in substance abuse

by young children (4).

5.62 The consultees’ main concern in relation to young people was the lack of things to do

(1, 2, 3). It was pointed out that youth clubs are not meeting the needs of young

people, although there is a great amount of work being taken forward (for example,

through Future Regeneration Of Grangetown). There was call for the development of

tailored solutions for young people, which provide them with the chance to voice their

opinions. There was also concern over the lack of funding available for trained youth

leaders – instead many youth facilities are relying on local people to run them.

Moreover, consultees commented that many youth facilities are shut down over the

school holidays – something which they found hard to comprehend. Consultees did

emphasise that it was important to clarify that not all young people are a problem (4).


April 2005


Crime

5.63 Crime was clearly an important issue. It was felt that crime, both minor and major,

has increased in the last 10 years. Unoccupied property was regarded as a magnet

for arson, anti-social and criminal behaviour. Most of the crime was attributed to

arson, vandalism and drug-related crime. Other more serious crime was related to

weapons (2). Some consultees commented that they were not happy with the level of

policing on the streets (4). Dispersal Orders had a positive impact for a limited time

but this improvement did not last (4).

5.64 Many tenants live in fear of crime, especially elderly residents (2, 3). It was noted that

many elderly people avoid leaving their houses outwith school hours for fear of being

the victim of crime (4). The willingness of the Greater Eston community to report

crime was also commented on. It was felt that where people are victims of crime then

they will report it; otherwise crime often goes unreported (2, 4).

5.65 Consultees discussed anti-social behaviour (ASB) at length. It was agreed that ASB

is a very “broad brush scapegoat term” and that many illegal acts can be hidden

(drink, drugs). It was also felt that the extent to which people tolerate crime differs (4).

Consultees stated that crime may not be a cause, so much as a symptom of the

situation locally (4).

5.66 Some consultees noted that crime levels vary across Greater Eston, with much being

concentrated in South Bank and Grangetown. However, consultees did note that

there have been problems of crime and vandalism within Eston town centre (2, 4, 3).

5.67 CCTV systems should assist the police reduce vandalism. However, some felt that it

was not doing the job it should, either because the cameras are not operating

correctly or not pointing in the right direction (4). There was a debate over the impact

that CCTV has on an area’s image. Some felt that CCTV was a necessary tool for

reducing crime and had an important role to play. Others felt that it inhibits

regeneration by further stigmatising the area (2).

Sense of Community

5.68 Consultees made a number of comments which may suggest that although the

community is strong, there are growing issues which may weaken the community

spirit:

• Tenants and residents lose confidence when things do not happen;


April 2005


• Promises, promises, promises – Residents (especially those in South Bank) are

losing their faith in the Council and partners, due to apparent lack of progress;

• There is a core of tenants and residents who get involved in the community -

however, people become apathetic if they feel that they are not getting support

from their fellow tenants;

• Those that participate may not be representative, and others decide to participate

when it is too late;

• Representation of tenants is not sustainable – community facilities are

overlapping with no joined up working;

• Households only have a sense of citizenship or community responsibility when it

suits them, for example in reporting crime.

5.69 It was felt that in order to maintain the strong sense of community in Greater Eston

there should not be a power struggle between different resident groups. Instead they

should be working as partners to better the area (1). It was also felt that residents

should be more involved in how the money is being spent to encourage residents to

take part.

Views on the Options

Past Initiatives

5.70 Consultees questioned why past initiatives have not worked. Their comments are

summarised as follows:

• Previously money has driven strategy – actually past initiatives have simply

slowed the overall rate of decline;

• The focus has been on smaller schemes, without any consideration for the bigger

picture;

• Past initiatives have focused too much on bricks and mortar;

• Past projects have not been aspirational enough and have not taken enough

risks;

• There has been no overall vision driving past projects;

• There is no long-term strategy (or funding package) – simply doing what is

possible within the budget.

The Way Forward

5.71 Consultees felt that understanding the role of the wider economy within the


April 2005


Sustainable Communities Plan was vital. It was agreed that industrial change has

affected the dynamics of the local housing market and that the demise of local

industry has contributed to the lack of jobs and lack of investment in Greater Eston.

5.72 Although some consultees felt that jobs are key to regenerating the Greater Eston

area (and indeed the region), it was agreed that the solution is not that simple. It was

noted that at present the economic infrastructure is not in place to support

regeneration.

5.73 Although most consultees agreed that the Sustainable Communities Plan should

retain all that is good about the area, there was no clarity about what the rationale of

the Plan was and exactly who it was being created for: “is it about local people or

attracting affluent incomers?” (1, 3).

5.74 One consultee highlighted that there was a clear distinction between regeneration

and gentrification and any strategy should ensure that new opportunities are

developed with the local community in mind: “if we create employment not accessible

to local people then it will not regenerate the area” (3). Local skills training, including

training on-the-job, particular in trades such as bricklaying and construction were

suggested (1). Others felt that they should not try to model themselves upon the

Newcastle Gateshead Pathfinder, which has economic development at its foundation:

“this is not the type of economic development that Greater Eston wants” (3).

5.75 Some felt that a key element of regenerating the area must be attracting middle-

income affluent households into the area and encouraging them to use the local

schools. Consultees did feel that mixed tenure was an essential component within the

regeneration of Greater Eston (1,3,6). However, the potential management problems

with mixed tenure estate were raised. One consultee felt that if mixed tenure was the

way forward, then we must demonstrate the benefits that this would have for the area

(3).

5.76 In terms of the housing, some felt that demolition can stimulate housing market

growth (6), whilst others felt that the current demolition programme is not tackling the

real problem: “all it is achieving is moving indigenous population out of the area on a

gradual basis. What is needed is to achieve the critical mass of demolitions to really

kick start regeneration” (3). However, it was difficult for social landlords operating in

the area to commit to further demolitions until they were clear about how they ‘fit’ into

the bigger picture, and there is greater clarity about the availability of resources (3).


April 2005


5.77 Consultees agreed that demolition in South Bank, despite it being a frightening

prospect for the local community, was inevitable. Consultees felt that it may be worth

examining good practice examples such as the Gorbals in Glasgow. Prime factors of

success include (6):

• Ensuring there is a strong infrastructure present

• Improve attractiveness of housing and surrounding environment

• Improve facilities for young people and keep them local

• Provide good quality leisure attractions (e.g. cinema complex, or similar type

venues)

5.78 The shops within the local area were seen as requiring rationalisation to assist the

regeneration process (all). The Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration Strategy

provides a radical future, particularly in terms of the Low Grange Farm commercial

centre proposals, and provides the basis for more home ownership.

Marketing the Area

5.79 Consultees felt it was important to ‘sell’ the right perceptions to developers to

encourage them to invest in the local area. Others emphasised that they could not

expect developers to be: “in it for the long term”, and therefore it was important to

have clarity about the role of the private developer. Relationships between private

developers do exist, and consultees (1, 3) felt that private developers could be

encouraged to invest in Greater Eston provided they have confidence in the

proposals for Greater Eston. Consultees were also confident that negative value sites

could be cleared at a profit, provided they are properly assembled (1).

5.80 Although it was felt that sites outwith Greater Eston may have a negative impact on

Greater Eston (3), others felt that land pressures (for example in Normanby) meant

that developers were being forced to look in areas where there was previously no

interest (1). This competition may therefore provide an opportunity for parts of

Greater Eston.

5.81 Consultees agreed that there was a need to move away from small-scale

interventions and create for a “critical mass” which could be “marketed” to developers

(1, 3, 4, 6).

Management Issues

5.82 Consultees did highlight some key management issues which they felt should be

addressed:


April 2005


Increased levels of policing (4)

Need to take a firm line with problem tenants (4, 6)

Licensing of private landlords (5)

Redesign of CCTV cameras to make them more discreet/less obvious(2, 4)

Improve the environmental setting (all)

Provide greater levels of supported accommodation, specifically for vulnerable

household groups (2, 3, 4)

Develop a foyer scheme / interim accommodation for young people (3)

Who delivers it?

5.83 There was uncertainty over how and by whom the regeneration of Greater Eston is to

be delivered. There was an acknowledgement that the delivery of the Plan should be

part of the wider regeneration of the Tees Valley area and that this was a complicated

picture with many parties interests being represented.

5.84 One consultee felt that there was a need to have a regeneration vehicle that would

overcome the politics (3) - however it was unclear what this vehicle may look like or

how it would be run (1, 3, 4, 6).

5.85 At a local level, it was felt that there was a lack of synchronisation of efforts –

between and within social landlords, Council departments, community groups and

community services. Consultees felt that partnership working must be improved to

ensure that the regeneration of Greater Eston is delivered effectively (all).

5.86 Probably the most salient point is that consultees felt that there has been a lot of

consultation and thinking about the future. Residents in particular are becoming

apathetic, especially in South Bank. As one tenant concluded: “the time for talking is

over – now is time to deliver” (4).

Housing/Regeneration Developer Testing

5.87 Following on from this stakeholder consultation, DTZ carried out a series of informal

interviews with housing developers to establish the potential level of interest in the

study area. This consultation sought to explore the potential for securing finance

from the private sector (developers) in an effort to attract the maximum possible

private investment to underpin any market intervention.


April 2005


Methodology 5.88 The following information was considered:

The DTZ Pieda Proposal;

The Stakeholder Consultation Report;

The Housing Market Analysis Report;

The Baseline Socio-Economic Study; and

The Household Survey Results.

5.89 In addition, the study area was visited to provide an understanding of the current

market dynamics. Further to this familiarisation, relevant key points were extracted to

provide a focus for informal meetings with developers:

1. Satisfaction with type, tenure and standard of accommodation varies across the

study area with the settlements towards the southern end of the study area

having better satisfaction rates on the whole than the two northern settlements,

Grangetown and South Bank1;

2. The majority of people wanting new properties would like to buy;

3. The type of product required, according to the studies, are two, three and four

bedroomed houses and bungalows;

4. There appears to be a historical lack of appetite from private developers to invest

in the area, given land allocated within the Local Plan for residential development

has remained undeveloped in spite of a buoyant regional housing market and a

scarcity of supply of available development sites;

5. Site inspections indicated high void rates, dereliction and poor

amenity/environmental facilities in some parts of the study area.

5.90 The consultation concentrated on the larger regional and national developers in the

first instance, as it is considered that the scale of any intervention will be such that the

ability to deliver new homes in the study area will not be possible from smaller

developers, in the first instance. Informal interviews with representatives of the six

developers were conducted.

Interview Summaries

5.91 The individuals interviewed and which are listed in Appendix B were in the main open

and helpful, although it was apparent that their knowledge and understanding of the

study area varied considerably. The interview summaries have been made

anonymous for the purpose of this report, for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

The main conclusions are summarised overleaf, however it is interesting to note that: 1 Kwest Research – Greater Eston Household Survey Report, 2004


April 2005


• There is a preference for standard products (such as 2,3,4 bed houses), rather

than other types of dwellings such as bungalows and flat;

• Density of homes is an issue – particularly in lower prices site areas where

developers would want to achieve 15 to 20 houses per acre;

• There are a range of developers in the area who have experience of working to

produce mixed use schemes and track record of delivery of affordable housing;

• The developers would be willing to be involved in partnering arrangements;

Outputs of Developer Testing Process

5.92 DTZ undertook soft market testing with residential developers as part of this project.

It is worth noting however that this is early in the process and that this exercise will

likely require repetition once key sites and priorities are identified, particularly through

the Low Grange Masterplan.

5.93 In order to ensure that best practice guidance is followed, the approach to

redevelopment needs to be market facing and deliver conditions which developers

consider to be essential and, given the lack of an established or vibrant market for the

area, contain as many preferable conditions as possible to attract interest. An

illustration of some of the essential and preferable conditions, which were tested

through DTZ’s soft market testing, are set out below. These will need to be tested

through early and ongoing dialogue with developers, planners and RSLs.

Developer Requirements Essential Preferable Detailed Development Brief b

Vacant possession of site b

Land in clear, single ownership b Clarity on any restrictive covenants on the land b Clear title and issues resolved b Understanding of historic uses of the site and any likely resulting contamination or ground conditions

b

Understanding of planning risk and % of affordable housing required b Planning permission in place (without this the value of the site may be depressed).

b

Open book arrangement, rather than a phase by phase partnership approach

b

Commitment to delivering the entire site from Middlesbrough Council b Estimate of costings b RSL partner(s) identified b Frontage of site b Infrastructure – Service routes must be resolved and/or costs implications worked up. The capacity to provide the services to the new development must be there and the capacity and need for re-routing services to be identified

b

5.94 From DTZ’s perspective we would recommend that both RSL and private sector

developer partners be engaged at an early stage. This supports a delivery focus from


April 2005


the start. Equally the development of longer term partnering arrangements offer some

significant advantages. Developers have an opportunity to consider the overall

requirements of the area and introduce planning gain components that short term site

specific contracts do not encourage.

5.95 The more detailed the development brief and the planning restrictions on the site, the

less risk potential developer partners will perceive in delivery. Although there maybe

some risk to the Council in selecting one main developer, this will ensure a continuity

and quality of product, reduce the risks to the developer and therefore maximise the

land values. The risk would be mitigated through the use of a phased agreement.

5.96 The specific points to be drawn from the developer testing and consultation process

undertook as part of this study are:

• There is a genuine appetite from developers for sites in this area although

demand for sites will be acutely affected by site specifics including size and exact

location;

• Opinion has been expressed at a general level, rather than site specific, that

upfront funding will be considered if an acceptable framework mitigating

developer’s risks can be implemented;

• Anticipated ‘Greenfield’ land values are expected to be in the order of £400,000-

£500,000 per acre. Developers may promote unconditional bids at lower values;

• Developers have indicated that the proposed product types are likely to meet

resident aspirations.

Satisfaction with Neighbourhoods

5.93 Patterns of dissatisfaction with neighbourhoods across Greater Eston are reflected

across the Tees Valley area in as much as the vast majority of households in Tees

Valley and Greater Eston express high levels of satisfaction with their home or

property. They do however have concerns about non-housing, social or

environmental factors affecting the overall quality of their neighbourhood2. In broad

terms, Greater Eston residents’ aspirations are not dissimilar3.

5.94 When examined at an area level we have already seen earlier in this report4 that

within Greater Eston, the highest levels of dissatisfaction with their neighbourhoods

2 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment – Summary of Key Findings, Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners with David Cumberland Housing Regeneration Ltd, 2004, 3 Kwest Research – Greater Eston Household Survey, 2004 4 Greater Eston Sustainable Communities Plan, sections 4.24 to 4.26 inclusive


April 2005


were expressed by residents of Grangetown (29%) and South Bank (24%), with

Eston (21%) and Ormesby (17%) close behind.

Figure 5.1:

Satisfaction with area as a Place to Live (Source: Kwest)

26

25

17

17

15

13

52

54

52

47

41

37

12

9

15

15

20

22

6

8

11

13

12

15

4

3

6

8

12

14

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Normanby

Teesville

Ormesby

Eston

South Bank

Grangetown

Very Satisfied Fairly Satisfied Neither Fairly Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

5.95 This is broadly attributable to a broad range of factors5 including:

• Litter, rubbish and dog mess – this ranks highest as an issue of concern

causing widespread dissatisfaction across the Greater Eston area but registers

as being a particularly acute problem for both Grangetown & South Bank;

• Disturbance from children and teenagers - which presents itself as more of an

issue in Grangetown and Eston than elsewhere;

• Fear of crime – this is a concern across the study area with an average level of

37.7% of respondents declaring it as a major issue for them. However it registers

as a serious issue for people in Grangetown (52%), Eston (44%) and South Bank

(41%)

• Crime and Criminal Activity – when seen in the context of the figures on Fear of

Crime, it appears that residents in Grangetown and South Bank may have a

greater justification for their fears than elsewhere in terms of the level of actual

crime recorded;

• Lack of youth facilities – most acutely felt by those in Grangetown as being a

problem in their neighbourhood

• Graffiti and neglect – registering most significantly as a problem for residents of

Grangetown, South Bank and Eston

5 Kwest Research – Greater Eston Household Survey Graphical Analysis report, p9


April 2005


• Car Parking – this registers as being more of a significant issue for residents of

Teesville and Eston

• Noise late at night – Grangetown and South Bank record the highest levels of

concern about this problem;

• Traffic – this is noticeably more of a problem for residents of Teesville by

comparison with other neighbourhoods within Greater Eston.

5.96 More detailed analysis of these figures is presented in the Kwest Household Survey

Graphical Analysis and Main Reports, which have been submitted to Redcar &

Cleveland Borough Council separately as part of this study.

5.97 In addressing the public perceptions of Greater Eston, it is clear that if the

Sustainable Communities Plan can address these issues, it should be able to make a

significant contribution towards turning the image and the reality of life in Greater

Eston around to a more positive situation, thereby improving the quality of life on offer

to current and prospective residents, and making the area’s future more sustainable.

SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES

5.98 Having consulted widely with a range of stakeholders, the key issues arising from

their point of view are best summarised as follows:

• Poor quality housing stock and general lack of housing choice within certain parts

of the Greater Eston area is a major contributory factor to the ongoing decline of

the local housing market, and threatens to affect fragile market sub-areas like

Eston, Normanby and Teesville;

• Hiatus on social landlord investment in Grangetown & South Bank is matched by

the reluctance of private landlords to invest in their stock;

• Absentee private landlords represents a major issue in terms of management and

investment in the area;

• Low or no market pressure in the local housing market means that consumers,

particularly first-time buyers, are able to skip over the “first rung” properties

(street-terraced, or flatted accommodation in areas like Grangetown and South

Bank), exacerbating the decline in these areas;

• Concentration of social housing in Grangetown and South Bank is widely

recognised by a variety of stakeholders as representing a major problem for the

areas and contributing to the stigmatisation of these areas as “undesirable”;

• RSL management policy has a clear role to play in stemming the current housing

market decline;


April 2005


• Instability in the tenancies of younger households needs to be addressed,

particularly with regards to addressing financial management or anti social

behaviour issues;

• Quality of local public transport services and retail provision needs to be

substantially improved;

• Criticism of police response times to anti-social behaviour complaints, and

efficacy of current CCTV provision should be looked at;

• There is evidence to suggest that the Council and partner agencies could work

together with a greater degree of coordination and in a more complementary way

to address various service delivery and housing market issues;

• There is a clear need for action and some early/quick wins to rebuild community

belief that the situation can be salvaged and the area can be turned around.

• Nevertheless, there is a genuine appetite from private developers to get involved

in redeveloping Greater Eston, assuming that suitable market conditions exist,

and that a robust vision for this is developed and in place.


April 2005


6 THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY & PLAN

INTRODUCTION

6.1 Drawing upon our baseline analysis and stakeholder consultation as outlined in the

preceding Chapters 2 to 5, we have identified the following key issues facing the area as

a whole, together with sub markets within it. These include:

• Demographic Issues – Redcar and Cleveland’s population is declining with a net

outward migration flow South to North Yorkshire and westwards to

Stockton/Darlington/Ingleby Barwick, whilst Greater Eston has above average levels

of under 16s, coupled with an ageing population and below average levels of

population of working age. This combination could be considered indicative of long-

term unsustainability.

• Economic – the recent pattern of job losses, coupled with high levels of economic

inactivity and unemployment, a low skills economy, falling business stock in the local

area, a narrow economic base, poor local retail offering, and issues around

educational attainment levels. Again, these trends together are indicative of long-term

unsustainability.

• Housing Stock – there is a clear need to address the heavy bias towards social

renting in certain parts of the area (particularly South Bank and Grangetown), as well

as deal with the currently unsustainable dwelling type patterns across Greater Eston

seen in the fact that the majority of Greater Eston residents live in either semi-

detached or terraced property. There is insufficient diversity in the local stock profile,

seen in the above average number of council tax Band A properties.

• Housing Management – private rented tenants express dissatisfaction with their

home, whilst RSLs are contending with a range of management challenges in certain

areas regarding turnover, anti-social behaviour, high levels of voids and

abandonments.

• Environmental– encouragingly, Greater Eston residents are mostly satisfied with

their home, but are dissatisfied with the quality of the areas they live in, for a variety

of different reasons. This situation presents opportunities for early intervention and

resolution.


April 2005


• Social – notably high levels of deprivation locally in terms of crime, income

deprivation, poor health and disability, mark Greater Eston out as an area of high

social need, which requires investment, economic opportunities and improvements to

local services.

• Aspirations – within Greater Eston interesting patterns emerge regarding the

aspirational flow from North of study area (Grangetown/South Bank) to south & west

of study area (Normanby/Ormesby/Teesville), and this is matched by similar

aspirational patterns of those in south & west of study area to leave Greater Eston.

Generally, residents aspire to own their homes rather than rent, but there is a

mismatch between the type of dwelling available and the type of dwelling survey

respondents have indicated they aspire to (i.e. detached, two or three bed-roomed

homes).

• Geographic – South Bank/Grangetown have high concentrations of social rented

properties, and are simultaneously seen as relatively undesirable areas in terms of

residents aspirations.

6.2 To address these issues and deliver sustainable change, the following changes need to

be delivered:

• Tenure balance across Greater Eston should be aligned with national trends and

local people’s aspirations to ensure better match of stock with aspirations

• Ideally, dwelling types in Greater Eston should meet more closely with aspirations of

local people, and should take account of emerging household formation trends for the

period to 2015, and beyond

• The local retail offering must meet the requirements and aspiration of local residents

as well as reversing the current situation of retail leakage from the area, in order to

support a robust and thriving local housing market

• Transport linkages must be sufficient to support the development and sustenance of

new housing in Greater Eston

• Sufficient employment opportunities must be developed within the region and sub-

region to support the development of a critical mass for new housing development in

Greater Eston

• Environmental improvements must be properly resourced and implemented to

address concerns about the industrial backdrop to the north-eastern vista of Greater

Eston.


April 2005


6.3 In developing our conclusions we have drawn upon the ODPM’s Housing Market

Assessment methodology (HMA), developed by DTZ Pieda Consulting in 2003, to ensure

that the strategy aligns with key national, regional, sub-regional and local strategies. This

is a framework for analysing supply and demand dynamics within housing markets and

we have used this approach to ensure we have a full appreciation of the various issues

relating to the Greater Eston housing market.

6.4 This section develops these issues to support an overall strategy and plan for the area;

specifically considering the following questions:

• Identification of the role of area – what role does Greater Eston play and what is its

potential role in the future?

• Key economic and demographic trends – how do these trends shape the housing

market?

• An understanding of demand and supply – what is the relationship between the stocks

and flows of housing and households, in each of the housing markets and in each

tenure?

• The future housing market – what is the future shape of the housing market likely to be

and what are the strategic options for responding to the demand/supply imbalance

identified?

6.5 More detailed consideration of the current and potential future role of Greater Eston

within the wider housing market is outlined below in the SWOT analysis Table 6.1


April 2005


Table 6.1 - GREATER ESTON SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN – SWOT ANALYSIS OVERVIEW STRENGTHS

• LSVT (Coast & Country) is publicly well-perceived and seen to be bringing improvements to former council-owned stock

• Greater Eston has areas of high quality environment– some good quality residential environments and availability of green space

• Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration Strategy is already in place • Proactive housing clearance strategy • Lettable voids are now relatively low and demand for social rented may be stabilising • Core of people who have lived in the area for some time, and are satisfied with their current

accommodation • Tees Valley Living and its coordinating role • Low Grange Farm site – presents potential benefits as a possible new focus for the Greater Eston

area, providing new retail and commercial outlets, as well as reversing the current trend of income leakage to areas outside of Greater Eston

• Low Grange Farm – additional benefits in supporting the sustainability of any new housing development in the area

• Significant private investment in new health and education facilities to come forward via NHS LIFT and the Schools PFI

OPPORTUNITIES

• Public policy / investment agenda may act as a driver for the local housing market • Recent changes to policy provides local authorities with greater flexibility to tackle low demand

locally • Opportunity to provide aspirational, high quality housing through bold regeneration master

planning strategy, encompassing both the built environment and spatial considerations • Spatial disparities in housing, incomes etc, enable careful targeting of investment • Stabilising demand and emerging waiting list for social rented housing • Opportunity to retain more affluent households in the area who may leave “at risk” areas • Retail development opportunities – commercial interest • Refresh GEPRS to emphasise the need for housing policy to be closely related to transport,

planning, economic development and other policies to provide holistic response - linking into Tees Valley Living’s planning

• Opportunity to pursue multi-agency approach, building better joint-working mechanisms, coordinating initiatives and efforts between and within all partner agencies

• RTB levels acting as a base for the bottom end of the market if the area is turned around • Council to work closer with Teesside Landlords Association • Core of people want to stay in Greater Eston but want to leave Grangetown/South Bank

WEAKNESSES

• Recent loss of population and jobs • High level of economic inactivity and long term unemployment • Large proportion of low value/ low paid occupations (under representation of high order

occupations) • Low skills levels overall • Oversupply of social housing and limited quality and choice • Under-representation of growth businesses and sectors • Low levels of business formation and entrepreneurship • High indices of multi-deprivation in some neighbourhoods • High levels of income leakage and poor quality local shops and services • Some parts are experiencing very low levels of demand, collapsed housing market in South Bank,

abandonment of terraces and high turnover rates in council stock • Lack of neighbourhood approach and relatively low levels of joint-working/multi-agency working • Perception of Grangetown/South Bank area leading to continuing low demand • High concentration of Band A council tax properties • Lack of aspirational housing in area – particularly lack of high quality homes at attainable prices in

good location • Physical infrastructure specifically the Trunk Road forming psychological/real physical barriers

between neighbourhoods within Greater Eston area • CCTV acting as a stigmatising factor in Greater Eston (visual stigma) • Vandalism, graffiti, grounds maintenance, lighting contributing to overall poor quality of local

environment • Lack of investment in private rented stock

THREATS

• Continued loss of population and jobs threaten to erode housing market further • Under-performance of the sub-regional and local economy may continue to constrain the

prospects for housing market regeneration • Large supply of social housing is likely to cause retention of low income and partly state

dependent community • Lack of good quality housing will mean Greater Eston will not be able to compete for higher

skilled, higher paid workers • Decline of local centres and potential for new retail provision could impact on existing retail

provision • Potential for continued retail leakage out of the area if provision for convenience goods is not

improved locally • Continuing high levels of abandonments • Potentially RTB owners becoming “trapped” in local area, priced out by low value • Market failure in Grangetown/South Bank may destabilise neighbouring areas

(Eston/Teesville/Ormesby/Normanby) • Tenant groups not working together under joint/collective umbrella • Private sector stock continues to be neglected • Focus on Grangetown/South Bank must be counterbalanced with appropriate attention on

Eston/Teesville/Normanby/Ormesby • Unless GEPRS moved forward, housing market regeneration unlikely • If substantial investment is not forthcoming for the area, the potential for change will be heavily

reduced.


April 2005


The Strategic Context

6.6 There are a number of key strategic or policy issues which define Greater Eston’s current

situation:

• Tees Valley Living is due to receive at least 80% of the £23m funding announced for

the North East as part of the £65m Northern Way funding announced by Deputy

Prime Minister;

• The Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment considers the key drivers behind the

current housing market conditions in the region and at a more localised level from the

perspective of how these housing markets interrelate, and the strategy required for

future market regeneration;

• The Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration Strategy outlines the proposed

restructuring of key local services which impact upon the housing market, such as

retail provision, environmental design, economic regeneration and transportation;

• The South Bank Housing Renewal Plan outlines proposals for the large-scale

clearance of older terraced properties in South Bank, the assembly of a

redevelopment 1site incorporating the reprovision of retail and amenities, and

landscaping works;

• Low pressure housing market – first-time buyers are currently able to skip what

would, in other areas, be considered the first rung of the housing ladder due to

relatively easy accessibility of housing in more desirable areas nearby 1;

• Economically vulnerable area – characterised by a low skills economy, low paid

employment, high unemployment, excessive dependence on a narrow (and

potentially volatile) local industrial base2;

• Demographics – characterised by a pattern of out-migration of economically mobile

households, contrasting with those “left behind” (either through choice or

circumstance)3. This is coupled with a continuing trend of an ageing population base.

1 DTZ Pieda – Greater Eston Housing Market Analysis, 2004 and also Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment – Summary of Key Findings, Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners with David Cumberland Housing Regeneration Ltd, 2004 2 DTZ Pieda – Greater Eston Socio-Economic Baseline report, 2004 3 DTZ Pieda – Greater Eston Socio-Economic Baseline report, 2004 and also Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment – Summary of Key Findings, Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners with David Cumberland Housing Regeneration Ltd, 2004


April 2005


Economic and Demographic Trends4 6.7 Evidence from the Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment suggests that there are clear

sub-regional level demographic trends emerging, in addition to the aging population –

migration is affecting the area:

▪ A westward drift of residents within Tees Valley towards Darlington and Stockton

▪ A small net outflow of migration into Redcar and Cleveland5

6.8 There is a small net outflow of migration from the Borough, and people are not generally

moving into Greater Eston. One of the many reasons behind this trend would seem to be

a simple issue of current public perception and the image of the Greater Eston area.

People moving into Redcar and Cleveland are more likely to locate in areas with better

amenities, a more attractive living environment, and which are perceived to be safer and

offering greater housing choice.

6.9 However, it is clear that the majority of people when they have the option to move prefer

to locate in either Darlington or Stockton; consequently these towns as the regional

property “hotspots” are taking around half of all in-migrants moving into the Tees Valley

region6. The Tees Valley HMA also highlights that there is a strong net outflow into North

Yorkshire, particularly from Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland into the

neighbouring Hambleton District. Incidentally, it is worth noting that this trend emerged

independently as anecdotal evidence in our stakeholder consultation process.

Greater Eston’s Role in Housing Market – Summary

6.10 The Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment (HMA) provides a useful evidence base for

the purpose of informing our own work on measuring and defining Greater Eston’s role as

a housing market at both local and regional levels.

6.11 As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2 of this report, the Tees Valley HMA used ACORN (A

Categorisation Of Residential Neighbourhoods) profiles to characterise the socio-

economic characteristics and traits of specific sub-areas within the Tees Valley sub-

region.

4 DTZ Pieda – Greater Eston Socio-Economic Baseline report, 2004 5 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment – Summary of Key Findings, Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners with David Cumberland Housing Regeneration Ltd, 2004, p.5, Table 2 6 ibid


April 2005


6.12 In terms of the range of ACORN categories outlined by the of the Tees Valley HMA7,

there are areas within Redcar and Cleveland that rank as “comfortably off” and some that

can be categorised as areas of “urban prosperity”, but the majority of Greater Eston is

undoubtedly “hard pressed”8.

6.13 The Tees Valley (HMA) sets out a range of housing market typologies9 and in terms of

these, it is clear that Greater Eston, based on our own housing market analysis and

cross-referencing to that completed by the Tees Valley HMA, falls under the category of a

“vulnerable high-density” area (“in town areas, poor stock condition, high level of private

renting…a local market”10).

7 Tees Valley HMA Final Report, p29, Map 3.2 8 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment – Summary of Key Findings, Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners with David Cumberland Housing Regeneration Ltd, 2004, p.4, ACORN Categories Tees Valley OAs 9 Tees Valley HMA Final Report, p44, Table 3.14 10 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment – Summary of Key Findings, Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners with David Cumberland Housing Regeneration Ltd, 2004, p.3, Table 1


April 2005


6.14 The evidence leads us to conclude that, in terms of the definitions laid out in the Tees

Valley HMA, whilst Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council is a self-contained market

area in terms of the ODPM definition, Greater Eston is not. However, both our Household

Survey findings and our Greater Eston housing market assessment suggest that there

are discernible market patterns and flows within Greater Eston, in as much as residents

of Grangetown and South Bank clearly wish to stay within Greater Eston if not actually in

their current neighbourhood. We therefore conclude that what Greater Eston represents

within the Redcar and Cleveland market context is a significant social, economic and

environmental challenge, which requires a range of strategic and operational

interventions. Ultimately, without appropriate intervention, Greater Eston could potentially

decline to a point that could be detrimental to the housing market at borough and possibly

sub-regional level over the longer term.

What is Greater Eston’s current role?

6.15 Currently Greater Eston represents, in parts, an area of significant social and economic

deprivation. This is part of a much wider, regional “low pressure” housing market,

characterised by oversupply of social housing, poor quality housing stock in some areas,

a high proportion of council tax Band A properties, and low market values with limited

choice of high-quality stock, all of which conspire to provide a set of market conditions

which are driving consumers away.

What is it likely to be in future if nothing is done?

6.16 Having already identified the various threats and weakness facing Greater Eston in the

SWOT analysis, it is clear that in reality, non-intervention is not an option, not least

because of the following main threats and weaknesses:

• Potential for continuing depopulation of the area

• Market failure in South Bank and Grangetown could potentially destabilise

neighbouring areas

• Unless Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration Strategy is moved forward, housing

market regeneration is unlikely

• Perception of Grangetown & South Bank may lead to continuing low demand there

and elsewhere within study area

• Lack of housing choice, particularly in terms of aspirational housing of good quality at

attainable prices in good locations


April 2005


• High levels of income leakage from the area and poor quality retail provision

• Oversupply of social housing across the area, but most acutely in Grangetown and

South Bank is destabilising the tenure balance, and causing the retention of low

income and partly state dependent community.

6.17 If no action is taken, our prognosis for the area is further market decline with possible

collapse, extending from South Bank and Grangetown into neighbouring areas of Eston,

Normanby, Ormesby and Teesville.

What could Greater Eston’s future current market role become with appropriate intervention?

6.18 Greater Eston has a number of key strengths and opportunities, which should be

capitalised upon when framing the range of interventions required to deliver sustainable

communities. These have already been outlined in the SWOT analysis in Table 6.1 but

include:

• Areas of high quality residential environments

• Low Grange Farm site presents significant strategic development opportunities,

including new housing, health and retail provision, with associated employment

opportunities

• A core of people who identify with the area and are satisfied with current

accommodation

• Spatial disparities in housing, incomes etc enables careful targeting of investment via

use of Vitality & Viability indicators

• Tees Valley Living has significant momentum, influence and potentially resources to

assist in the regeneration of Greater Eston

• With the Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration Strategy in existence, the

opportunity now arises for this key document to be refreshed to emphasise the key

links between the housing market and key areas such as transport, the economy,

planning and other areas to provide an holistic response, whilst linking in with the

Tees Valley Vision.

6.19 Therefore, our view is that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council’s longer-term aim for

Greater Eston as a whole should be to change its character (as defined by the ACORN

definitions used in the Tees Valley HMA) from being “hard pressed” to being an “urban

prosperity/comfortably off” district. We believe this objective is realistic but it must be


April 2005


recognised that changing the neighbourhood requires extensive and robust master

planning, which addresses all the housing and non-housing issues that affect the area’s

overall desirability, public image and reputation.

Current Housing Choice Base

6.20 The choice base in Greater Eston is more limited, and this is clearly affecting market

aspirations, i.e. what choice there is locally is currently locked into the social housing

sector. This fact conjoined with the current lack of any new quality housing development

in the Greater Eston area leads us to conclude that, as is common in low pressure

housing markets, the general drift of people out of the area is attributable to people

exercising their choice to live elsewhere when it is possible11. The current trend of

continuing tenure change across Tees Valley, moving from high levels of social stock

towards a higher overall representation of private stock is not replicated within the

Greater Eston area, indicating a strong need for action to address this issue quickly if

Greater Eston is not to fall even further behind in terms of competing with new greenfield

developments such as Ingleby Barwick for the types of households the area needs to be

attracting to build balanced, sustainable communities.

6.21 Greater Eston bucks the regional trend of an increasing tightening of social housing

supply12 – with higher levels of social housing turnover and a greater proportion of social

housing as a component of the available housing choice13. If this continues, there is a

possibility that Greater Eston may become increasingly residualised in terms of its role

within the wider Tees Valley housing market, with the attendant social and management

problems. Greater Eston therefore needs to be looking towards a more nationally or

regionally representative tenure balance in order to secure its long-term future (a split of

70:30 private to social housing is suggested). A tenure split of this ratio would be more in

line with current national trends, and as such would represent a more sustainable

balance between private and social tenures. In addition, given recent Government

announcements about increasing access to home ownership, a ratio of this proportion

also aligns neatly with the emerging policy agenda.

6.22 In order to move towards this target, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and its

partners will clearly need to consider how to address present tenure imbalances

11 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment Summary paper, Table 6 12 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment Summary paper, p.9 13 DTZ Pieda Greater Eston Housing Market Analysis, 2004


April 2005


presented in both Grangetown (with 66% of stock in the area being for social rent) and

South Bank (which is to be addressed through the South Bank Housing Renewal Plan,

which details the requirement for significant reconfiguration of the form and function of

South Bank, in terms of large-scale stock clearance and a range of other environmental

improvements).

Extending Housing Choice – Key Considerations

6.23 The Tees Valley HMA recommends the adoption of a “steady state” scenario of growth14

and, provided it is backed up by sufficient contingency planning for other scenarios such

as a change in housing market conditions, we feel that this provides the best foundation

for intervention in Greater Eston, in terms of redefining its role in the Tees Valley regional

housing market. Reference to the Tees Valley HMA typology of housing markets, as

discussed in Chapter 2 of this report, suggests that much of Greater Eston (particularly

the areas of South Bank and Grangetown) would currently best be characterised as

“vulnerable high or low density” and it is suggested that the objective should be to pursue

the necessary changes to create “stable suburbs”15 in Greater Eston.

6.24 Indications from both our own Household Survey data (Kwest) and information from the

Tees Valley HMA underlines the type of housing which should be built that is

predominantly “of suburban character in safe areas, a green environment and easily

accessible with the motor car”16. The vast majority of survey respondents indicated a

desire to move to detached or semi-detached housing17, and to do so by buying either

outright or with a mortgage. Our developer testing indicates that house builders concur

with the view that there is a significant appetite for home ownership in Greater Eston,

from those in higher order occupations18.

6.25 However, the Tees Valley HMA also notes that “many people are not keen to move large

distances, so the development of attractive housing within urban areas, given the right

environment, should be successful”19. In terms of its geographical location, proximity to

Middlesbrough and access to main arterial regional and national transport routes and

beyond, as well as in its own spatial terms much of Greater Eston fulfils these basic

requirements.

14 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment Summary paper 15 Tees Valley Housing Market – Final Report, p.44, Table 3.14 16 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment Summary paper 17 Kwest Research – Greater Eston Household Survey, 2004 18 DTZ Pieda Developer Testing – Greater Eston – report Nov 2004 19 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment Summary paper


April 2005


6.26 Again, this view is supported by our own developer testing, which shows that private

developers and home builders do have an appetite for developing in the Greater Eston

area, provided that environmental and landscaping issues are suitably addressed, and

there is sufficient critical mass in terms of land supply to make a real impact in changing

the overall image, reputation and tenure mix of the area.

6.27 Clearly, one of the most critical considerations in attaining developer buy-in to the

redevelopment of Greater Eston is to provide evidence that Greater Eston as an area can

deliver the critical mass required to make it a sustainable, commercially viable

development proposition. Developers tend to prefer to develop greenfield sites wherever

possible, but provided they are given evidence that a brownfield area can deliver a

marketable product, they will be ready to invest in developing the area. In this regard, it is

worth noting that that Low Grange Farm (LGF), perhaps the most important of all sites in

the area, is understood to be part brownfield which is not likely to be contaminated, which

will add to its attractiveness as a potential site for redevelopment.

6.28 However, given that this challenge must be met within the operational context of the

wider Tees Valley housing market, the redevelopment of Greater Eston will inevitably

face challenge from competing sub-market areas. The Tees Valley HMA illustrates one of

the major issues is that the rapid expansion of those parts of the region where greenfield

housing has been expanding (e.g. Stockton, Hartlepool) is having a displacement effect

on existing housing markets20.

6.29 At present, data from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister shows that within the wider

Tees Valley region context, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council in relative terms lags

behind neighbouring authorities in terms of net change in dwelling stock, particularly

when compared with Stockton-On-Tees which “has been the engine of residential growth

in the Tees Valley”21.

20 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment Summary paper 21 Tees Valley Housing Market Assessment Summary paper, p 12


April 2005


Figure 6.1

6.30 Strategic partners across Tees Valley will need to work towards agreeing a greater

degree of equilibrium in terms of the relative distribution of new housing commitments

across the region, and clearly the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy will be critical in

this regard.

Policing

6.31 Our own consultation process, coupled with feedback from the household survey

revealed a significant level of concern among local neighbourhoods about the level of

crime and anti-social behaviour affecting their communities. Whether this is justified on

the basis of local reported crime rates or merely on the basis of public perception, the fact

remains that if this issues is not addressed, it will continue to pose an unnecessary risk to

the health of the local housing market in Greater Eston, and therefore potentially the

housing renewal process also.

6.32 This issue can be tackled in a number of ways including:

• Ensuring that all new developments comply with Secured by Design standards,

seeking to design out the situational causes of anti-social behaviour and petty crime;

Net Change in Dwelling Stock

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Darlington UA Hartlepool UA Middlesbrough UA Redcar andCleveland UA

Stockton-on-TeesUA

Local Authorities

Net

cha

nge

2001 2002 2003 2004


April 2005


• Increasing police patrols in areas where a higher level of crime and fear of crime

persists for concentrated periods of time;

• Concentrating resources on specific areas where vandalism, graffiti and public

littering are causing major nuisance to local residents;

• Enhancing existing community warden and Police resources in specific areas where

there is a higher incidence of concern among residents about crime and criminal

activity.

Transport Links

6.33 As interventions are rolled out across the Greater Eston area, great attention also needs

to be placed on ensuring integration with the objectives of the Local Transport Plan and

also any improvements that may be implemented as part of Tees Valley Living’s

strategies, such as the Tees Valley Vision.

6.34 At the same time, attention must also be given to ensure that any new housing provision

has good accessibility to local transport routes, such as the A66. Whilst public transport

obviously remains an integral part of any sustainable community, it is of equal importance

that, if the goal of achieving mixed tenure communities is to be met, that equal

precedence be given to private transport links.

6.35 There is also evidence from stakeholder consultation that the Trunk Road represents a

physical and psychological barrier, by which local people define the “good” and “bad”

parts of Greater Eston. This would suggest that some thought is required in this regard,

to see how it may be possible to minimise this effect as part of any emerging or ongoing

transport development planning strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

6.36 In terms of our analysis of the Greater Eston housing market, there are a number of

issues emerging, which combine to present an overall picture of an area affected by a

significant range of complex challenges, and an area which is particularly vulnerable to

potential further market collapse, unless suitable interventions are brought forward.

Indeed, the CURS Study identified Tees Valley as the second worst conurbation in the

NE (after Tyne & Wear) at risk of changing patterns of housing demand.

6.37 The pattern of low demand in certain parts of the Greater Eston, seen in the collapse of


April 2005


the housing market and widespread abandonment of terraces in South Bank, high

turnover rates in Grangetown, and an increasingly fragile housing market in Eston and

Teesville are symptomatic of wider economic problems affecting the area.

6.38 The objective of turning this situation around is not assisted by the present over-supply of

social housing in certain parts of the area, and a general lack of quality and choice in the

wider local housing stock. This is a critical issue for Greater Eston as on one hand, this

surplus of social housing threatens to cause the retention of a low income and partly

state dependent community, and on the other the lack of good quality housing will mean

that Greater Eston is unable to compete in attracting highly skilled workers, who are so

vital to the regeneration of the area.

6.39 From our analysis it is clear that the recent trend of depopulation and loss of jobs from

the area is one of the biggest threats to the Greater Eston housing market. This is seen in

starker detail in the high levels of economic inactivity, long-term unemployment and

depopulation locally, as well as the high incidence of multiple deprivation in some

neighbourhoods (10/26 SOAs are in the top 10% most deprived nationally). The local

labour market remains relatively low-skilled, and of those that are in work, a high

proportion are in low-value or low-paid occupations (and there is an under-representation

of higher order occupations). The local labour market is characterised by low skill levels

overall – with a very high percentage with ‘no qualifications’.

6.40 The under-representation of growth businesses/ sectors, low levels of business formation

and entrepreneurship and the under-performance of the sub-regional and local economy

may potentially constrain the prospects for housing market regeneration. Similarly, the

area’s dependency upon major employers such as Corus, who have made significant job

losses in the past, leaves the Greater Eston housing market unhealthily vulnerable.

6.41 Retail provision across the Greater Eston area currently is clearly poor in terms of quality

and convenience, and local centres are generally in decline; the potential impacts that

new retail provision may have in undermining existing local centres must therefore be

recognised if the current pattern of high levels of retail and income leakage from the area

are to be turned around. The role that retail plays in the Greater Eston housing market

should not be underplayed, as it clearly contributes to the desirability of the locality in

terms of the wider regional housing market.

6.42 However, the situation is not entirely bleak, and despite an overall weak housing market,

there remain some good quality residential areas within Greater Eston. This, along with

the relatively high quality of the environment and the availability of green spaces


April 2005


represents a significant strength for the area to capitalise upon. Another plus point is that

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council demonstrated its commitment to addressing the

issue of housing quality by transferring its housing stock to Coast and Country Housing in

July 2002. Importantly, the existence of the Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration

Strategy accompanied by the strong relationship with Tees Valley Partnership provides a

robust framework for the development and implementation of an appropriate intervention

strategy. Finally, as a further promising sign, the Household Survey findings have

indicated that a significant number of local residents actually wish to remain in Greater

Eston, provided that social, economic and environmental concerns are adequately

addressed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Engage with South Bank Housing Renewal Plan

6.43 The NLP South Bank Housing Renewal Plan seems to identify the best method of

commencing the radical structural change required in Greater Eston. The Plan could act

as a catalyst for the wider regeneration and redefinition of Greater Eston as a sustainable

community, given that it tackles many of the housing, environmental, physical and visual

challenges currently facing the area, which have such a significant bearing on adjacent

neighbourhoods. The process as outlined in the South Bank Housing Renewal Plan

points towards a more sustainable future for Greater Eston, and therefore we

wholeheartedly endorse Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and their partners in

their ongoing engagement with the implementation of this Plan.

Agree a Masterplanning Framework for Greater Eston

6.44 However, the success of the South Bank Housing Renewal Plan will clearly be

dependent upon the development of complementary visions for neighbouring parts of

Greater Eston, and it is of paramount importance that a fully developed masterplan be

commissioned for the whole of the Greater Eston area as soon as possible.

6.45 This master-planning process should address itself not only to improving the

environmental quality, appearance and range of housing provided in the area, but also to

ensure issues such as shopping, transport, education and recreational activities are met

in suitably high-quality ways.


April 2005


6.46 We would recommend that the masterplanning framework should address the needs of

the whole of Greater Eston, incorporating the South Bank Housing Renewal Plan as a

key constituent part of its overall remit, and thereafter include similar plans for

Grangetown and other neighbouring areas. All of this would be encompassed under the

single Greater Eston masterplan, to ensure strategic integrity across all areas within

Greater Eston; Chart 6.3 depicts how this masterplanning framework would look.

Figure 6.2 Greater Eston Masterplanning Framework

6.47 Having already started with South Bank via the South Bank Housing Renewal Plan, the

strategy would then look to roll out the master-planning framework to Grangetown before

moving onto other areas within Greater Eston. A target should be set for achieving an

overall 70:30 private-social sector tenure split (in line with national trends) across the

Greater Eston area over the longer term, in order to ensure the creation of sustainable,

mixed communities.

6.48 It is important that this rolling programme of renewal plans be managed within a suitably

agreed master-planning framework, because of the complexity of strategic policy,

financial and resource considerations involved in the process. In particular, the master-

planning framework needs to consider the following issues in considerable depth:

• Spatial planning considerations – landscaping works, redesign of the urban form,

particularly with reference to the current industrial backdrop

• Transportation - requirements for the longer term

• Education - requirements for the longer term

• Retail facilities – evaluating current “district centres” in Greater Eston, considering the

current and future form and function (e.g. in the case of Eston it should seek to

review the longer term sustainability of Eston Square and its role as a district centre)

• Recreational facilities - requirements for the longer term

• Health planning – integrating the proposed new Health village at Low Grange Farm

into the longer term future of Greater Eston

GREATER ESTON MASTERPLANNING FRAMEWORK

South Bank Housing Renewal

Plan

Grangetown Area Plan

Eston Area Plan

Teesville, Normanby &

Ormesby Plan


April 2005


• Overall housing tenure mix and volume of development required to support

sustainable communities objectives

• How masterplanning links to the LDF process – the emerging consultative framework

for the Local Development Framework (which replaces the Local Plan) will afford the

opportunity to coordinate consultation on the two processes

• Economic regeneration – ensuring that sufficient new jobs and training opportunities

are built-in to support the development of critical mass for new housing regeneration.

Low Grange Farm/Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration Strategy

6.49 Based on our assessment of the available data, including the Greater Eston Planning &

Regeneration Strategy, the Household Survey, stakeholder consultation and our own

housing market analysis, it is clear that the role of retail in the regeneration of Greater

Eston will prove critical. Renewed retail provision is a very high priority for local residents

and prospective developers and therefore this issue must be addressed for any housing

reconfiguration programme to work.

6.50 We therefore recommend that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council engage with

proposals to develop the site at Low Grange Farm for the purposes suggested by the

Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration Strategy as part of a co-ordinated

masterplanning response.

Holistic Local Management Principle

6.51 As from April 2004, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council has moved towards a more

area-based approach to the delivery of council services, via the establishment of their

Area Management Department. The Area Management is responsible for Waste

Services, Environmental Maintenance, Community Services and Community Safety.

These are arguably the most visible public services that the Council delivers, and are

therefore extremely important to the image of the Borough, the feeling of achieving and

maintaining a good quality of life, and satisfaction levels of the communities the Council

serves. This model of area management provides in essence a more appropriate service

delivery model to meet local residents’ needs.

6.52 However, given the scale and complexity of issues currently seen in Greater Eston, the

variety of stakeholders and agencies who deliver services to Greater Eston residents,

and the need to maximise resource capacity in meeting longer term objectives, we would


April 2005


suggest that Greater Eston requires an even more intensive and robust management

framework which can guarantee full engagement with all stakeholders, optimising

information and resource sharing, and coordinating services provided in Greater Eston

throughout the Sustainable Communities Plan period.

6.53 We would therefore recommend that a single holistic local management unit for all

Greater Eston neighbourhoods should be established, at least for the lifetime of the

Sustainable Communities Plan implementation process. Having a unified management

structure in place will enable better information sharing between and within service

agencies, and contribute to ensuring that local service users and customers are clear

about who is doing what, and when. It is envisaged that this single holistic local

management unit would be a structure that covers the whole of the Greater Eston area,

tying into the current area management framework, but providing enhanced coordination

of Area Management services together with services provided by external agencies such

as RSLs, Police, and Health. It would also require to have established links with

Education and Housing Benefit services. This arrangement would require some

modification to the current area management structure in so far as it related to the

Greater Eston, but would act to consolidate service provision for the overall benefit of

implementing the Sustainable Communities Plan.

6.54 In the Action Plan outlined in Chapter 7, the need for and the benefits of greater

integration and co-ordination of service delivery to Greater Eston are again emphasised.

This can be achieved by building on existing Local Strategic Partnership (LSP)

relationships, harnessing existing synergies, and pooling resources where appropriate

and beneficial.


April 2005


Route Map for Change

6.55 Clearly, delivering real change for Greater Eston presents a complex set of challenges,

so before engaging in this process it is necessary to consider the following issues as

illustrated:

Agreeing Principles for Intervention

6.56 The basis on which potential intervention is considered is of vital importance. We would

suggest the following guiding principles for consideration:

• Evidenced-based proposals for intervention must be supported by the local

community

• Intervention must achieve agreed strategy objectives in clear and measurable terms

• Sustainability and long term improvements to key agreed priorities must be achieved

• Maximisation of private sector investment should be a priority

• Key partnerships should be identified and put in place early to achieve objectives

• Fit with sub-regional and regional priorities should be achieved

• Solutions should seek to achieve balanced communities with improved choice

• Rationalisation of stock should be secured with additional employment, health,

training, and economic opportunities confirmed.

Del

iver

y Delivery Structures

Leadership

Timing

Strategic Fit

Adjacency and Displacement

Funding

Scale of Intervention


April 2005


Scale of Intervention

6.57 In order to comprehensively address the full range of issues affecting the area, it will be

necessary to bring forward a range of interventions, which will vary, in both their scale

and their nature. It is important to appreciate that each neighbourhood is different; some

neighbourhoods clearly require significant “quantitative” change such as large-scale

housing clearance and redevelopment and/or substantial environmental improvements;

whilst other areas will support slightly less invasive physical intervention, and will be best

served by a range of “qualitative” changes, e.g. in terms of the way services are provided

on the ground.

6.58 To deliver this we have considered the potential scale of intervention required, not by

ward but by neighbourhood. The neighbourhoods are clearly shown in the diagram

below. An assumption is that housing market restructuring is categorised as a high

intervention activity, as it requires decanting, new housing development and additional

financial support issues to be addressed.

6.59 It is important to stress that this is only illustrative and would need to be refined through

the proposed masterplanning process. It does not mean that neighbourhoods marked for

higher intervention are necessarily more important than those areas identified as

requiring lower scale intervention, although the relative importance and interdependence

of each of these areas has been demonstrated throughout this report. Rather, what this

Significant Intervention• South Bank • Grangetown

Medium Scale Intervention• Eston • Teesville

Lower Scale Intervention• Normanby • Ormesby


April 2005


illustration is seeking to emphasise is the role each area will take in the wider

regeneration of Greater Eston, based on current analysis of baseline housing market

data and other evidence detailed earlier in this report. Within this approach it is important

to emphasise the need for cross local authority boundary working, particularly in East

Middlesborough.

6.60 Regarding the sequence in which problems should be tackled, much is dependant upon

the scale of the intervention required. However we would conclude that Eston is in most

urgent need of action; closely followed by Ormesby which has the highest IMD rating and

feedback shows that residents in Ormesby are clearly less satisfied than Teesville and

Normanby. We would advise action planning then takes place within Teesville, with

lower priority than the Normanby area which currently has high levels of home ownership

and highest satisfaction levels. We would however caveat that a holistic approach to the

Greater Eston area should be taken, and the scale of the intervention is an important

consideration in action planning.

Strategic Fit

6.61 Within the context of the Tees Valley housing market, we have throughout this study

sought to identify how Greater Eston’s role can be redefined for future success. It must

be recognised that any redevelopment of Greater Eston will be proceeding in the context

of other wider housing market renewal across the Tees Valley. The challenge will be for

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, its stakeholders and moreover, Tees Valley

Living to ensure that the actions committed in Greater Eston form a congruous and

proportionate part of the bigger picture for Tees Valley.

6.62 We have sought to ensure that the Greater Eston Sustainable Communities Plan is in full

alignment with the following key national, regional and local strategies in terms of its

broad objectives and in terms of its specific targeted actions:

• Sustainable Communities Plan

• Decent Homes

• North East Housing Strategy

• The Northern Way

• Structure Plan (particularly in terms of prioritising the development of brownfield

land) and the subsequent and emerging Regional Spatial Strategy

• Regional Economic Strategy

• Tees Valley Vision


April 2005


• Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration Strategy

• Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy (Redcar and Cleveland Partnership)

• Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Housing Strategy

• Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Economic Strategy

• Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Local Plan (and the emerging Local

Development Framework).

6.63 In considering current and potential strategic fit, it is appropriate to redefine the proposed

function for the Greater Eston area and the role of existing neighbourhoods to support

this. The key functions are:

• To broaden the economic base to attract new residents into the area and provide

enhanced job opportunities for local people;

• To improve services, amenities and environmental factors within Greater Eston;

• To provide capacity to increase the current housing choice to meet resident needs

and create stronger and sustainable settlement patterns;

• To improve the image of the area.

6.64 Based upon our own assessment, we are satisfied that this Greater Eston Sustainable

Communities Plan is in broad compliance with all of these strategies, complementing

their key objectives and driving Greater Eston in the right strategic direction.

Adjacency and Displacement

6.65 In terms of adjacency, the primary considerations for Greater Eston are about the

impacts of and interrelationship between other planned developments within the Tees

Valley market area, now and in the future.

6.66 The impact of adjacency and displacement is a challenging area as many of the key

adjacency activities have yet to be fully defined. At the time of writing, Tees Valley Living

has yet to define the precise physical boundaries for intervention across the region, and

the full impacts of existing masterplans in adjacent areas, such as those recently

developed for Middlehaven and North Ormesby Trinity Crescent, are yet to be

understood. Furthermore, it is similarly difficult at this point to assess the full potential

impact of the South Bank Housing Renewal Plan in terms of its effects on other parts of

Greater Eston. Finally, we must also recognise that at this stage we are not yet clear

what the total outputs we should be measuring against are, with the RSS still in its

consultation stage.


April 2005


6.67 Nevertheless, we have given these issues some consideration, in terms of the potential

impact these developments could have on new housing in Greater Eston. We have

considered the following factors:

• The pattern of population movement between Greater Eston and Middlehaven

• Wider patterns of movement within the Tees Valley housing market

6.68 Population movement currently, as previously discussed in this report, is generally drifting

towards the west of the Tees Valley region (e.g. towards Ingleby Barwick), or outwards to

North Yorkshire, and particularly Hambleton. Given the close proximity of Middlehaven to

Greater Eston, it is considered that prospective investment in both areas offers significant

opportunities for synergy, provided that the timescales for both programmes and the type

of housing to be delivered in the respective areas can be carefully managed to ensure

their relative offerings are co-ordinated and complementary. In this context, the role of

closer working with neighbouring local authorities, as is now starting to happen between

Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough, takes on additional importance.

6.69 The type of housing demand that Greater Eston will provide in the longer term, would be

a mix of private semi-detached and detached family housing, mixed with new social

housing developments, with a clear focus on providing high quality housing for local

residents and commuters. Though we have recommended a bold design ethic be

adopted for Greater Eston, this should be tempered to suit what will most likely be a

slightly different target market than what Middlehaven would be aiming for. Middlehaven,

by virtue of its iconoclastic design ethic, is positioning itself as a distinctive location with

aspirational living defining its target market. The form of housing Greater Eston will be

able to deliver will be more traditional in scale and design ethic, as the narrative for

Greater Eston is about providing greater tenure diversity, providing “trade up”

opportunities for a far broader demographic, and improving the local environment and

amenities. Here again, joint working with Middlesbrough Council will be critical to

ensuring complementary development between these two strategic sites.


April 2005


Timing and Phasing

6.70 The timing and phasing of interventions must recognise both the scale of change

required as well as the pressing urgency for interventions to be brought forward. We

would therefore suggest the following timeframe, assuming due political process and

ratification.

Table 6.2:

Timescale Action

Immediately Agree with strategic partners the parameters for and commissioning of Masterplanning process

July 2005 – July 2006

Undertake full Masterplanning process with partners and agree strategy

August 2006 – August 2016

Implementation of Greater Eston Masterplan (including South Bank Housing Renewal Plan and other component plans)

6.71 These timescales are based on the pressing need for action to be taken as soon as

possible, in terms of moving forward on a properly planned and resourced basis.

6.72 The focus of this study has been the identification and delivery of sustainable

communities within Greater Eston. In implementing recommendations, Redcar and

Cleveland Borough Council and its strategic partners will need to consider specifically

their collective capacity to support the next stage of community consultation and

engagement. In our experience, this requires significant time and resources.

Furthermore, if Redcar and Cleveland undertake a number of significant regeneration

programmes concurrently there is a significantly enhanced risk that the consultation and

communication programme would not be delivered effectively. The cost implications have

been considered in Section 7’s Action Plan and also in Appendix D we have set out

preliminary indicative cost assumptions on housing and environmental interventions.

6.73 Following discussions with officers and stakeholders, we would recommend that the

Greater Eston masterplan should be phased sequentially to ensure the direction of

resources to the areas within Greater Eston according to their relative need and priority

for action. Therefore we would propose the following sequence, based on analysis of key

indicators which clearly show Grangetown as the top priority area for intervention after

South Bank:

• Grangetown

• Eston


April 2005


• Teesville, Normanby and Ormesby.

6.74 We would recommend that Grangetown be given priority in this process because of the

weight of evidence that highlights the need for remedial action in the area ahead of

others (Kwest survey), as well as its relationship with South Bank in negatively affecting

the public perception of Greater Eston. Addressing the issue of Grangetown’s future role

as part of Greater Eston early on in the wider process will enable Redcar and Cleveland

and their strategic partners to harness the momentum of the South Bank Housing

Renewal Plan, and thereafter define the subsequent work required on Eston, Teesville,

Normanby and Ormesby. This “clockwise” sequencing (as illustrated in the map below)

not only targets the communities under most stress and in greatest need of concerted

action, but also maximises the opportunities for key strategic linkages and synergies to

be established early on between South Bank and the neighbouring Middlesbrough areas

of North Ormesby and Middlehaven. This strategy therefore meets the stated strategic

intervention and funding criteria of both English Partnerships and Tees Valley Living.

Map 6.1: “Clockwise sequencing”

Leadership

6.75 In reviewing the lessons from the HMR pathfinders, the ODPM recognised that strong

leadership was an essential component of success. Indeed, it is our experience that


April 2005


successful regeneration projects all demonstrate a key sponsor who is willing to take

forward the project often in the face of significant local pressures.

6.76 The concept of strong strategic leadership will be a particular issue for this study. This is

because of the complexity of issues, which need to be addressed within the Greater

Eston area, the competing demands of other areas upon Tees Valley Living’s limited

resources, and the need for robust co-working with other key players such as Tees Valley

Living and English Partnerships. Developing an appropriate mechanism for the buy in

and continued leadership of key figures will be essential. Given the size and complexity

of the area the creation of a special purpose vehicle could be considered.

6.77 In addition to strong strategic leadership there will also be a requirement for operational

leadership. Project Managing the delivery of the vision will be a significant and long-term

challenge. This will require a dedicated and resourced team who have or can then

acquire some key technical skills in areas such as CPO and community engagement.

6.78 In considering leadership we would also include the prioritisation of delivery. Whilst there

will be pressures to undertake concurrent projects we would not recommend this

strategy. The resource demands of delivering even single masterplans are often

underestimated, with active and continuous community engagement a factor to

specifically address.

Delivery Structures

6.79 A key decision, which requires to be taken at an early stage, will be to agree upon the

required delivery structure for the implementation of this plan.

6.80 With the Local Strategic Partnership already established in the form of the Redcar and

Cleveland Partnership, stakeholders will need to consider whether a specific structure

needs to be established for the purpose of implementing the Greater Eston Sustainable

Communities Plan, or whether the Partnership can service the requirements of

implementation on its current footing. Bearing in mind what has been said above with

regards to leadership issues, it may be that stakeholders agree that the task of

implementing the Sustainable Communities Plan requires a special purpose

Regeneration Vehicle.


April 2005


6.81 There are a number of key factors in considering what, if any, Regeneration Vehicle (RV)

may be appropriate for the study area. In considering the appropriate vehicle it is

important to recognise the specific characteristics of the study area. These include:

• High proportion of older terraced housing;

• Proximity to urban centres;

• There are different area profiles within the study area;

• There are socio-economic and IMD factors as well as housing;

• Parts of the area have been subject to a number of regeneration programmes;

• The timescale of intervention is likely to be medium to long term;

• There are transport and environmental drivers to consider as well.

6.82 From DTZ’s perspective we would support a wide remit that allows the best opportunity to

address key issues such as the area’s relatively high crime rates, low educational

attainment levels, and high unemployment rates. There is an important implication

however in taking this route; meaningful improvements in socio-economic factors take

time. The RV or strategic partnership will therefore need to have a medium to long-term

time horizon.

6.83 There are a number of options typically available:

• Urban Regeneration Company (such as Tees Valley Regeneration)

• Housing Regeneration Companies (but scope of study area goes beyond housing)

• Urban Development Corporations (currently on hold)

• Public Interest Company

• Community Interest Company

• Company Limited by Guarantee

• Industrial and Provident Society

• Unconstituted Partnership (Strategic partnership)

6.84 For intervention of this scale, the potential to go to capital markets would be attractive

and could also be a factor in considering the type and form of vehicle to be created.

6.85 The key principle in establishing any vehicle is however that the form must follow

function. In helping to consider its function the following points are worth considering:

• Accountabilities: to whom would the vehicle be accountable, and which organisations

or individuals would require to be made accountable to the vehicle?

• What activities are proposed and is the vehicle suitable to achieve them?


April 2005


• Will the new vehicle be entering into contracts and, if so, how will members be

protected from liability?

• Will the new vehicle be involved in owning housing stock, or in managing housing?

• Will a new identity help focus those involved?

• How easy will a new organisation be to set up and keep changing?

• Will the new organisation be trading, and thus need to be tax efficient?

• How will the new organisation be accountable to the community?

Funding

6.86 A range of funding is available for regeneration projects of the scale we are proposing in

Greater Eston, from a variety of sources including:

• English Partnerships;

• Housing Corporation;

• Regional Housing Board;

• Potential “Northern Way” funding via Tees Valley Living;

• Tees Valley Regeneration;

• Assisted Area Status;

• Regional Selective Assistance;

• One North East;

• Private Developers;

• RSLs;

• Residents; and

• ERDF Objective 2 funding

6.87 In discussions with the Housing Corporation, undertaken as part of the wider stakeholder

engagement process, it became clear that the availability of New Tools funding for land

clearance in Greater Eston was not assured, and therefore we have assumed in most

cases where redevelopment requires the clearance of RSL properties that via due

process of negotiation, it should be possible for private developer financing to be

leveraged into the process. It should be noted that if sufficient values for this to happen

were not generated, Redcar and Cleveland would need to secure gap funding from

alternative sources.

6.88 The reference made above to Residents as a funding source requires further clarification

and explanation. The overall aspirational policy direction for Greater Eston is to

encourage homeowners to invest more and take greater responsibility for investing and


April 2005


maintaining the fabric of their home. This means working towards a scenario whereby

the level of public subsidy available for private stock reduces concomitantly with the

upwards trend in homeowner investment.

SUMMARY

6.89 Sustainability is at the heart of our strategy. We have drawn heavily upon ODPM, CABE

and Tees Valley Living’s Vitality and Viability indicators in our assessment. These

include:

• Population indicators

• Housing indicators

• Unemployment indicators

• Income indicators

• Crime indicators

• Education indicators

• Health indicators

6.90 We are satisfied that the evidence provided in this report meets the specific objective of

making a substantial contribution to the development of Tees Valley Living’s HMR

strategy. We have provided substantial detail about the various key pressure points and

issues affecting the Greater Eston area, not only in terms of the prevailing housing

market conditions, the aspiration of local residents, and Greater Eston’s relative position

in the wider Tees Valley housing market context, but also in terms of the scope for

successfully intervening in the current situation to ensure the long term sustainability of

Greater Eston communities.

6.91 Having identified the key drivers to supporting a sustainable community in Greater Eston,

specific actions have been developed in consultation with stakeholders and these are

detailed in Chapter 7 – Action Plan.

7 ACTION PLAN

INTRODUCTION

7.1 Having set out the key considerations, issues, challenges and trends affecting Greater

Eston in preceding chapters, we now set out the proposed way forward. The intervention

strategy that has been developed seeks to provide interventions across all tenures to

create mixed and diverse communities with a sustainable future. This has been

addressed over three phases:

• Short (2 years) - covering the period from 2005 until 2007 – represented as early

wins in the action plan detailed below;

• Medium (3 to 5 years) covering the period from 2008 to 2010; and

• Long (up to 15 years) term interventions – which covers from 2010 up to 2020.

Short Term/Early Wins

7.2 It is clear that the current situation in Greater Eston is neither desirable nor sustainable.

This view is based on our own research outlined above, together with detailed analysis of

the Kwest Household Survey, and taking feedback from the stakeholder engagement

process and also ongoing liaison with key Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

officers into consideration.

7.3 Residents have expressed in unequivocal terms, both in stakeholder workshops and in

the ongoing trend of outward migration from Greater Eston to other areas, their

dissatisfaction with a range of issues, which in some cases have already been identified

and are being addressed, and in others, may require a different approach. There is a

clear need for Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and its partner agencies to

demonstrate renewed vigour and determination in saving Greater Eston from further

decline.

7.4 It has been shown that there is significant potential for turning the Greater Eston area

around, based on the advancement of the South Bank Housing Renewal Plan, the

development of Low Grange Farm as a new retail and commercial focus and catalyst for

the area, with additional potential for new health and housing provision and then the

subsequent and connected development of a fitting approach to the issues affecting

Grangetown and the neighbouring areas.

7.5 For a project of the significance, magnitude and scale of the Sustainable Communities

Plan process to be successful, in gaining the necessary support and credibility over the

plan period, it will be critical for stakeholders, residents, service providers and potential

investors to see tangible evidence of improvement in the quality of Greater Eston’s

general environment, amenities and services at a very early stage. In other words, there

is a need to generate a significant impetus for change.

7.6 In order to generate the required momentum, boost community and stakeholder “buy-in”

and begin addressing the manifold challenges affecting Greater Eston, we would suggest

that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, together with all relevant partners begin

immediately to implement a range of short term initiatives and actions which should

deliver “early wins” for the communities of Greater Eston. These have been set out below

in the Action Table titled “Early Wins”.

Medium to Longer Term Interventions

7.7 The most critical process over the medium to longer term under our proposals is the

successful commissioning and implementation of an overarching strategic masterplan for

the entire Greater Eston study area which will have at its core the following

considerations:

• Accommodate the South Bank Housing Renewal Plan as a major key driver;

• Tackle the redefinition and remodelling of housing, retail and other infrastructure for

the areas of Grangetown, Eston, Normanby, Teesville and Ormesby sequentially in

an integrated and comprehensive manner;

• Incorporate the full redevelopment of Low Grange Farm as a site for the reprovision

of retail, health and housing and other key services which consequently acts to

change the physical and perceived identity of Greater Eston, both as a place in its

own right, and as a set of interrelating communities;

• Acknowledge and address Greater Eston’s market position relative to other

competing areas operating within the Tees Valley housing market, particularly in

relation to Stockton-on-Tees, Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough

• Acknowledge and address the significance of the long-term established demographic

trend of westwards drift, and drift of more affluent households to North Yorkshire,

particularly Hambleton district;

• Strategic fit with the objectives outlined within both the Regional Economic Strategy

and Regional Spatial Strategy.

7.8 Equally, there is a clear requirement from RSLs and other Council service providers for

the Action Plan to address the myriad, detailed operational challenges that will emerge

from engagement with the Sustainable Communities Plan process over the medium to

longer term. This includes, but is not limited to, the following issues:

• Identification of likely scale and location of demolitions, thinning or estate

remodelling;

• Consideration of likely scale and period for decanting arrangements;

• Accurate projection of scale of home-loss payments for leaseholders;

• Land assembly on a scale that will meet with developers’ critical mass requirements;

• Ongoing neighbourhood management issues.

Action Plan Objectives

7.9 We have structured the action plan below to show the broad strategic aims, objectives

and specific actions required at local level, and details how actions should be taken,

specifying expected outcomes and the partners, timescale and cost implications.

7.10 At broad level we have identified the following key strategic aims or themes:

• Improving the quality and amenity of the Greater Eston area;

• Improve the synchronisation of strategic and operational planning and delivery across

all services, from community level upwards;

• Masterplanning Greater Eston’s regeneration over the longer term;

• Redefining the form and function of Greater Eston; and

• Broaden the social and economic base of the area.

7.11 These themes are then broken down into the following objectives:

• Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a place to live;

• Improve the visual appearance of Greater Eston;

• Improve partnership working via the implementation of a new holistic local

management structure;

• Engage in master planning process to agree a view on Greater Eston or wider area

and how it ties back into Tees Valley Living;

• Broaden the range and increase the choice of high quality private and mixed housing

developments across the Greater Eston area;

• Develop Low Grange Farm for possible leisure, retail, health and education provision

reprovision;

• Significant retail improvements to increase the convenience, accessibility and quality

of shopping in Greater Eston;

• Pursue continued improvement in education standards within Greater Eston;

• Maximise employment opportunities for local people

• Improving the quality of the local labour market’s skills base.

Strategic Leadership in Delivery

7.12 In order to ensure consistency and quality of approach across the study area, a detailed

staff resource may be required from the Council to act as the overall point of

responsibility for programme management and delivery. As part of this approach, it will

also be the responsibility of the project management team to draft and monitor the overall

project timetable and make sure that this is adhered to as far as is possible in order to

maintain support from stakeholders, investors and residents alike.

7.13 The Council will need to secure sufficient and dedicated staff resources to support its role

in leading the ‘delivery chain’ and it will also need to work closely with others such as

public sector agencies and the building industry, to help them to understand their vital

role in the delivery of transformational change. The Council will need to develop an

understanding of the potential weak links involved in the delivery chain and the drivers of

those organisation to be able to support them to minimise the possibility of project delays.


April 2005


Progress Monitoring

7.14 As an integral part of the Action Plan we have incorporated suggestions of suitable

measures to be applied for gauging progress against key objectives and targets over

time.

7.15 Finally, in compliance with the requirements of the project specification, DTZ has

delivered to Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council a range of GIS-based data for the

purpose of ongoing monitoring of key viability and vitality indicators across Greater Eston.


April 2005


ACTION PLAN

Strategic Aim/ Theme

Obj

ectiv

e Strategic Objective

Specific Action Locally

Details How Action Taken Outcome Partners Timescale Financial

Implications/ Cost

Improving the quality and amenity of the Greater Eston area

1 Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Using the Kwest Household Survey report figures as basic index of public opinion across the Greater Eston area, tackle the following issues:

Measure via periodic resident satisfaction survey methodology

Measurable improvement in quality of life for Greater Eston residents and visual appearance of the area

“Quick win” Resources need to be identified for recurrent periodic household survey to be put out to tender – or for monitoring to be done regularly in house.


1a Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Dog fouling Review current policy, publicise locally, get community involvement on issue

Visible impact of dog fouling should be halved by 2006/07 – measured by number of complaints registered in periodic updates to household survey

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council RSLs Street Cleaning Education Leisure Services

2006/07 Resources bay need to be identified to ‘kick start’ a campaign. Impose fines as appropriate


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


1b Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Graffiti & neglect Target current resources on areas reporting highest incidence of problems. Review requirement quarterly, seeking additional resources as required. Consider education campaign for local schools

Visible impact of graffiti should be halved by 2006/07 – measured by number of complaints registered in periodic updates to household survey

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council LSP partners Community Safety team Police

2006/07 Possibly obtain sponsorship from local industry/commercial partners


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


1c Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Disturbance from children & teenagers

Increase police patrols in areas reporting highest incidence of problems Continue with current Community Safety team practice – using full range of legal tools including ASBOs, ABCs, Parental Control Agreements Link to improvements to youth facilities provision Consider education campaign for local schools/ parents Consider how environmental layout contributes to problems

Substantial reduction in the incidence of problems reported and experienced by local people Linked improvements to youth facilities in the local area

Social Services Education LSP Police Community Safety RSLs Redcar and Cleveland borough Council Voluntary agencies who work with young persons

2006/07 Need to consider what provision within existing budgets could be called up for joint working initiatives in particular publicity of lower tolerance


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


1d Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Lack of youth facilities

Set up Youth Café(s)1 across Greater Eston area providing wide range of educational, sports and recreational opportunities building on existing community activities (e.g. FROG) Consider improving publicity for these facilities

Improved educational opportunities for local young people

Education Social Work Local Commerce/industry RSLs Community Safety Cleveland Police Connexions Tees Valley

2006/07 Sponsorship should be available from local industry, commerce or other businesses Connexions Tees Valley


1e Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Fear of crime

Crime Prevention Initiatives: Secured by Design Neighbourhood Watch – promote greater involvement in Greater Eston neighbourhoods Community Wardens

Increased levels of positive feedback from local residents regarding fear of crime and actual crime recorded

RSLs Community Safety Cleveland Police

2006/07 Will need to secure support from Cleveland police, to potentially re distribute their resources to focus on this area

1 Good practice elsewhere in the UK shows that this has worked and could be a simple refocusing of the Council’s existing Community Café in South Bank & Grangetown


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


1f Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Crime and criminal activity

Increase focus of regular Police and Community Warden patrols, focusing increased presence in the areas reporting highest incidence of crime and fear of crime

Increased levels of positive feedback from local residents regarding fear of crime and actual crime recorded

RSLs Community Safety Cleveland Police

2006/07 Will need to secure support from Cleveland police, to potentially re distribute their resources to focus on this area


1g Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Car Parking Household survey indicated local issue of concern. Seek to introduce improved off-road parking facilities for residents across Greater Eston area. Set Teesville as primary focus for this initiative.

Better parking facilities for people in Teesville, resulting in higher levels of satisfaction for residents, improved traffic flow

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Transport RSLs

2006/07 There will be cost implication to this action. For example the cost of providing a cross over and hard standing local residents may not have the resources to meet these costs. The council could assist with the planning permission process.


1h Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Noise issues Review current practice, with regards to noise complaints Consider publicising special initiative tied into Community Safety Plan, which tackles anti-social noise across all parts/ tenures within Greater Eston.

Marked reduction in the incidence of noise nuisance reported by residents in regular periodic survey process

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council RSLs Community Safety Cleveland Police

2006/07 Potential cost of acquiring more hard work to monitor noise and costs of taking cases to court.


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


1j Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Increase level of understanding and tolerance between different generations in the local area

Set up specific projects and fun activities through Community Warden service, linking with schools out of hours and holiday activities

Improved relations between young and old generations in local community Older People should feel measurably safer

LSP Community Safety Education Social Work RSLs Cleveland Police

2006/07 Potentially low financial costs, but will have impact on staff time taken


2 Improve the visual appearance of Greater Eston

RLS to review current management practices to ensure they align with objective of improving visual appearance of the Greater Eston area

Particular focus to be centred on South Bank, Grangetown, Eston over short to medium term – but to cover all parts of Greater Eston

Consistency of approach to and appearance of Greater Eston area RSLs

2006/07 Potential cost to RSLs as greater consistency is introduced


2a Improve the visual appearance of Greater Eston

Review void maintenance procedures – adopt common policy across all RSLs operating in the Greater Eston area based on local circumstances

Where already in practice, maintain private maintenance contract using net curtain/ alarms in empty properties. Extend this policy to all void properties wherever possible.

Move away from using metal screens on void properties wherever possible Passer-by should not be able to identify empty property at first glance Community effects (e.g. vandalism, theft, arson) to be reduced via better links with Police

RSLs LSP Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Cleveland Police

2006/07 This approach could potentially reduce the amount of finance spent on metal screens, reduce risks of vandalism and actually realise longer term savings


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


2b Improve the visual appearance of Greater Eston

Review need for unified garden maintenance contract in South Bank & Grangetown for voids & unkempt gardens – both for private & public gardens

Garden maintenance contract to be tendered to keep all gardens and common areas tidy and clean until re-let or demolished. Extend this policy to all void properties wherever possible.

Passer-by should not be able to identify empty property at first glance Possible local employment initiative to be derived from this contract

RSLs LSP Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

2006/07 Increased costs of providing garden maintenance; could be offset by reduced spend on metal shuttering


2c Increasing resident satisfaction with Greater Eston as a Place to Live

Achieving balanced communities in area with social rented tenure

Council and RSL partners to adopt a local lettings policy which should be designed to encourage diverse communities,

Diversity of social rented tenants reflects the community

RSLs Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

2006/7 There maybe financial implication if some properties take longer to let whilst the new approach is developed

Improve the synchronization of strategic and operational planning and delivery across all services from community level upwards

3 Improve partnership working via implementation of a new holistic local management structure

All service delivering agencies to agree joint-resourcing of new delivery structure based on enhanced area management model

2006/07


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


3a Improve partnership working via implementation of a new holistic local management structure

Develop single holistic local management unit for Greater Eston neighbourhoods encompassing all aspects of policy, planning, strategy and delivery for the area

Building on existing area management principles, engage all stakeholders and agency partners in working on holistic local management

Better information sharing between & within service agencies More coordinated service planning and delivery Greater clarity for service users/ customers about who does what

LSP Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council RSLs Cleveland Police Education Community Safety Health Transport Community Groups

2006/07 Resource implications in terms of staff time, wider communication and consultation and time taken to agree decisions. Benefits should outweigh these issues.


3b Improve partnership working via implementation of a new holistic local management structure

Identify existing budgetary resources which can be redirected to the Greater Eston holistic local management unit

Partners to review existing budgetary resources and see how they may “bend” resources towards Greater Eston by mapping current spend on area level

Develop a clear view of current spend on Greater Eston by all agencies – thereby identifying current budgetary resources which can be redirected


2006/07 Need to identify and redirect existing budgetary resources


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost

Masterplanning Greater Eston’s regeneration over the longer term

4 Engage in master planning process to agree a view on Greater Eston or wider area and how it ties back into Tees Valley Living

Full masterplanning process

LSP Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council RSLs Cleveland Police Education Community Safety Health Transport Community Groups Developers

June 2005 Action required on this IMMEDIATELY

LA to budget for this from existing mainstream funding as this action is considered fundamental – likely cost for master planning £100K


4a Engage in master planning process to agree a view on Greater Eston or wider area and how it ties back into Tees Valley Living

Determine scope of master plan

With input from all major stakeholders agree specification for masterplanning tender

Appoint consultants to undertake commission within strict timescale


Appoint consultants immediately with view to completing master planning process by June 2006

LA to budget for this from existing mainstream funding as this action is considered fundamental – likely cost for master planning £100K


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


4b Engage in master planning process to agree a view on Greater Eston or wider area and how it ties back into Tees Valley Living

As part of this wider process, engage in commissioning of Grangetown Housing Renewal Plan

Specific recommendations include: increase provision of detached and flatted homes; significantly reduce proportion of socially rented stock (currently 66%); address issues surrounding high fear of crime and high levels of dissatisfaction with the area

Grange Town will become more popular

LSP Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council RSLs Cleveland Police Education Community Safety Health Transport Community Groups Developers

Ongoing and longer term

There will be significant financial implications regarding development which need to be considered

Redefining the form and function of Greater Eston

5 Engage in master planning process to agree a view on Greater Eston or wider area and how it ties back into Tees Valley Living

Consider & agree appropriate delivery structure for implementation of the Greater Eston Sustainable Communities Plan

As part of the masterplanning process, stakeholders to appraise range of models outlined in this report

Stakeholders identify and recognise the new body as the leadership of the implementation process

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council LSP Developers RSLs Health Tees Valley Leisure English Partnerships Housing Corporation Tees Valley Regeneration Middlesbrough Council Tees Valley Living One North East Govt Office N E

Medium By 2008

Assuming critical mass requirements are agreed with private sector developers, the majority of the financial requirements (which will be market-led) should be met by the private sector. There may be some requirement for gap funding on infrastructure costs.


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


6 Broaden the range and increase the choice of high quality private and mixed housing developments across the Greater Eston area

Build on the strengths of the South Bank Housing Renewal Plan by engaging with bold but realistic architecture and environmental design, with the overall objective of achieving a better balance of social and private housing across the geographical area

Reconfiguration of South Bank via SBHRP, landscaping works and renewal of retail provision

Increased sustainability of all Greater Eston communities

LSP Developers RSLs Community Groups Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Education Health Tees Valley Leisure English Partnerships Tees Valley Living

Medium-Long By 2014

As outlined in SBHRP report



Agree a programme of selective clearance/ disposal of existing low demand housing stock across the area

Starting with Grangetown, moving on to address Eston, Teesville, Normanby and Ormesby

Assembly of land packages for private redevelopment, to be on a suitable scale to meet with developers critical mass requirements

Tees Valley Living RSLs Private Developers Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Planning Education Housing Strategy Regional Housing Board English Partnerships Housing Corporation Link with Retail

Medium By 2010



April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost



Improve and promote tenure balance across the Greater Eston Area to match 70:30 private to social tenure ratio in line with national average

Agree set targets for tenure mix in each of the Greater Eston neighbourhoods (e.g. Grangetown, Eston etc)

Successfully managed decline of failing neighbourhoods by progressive diminution of social rented stock Increase in private stock.

RSLs Housing Corporation Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Tees Valley Living House builders

Medium By 2010





Identify suitable sized sites for new private developments across Greater Eston

In partnership with RSLs, developers to be successfully marketing housing for private sale in Greater Eston

RSLs Housing Corporation Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Tees Valley Living Regional Housing Board House builders

Medium-Long By 2014

Neutral




Decant current tenants & residents from properties identified for clearance/ demolition

Decanted properties to be demolished and land to be prepared for redevelopment/ landscaping or designation for other purpose

RSLs Housing Corporation Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

Medium By 2009

Other statutory payments to householders would need to be assessed depending on the scale and nature of development


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost



Improve range of private rented accommodation available through greater regulation of private landlords

Licensing of private landlords across Greater Eston to be enforced through instruments made available by Housing Act 2004

Improved quality of accommodation available from private sector landlords Improved joint-working between private landlords and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council RSLs Housing Corporation Teesside Landlords Association

Medium By 2008

From existing resources through Housing Strategy


12 Develop Low Grange Farm for possible leisure, retail, and health reprovision

Proceed with development of Low Grange Farm as a new focal point for the community

Tie in with masterplan

New retail provision for Greater Eston New jobs for local community Assists the overall redefinition of the urban setting of Greater Eston Possible new health village Possible Education reprovision

Retail Developers Tees Valley Living Tees Valley Regeneration Community Groups Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council LSP Education Health Tees Valley Leisure

Medium-Long By 2014

Depends on the scale and nature of the scheme as agreed, but should be market driven with any pump-priming required to come from public funds


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


13 Significant retail improvements to increase the convenience, accessibility and quality of shopping in Greater Eston

Review current local level provision in light of masterplanning process referring to Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration Strategy

As part of the masterplanning process agree a strategy for the revitalization of existing local centre provision at: • Allendale Road,

Ormesby • Bolckow Road,

Grangetown • Fabian Court,

Eston • Slater Road,

Grangetown • Birchington

Avenue, Grangetown

Improved retail offering across the Greater Eston area, balancing provision available from Low Grange Farm against local provision Ensure that this strategy takes full account of the likely impacts of large scale reprovision as proposed at Low Grange Farm, and the medium term impact of decanting/ relocating customers – as far as is possible

Current major national retail chains LSP Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

Medium By 2010

Depends on the scale and nature of the scheme as agreed, but should be market driven with any pump-priming required to come from public funds

Broaden the social and economic base of the area

14 Pursue continued improvement in Education standards within Greater Eston

Support the continuing improvement of all schools in terms of physical standards and academic attainment and align the rationalisation process with the strategic masterplan to ensure complementarity

Publicise good results as achieved Maintain sustained improvement in level of academic achievement via existing strategy

Improve educational provision within the area to attract inward migration

LSP Education Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

Medium By 2010

Current Education revenue funding


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


15 Maximise employment opportunities for local people

Engage with plans outlined in Greater Eston Planning & Regeneration Strategy

Building on development of new retail provision of LGF, ensure local people prioritised for all new jobs created in the area

Decrease in numbers of local unemployed

Local commerce & industry Economic Development Education RSLs

Medium-Long By 2014

Possible funding sources include: Assisted Area Status, Regional Selective Assistance, One North East, English Partnerships, ERDF Objective 2 funding


16 Maximise employment opportunities for local people

Improve direct and public transport links to Middlesbrough, North Teesside

Incorporate into strategic review of transport for Redcar and Cleveland Ensure complementarity with existing LSP initiatives and objectives

Increased accessibility to local labour market

Arriva Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Tees Valley Living

Medium-Long By 2014

Existing Transport budgets unaffected, simply looking to “bend” service investment better for benefit of Greater Eston residents


17 Improving the quality of the local labour market’s skills base

Concerted investment in vocational training

Review regional/local skills bases in terms of the “New Realities” strategy to develop range of vocational training schemes

In partnership with key local employers, develop extensive range of vocational training via e.g. Apprenticeships programmes, locally based businesses

City Learning Centre Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Benefits Agency RSLs Community Voluntary Agencies Education Routes to Employment

Medium-Long By 2014

Economic Development budgets


April 2005



Obj

ectiv

e

Strategic Objective



Implications/ Cost


18 Improving the quality of the local labour market’s skills base

Develop locally-based vocational training placements for long-term unemployed

In partnership with local businesses, to be arranged and taken forward at Tees Valley level

In partnership with key local employers, develop extensive range of vocational training via e.g. Apprenticeships programmes, locally based businesses

City Learning Centre Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Local Industries RSLs Education

Medium-Long By 2014

Economic Development budgets, Education, Local Business sponsorship


April 2005

List of Tables, Maps and Figures Tables Page 2.1 Dwellings Identified at Risk of Changing or Low Demand 15 2.2 Comparison of Actual and Guideline Clearance Rates 16 3.1 Population Trends – Absolute figures, 1982-2002 46 3.2 Population and Household Projections – Absolute figure,

2001-2015 48 3.3 Study Area Population Age Structure, 2001 51 3.4 Economic Activity – Percentage Values, 2001 52 3.5 Socio-economic groups – Percentage Values, 2001 56 3.6 Industrial structure – Absolute Employment, 1991-2002. 60 3.7 Business Stock Trends – Absolute Values, 1991-2002 62 4.1 All Housing stock by occupancy, 2001 78 4.2 All Dwellings by type, 2001 79 4.3 Volume of House Sales, 2002 and 2003 83 4.4 Household Numbers by Tenure 84 4.5 Household Composition 86 4.6 Length of Time in current Home 91 4.7 Area People Would Least Like to Live % Residents 94 4.8 Comparison of types of property households would ideally & realistically like to live. 95 4.9 Comparison of current size of property and size required in future accommodation 95 4.10 Comparison of tenure of property households would ideally & realistically like to live 96 4.11 Social Rented Stock, April 2001 97 4.12 Social Rented Housing within Greater Eston, 2001. 99 4.13 Right to Buy Sales 101 4.14 Summary of Lets and Turnover 101 4.15 Lets during 2003-2004 by Previous Tenure 102 4.16 Terminations, 2003-2004 103 4.17 Current Waiting List – end July 2004 104 4.18 Areas of Choice 105 6.1 Greater Eston Sustainable Communities Plan – SWOT analysis overview 137 6.2 Timescale 158 Maps 3.1 Greater Eston sustainable communities Plan Study Area 45 3.2 Greater Eston Population Density by Output Area, 2001 Census 49 3.3 Greater Eston Employment Rate by Output Area 54 3.4 Greater Eston – Population with no Qualifications by Output Area 58 3.5 Overall IMD Ranking by Super Output Area 66 3.6 Relative Crime Deprivation Levels in Greater Eston by SOA 68 3.7 Relative Income Deprivation levels in Greater Eston by SOA 70 3.8 Relative Level of housing and Services Deprivation in

Greater Eston by SOA 72 3.9 Relative Level of health and Disability Deprivation in

Greater Eston by SOA 74 4.1 Greater Eston % Single Parent Families by output Area 87 4.2 Greater Eston social Housing as % of Total by Output Area 98 6.1 Clockwise sequencing 159


April 2005 Figures Page 3.1 Population Trends 1981-2002 46 3.2 Population and Household Projections, 2001-2015. 47 3.3 Population Age Structure, 2001 50 3.4 Economic activity Location quotients, 2001 52 3.5 Unemployment Trends 1996-2004 55 3.6 Socio-economic Groups, 2001 56 3.7 Qualification Levels, 2001 57 3.8 Average Wage Levels, 2002 59 3.9 Study area Industrial Structure, 2002 60 3.10 Employment Trends, 1991-2002 61 3.11 Business Stock Trends, 1991-2002. 62 3.12 Percentage of pupils attaining 5 or more GCSE grades A*-C 63 4.1 Housing Tenure, 2001 79 4.2 Property type by tenure 81 4.3 Council Tax Bands, 2001 82 4.4 House Prices by Postcode Sector, 2003 84 4.5 Resident and partner Weekly Net Income 90 4.6 Overall Satisfaction with Accommodation 91 4.7 Overall Satisfaction with Accommodation by Area 92 4.8 Where People Considering a Move would Most Like to Live by Current Location 93 4.9 Coast and Country Stock by Size 100 4.10 Lettings by Household Type, 2003-2004 102 4.11 Coast and country Stock Void Rate, April 2004 104 5.1 Satisfaction with area as a Place to Live 131 6.1 Net Change in Dwelling Stock 146 6.2 Greater Eston Masterplanning Framework 150

4 housing market assessment - this is redcar ... housing market assessment introduction 4.1 this...

Documents