Comparaciones en las puntuaciones de depresión entre los distintos grupos de

6.18.1 Hanley East and Joiners Square has a young population with a greater proportion of residents aged 16-44 years and 60 years and over.

6.18.2 The ethnic profile of Hanley East and Joiners Square is mainly White British with a significant minority of residents from a Pakistani background.

6.18.3 Hanley East and Joiners Square has a higher proportion of single people and single person households compared to Stoke-on-Trent as a whole.

6.18.4 A greater proportion of residents have a limiting long term illness particularly those aged 35-59 years, than Stoke-on-Trent and national averages. The provision of unpaid care is similar to, and in some cases lower than, national averages therefore it is likely that some residents with long term illnesses don’t have family support and are reliant on themselves and support from social care services.

6.18.5 Hanley East and Joiners Square is one of the most deprived areas in Stoke-on- Trent.

6.18.6 The majority of accommodation in Hanley East and Joiners Square is terraced housing. The majority of residents live in privately owned/rented housing with the remainder renting from Stoke-on-Trent Borough Council or local housing associations.

6.18.7 The educational attainment of children in Hanley East and Joiners Square is higher than in Stoke-on-Trent as a whole.

6.18.8 Unemployment is higher than for Stoke-on-Trent and England and Wales. 6.18.9 Residents are generally working in less skilled/non-professional jobs and the

manufacturing sector.

6.18.10 The rates of crime particularly nuisance and disorder, criminal damage, violence, burglary and theft from motor vehicles are well above the Stoke-on- Trent average.

6.18.11 A range of shops and retail amenities are easily accessible and there are a range of culture and leisure facilities.

6.18.12 Rubbish and litter on streets and noisy neighbours are significant concerns.

7

Evidence on the Health Impacts of Housing

Led Regeneration Schemes

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This chapter provides a summary of the key evidence on the health impacts of housing led regeneration schemes.

7.1.2 A causal pathway diagram as shown in Figure 7.1 has been developed showing the likely pathways through which a housing led regeneration scheme could impact on health and wellbeing.

7.1.3 The aim of this rapid review of the literature was to identify and assess the significance of the key pathways of health impact for each of the six themes below which apply to the City Waterside East Masterplan Options.

7.1.4 The key themes of the City Waterside East regeneration scheme are: • Housing (New housing and housing improvements)

• Land use mix • Services • Connectivity • Employment sites • Greenspace • Climate change

Figure 7.1 Causal pathway diagram for the potential health impacts of the City Waterside East Regeneration Masterplan R E G E N E R A T I O N Key residents to consider: • Children • Women • Older people • Ethnic minorities • People with City Waterside East Masterplan Regeneration Improved resilience/immune functioning Improvement in physical fitness and

functioning Decrease in obesity Reduction in hypothermia related deaths Decrease in cardiovascular disease

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE REGENERATION

Access to high number of local amenities along/near

bus route

How construction phase is managed

Long term maintenance and management of improved physical infrastructure

Community development projects and activities i.e. social and

physical regeneration

High quality and detailed urban design and

masterplanning Decrease in some cancers Decrease in osteoporosis Decrease in exacerbations of respiratory Increased land use

mix New housing and

housing improvements

New local services and amenities

Adjacent employment sites

Encourages long term walking and cycling Improve thermal comfort/ reduce heating costs

Less damp and mould/less particulates

No or weak evidence Reasonable or strong evidence Improved connectivity Involvement, support and ownership of the process

by local residents

Reduce home accidents

Improvement in mental health and wellbeing Improved educational attainment

Less overcrowding

Financial hardship/poorer residents forced out Disruption to social networks

Reduction in outdoor air pollution Reduction in congestion

Improved access to jobs, education, services, cultural and leisure amenities

Traffic injury

Increase in community severance

Greater flexibility in managing work and family

Reduces social mix as higher income groups are discouraged from settling

Reduction or increase in anti-social behaviour Increase in income & self esteem

Increased and improved open and

greenspace Positive impact

Negative impact Uncertain impact

Efficient heating and insulation Improved building fabric

More and better quality indoor space Modern safety devices and appliances

Increase in costs of renting/ buying homes

Relocation (temporary likely to benegative)

Increase in social interaction/ play Increase in neighbourhood pride Social exclusion for those not benefiting

Less car trips

Improved social contact and increased opportunities for community activities Improved access to services and amenities

Improved public transport, cycling and walking routes

Increase in local job opportunities

Lowers visual, aesthetic, monetary value of residential neighbourhood

Restorative and relaxing – visually and through using open/greenspace Reduction in ambient heat, flood risk and filters air/noise/soil pollution

Increase in cars/lorry traffic Increase in noise/air pollution More nuisance noise

Lowers house values

Increase in community cohesion & self esteem

Increase in social capital

Improved access to fresh food/ recreation

Physical regeneration overall