The Lincoln Drivers Report

Winter 2013

1

Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................3 2. Executive Summary...................................................................................4 3. Map of Lincoln............................................................................................5 4. The Population of Lincoln.........................................................................6

4.1 Population growth ...............................................................................6 4.2 Age profile of Lincoln ..........................................................................7 4.3 Ward level population .........................................................................9 4.4 Migrant workers ................................................................................10

5. Poverty......................................................................................................12

5.1 Child poverty.....................................................................................12 5.2 Income deprivation affecting children ...............................................14 5.3 Fuel poverty ......................................................................................15 5.4 Income deprivation affecting older people ........................................17

6. Educational Attainment...........................................................................18

6.1 Key stage one, two and four .............................................................18 6.4 Attainment by socioeconomic background........................................21

7. Worklessness...........................................................................................22

7.1 Worklessness ...................................................................................22 7.2 Unemployment..................................................................................23

8. Lincoln Economy.....................................................................................25

8.1 Local units and enterprises by sector ...............................................25 8.2 Local units and enterprises by employment size ..............................27 8.3 Employed residents by occupation ...................................................28

9. Health........................................................................................................30

9.1 Male life expectancy .........................................................................30 9.2 Female life expectancy .....................................................................31 9.3 Heart disease and stroke..................................................................32 9.4 Cancer ..............................................................................................33 9.5 Self harm ..........................................................................................34 9.6 Alcohol..............................................................................................35 9.7 Drugs ................................................................................................35 9.8 Obesity..............................................................................................36 9.9 Suicide and undetermined injury.......................................................37 9.10 Injuries to children...........................................................................38

10. Crime.......................................................................................................39 11. Emissions...............................................................................................41

11.1 City Council Emissions ...................................................................41

2

11.2 Citywide Emissions.........................................................................42 12. Summary Points.....................................................................................44

12.1 Population.......................................................................................44 12.2 Poverty............................................................................................44 12.3 Educational attainment ...................................................................44 12.4 Worklessness .................................................................................45 12.5 Lincoln economy.............................................................................45 12.6 Health .............................................................................................45 12.7 Crime ..............................................................................................46 12.8 Emissions .......................................................................................46

3

1. Introduction The Lincoln Drivers Report is published twice a year. It encompasses a breadth of information, and focuses on key demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of, and challenges to, Lincoln. In doing this, it acts as the evidence base behind the City of Lincoln Council’s strategic priorities. It uses information sourced from the City of Lincoln Council, as well as other organisations. This enables the city council, along with all its partners, to use this information when developing strategic direction, creating and implementing policy, and ensuring resources continue to be targeted where needed most. It is a valuable source of summary information, all contained in one document. It draws and collates information from across the full range of quality of life indicators, and so paints a unique picture of what it is like to live, and work, in Lincoln. The report is therefore a vital tool to use when planning the delivery of services across the public sector.

Further information If you have any questions or comments concerning this report, or require further information, please use the contact details below: Write to: James Wilkinson Policy and Strategic Information Officer City of Lincoln Council City Hall Beaumont Fee Lincoln LN1 1DD Email: james.wilkinson@lincoln.gov.uk

4

2. Executive Summary Lincoln’s population grew considerably over the last three decades, from 76,800 in 1982, to 94,600 residents in 2012. Our population increase over the last decade represented one of the largest experienced by our nearest neighbours. The inflow of students and migrant workers contributed to this. Poverty remained a significant issue in the city, with high rates of relative child poverty, and household fuel poverty. Areas of the city also featured within the most 5% of deprived areas for income deprivation affecting children, and income deprivation affecting older people. Educational attainment continued to lag behind county rates, with the gap in attainment greatest at Key Stage 4. There appeared to be a particular challenge at Key Stage 4 regarding English and Maths attainment. Evidence also suggested children eligible for free school meals were more likely to have lower Key Stage 4 attainment, and higher school absence, than their more affluent peers were. The Lincoln economy had the greatest reliance on the retail sector amongst our nearest neighbour authorities (in terms of proportion of businesses). In addition, Lincoln had the second highest proportion of elementary occupations (mainly routine-tasks). There had been some successes concerning health. Lincoln’s female life expectancy had increased, and the rate of early deaths due to heart disease and stroke had reduced over the last few years. Nevertheless, male life expectancy remained static, and life expectancies for both genders remained low compared to our nearest neighbours. Despite improvement, early deaths due to heart disease and stroke were relatively high, as were early deaths due to cancer. There was also a significant issue regarding self-harm and suicide, with Lincoln having the highest rates of these incidents amongst our nearest neighbours. Hospital stays due to alcohol, drug misuse, and injuries to children also appeared a concern. City of Lincoln Council emissions had reduced once again, and the proportion of city council emissions attributable to a green tariff increased, although fluctuations are largely attributable to electricity consumption throughout the year. In terms of estimated citywide emissions, there had also been a reduction, with Lincoln having had one of the lowest estimated emissions per capita amongst our nearest neighbours.

5

3. Map of Lincoln Source: City of Lincoln Council (2008)

6

Lincoln's Population from 1981 to 2012

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Year

Po

pu

lati

on

Percentage Change in Population from 2002 to 2012

-1.9%

4.2% 4.5%

5.9% 6.1%

8.0%

10.4%

11.6%

14.1%

7.2%

6.4%6.7%6.6%

5.3%

1.8%1.3%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Bur

nley

Wyr

e For

est

Cop

elan

d

Wel

lingb

orou

gh

Che

ster

field

Can

nock

Cha

se

Ste

vena

ge

Car

lisle

Man

sfield

Wor

cest

er

Red

ditch

Pre

ston

Exe

ter

Linc

oln

Glo

uces

ter

Ipsw

ich

District

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Ch

an

ge

4. The Population of Lincoln

4.1 Population growth

Lincoln’s population grew considerably over the last three decades, from 76,800 residents in 1982, to 94,600 residents in 2012. This was an overall population increase of 23.7%. There was a substantial increase in residents since 2000. Between 2000 and 2012, the population of Lincoln increased by 11.3% (9,600 residents in real terms)1. Source: NOMIS (2013)

Compared to Lincoln’s nearest neighbours, Lincoln had one of the largest population increases between 2002 and 2012 (10.4%). This gave Lincoln the third highest population increase amongst the 16 nearest neighbour groupings2. Source: NOMIS (2013)

1 NOMIS (2013) Mid 2013 Population Estimate

2 NOMIS (2013) Mid 2012 Population Estimate

7

Age Profile of Lincoln Residents

4.7% 4.8% 4.6%

8.0%

12.5%

8.3%

7.0%

6.1%6.5%

5.9%

5.0% 5.0%4.4%

3.1%2.6%

2.2% 2.2%

1.4%

5.7%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Age Profile

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f L

inc

oln

Re

sid

en

ts

4.2 Age profile of Lincoln

The most common age range for Lincoln was 20-24, accounting for 12.5% of the population, or 11,800 residents in total3. We know that much of the increase in population since 2001 was due to the growth in residents aged in their 20s, and that part of the reason for this was the expansion of the University of Lincoln over the same period4. Source: NOMIS (2013)

3 NOMIS (2013) Mid 2012 Population Estimates

4 City of Lincoln Council (2012) The Lincoln Drivers Report: Autumn 2012

8

Proportion of Residents aged 20-24

8.1%

10.7%

12.5%12.9%

7.1%6.8%6.4%6.3%6.3%6.1%6.0%6.0%5.7%5.5%

5.2%5.2%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Wel

lingb

orou

gh

Wyr

e For

est

Cop

elan

d

Che

ster

field

Red

ditch

Can

nock

Cha

se

Man

sfield

Burnley

Ste

vena

ge

Car

lisle

Glo

uces

ter

Ipsw

ich

Wor

cest

er

Preston

Linc

oln

Exe

ter

District

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f R

es

ide

nts

Number of Full-Time Students aged 16-74

16,285

14,915

11,184

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Cop

elan

d

Wel

lingb

orou

gh

Wyr

e For

est

Red

ditch

Bur

nley

Ste

vena

ge

Can

nock

Cha

se

Man

sfield

Che

ster

field

Car

lisle

Glo

uces

ter

Ipsw

ich

Wor

cest

er

Linc

oln

Pre

ston

Exe

ter

District

Nu

me

r o

f S

tud

en

ts

When compared with our nearest neighbour authorities, Lincoln had the second highest proportion of residents aged 20-24 (12.5%). Preston (10.7%) and Exeter (12.9%) also had high proportions of residents aged 20-24. This was likely to have been influenced by the number of students in these three areas, which each contain more than 10,000 full-time students aged 16-74 (the highest numbers amongst our nearest neighbour grouping). Source: NOMIS (2013)

Source: Neighbourhood Statistics (2013)

9

4.3 Ward level population

The most populous wards in the city were Carholme, Abbey, and Park. These populations also had high proportions of residents in their 20s. This was particularly the case in Carholme where almost two fifths of residents were in this age group5. NB. Ward level data represented 2011 population estimates, compared to other data in this report that referred to 2012 population estimates.

0-9 10-19 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80+

Abbey 10% 11% 28% 16% 13% 9% 6% 4% 4%

Birchwood 15% 12% 16% 13% 13% 11% 10% 6% 3%

Boultham 9% 11% 15% 12% 14% 13% 11% 8% 7%

Bracebridge 11% 13% 10% 12% 17% 15% 11% 7% 5%

Carholme 6% 20% 39% 10% 8% 7% 5% 3% 2%

Castle 10% 10% 20% 13% 13% 11% 10% 8% 6%

Glebe 14% 14% 15% 14% 14% 11% 10% 6% 3%

Hartsholme 11% 11% 12% 13% 15% 13% 13% 7% 5%

Minster 11% 13% 12% 11% 14% 12% 12% 8% 8%

Moorland 11% 13% 12% 11% 14% 13% 12% 8% 5%

Park 12% 11% 25% 15% 12% 10% 7% 4% 3%

LINCOLN 10% 13% 20% 13% 13% 11% 9% 6% 4% Source: ONS (2012) 2011 Census

Source: ONS (2012) 2011 Census

5 ONS (2012) Mid 2011 Population Estimates (2012)

0-9 10-19 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80+ Total

Abbey 1,155 1,204 3,146 1,866 1,472 1,046 677 436 424 11,426

Birchwood 1,264 1,024 1,371 1,142 1,142 927 852 524 274 8,520

Boultham 708 844 1,124 885 1,069 944 829 561 501 7,465

Bracebridge 786 925 726 904 1,213 1,082 830 488 335 7,289

Carholme 779 2,857 5,396 1,382 1,108 956 743 452 302 13,975

Castle 726 749 1,492 1,006 966 851 728 570 452 7,540

Glebe 1,052 1,000 1,081 1,001 1,011 827 770 414 245 7,401

Hartsholme 681 695 798 847 970 857 827 451 345 6,471

Minster 784 965 908 775 1,002 845 877 569 562 7,287

Moorland 859 1,010 884 810 1,067 952 886 633 403 7,504

Park 1,023 981 2,187 1,327 1,062 843 564 378 298 8,663

LINCOLN 9,817 12,254 19,113 11,945 12,082 10,130 8,583 5,476 4,141 93,541

10

Number of National Insurance Registrations to Overseas Nationals in

Lincoln

450

1,057

754

976

906

1,128

875

1,184

1,3111,280

345

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2002

/3

2003

/4

2004

/5

2005

/6

2006

/7

2007

/8

2008

/9

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Reg

istr

ati

on

s

4.4 Migrant workers

The inflow of migrant workers fluctuated year on year, with 976 entering Lincoln in 2012/13. This was 7.7% higher than the 2011/12 rate, but numbers remained lower than the peak in 2006/07. It should be noted, not all migrant workers remain in an area, with some returning home, and others moving elsewhere in the country or world. This indicator is just a measure of inflow. Source: DWP (2013)

Of the 976 migrant workers that entered Lincoln in 2012/13:

• 62.8% (608) were from European Union Accession states

• 14.9% (144) were from other European Union states

• 14.8% (143) were from Asia and the Middle East

• 3.7% (36) were from Africa

• 2.9% (28) were from the Americas

• 0.9% (9) were from other European states

11

Migrant Workers by Country of Origin 2012/13

(Not all countries included due to small numbers)

5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 14 14 1423 23

30 32 33 34

69

180

229

136

0

50

100

150

200

250

Egypt

Afgha

nist

an

Pakista

n

Rom

ania

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Iran

Vietn

am

Mex

ico

Rep

of I

rela

nd

Can

ada

Ger

man

y

Net

herla

nds

Eston

ia

Mal

aysia

USA

Franc

e

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Italy

Nig

eria

Spain

Indi

a

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Portu

gal

Chi

na

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Polan

d

Country of Origin

Nu

mb

er

of

Mig

ran

t W

ork

es

The most common country of origin of migrant workers travelling to Lincoln in 2012/13 was Poland (229), followed by Lithuania (180), Latvia (136) and China (69). Source: DWP (2013)

12

5. Poverty

5.1 Child poverty

The indicator previously recorded as ‘relative child poverty’ is now referred to as ‘children in low-income families’. This change occurred in the 2010 dataset, published in 2013. This measure shows the proportion of children living in families in receipt of out-of-work benefits or in receipt of tax credits where their reported income is less than 60% of the UK median income. In 2011, there were 4,490 children in Lincoln living in low-income families, accounting for 23.8% of children. When just under 16s were looked at, the rate increased marginally to 24.7% (3,995 children). Of the children living in low-income households in Lincoln:

• 68.5% lived in lone parent families

• 35.0% were aged 0-4

• 31.2% were aged 5-10

• 22.8% were aged 11-15

• 11.0% were aged 16-196. The highest concentration was in Birchwood, where one third of children were from low-income households, followed by Glebe where 30% of children were. Rates were also high in Abbey, Moorland and Park. In total, there were an estimated 2,980 children living in low-income households in these areas7. Source: HMRC (2013)

6 HMRC (2013) Children in Low-Income Families

7 HMRC (2013) Children in Low-Income Households 2011

13

Proportion of Children Living in Low-Income Households

15.6% 16.1%

17.7% 17.8%18.9% 19.2%

19.8% 19.9%20.6%

21.7% 21.7%22.9%

26.8%

23.8%

18.4% 18.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Exete

r

Car

lisle

Worc

este

r

Cop

elan

d

Red

ditch

Can

nock

Chas

e

Wyr

e For

est

Glouc

este

r

Wellin

gbor

ough

Steve

nage

Che

ster

field

Ipsw

ich

Prest

on

Man

sfie

ld

Linc

oln

Burnl

ey

District

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

hil

dre

nWith a rate of 23.8%, Lincoln had the second highest proportion of children living in low-income households amongst our nearest neighbours. Source: HMRC (2013)

14

5.2 Income deprivation affecting children

There were three areas in Lincoln that featured within the most 5% of deprived areas in England. These areas were western Birchwood (‘29’), Boultham Moor (‘73’) and an area of St. Giles (‘52’)8. Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index 2010 Source: DCLG (2012)

8 DCLG (2012) Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index

15

5.3 Fuel poverty

The UK Government recently set out a new definition of fuel poverty called the ‘Low Income High Costs framework’. The information below was based on this definition. Because this was a new indicator, there was no historical trending available. Under the new definition, a household was said to be in fuel poverty if:

• They have required fuel costs that are above the average (national median level)

• Were they to spend that amount, they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line9

Lincoln (16.3%) had a higher proportion of households estimated to be in fuel poverty than in the East Midlands and England. In total, this accounted for 6,687 households out of the 41,106 households in the city10. Carholme, Abbey and Park had the highest numbers of households experiencing fuel poverty. This was followed by Castle, Minster and Boultham. An interesting point to note was that wards with high levels of fuel poverty did not always correlate with areas of high deprivation. For example, Birchwood, Moorland and Glebe all contained pockets of high deprivation, but were relatively low in terms of fuel poverty. Source: DECC (2013)

9 DECC (2013) August 2013 Statistics Release Definition

10 DECC (2013) August 2013 Low Income High Cost data

16

Proportion of Households that are Fuel Poor

6.5%

9.8%

11.7% 11.8%12.3%

13.9% 14.1%

16.3%15.4%

13.4%13.4%13.2%

12.9%

11.0%10.9%

9.3%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Ste

venag

e

Glouce

ster

Redd

itch

Exe

ter

Cope

land

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Cann

ock Chas

e

Carli

sle

Ches

terfi

eld

Ipsw

ich

Worc

ester

Pre

ston

Wyr

e For

est

Man

sfie

ld

Bur

nley

Linc

oln

District

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

ou

se

ho

lds

With a rate of 16.3%, Lincoln had the highest fuel poverty rate amongst our nearest neighbours. Source: DECC (2013)

17

5.4 Income deprivation affecting older people

There were three areas in Lincoln that featured within the most 5% of deprived areas in England. These were an area of St. Giles (‘52’), Boultham Moor (‘73’) and an area to the north east of Boultham ward, close to the city centre (‘32’)11. Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index 2010 Source: DCLG (2012)

11

DCLG (2012) Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index

18

Educational Attainment in 2011/12

49.0%

80.6% 81.2%79.1%

74.6%

62.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

KS1 KS2 KS4*

Key Stage

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f P

up

ils

Lincoln

Lincolnshire

6. Educational Attainment

6.1 Key stage one, two and four

Educational attainment in Lincoln remained lower than county rates. The gap between Lincoln and Lincolnshire was widest at Key Stage 4. Between 2010/11 and 2011/12, attainment dropped at both Key Stage 1 (from 75.5% to 74.6%) and Key Stage 4 (from 54.8% to 49.0%). In contrast, there was an increase at Key Stage 2 (from 69.0% to 79.1%)12. Source: LRO (2012) Educational Attainment *including English and Maths

12

LCC (2012) Educational Attainment cited by LRO (2013) KS1; KS2; KS4 attainment

19

Proportion of KS4 Pupils achieving five or more GCSEs A*-C in

2011/12

49.0%

62.1%

84.3% 85.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

KS4 including English and Maths KS4 any subject

Measure

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f K

S4 P

up

ils

Lincoln

Lincolnshire

An interesting point to note was the difference between two different measures of Key Stage 4 attainment. The first, (shown in the chart above), was the proportion of Key Stage 4 students achieving five or more GCSEs grade A*-C including English and Maths (Lincoln: 49.0%, Lincolnshire: 62.1%). The second was the same measure, except it did not include English and Maths as a requirement (Lincoln: 84.3%, Lincolnshire: 85.9%). For the latter measure, the gap between Lincoln and Lincolnshire was much narrower (only two percentage points). The gap increased to 13 percentage points when English and Maths were made a requirement, suggesting a lack of skills at Key Stage 4 in English and Maths in the city. Source: LRO (2012) Educational Attainment

20

Educational attainment differed in Lincoln. Bracebridge had consistently high rates of attainment across all three key stages. Other areas that scored particularly well were Boultham (for Key Stage 2), Hartsholme (for Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2), and Minster (for Key Stage 4). In contrast, Birchwood had particularly low performance (for Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4), along with Carholme (for Key Stage 2), Glebe (for Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2), Minster (for Key Stage 1), Moorland (for Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 4), and Park (for Key Stage 4)13.

2011/12 Educational Attainment

Key Stage 1 Key Stage 2 Key Stage 4*

Abbey 78.9% 77.4% 40.2%

Birchwood 76.5% 73.2% 34.0%

Boultham 78.3% 89.2% 59.8%

Bracebridge 84.6% 92.1% 64.4%

Carholme 87.7% 71.1% 61.5%

Castle 70.7% 81.0% 48.2%

Glebe 63.5% 68.1% 43.2%

Hartsholme 85.2% 86.4% 53.1%

Minster 61.3% 84.1% 66.7%

Moorland 64.9% 74.0% 36.5%

Park 76.4% 78.1% 38.1%

Lincoln 74.6% 79.1% 49.0% Source: LRO (2012) Educational Attainment *including English and Maths

13

LCC (2012) Educational Attainment cited by LRO (2013) KS1; KS2; KS4 attainment

21

6.4 Attainment by socioeconomic background

There was evidence to suggest different outcomes depending on the socioeconomic background of young people. Data showed that, in Lincoln, children eligible for free school meals were more likely to have lower attainment than their more affluent peers were. Additionally, children eligible for free school meals were also likely to have a higher school absence rate14.

Key Stage 4 Attainment (English and Maths not mandatory)

2011/12

65.4%

84.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Overall attainment rate FSM eligible attainment rate

Category

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f P

up

ils

Source: NOMIS (2013)

School Absence Rates 2009/10

8.8%

6.5%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

Overall absence rate FSM eligible absence rate

Category

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f P

up

ils

Source: ONS (2013)

14

ONS (2013) Child Poverty Tool

22

7. Worklessness

7.1 Worklessness

In May 2013, there were 8,530 residents experiencing worklessness in Lincoln. This was 6.0% lower than in May 2012. Generally, Lincoln tended to follow similar trends to the region and country.

Worklessness Rate

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Feb-0

0

Feb-0

1

Feb-0

2

Feb-0

3

Feb-0

4

Feb-0

5

Feb-0

6

Feb-0

7

Feb-0

8

Feb-0

9

Feb-1

0

Feb-1

1

Feb-1

2

Feb-1

3

Month - Year

Rate

Lincoln

East Midlands

England

Source: NOMIS (2013)

The majority of people experiencing worklessness in Lincoln were claimants of Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefits, whereas unemployed people accounted for just over one third15.

Worklessness by Benefit Type (May 2013)

34.4% 31.3% 31.2%

50.7% 54.1% 53.9%

11.6% 11.1% 11.6%

3.3% 3.5% 3.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Lincoln East Midlands England

Area

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f W

ork

les

sn

es

s

Others in income related benefits

Lone parents

ESA and Incapacity Benefit

Job seekers

Source: NOMIS (2013)

15

NOMIS (2013)

23

Unemployment Claimant Rate (October)

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

year (October)

Rate

Lincoln

East Midlands

England

7.2 Unemployment

In October 2013, the unemployment claimant rate in Lincoln (4.2%) was higher than both the East Midlands (2.9%) and England (3.0%). Source: NOMIS (2013)

Lincoln’s unemployment claimant rate remained consistently higher than the England rate. Lincoln’s rate also increased at a faster pace than the national rate, peaking in October 2012 (1.3 percentage points above the national average), and remaining high in October 2013 (1.2 percentage points above the national average)16.

The Number of Percentage Points Lincoln's Unemployment

Claimant Rate is Higher than the England Rate

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year (October)

Perc

en

tag

e P

oin

t D

iffe

ren

ce

Source: NOMIS (2013)

16

NOMIS (2013)

24

Unemployment Claimant Rate (August 2013)

1.9%

2.8% 2.9%

3.4% 3.4% 3.5%

4.0% 4.0%

4.5% 4.6%4.2%

3.7%

3.6%

3.1%3.1%

2.6%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

Exe

ter

Carli

sle

Cann

ock Chas

e

Cope

land

Worc

ester

Redd

itch

Ches

terfi

eld

Pre

ston

Wyr

e For

est

Ste

venag

e

Glouce

ster

Ipsw

ich

Man

sfie

ld

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Linc

oln

Bur

nley

District

Ra

teLincoln, with a rate of 4.5%, had the second highest unemployment claimant rate amongst our nearest neighbours. Burnley had the highest, with a marginally higher rate of 4.6%. Source: NOMIS (2013)

25

Distribution of Local Units* by Sector in Lincoln (2013)

9.4%

3.9%

18.0%

8.0%

3.7% 3.4%

9.4%

5.5%

2.2%

10.5%

7.2%

3.2%

2.3%

2.8%

4.9%4.8%

0.8%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

Agr

icultu

re, f

ores

try &

fish

ing

Pro

ductio

n

Cons

truction

Mot

or tr

ades

Whol

esale

Reta

il

Trans

port &

sto

rage

(inc

. pos

tal)

Accom

mod

ation

& fo

od ser

vice

s

Info

rmat

ion

& com

muni

catio

n

Finan

ce &

insu

ranc

e

Pro

perty

Profe

ssional

, scien

tific &

tech

nical

Bus

ines

s adm

inist

ratio

n an

d su

ppor

t ser

vices

Public

adm

inist

ratio

n an

d de

fence

Edu

catio

n

Heal

th

Arts

, ent

erta

inm

ent,

recr

eatio

n an

d oth

er ser

vices

Sector

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f L

oc

al U

nit

s

8. Lincoln Economy

8.1 Local units and enterprises by sector

There were 3,250 local units and PAYE based enterprises* in Lincoln. Of these, 18.0% were in the retail sector, followed by 10.5% in the health sector, 9.4% in the construction sector, and 9.4% in the professional, scientific and technical sector. In comparison with our nearest neighbour authorities (see graph on next page), Lincoln had a very high reliance on retail as a proportion of all local units17. This could have been influenced by the geographic characteristics of Lincoln. Lincoln is an urban area in a large rural county, with a significant economic pull. Many people living outside of the city rely on Lincoln as a retail centre. Source: ONS (2013) *A local unit includes local branches of national chains.

17

ONS (2013) UK Business: Activity, Size and Location 2013

Distribution of Local Units* or PAYE Based Enterprises by Sector in Lincoln in 2013

26

Retail Units as a Proportion of All Local Units and PAYE Based Enterprises

(2013)

10.0% 10.1% 10.4%

11.7% 11.7%12.2%

13.6% 13.6%14.3%

18.0%

15.0%14.8%

13.3%13.1%13.1%

8.7%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

Cope

land

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Redd

itch

Ste

venag

e

Cann

ock Chas

e

Carli

sle

Wyr

e For

est

Ipsw

ich

Glouce

ster

Ches

terfi

eld

Exe

ter

Pre

ston

Man

sfie

ld

Bur

nley

Worc

ester

Linc

oln

District

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f A

ll L

oc

al U

nit

s

Source: ONS (2013)

27

Distribution of Local Units or PAYE Based Enterprises by

Employment Size in Lincoln in 2013

17.9%

12.3%8.8%

2.8% 2.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2%

55.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 49 50 - 99 100 -

249

250 -

499

500 -

999

1,000 +

Employment Size

Pro

po

rtio

n

Local Units or PAYE Based Enterprises with 0-4 Employees in

2013

57.8% 58.7% 59.4% 60.1% 61.1% 62.4% 63.1% 63.1%

68.4% 68.6%72.8%

66.9%66.7%65.5%

55.3%55.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Exe

ter

Linc

oln

Man

sfie

ld

Ches

terfi

eld

Glouce

ster

Ipsw

ich

Worc

ester

Pre

ston

Bur

nley

Redd

itch

Carli

sle

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Ste

venag

e

Cann

ock Chas

e

Wyr

e For

est

Copeland

District

Pro

po

rtio

n

8.2 Local units and enterprises by employment size

Most of the organisations in Lincoln were small, with less than five employees. The numbers of businesses tapered off the higher the employment size was, with only 0.2% of enterprises in the city employing more one thousand employees or more. However, when compared with our nearest neighbour authorities, we had the second lowest proportion of small organisations18. Source: ONS (2013)

Source: ONS (2013)

18

ONS (2013) Business Demography 2013

28

Distribution of Employed Residents in Lincoln by Occupation

10.0%

7.4%

13.5%

9.4%

15.1%

12.0%

10.7%

11.1%

10.8%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Ma

na

ge

rs,

Dir

ecto

rs a

nd

Se

nio

r

Offic

ials

Pro

fessio

na

l

Occu

pa

tio

ns

Asso

cia

te

Pro

fessio

na

l

an

d T

ech

nic

al

Occu

pa

tio

ns

Ad

min

istr

ative

an

d

Se

cre

tari

al

Occu

pa

tio

ns

Skille

d

Tra

de

s

Occu

pa

tio

ns

Ca

rin

g,

Le

isu

re a

nd

Oth

er

Se

rvic

e

Occu

pa

tio

ns

Sa

les a

nd

Cu

sto

me

r

Se

rvic

e

Occu

pa

tio

ns

Pro

ce

ss,

Pla

nt a

nd

Ma

ch

ine

Op

era

tive

s

Ele

me

nta

ry

Occu

pa

tio

ns

Occupation

Pro

po

rtio

n

8.3 Employed residents by occupation

The two most prominent occupation types for employed Lincoln residents were elementary occupations, which accounted for 15.1% of all employed residents, and professional occupations, which accounted for 13.5% of all employed residents19. The Office for National Statistics defined elementary occupations as mostly routine-tasks that often did not require formal educational qualifications, but would usually have an associated short period of formal experience-related training20. In comparison with our nearest neighbours (see graph on next page), Lincoln had one of the highest proportions of residents employed in elementary occupations. Source: ONS (2013)

19

ONS (2013) UK Business: Activity, Size and Location 2013 20

ONS (2013) ONS SOC Specific Unit: 9. Elementary Occupations

29

Proportion of Residents in Employment working in Elementary Occupations

11.9% 12.0% 12.2% 12.3% 12.5% 12.5% 12.7% 12.7%

13.8%14.3%

14.7% 15.2%15.1%

13.2%

11.5%11.4%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Ste

venag

e

Wyr

e For

est

Worc

ester

Glouce

ster

Cann

ock Chas

e

Cope

land

Ches

terfi

eld

Exe

ter

Redd

itch

Bur

nley

Carli

sle

Pre

ston

Ipsw

ich

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Linc

oln

Man

sfie

ld

District

Pro

po

rtio

n

Source: ONS (2013)

30

9. Health

9.1 Male life expectancy

Lincoln had one of the lowest male life expectancies amongst our nearest neighbours. The difference between Lincoln and the highest performing area, Wellingborough, was 2.3 years; putting Lincoln 2.9% behind Wellingborough. Lincoln’s male life expectancy had seen year on year increases, although between 2008-10 and 2009-11, it remained static21.

Male Life Expectancy in Lincoln in 2009-11

77.2 77.2 77.3

77.9 78.078.2

79.4 79.579.178.978.778.678.678.5

77.7

75.6

73.0

74.0

75.0

76.0

77.0

78.0

79.0

80.0

Bur

nley

Pre

ston

Linc

oln

Ches

terfi

eld

Glouce

ster

Man

sfie

ld

Cope

land

Carli

sle

Cann

ock Chas

e

Wyr

e For

est

Worc

ester

Redd

itch

Ipsw

ich

Ste

venag

e

Exe

ter

Wellin

gboro

ugh

District

Ye

ars

Source: DoH (2013)

21

DoH (2013) Local Authority Profiles

31

9.2 Female life expectancy

Lincoln also had one of the lowest female life expectancies amongst our nearest neighbours. The difference between Lincoln and the highest performing district, Exeter, was 1.5 years; putting Lincoln 1.8% behind Exeter. Female life expectancy in Lincoln increased over recent years, and from 2008-10 to 2009-11, life expectancy increased from 81.3 years to 81.9 years22.

Female Life Expectancy in Lincoln in 2009-11

80.6

81.0

81.9 81.9

82.5

83.483.283.283.2

83.182.882.882.882.7

81.681.2

79.0

79.5

80.0

80.5

81.0

81.5

82.0

82.5

83.0

83.5

84.0

Bur

nley

Pre

ston

Cope

land

Man

sfie

ld

Linc

oln

Carli

sle

Ches

terfi

eld

Cann

ock Chas

e

Wyr

e For

est

Redd

itch

Ste

venag

e

Glouce

ster

Worc

ester

Ipsw

ich

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Exe

ter

District

Years

Source: DoH (2013)

22

DoH (2013) Local Authority Profiles

32

9.3 Heart disease and stroke

Lincoln had one of the highest rates of early deaths due to heart disease and stroke (71.9 early deaths per 100,000 people). Despite this, Lincoln’s rate was still substantially lower than the highest rates of 90.8 and 82.1 in Burnley and Preston respectively. Despite this relatively high rank, early deaths from heart disease and stroke reduced in recent years, from a rate of 108.6 in 2004-0623.

The Rate of Early Deaths from Heart Disease and Stroke per 100,000

people in 2009-11

58.0 58.1 59.2

69.4

90.882.175.773.571.9

67.967.865.365.363.361.9

50.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Exete

r

Steve

nage

Can

nock

Cha

se

Wel

lingb

orou

gh

Wyr

e For

est

Ipsw

ich

Car

lisle

Red

ditc

h

Glo

ucest

er

Wor

cester

Mans

field

Linc

oln

Cop

elan

d

Che

ster

field

Preston

Burnley

District

Years

Source: DoH (2013)

23

DoH (2013) Local Authority Profiles

33

9.4 Cancer

With a rate of 132 per 100,000 people, Lincoln had the second highest rate of early deaths from cancer, falling just behind Burnley with a rate of 140 per 100,000 people. Lincoln’s rate of early deaths due to cancer remained relatively constant in recent years, fluctuating between rates of 129 and 135 since 2004-0624.

The Rate of Early Deaths from Cancer per 100,000 people in 2009-11*

105 105105

118

140132127120119118116115112109

106100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Wel

lingb

orou

gh

Wor

cester

Red

ditc

h

Wyr

e For

est

Ipsw

ich

Ste

vena

ge

Exe

ter

Car

lisle

Can

nock

Cha

se

Man

sfield

Glo

uces

ter

Cop

elan

d

Che

ster

field

Pre

ston

Linc

oln

Bur

nley

District

Years

Source: DoH (2013) *Decimal places were removed from the graph for readability

24

DoH (2013) Local Authority Profiles

34

9.5 Self harm

With a rate of 485 per 100,000 people, Lincoln had the highest rate of hospital stays for self harm amongst our nearest neighbours25.

The Rate of Hospital Stays for Self Harm per 100,000 people in 2011/12

218231

211

318

485

411393381

346297285282274259

231

129

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Steve

nage

Wel

lingb

orou

gh

Can

nock

Cha

se

Ipsw

ich

Red

ditc

h

Man

sfield

Wor

cester

Wyr

e For

est

Car

lisle

Exete

r

Preston

Glo

ucest

er

Cop

elan

d

Burnle

y

Che

ster

field

Linco

ln

District

Ye

ars

Source: DoH (2013) *Decimal places were removed from the graph for readability

25

DoH (2013) Local Authority Profiles

*

35

9.6 Alcohol

With a rate of 2,241 per 100,000 people, Lincoln’s rate of alcohol related hospital stays was relatively high in comparison to our nearest neighbours.

The Rate of Alcohol Related Hospital Stays per 100,000 people in

2011/12

1792 18481659

2185

32452875

24172290224120482043200919731882

1868

1470

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Steve

nage

Wel

lingb

orou

gh

Wyr

e For

est

Wor

cester

Exete

r

Can

nock

Cha

se

Red

ditc

h

Ipsw

ich

Glo

uces

ter

Car

lisle

Cop

elan

d

Linc

oln

Man

sfield

Che

ster

field

Preston

Burnley

District

Ye

ars

Source: DoH (2013) *Decimal places were removed from the graph for readability

9.7 Drugs

Lincoln had the highest estimated rate of opiate and/or crack cocaine users amongst our nearest neighbours, with an estimated rate of 24.9 users per 1,000 people. Lincoln’s rate was 33.2% higher than the next highest ranking authority (Burnley)26.

Estimated users of opiate and / or crack cocaine aged 15-64, crude rate

per 1,000 people in 2010/11

7.1 7.56.1

12.5

24.9

18.717.8

14.113.7

10.910.79.28.78.38.3

5.8

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Red

ditch

Cop

eland

Wyr

e For

est

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Exete

r

Steve

nage

Can

nock

Chase

Ipsw

ich

Car

lisle

Preston

Glo

ucest

er

Che

sterfi

eld

Worc

ester

Mans

field

Burnle

y

Linco

ln

District

Years

Source: DoH (2013)

26

DoH (2013) Local Authority Profiles

*

36

9.8 Obesity

Lincoln’s high rate of obesity amongst Year 6s (22.9%) was similar to the estimated proportion of obese adults (23.9%). Nevertheless, in terms of ranking, Lincoln’s Year 6 obesity rate was much higher, in relative terms with our nearest neighbours, than the city’s estimated adult obesity rate27.

Proportion of School Children in Year 6 estimated to be Obese in

2011/12

16.4 17.116.4

21.7

24.722.922.922.522.519.519.519.119.018.818.6

16.3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Pre

ston

Exete

r

Ste

venag

e

Redd

itch

Carli

sle

Ipsw

ich

Worc

ester

Man

sfie

ld

Ches

terfi

eld

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Glouce

ster

Bur

nley

Wyr

e For

est

Linc

oln

Cann

ock Chas

e

Cope

land

District

Years

Source: DoH (2013)

Proportion of Adults estimated to be Obese in 2006-2008

23.6 24.1

21.7

26.529.128.627.927.726.9

26.025.725.624.524.524.3

20.8

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Pre

ston

Exe

ter

Linc

oln

Worc

ester

Carli

sle

Ipsw

ich

Burnle

y

Man

sfie

ld

Cope

land

Ste

venag

e

Ches

terfi

eld

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Wyr

e For

est

Glouce

ster

Redd

itch

Cann

ock Chas

e

District

Years

Source: DoH (2013)

27

DoH (2013) Local Authority Profiles

37

9.9 Suicide and undetermined injury

Lincoln had the highest rate of deaths from suicide and undetermined injury amongst our nearest neighbours. The suicide rate in Lincoln was double the regional average (7.4), and meant Lincoln was the worst ranking local authority in England. In real terms, this accounted for 39 deaths due to suicide and undetermined injury in 2008-1028.

Rate of Mortality from Suicide and Undetermined Injury per 100,000

people to 2008-10

4.6

6.5

7.6 7.88.2

9.710.5 10.6 10.7

11.612.1

12.6

15.2

7.07.3 7.5

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Ste

venag

e

Cheste

rfield

Wyr

e For

est

Man

sfie

ld

Worc

ester

Exe

ter

Cope

land

Bur

nley

Carli

sle

Ipsw

ich

Cann

ock Chas

e

Redd

itch

Glouce

ster

Pre

ston

Linc

oln

District

Rate

Source: DoH (2013)

28

DoH (2013) Local Authority Profiles

38

9.10 Injuries to children

With a rate of 195.5 injuries in children per 10,000 children, Lincoln’s rate was slightly behind Burnley – the highest ranking authority for this indicator amongst our nearest neighbours29.

Rate of Hospital Admissions for Uninentional and Delibate Injuries

in Children aged 0-17 Years per 10,000 people aged 0-17 in 2011/12

195.5

123.2122.7121.7113.2111.1108.5108.5

99.698.998.3

165.0164.5

180.8179.2

205.5

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Glouce

ster

Wyr

e For

est

Exe

ter

Carli

sle

Ipsw

ich

Man

sfie

ld

Ches

terfi

eld

Worc

ester

Redd

itch

Pre

ston

Cope

land

Cann

ock Chas

e

Ste

venag

e

Linc

oln

Bur

nley

District

Ra

te

Source: PH England (2013)

29

PH England (2013) Violence Profiles

39

10. Crime The number of offences in Lincoln reduced from 15,127 in 2002/03 to 9,780 in 2012/13; this was a decrease of 35.3%.

Number of Offences in Lincoln

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

Year

Nu

mb

er

Source: ONS (2013)

This substantial decrease in offences was reflective of other large decreases across our nearest neighbours. Lincoln had the fifth lowest proportionate decrease30.

Proportionate Decrease in Number of Offences between 2002/03 and

2012/13

20.6%

28.2%29.6%

48.9%52.3%

60.4%

45.6%41.9%41.6%41.2%39.0%38.8%38.3%

36.6%35.3%

34.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Ipsw

ich

Burnle

y

Ste

venag

e

Cann

ock Chas

e

Linc

oln

Exe

ter

Wyr

e For

est

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Carli

sle

Pre

ston

Cope

land

Worc

ester

Glouce

ster

Redd

itch

Ches

terfi

eld

Man

sfie

ld

District

Pro

po

rtio

nate

Decre

ase

Source: ONS (2013)

30

ONS (2013) Offences

40

Number of Offences in Lincoln in 2012/13

1,329

348

142 137

745

1,768

156

2

639

820868

11269

431

60

482635

1,037

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

All ot

her t

heft offe

nces

Bicyc

le th

eft

Crim

inal d

amag

e an

d arson

Dom

estic b

urglar

y

Dru

g of

fenc

es

Fraud

offe

nces

Hom

icide

Misce

llane

ous c

rimes

aga

inst soc

iety

Non-

dom

estic

bur

glar

y

Pos

sess

ion o

f wea

pons

offe

nces

Pub

lic o

rder

offe

nces

Robb

ery

Sex

ual o

ffenc

es

Sho

pliftin

g

Theft

from th

e pe

rson

Veh

icle o

ffenc

es

Violenc

e with

inju

ry

Violenc

e with

out inju

ry

Offence

Nu

mb

er

When we look at the types of offences committed in Lincoln, shoplifting (1,768 offences), criminal damage and arson (1,329) ‘other’ theft offences (1,037) and vehicle offences (868) were the most common offence types31. Source: ONS (2013)

31

ONS (2013) Offences

41

11. Emissions

11.1 City Council Emissions

In 2008/09 the city council C02 equivalent emissions estimate was 2,502 tonnes. In 2012/13, this had reduced by 25.4% to 1,866 tonnes. This reduction was largely because of projects carried out across the city council, which had contributed to reducing our energy usage. The figures not only included services provided directly by the city council, but also services that had been contracted to external providers, such as Cory and Active Nation. As part of the city council’s commitment to the environment, electricity used by the city council comes from a Green Tariff (this does not necessarily include electricity used by contractors). In 2008/09, renewable energy from a Green Tariff accounted for 50.2% of city council emissions. This saw a reduction in 2011/12 to 44.5% because of a significant decrease in electricity usage (resulting in proportionately less C02 coming from a Green Tariff). In 2012/13, the estimated proportion increased to 52.3%, a similar proportion to two years previous32.

Total Tonnes of C02 Equivalent Emissions of the City Council

2,502

2,1682,062 2,016

1,866

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Year

To

nn

es

of

C0

2

Source: City of Lincoln Council (2012)

Proportion of City Council Emissions Attributable to a Green

Tarrif

50.2%50.6%

52.2%

44.5%

52.3%

40.0%

42.0%

44.0%

46.0%

48.0%

50.0%

52.0%

54.0%

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Year

Pro

po

rtio

n

Source: City of Lincoln Council (2012)

32

City of Lincoln Council (2013) Emissions

42

11.2 Citywide Emissions

There were an estimated 4.7 tonnes of C02 emissions in Lincoln per capita. This showed a reduction from previous years, and the first time (since 2005 – the earliest point data was available for) it has dipped below 5.0 tonnes per capita. Most emissions in the city came from the industry and commercial sectors, with domestic usage appearing as the second most common cause of emissions. Lincolns usage per capita was amongst the lowest of our nearest neighbours33.

Tonnes of C02 Emissions per Capita in Lincoln

6.2 6.15.9 5.8

5.05.2

4.7

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

To

nn

es p

er

Cap

ita

Source: Ricardo-AEA, cited by Department for Energy and Climate Change (2013)

Estimated Tonnes of C02 Emissions by Sector

205.5

167.3

62.0

1.5-

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Industry and

Commercial Total

Domestic Total Transport Total N. LULUCF Net

Emissions

Sector

To

nn

es

LULUCF = Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Source: Ricardo-AEA, cited by Department for Energy and Climate Change (2013)

33

Ricardo-AEA, cited by Department for Energy and Climate Change (2013) Local CO2 emission estimates

43

Tonnes of C02 Emissions per Capita

4.2

4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.3

5.96.3

8.2

5.6 5.7

4.4 4.5

6.5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Ipsw

ich

Cope

land

Man

sfie

ld

Linc

oln

Cann

ock Chas

e

Glouce

ster

Exe

ter

Worc

ester

Redd

itch

Bur

nley

Ches

terfi

eld

Wyr

e For

est

Ste

venag

e

Pre

ston

Wellin

gboro

ugh

Carli

sle

District

To

nn

es p

er

Cap

ita

Source: Ricardo-AEA, cited by Department for Energy and Climate Change (2013)

44

12. Summary Points

12.1 Population

• Lincoln’s population grew considerably over the last three decades, from 76,800 in 1982, to 94,600 residents in 2012. Our population increase over the last decade represented one of the largest experienced amongst our nearest neighbours.

• Students played a large part in the city’s population growth, with almost 12,000 residents aged 20-24. Proportionately, this age group was one of the largest amongst our nearest neighbours.

• The inflow of migrant workers, particularly from central and eastern Europe, was also likely to have had an impact on the growth of the city’s population.

12.2 Poverty

• In 2011, there were 4,490 children in Lincoln living in low-income families, accounting for 23.8% of children. The majority were in lone parent families, with numbers skewed towards younger children. Lincoln ranked second highest for this amongst our nearest neighbours.

• There were three areas in Lincoln that featured within the most 5% of deprived areas in England for income deprivation affecting children. These were western Birchwood, Boultham Moor, and St. Giles.

• There were 6,687 households estimated to be in fuel poverty in Lincoln. Highest numbers of fuel poor households were in Carholme, Abbey and Park. Lincoln had the highest fuel poverty rate amongst our nearest neighbours.

• There were three areas in Lincoln that featured amongst the most 5% of deprived areas in England for income deprivation affecting older people. These were an area of St. Giles, Boultham Moor, and an area to the very north east of Boultham ward close to the city centre.

12.3 Educational attainment

• Educational attainment remained lower than county rates, with the gap between Lincoln and Lincolnshire being widest at Key Stage 4. There appeared to be a particular issue in the city with English and Maths at Key Stage 4.

• In Lincoln, evidence suggested children eligible for free school meals were likely to have lower Key Stage 4 attainment, and higher school absence, than their more affluent peers.

45

12.4 Worklessness

• There were 8,530 residents in Lincoln experiencing worklessness. The majority were claimants of Employment and Support Allowance, and Incapacity Benefits. People on unemployment benefit accounted for just over one third.

• The unemployment claimant rate in the city (4.2%) was relatively high in comparison to regional and national rates. It also increased at a faster pace than the national rate, scoring 1.2 percentage points above the national rate in October 2013. Lincoln had one of the highest unemployment claimant rates amongst our nearest neighbours.

12.5 Lincoln economy

• Of the 3,250 local units and PAYE based enterprises in Lincoln, 18.0% were in the retail sector, followed by 10.5% in the health sector, and 9.4% in the construction sector. Lincoln’s reliance on the retail sector was the highest amongst our nearest neighbours.

• The majority of businesses in the city employed 0-4 employees.

• The two most prominent occupation types for employed Lincoln residents were elementary occupations and professional occupations. Lincoln’s reliance on routine-task elementary occupations was second highest amongst our nearest neighbours.

12.6 Health

• Both male and female life expectancies were low in comparison to our nearest neighbours. Although female life expectancy had seen a recent improvement, male life expectancy has remained static.

• Early deaths due to heart disease and stroke reduced significantly over the last few years, although Lincoln still ranked high amongst our nearest neighbours.

• The early deaths due to cancer rate fluctuated over the last few years, neither particularly improving or getting worse. Lincoln had the second highest rate amongst our nearest neighbours.

• Lincoln had the highest rate of hospital stays for self harm amongst our nearest neighbours, and the highest rate of deaths from suicide and undetermined injury.

• Hospital stays due to alcohol was relatively high compared to our nearest neighbours, and the rate of drug misuse was estimated to be the highest.

• The rate of hospital admissions due to deliberate or unintentional injuries to children was also high, with Lincoln having the second highest rate amongst our nearest neighbours.

46

12.7 Crime

• The number of offences in Lincoln reduced from 15,127 in 2002/03 to 9,780 in 2012/13; this was a decrease of 35.3%. This substantial decrease in offences was reflective of other large decreases across our nearest neighbours. Lincoln had the fifth lowest proportionate decrease.

• Shoplifting (1,768 offences), criminal damage and arson (1,329) ‘other’ theft offences (1,037) and vehicle offences (868) were the most common offence types.

12.8 Emissions

• From 2008/09 to 2012/13, the C02 equivalent emissions estimate reduced by 25.4% to 1,866 tonnes. This reduction was largely because of projects carried out across the city council that have contributed to reducing our energy usage.

• In 2008/09, renewable energy from a Green Tariff accounted for 50.2% of city council emissions. In 2012/13, the estimated proportion increased to 52.3%, a similar proportion to two years previous.

• There were an estimated 4.7 tonnes of C02 emissions in Lincoln per capita. This showed a reduction from previous years, and the first time (since 2005 – the earliest point data was provided for) it had dipped below 5.0 tonnes per capita.

• Most emissions in the city came from the industry and commercial sectors, with domestic usage appearing as the second most common cause for emissions. Our usage was amongst the lowest of our nearest neighbours.