Indices of Deprivation 2015

Living Environment Deprivation

A measure of Manchester’s relative level of deprivation produced by DCLG

Version 2016/v1.2

Elisa Bullen

Public Intelligence

Performance, Research and Intelligence (PRI)

Chief Executive’s Department

Date: May 2016

Indices of Deprivation 2015 Living Environment Deprivation domain

This report examines the Living Environment Deprivation index, one of seven domains of the Indices of Deprivation 2015 that feed into the 2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). This domain contributes 9.3% to the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation. The Living Environment Deprivation domain measures the quality of the local environment. The indicators fall into two sub-domains. The ‘indoors’ living environment measures the quality of housing; while the ‘outdoors’ living environment measures air quality and road traffic accidents1. The scores produced in this domain are a combination of standardised rates2 relating to each small area in England, called Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs), experiencing that type of deprivation. These scores have then been ranked, where 1 is most deprived. The average score of the LSOAs in a district is determined in order to rank Living Environment Deprivation at district level. The indoor deprivation is measured using 2011 Census and English Housing Survey data applying the Decent Homes Standard, and outdoor deprivation uses air quality data from the UK Air Information Resource3 .

Manchester relative to other districts

On the Living Environment Deprivation domain, Manchester is ranked 35th on the Rank of Average Score, scoring 34.3. This is a newly published domain measure for 2015 - in the previous IMD 2010, Manchester was not given a separate ranking but averaged a score of 27.5. The two scores are broadly comparable at district level because the indicators and methodology are mostly the same. The scores suggest that the level of Living Environment deprivation has increased in Manchester between the two time periods. Table 1 ranks the ten most deprived districts and Manchester for context (out of 326) using the 2015 Rank of Average Score, which places a two thirds weighting on indoors living environment and one third on outdoors, the same as in 2010. Other than Isles of Scilly and Portsmouth, the top ten most deprived districts are all London boroughs. Table 1: Top ten districts: Living Environment Deprivation, Rank of average scores

Rank Local Authority District Living Environment average score

1 Isles of Scilly 66.560 2 Kensington and Chelsea 54.998 3 Westminster 54.767 4 City of London 48.252 5 Camden 47.717 6 Hackney 44.154 7 Hammersmith and Fulham 43.962 8 Islington 43.830 9 Lambeth 43.368

10 Portsmouth 42.986 35 Manchester 34.279

Source: DCLG Analysis: Public Intelligence 2015

In complete contrast to being the least deprived district in England on the Health Deprivation and Disability, Income Deprivation and Employment Deprivation domains, Isles of Scilly is the most

1 As defined in The English Indices of Deprivation 2015 Technical report Department for Communities and Local Government 2 See Appendix for details of indicators used 3 See Appendix for link to modelled estimate

deprived district on this domain. Exploring the individual indices that make up the Index of Multiple Deprivation can expose specific deprivation within a district, as Isles of Scilly demonstrates here (see later for explanation of why this is misleading). The least deprived district in England on this domain is Bracknell Forest in Berkshire with a score of just 4.315.

Compared to the other core cities, Manchester is not the most deprived on this domain, ranked closest to Liverpool and Nottingham using this ranking, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Manchester compared to other Core Cities, Living Environment Deprivation domain 2015

Compared to the other Greater Manchester districts, Manchester is the most deprived of the districts, as shown in Figure 2. By contrast, Wigan is 233rd. Trafford, Stockport and Wigan fall into the least deprived half of the country’s ranking. Figure 2: Manchester compared to other Greater Manchester districts, Living Environment Deprivation

19 24 35 42 43 44

135

249

Rank

ing

on L

ivin

g En

viro

nmen

t dom

ain

Living Environment Deprivation domain Rank of average score

Core Cities

Rank of 1 = most deprived Source: DCLG, Analysis Public Intelligence, PRI 2016

35

100 105 108 115 129

150 170 177

233

Ran

king

on

Livi

ng E

nviro

nmen

t dom

ain

Living Environment Rank of average score

Greater Manchester Districts

Rank of 1 = most deprived Source: DCLG, Analysis Public Intelligence, PRI 2016

Manchester ranks 59th in the Proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived 10% nationally in the Living Environment Deprivation domain. This rank is only concerned with districts that have LSOAs in the top decile (the rest are all ranked as 232nd, i.e. only 231 districts have an LSOA in the top 10% most deprived nationally). It determines the proportion within each district that is in the most deprived 10% nationally and ranks them from 1 to 232 based on largest proportion to smallest. Table 2 shows the ten highest ranked districts in this ranking with Manchester at 59th for context. Isles of Scilly is of note with 100% of this district’s LSOAs in the most deprived decile, however, this is misleading - it only has one LSOA. This is an anomaly, because within the domain, the outdoor sub-domain ranks Isles of Scilly as the least deprived in England, on the indoor sub-domain it is 4th, but because there is only one LSOA it gives spurious results, translating through to make it first in the overall rank of average scores. Not surprisingly, the other districts in the top five are in London. The remainder of the top ten, with the exception of Portsmouth, are in the south west of England but these districts are only deprived in the indoor sub-domain, ranging from the 5th to the 10th decile on the outdoors sub-domain. None of the core cities is in the top ten on this ranking and most are the same as in Table 1 with the South West districts replacing some of the London boroughs. This table also illustrates that 18.4% (52 LSOAs) of Manchester’s neighbourhoods are ranked within the most deprived 10% in the country for Living Environment Deprivation. Table 2: Districts with the top ten highest proportions of LSOAs in 10% most deprived in England

Rank Local Authority District Living Environment Proportion of LSOAs in most deprived 10% nationally

1 Isles of Scilly 100% 2 Kensington and Chelsea 78.6% 3 Westminster 77.3% 4 City of London 50.0% 5 Camden 48.9% 6 Torridge 48.7% 7 Cornwall 47.9% 8 Eden 47.2% 9 Portsmouth 45.6%

10 West Devon 45.2% 59 Manchester 18.4%

Source: DCLG Analysis: Public Intelligence 2016 There are four indicators that feed into the scoring for this domain, and Manchester scores better with most of these than in other domains. However, as a large city, Manchester will inevitably score higher (worse) for the outdoor barriers element which measures air quality and road traffic accidents. Housing in poor condition, which features in the indoor sub-domain, may be an issue with some of the many privately rented houses. Many houses in Manchester, however, are rented by housing associations, so these will be in good condition. Being relatively lower ranked in these measures than on the other domains will have had some tempering on Manchester’s high ranking in the IMD, although the scores and ranks from this index only form 9.3% of the IMD scores compared to 22.5% from Income and 22.5% from Employment. Areas within Manchester This section looks at specific areas in Manchester that have high rates of residents experiencing Living Environment Deprivation. The most deprived LSOA with in this domain

is LSOA 33664 (054D) which is around Dantzic Street and Shudehill, mostly in Ancoats and Clayton, but partially in City Centre ward, ranked 6th out of 32,844 with a score of 86.687. This LSOA was originally part of the larger LSOA 5131 but was split into five in 2011 because of population size. One of the other sub-divisions of LSOA 5131, LSOA 33667 (054E), is second highest in Manchester, ranked 9th, whereas another, LSOA 33661, is 1,174th so the split has polarised the deprivation. The most deprived LSOA on the indoors sub-domain is also LSOA 33664 at 89th, which will be a combination of poor housing condition and the relatively high number of houses without central heating (the highest number being around Portland Street). Neighbouring LSOA 33667, east of Shudehill around Tib Street, is Manchester’s most deprived LSOA on the outdoors sub-domain but is not a high ranking at 429th. The LSOA classed as the least deprived in Manchester on the Living Environment Deprivation indoors sub-domain is LSOA 33679 (009G) in Collyhurst, Harpurhey ward ranked 30,635th, falling into the tenth decile (10% least deprived). This area’s housing is predominantly owned by MCC Housing so properties will be well maintained and have central heating. There are 88 Manchester LSOAs in the least deprived half of England in this sub-domain but only two of these are in the least deprived 10%, whereas there are no Manchester LSOAs in the least deprived 30% of England in the outdoor barriers sub-domain with LSOA 5316 (053D) around the airport ranked 19,999th in Woodhouse Park, the only LSOA falling into the seventh decile. So even though the indoor subdomain has LSOAs with a higher ranking, the outdoor sub-domain detrimentally influences the overall Living Environment deprivation domain more. Map 1 shows that, unlike most of the other domains, the Manchester LSOAs that are most deprived in the Living Environment Deprivation domain are not the same as those in the overall IMD shown in Map 2, and there is less severe deprivation in this domain. Most of the more deprived LSOAs are in and around the city centre where pollution and road traffic accidents will be more prevalent. There are a few pockets of deprivation highlighted, all because of higher deprivation on the indoor sub-domain than the outdoor one, with the exception of LSOA 5221 around Levenshulme’s busy district centre on the main A6 road. Map 3 looks at the change in score between index in 2010 and 2015, ranged by numeric point changes. This is not a direct comparison for several reasons: there were fewer LSOAs in 2010 than in 2015 (where an LSOA has split since 2010 each of the new subdivisions has been compared with the score of the original but this tends to make one new LSOA much more deprived, one much less deprived) and there have been some changes to the method for modelling of housing in poor condition. However, the indicators are standardised so there is a degree of consistency. Bearing this in mind, 198 LSOAs have a higher (more deprived) score than in the indices in 2010 compared to 84 LSOAs with a lower score, meaning more LSOAs are relatively worse (70.2%). The two LSOAs already mentioned around Shudehill and Tib Street have significantly higher scores than in 2010 (but this can be explained by the split in the original LSOA highlighting the deprivation that was already there). Also, there was just one LSOA in the top 1% most deprived in England in 2010, in 2015 there are 18. The amount of change is greater in the deteriorating LSOAs with 11 LSOAs deteriorating by 20-29 points compared to the five that have improved by the same amount. A further 15 LSOAs have deteriorated between 30 and 63 points, with the most deteriorated LSOAs being in the north of the city centre and its surrounding wards. Most LSOAs have only seen a small change in score between 2010 and 2015.

Map 1: Manchester LSOAs’ ranking on the Living Environment Rank of Average Score

Map 2: Manchester LSOAs’ ranking on the IMD Rank of Average Score

Map 3: Relative change in LSOAs on Living Environment Domain index, Indices of Deprivation 2010 compared to 2015

Table 3 shows which LSOAs (or equivalent if they have split between 2010 and 2015) were in the top 10% most deprived (3,284 LSOAs) in this domain’s index in both 2010 and in 2015. The scores of 57.1% of these LSOAs are better than in 2010 but not enough to move out of this decile.

Table 3: 10% most deprived LSOAs on the Living Environment Deprivation Domain in both 2010 and 2015 LSOA code LSOA name 2011 Score 2010 Score 2015 Change in score to 2015 Ward

E01005128 Manchester 055A 63.34 76.70 worse City Centre E01005150 Manchester 029A 57.14 64.44 worse Chorlton E01005219 Manchester 031A 50.26 62.17 worse Levenshulme E01005199 Manchester 027B 63.59 55.06 better Gorton South E01005221 Manchester 031C 62.75 53.96 better Levenshulme E01005193 Manchester 021E 53.29 53.68 worse Gorton South E01005288 Manchester 025E 53.39 52.50 better Rusholme E01005192 Manchester 021D 47.48 51.18 worse Gorton South E01005154 Manchester 033A 54.56 49.25 better Chorlton Park E01005194 Manchester 027A 71.44 49.23 better Gorton South E01005206 Manchester 006C 48.16 48.63 worse Harpurhey E01005220 Manchester 031B 66.88 47.38 better Gorton South E01005234 Manchester 027E 49.81 47.21 better Longsight E01005226 Manchester 007D 54.73 46.24 better Moston

Wards within Manchester Table 4: Rank of average LSOA Living Environment Deprivation score by ward Ward Population Weighted adjusted Average score Ward rank within Manchester City Centre 71 1 Hulme 43 2 Ancoats and Clayton 43 3 Longsight 42 4 Levenshulme 41 5 Fallowfield 41 6 Rusholme 41 7 Whalley Range 40 8 Gorton South 40 9 Chorlton 37 10 Moss Side 37 11 Gorton North 36 12 Cheetham 35 13 Ardwick 35 14 Crumpsall 35 15 Withington 34 16 Bradford 34 17 Didsbury East 32 18 Harpurhey 32 19 Old Moat 31 20 Chorlton Park 30 21 Moston 28 22 Didsbury West 28 23 Miles Platting and Newton Heath 27 24 Northenden 27 25 Burnage 26 26 Higher Blackley 26 27 Baguley 23 28 Charlestown 22 29 Brooklands 21 30 Sharston 20 31 Woodhouse Park 19 32

Analysis Public Intelligence, PRI Source: DCLG 2015 Table 4 shows the crude average LSOA scores at ward level, which is hindered by LSOAs not being coterminous with ward boundaries. The ‘best-fit’ of an LSOA to the ward it mostly falls into based on

residences within it has been calculated 4. The average scores of the LSOAs in each ward indicate that City Centre is the most deprived ward in Manchester on this domain, followed by Hulme and Ancoats and Clayton5. Table 5 looks at the number of LSOAs attributed to each ward in Manchester that fall into the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. There are 52 LSOAs in Manchester (18.4%) in the most deprived decile of the Living Environment Deprivation domain, found in 19 wards, mostly around the inner city. Table 5: Proportion of wards with LSOAs in the most deprived 10% of England

Ward Number of LSOAs assigned to ward

Number of LSOAs in most deprived 10% of England

% of ward's LSOAs in most deprived 10% of England

Ancoats and Clayton 11 7 63.6% Ardwick 10 2 20.0% Baguley 9 0 none Bradford 9 2 22.2% Brooklands 8 0 none Burnage 9 0 none Charlestown 9 0 none Cheetham 11 3 27.3% Chorlton 8 3 37.5% Chorlton Park 9 1 11.1% City Centre 11 8 72.7% Crumpsall 8 3 37.5% Didsbury East 9 1 11.1% Didsbury West 8 0 none Fallowfield 7 2 28.6% Gorton North 10 2 20.0% Gorton South 9 5 55.6% Harpurhey 10 1 10.0% Higher Blackley 9 0 none Hulme 9 4 44.4% Levenshulme 8 1 12.5% Longsight 7 3 42.9% Miles Platting and Newton Heath 9 0 none Moss Side 7 0 none Moston 9 0 none Northenden 9 0 none Old Moat 9 0 none Rusholme 7 1 14.3% Sharston 10 0 none Whalley Range 9 2 22.2% Withington 7 1 14.3% Woodhouse Park 8 0 none Analysis Public Intelligence, PRI Source: DCLG 2015 City Centre is highlighted because it has the highest number of LSOAs in Manchester that are in this most deprived decile. City Centre also has the highest score indicated in Table 4, and it has the highest proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived decile at 72.7% of the ward’s LSOAs. At a wider level, the East Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF)6 area has the highest proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived decile in England at 33% compared to the Wythenshawe SRF7 where there are no LSOAs in the most deprived 10% of England. The other SRFs range between 12.5 and 25%. 4 derived by Manchester City Council to measure deprivation in Manchester wards as a guide only. Ward level data are not officially recognised by DCLG. All commentary regarding wards is based on these derivations. The denominator used for ward level is the sum of the LSOAs’ population within that ward. Where a LSOA straddles a ward boundary, the proportion of properties in that LSOA in both wards is calculated using the Local Land and Property Gazetteer and those proportions have been applied to the total population of the LSOA to attribute population to each ward. 5 some LSOAs will have their scores used twice where they appear in more than one ward 6 Ancoats and Clayton, Bradford, Gorton North, Gorton South, Miles Platting and Newton Heath wards 7 Baguley, Brooklands, Northenden, Sharston and Woodhouse Park wards

Appendix Indicators used in the Living Environment Deprivation domain The indicators Indoors sub-domain Houses without central heating: The proportion of houses that do not have central heating Housing in poor condition: The proportion of social and private homes that fail to meet the Decent Homes standard. Outdoors sub-domain Air quality: A measure of air quality based on emissions rates for four pollutants Road traffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists. Indicator details Houses without central heating The houses without central heating indicator is used as a measure of housing which is expensive to heat. The numerator is the number of houses without central heating in the Lower-layer Super Output Area while the denominator is the number of households in the area.

Data was taken from the Census 2011 (the previous indicator was based on Census 2001 data), and identifies the proportion of houses in each Lower-layer Super Output Area that do not have central heating in any room8. Shrinkage was applied to the indicator. Housing in poor condition The housing in poor condition indicator is a modelled estimate of the proportion of social and private homes that fail to meet the Decent Homes standard.

A property fails the Decent Homes Standard if it fails to meet any one of the four separate components shown in the table below9. Each of these components was modelled separately, using data from the 2011 English Housing Survey at national level, in combination with a commercial dataset that provides information on the age, type, tenure and occupant characteristics of the housing stock at individual dwelling level. Failure likelihood factors for individual dwellings were generated by segmentation analysis and logistic regression models, and aggregated to Lower-layer Super Output Area. The four components of the Decent Homes Standard Component Description Housing Health and Safety Rating System

Dwellings which fail to meet this criterion are those containing one or more hazards assessed as serious (‘Category 1’). The system includes 29 hazards in the home categorised into Category 1 (serious) or Category 2 (other).

Disrepair A dwelling is said to be in disrepair if: at least one of the key building components is old and needs replacing or major repair due to its condition; or more than one of the other building components are old and need replacing or major repair due to their condition.

Modernisation A dwelling is said to fail this criterion if it lacks three or more of the following: a reasonably modern kitchen (20 years old or less); a kitchen with adequate space and layout; a reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less); an appropriately located bathroom and WC; adequate insulation against external noise (where such noise is a problem); or adequate size and layout of common areas for blocks of flats.

Thermal comfort

A dwelling fails this criterion if it does not have effective insulation and efficient heating.

8 The Census 2011 definition of central heating used includes gas, oil or solid fuel central heating, night storage heaters, warm air heating and underfloor heating. 9 See ‘A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation’ published in June 2006 for details of the Decent Homes standard. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-decent-home-definition-and-guidance

Air quality The indicator is an estimate of the concentration of the four pollutants nitrogen dioxide, benzene, sulphur dioxide and particulates. Indicators for each of the pollutants were based on 2012 air quality data published by the UK Air Information Resource for 1km grid-squares10, which was modelled to Lower-layer Super Output Area level using the point-in-polygon method. For Lower-layer Super Output Areas that did not have grid points falling within them, data from the nearest point of the air quality grid was assigned.

For each pollutant the atmospheric concentration was compared to a national standard value11, with the concentrations in each Lower-layer Super Output Area divided by the appropriate national standard, before summing to produce a single indicator.

In theory, values for the combined indicator range from zero to infinity. However in practice values are unlikely to exceed 4, the equivalent of a site where concentrations of all four pollutants are at their respective thresholds.

Due to changes in the national targets12, the particulate matter component of the air quality indicator were based on particles less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter, rather than the 10 micrometres previously used. Additional pollutants (arsenic, cadmium, nickel and benzoapyrene) are also the subject of a new air quality directive13. However the overwhelming majority of areas in the country have better-than-target values for these pollutants so they have not been included in the measure. Road traffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists

The indicator is based on reported accidents that involve death or personal injury to a pedestrian or cyclist14. The indicator uses data for 2011 to 2013 published by the Department for Transport, with three years of data used to reduce the problem of small numbers.

The numerator for this indicator is the number of reported accidents (weighted for severity) in a Lower-layer Super Output Area that involve death or personal injury to a pedestrian or cyclist, averaged across the three years 2011 to 2013. To take into account the number of people in the local area during the day, the denominator uses the non-resident workplace population (from Census 2011) as well as the average of the mid-year population estimates for 2011 to 2013 (from the Office for National Statistics) with the prison population (from the Ministry of Justice) subtracted.

Weights were applied to the total counts of the three severity types: a weight of 1 was applied for slight severity, 2 for serious and 3 for fatal. Each incident was plotted according to its grid reference, which gives its location accurate to 10 metres. Where an incident occurred within 100 metres of a Lower-layer Super Output Area boundary, the incident was apportioned equally to the areas either side of the boundary. Shrinkage was applied to the indicator. Combining the indicators to create the domain The indicators within each of the sub-domains was standardised by ranking and transforming to a normal distribution, and combined using equal weights to create the sub-domains. The sub-domains were standardised by ranking and transforming to an exponential distribution.

The domain was created by summing the two sub-domains, weighted according to patterns of ‘indoors’ and ‘outdoors’ time use15. As done in the Indices of Deprivation 2010, the Indoors Living Environment sub-domain was given two thirds of the domain’s weight, and the Outdoors Living Environment sub-domain, one-third.

10 UK-AIR: Air Information Resource http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/ 11 The annual mean standards of nitrogen dioxide, benzene and particulates are defined by the UK’s National Air Quality Strategy while the safe guideline for sulphur dioxide is set by the World Health Organisation. 12 UK and EU Air Quality Policy Context http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/air-pollution/uk-eu-policy-context 13 See Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1001/pdfs/uksi_20101001_en.pdf 14 Only accidents that involve at least one ‘mechanically propelled’ vehicle are included in the dataset. Accidents involving personal injury are counted, including deliberate acts of violence but not confirmed cases of suicide. Accidents involving pedal cycles are included. Where many casualties were associated with one accident, all pedestrian and cyclist casualties were counted. Injuries sustained on private roads and in car parks are not included. See www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-accidents-and-safety-statistics for details. 15 UK 2000 Time Use Survey, http://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/catalogue?sn=4504

Changes since the Indices of Deprivation 2010 The indicators in the domain remain the same as in the Indices of Deprivation 2010, apart from changes to the housing in poor condition indicator which include an improved modelling methodology. Other minor changes to this domain, for example due to changes in available data, are described above. Further details of all these changes are given in Appendix C.i i Further details can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2015 Appendix taken from: Smith, T., Noble, M., Noble, S., Wright, G., McLennan, D., and Plunkett, E., 2015. The English Indices of Deprivation 2015, Technical report. Department for Communities and Local Government