Nottingham City Joint Strategic Needs Assessment May 2018

Transcription

1 Nottingham City Joint Strategic Needs Assessment May 2018 Demography and Social & Environmental Context - Introduction... 2 Part 1: DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT... 2 Summary... 2 Current Situation... 3 Total population... 3 Age... 4 Gender... 6 Births... 6 Ethnic groups... 7 Migration Population turnover ( churn ) Influence on health and well-being Total population Age and gender Ethnic groups Projections over 3 to 5 and 5 to 10 years Total population Age Births Ethnic groups Migration Part 2: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT Introduction Summary Current Situation Deprivation Mosaic Classification Employment Income Qualifications Housing Geographical accessibility Access to hospitals and GPs by public transport Influence on Health and wellbeing Social Gradient Income Education Housing Crime Employment Transport and Access Projections over 3 to 5 and 5 to 10 years Deprivation Mosaic Classification Employment Qualifications Appendix 1: Ward and Care Delivery Group Areas Map Appendix 2: Mosaic Classification Appendix 3: Profile of Nottingham Postcodes compared to England households using Mosaic Public Sector 2014 Types Appendix 4: Mosaic map Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 1 of 32

2 Nottingham City Joint Strategic Needs Assessment May 2018 Demography and Social & Environmental Context - Introduction This chapter considers Nottingham s population and how demographic factors impact on the health and wellbeing of its residents and influence the needs and demand for health and social care services. It also considers the impact of estimated population changes in the future. Where these factors relate to specific health and wellbeing issues, they are addressed within the relevant chapters in the body of the JSNA. It is structured under the headings: Current Situation; Influence on Health and Wellbeing Projections Over 3 to 5 and 5 to 10 Years. Part 1: DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT Summary The latest estimate of the City s resident population is 324,800, having risen by 5,800 since The population is projected to rise to 342,000 in 2026 and to 363,700 in International migration (recently from Eastern Europe) and natural change (the excess of births over deaths) are the main reasons for the population growth recently. 29% of the population are aged 18 to 29 full-time university students comprise about 1 in 8 of the population. The number of births has remained static in the past few years, but is higher than the start of the 2000 s. Compared to some other Local Authority areas, Nottingham is unlikely to show much ageing or population growth in the short term to The 2011 Census shows 35% of the population as being from BME groups; an increase from 19% in Despite its young age-structure, Nottingham has a higher than average rate of people with a limiting long-term illness or disability. White ethnic groups have higher rates of long term health problems or disability overall, although this varies with age, with some BME groups having higher rates in the older age-groups. The City gains young adults due to migration, both international and within Britain, whilst losing all other age groups - this includes losing families with children as they move to the surrounding districts. There is a high turnover of population 21% of people changed address in the year before the 2011 Census. Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 2 of 32

3 Current Situation When looking at the information in this chapter, it is important to bear in mind that the City s demographic profile is heavily influenced by its being largely the inner urban part of the wider Nottingham Core City Area. Total population The revised Mid-Year Estimate (MYE) gives a population of 324,800, an increase of 5,800 on the revised 2015 MYE and a total increase of 21,000 since the 2011 MYE. Between 2015 and 2016, the City gained people through natural change (the excess of births over deaths), gained people due to international migration, and lost people through internal migration (within the country). The City Council is responsible for providing services to its residents. Public health (based within the City Council from April 2013) and the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) are responsible for ensuring provision of services to all of those who are registered with a City GP regardless of where they live (379,277 at April ), but also have a responsibility for the health of City residents at a population level. This chapter has the ONS resident population as its basis, but the limitations of this data should be borne in mind. The main reasons for the increase in population over the last decade continue to be international migration, and the natural increase in the population 3. The latter reason is due to both an increase in births (see below) and a reduction in the number of deaths. These are probably more due to changes in the age-structure rather than an increase in family size or improvements in mortality rates. Although around 26,000 people move into Nottingham each year from the rest of the country (the majority of whom will be students), a similar, slightly greater number moves out so net internal migration does not actually contribute to population growth. Figure 1: Components of change, Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Estimates 2016, March PLEASE NOTE: MYEs from 2012 to 2016 were revised in 2018 due to an improved method for distributing migration. 2 Public Health Nottingham City data. Only includes patients registered with City GPs, not patients resident in City but registered with County GPs. Source: NHS Digital. 3 Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Estimates & components of change data Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 3 of 32

4 The 2% increase in population between 2015 and 2016 was nearly 2,900 higher than the average for the previous 10 years, mainly due to higher international migration and a small decrease in the number of people leaving to other areas of the country. The wards which have had the greatest population increase between 2015 and 2016 are Bridge and St Ann s, which will be in part due to new student properties within, and on the edge of, the City Centre. Dunkirk and Lenton is the only ward where the population has declined slightly since By Care Delivery Group area (the same boundaries as Area Committees), the greatest increases have been in Area 6 and Area 8, encompassing parts of the City Centre area in St Ann s and Bridge respectively both with more than 1,400 people since The ONS Mid-Year Estimates only include people staying in the country for longer than twelve months as migrants. Clearly, those staying for shorter lengths of time may also make calls upon health and other services and may register with a GP. ONS publish estimates of people staying for between three and twelve months for the purposes of employment or study, at local authority level 4, which give an indication of the scale of short term migration. In the year to mid-2016, there were an estimated 4,620 short term international migrants in Nottingham, a significant increase on 3,080 the previous year. Of these, the majority (3,900) were estimated to be students, which means that Nottingham has the second highest number of short term migrant students in the country outside of London (behind Birmingham). Note that these figures use the specific UN definition of short term migrant and that the estimates do not include visitors who stay for less than a month. Note also that these figures are derived from the International Passenger Survey and as such confidence limits apply which will be quite large at the local authority level. As part of the Census 2011 release of data, ONS have also published estimates of non-uk born short term residents those staying less than 12 months. In Nottingham there were estimated to be 3,900 non-uk short term residents - the 4 th highest level outside of London, behind Birmingham, Manchester and Oxford. Of these, 3,100 were students. These people are not included as part of the main outputs of Census data which use usual resident population as their base. 5 Age See here for Citywide, Ward and Lower Super Output Areas population estimates by age and sex The latest (revised 2016) MYEs show that the City has a very high proportion (29.3%) of people aged 18 to This is due largely, but not entirely, to the presence of the two universities; full-time university students account for approximately 1 in 8 of the population. The percentages in other age-groups are lower than the average for England, with the proportions of those between 65 and 79 being particularly low. The proportion of children is lower than the England average, although not for under- 4s. This may indicate that birth-rates are comparatively high, 4 Short-term International Migration Estimates for Local Authorities, igration/datasets/shorttermmigrationestimatesforenglandandwalesstim07inflowsbylocalauthori tybymainreasonformigration 5 Office for National Statistics Census 2011: Number of non-uk born short-term residents by local authorities in England and Wales 6 Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Estimates 2016, (revised March 2018) Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 4 of 32

5 but also that a considerable number of children leave the City before starting school (see below). Of the 83,180 people aged 50+ living in the City, 45,640 (55%) are under 65, 19,950 (24%) aged from 65 to 74, and 17,580 (22%) aged 75 and over. Figure 2: Age Structure of Nottingham (bars) and England (lines), plus Female % of Total Population Male Source: ONS Mid Year Estimates, 2016 This unbalanced age-structure has become more noticeable in recent years, with growth of the universities and international migrants generally being young adults. Also, 38% of new housing since 2002 is in the city centre, and nearly three quarters of all new housing across the City (excluding purpose built student properties) are dwellings with 1 or 2 bedrooms. This type of housing tends to appeal to younger, smaller households. In age-structure terms 7, the City can broadly be categorised into three area types: Those with a concentration of younger adults, including students primarily the city centre, Lenton, Dunkirk, Radford, The Arboretum and Hyson Green. Those with a concentration of older people, many of whom have lived in their houses since they were built primarily Bilborough, Beechdale, Clifton and parts of Wollaton. Other, more mixed areas, including Aspley ward in Area 3, which has notably more children. 7 Office for National Statistics 2016 Mid Year Estimates, Note that ward-level estimates have not yet been revised in line with the Local Authority estimates, but the %s will be relatively similar especially in the older age groups. Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 5 of 32

6 Taking older people (aged 50+) as a whole, the highest percentages (of a ward s total population) are in Bulwell Forest (40.1%), Wollaton West (39.0%) and Clifton South (37.6%), but the pattern for the age-groups is sometimes very different. Bulwell Forest, Clifton South and Wollaton West have the highest proportions in their 50s (13.8%, 12.9% and 13.1% respectively). Bulwell Forest (12.3%) and Wollaton West (11.3%) have the highest percentages in their 60s, and Bulwell Forest has the highest proportion in their 70s (9.2%), followed by Wollaton West (8.3%). Clifton South (7.6%) is the highest for those aged 80 and over. By CDG Area, Area 1 has the highest proportions of older people in their, 50 s, 60 s and 70 s, with the over 50 s as a whole constituting over a third of the area (35.9%) Gender See here for Citywide population estimates by age and sex The gender balance generally follows national patterns. More boys are born than girls (about 103 boys for every 100 girls), but as men tend to die younger, for agegroups aged over 70 there are more women than men; there are twice as many women aged 85 and over as men 8. However, the percentage of men aged 25 to 39 is unusually high in Nottingham (e.g. 117 men to every 100 women in the 35 to 39 agegroup). This is particularly the case in some City Centre and inner city areas, including those with high proportions of students or significant numbers of Houses in Multiple Occupation which may be favoured by single, and often male, migrant workers. Births See here for figures on the numbers of births The number of births to mothers living in the City has stayed relatively stable in recent years, but from a low base. There were slightly fewer live births in 2016 (4,297) than in 2015 (4,308), and the number was much higher than at the low-point of 2000, where there were 3,275 live births 9. The number in 2010 (4,477) was the highest since before 1977 (the earliest date for which information is available). The only period in the last 35 years when it was close to this was between 1989 and Office for National Statistics 2016 Mid-Year Estimates, June Office for National Statistics Births data (VS Tables). Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 6 of 32

7 Figure 3: Births, ,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Live Births (1977 to 2016) Nottingham City Source: ONS VS Tables Changes to the number of births are affected much more by the number of women of child-bearing age than any changes in family-size. There is no information locally to suggest that the average completed family-size (i.e. the total number of children born to a woman during her lifetime) is increasing. The Office for National Statistics no longer produce ward level births data, so the most recent figures are from These show that Aspley and Berridge were the wards with the greatest number of births (357 and 365 respectively in 2014). Both wards have high numbers of females aged The wards which had the lowest numbers of births were those with higher numbers of students with Dunkirk & Lenton and Wollaton East & Lenton Abbey having the lowest with 43 and 59 respectively in In 2016, 37.9% of births were to mothers born outside of the UK, a slight increase on 2015 (37.1%), and two and a half times the percentage in 2001 (14.5%) 11. Ethnic groups See here for Census profiles including ethnic group populations by Ward (2011 Census) Note: The only data available on ethnic groups is from the 2011 Census, as the Office for National Statistics no longer produce intercensal estimates of ethnicity. The large majority of people who live in Nottingham are White British. In some of the outer estates, in 2011, 80% or more of the population were White British in Clifton South the figure was 89%. 10 Office for National Statistics Ward vital statistics data (VS4 Tables). 11 Office for National Statistics Live births by country of birth of mother and area of usual residence 2016: datasets/birthsbyareaofusualresidenceofmotheruk Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 7 of 32

8 According to the 2011 Census, 34.6% of the City s population are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups, which are defined as everyone who is not White British. This is an increase from 19.0% in The number of people in the White British and White Irish ethnic groups fell between 2001 and 2011 with the White British group now making up 65.4% of the City s population compared to 81.1% in The number of people in every other ethnic group increased. The largest numerical increase was of nearly 21,000 in the Asian ethnic groups and the largest percentage increase was in the number of people from mixed ethnic groups which increased by nearly 12,000 people, 142.1%. Looking at the detailed ethnic groups, those showing the biggest increases were Other White (2.5% to 5.1%), Mixed - White and Black Caribbean (2% to 4%), Black African (0.5% to 3.2%), and Pakistani (3.6% to 5.5%). The largest groups other than White British are now Other White (5.1%) which will include large numbers of people from Poland - and Pakistani (5.5%). Figure 4: Ethnic Groups in Nottingham, 2001 and 2011 Ethnic Group in Nottingham, 2011 Census White British White (not White British) Mixed or multiple ethnicity Asian or Asian British Census Black/African/ Caribbean/Black British Other ethnic group 81.1 Source: ONS 2011 Census The City s age structure is generally influenced by the White British group, with most other ethnic groups having a younger age profile than the City average. The two exceptions to this are the White Irish and Black Caribbean groups which have much higher proportions of older people. The youngest age profiles are amongst the mixed ethnic groups where 15-20% of people are aged under The population of pupils in the City s educational provision also shows a varied picture, with 53.1% of pupils being members of BME groups (non White-British) in January This proportion has been rising in recent years from 37% in Over a quarter (26%) of all pupils have a first language that is not English. This has risen from 18% in Analysis of the 2011 Census shows that the main BME groups have quite different geographical distributions 14 and in three Nottingham wards: Berridge; Leen Valley; and St Ann s, the proportion of the population who are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups is more than 50% Census, Ethnicity Topic Note 13 Nottingham City Council Children and Families Department School Census data for January Office for National Statistics Small area ethnicity data from the 2011 Census Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 8 of 32

9 Figure 5: Ethnic Group by Ward and Care Delivery Group Area, 2011 Source: ONS 2011 Census The Pakistani group was quite highly concentrated in Berridge, Dales and Leen Valley ward; whereas the Indian group was more widely spread, with the greatest numbers being in Radford & Park and Wollaton West. The Black and Black British group was also quite widely spread, but had concentrations in Aspley, St Ann s and Radford & Park. The Mixed group, taken as a whole, was very widely spread around the City. The other White group, which includes people from the EU Accession countries, and notably Poland, are concentrated around Berridge, Radford & Park, Dales, St Ann s and Bridge wards. Evidence from a survey of migrants from the EU Accession countries 15 suggests that the main concentrations are in Sneinton/St Ann s and Hyson Green/Radford. 15 A Study of A2 and A8 Migrants in Nottingham, University of Salford (for One Nottingham), April tle=nottingham_migrant_worker_survey_-_main_report Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 9 of 32

10 Migration Three distinct types of migration have a significant effect upon the City: Migration both into and out of the City from elsewhere in the UK, which tends to be young adults, particularly students; Migration from the City to the surrounding districts, including families with children or people likely to start families soon; Migration into the City from outside the UK, often of young adults, particularly recently from Poland. Taken together, these, and other categories of migration, mean that there is a considerable amount of churn in the City s population. In the year to mid-2016, Nottingham had a net loss of 160 people due to internal migration (i.e. 25,860 moved into the City and 26,020 moved out to other districts in England) 16. The only age-group which the City gains, in net terms, from the rest of the country is 16 to 24. It loses all other age-groups. The revised 2016 MYEs do not include detailed data on migration between local authorities, but the original 2016 MYEs suggest that the City lost 2,490 people in net terms to the other Greater Nottingham Districts (Ashfield, Broxtowe, Erewash, Gedling and Rushcliffe) in Movements were however by no means all one way, with 5,880 people coming into the City from these Districts and 8,370 people leaving. Of particular interest is the net loss of 550 children aged under 16 from the City. Based on previous MYEs, over the whole period since 2001, the net loss due to internal migration was -19,740, but the net gain due to international migration was 55,280 (including asylum seekers), equivalent to around 17% of the population 18. The only source of information regarding the origins of these international migrants is National Insurance Registrations (NINos) 19. This is by no means comprehensive, but it gives a useful guide. Between March 2004 and March 2017, nearly 67,300 people from overseas living in the City had been granted NINos, 29,100 (43%) of them from the EU Accession states. Poland was easily the largest source of these people (18,600), but the next most important countries were the more traditional sources of India (5,100) and Pakistan (3,600). The number arriving from the EU Accession countries in 2016/17 was 2,530, a decrease on the previous year and on 2014/15 which saw the highest annual figure (3,330). The majority of these were from Poland (870) and Romania (1,080 - up from 970 on the previous year). The number arriving from outside of the EU Accession countries increased to 3,670 in 2016/17 from a recent low of 2,350 in 2012/ Office for National Statistics, Internal Migration by local authorities in England and Wales, Mid ibid. 18 Office for National Statistics, Mid-Year Population Estimates components of change. timates/datasets/populationestimatesrevisiontool 19 Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 10 of 32

11 Population turnover ( churn ) In total, according to the ONS, 32,900 people moved into the City in and 29,100 moved out. This is similar to previous years, and so the City continues to have a high population turnover every year. Internal (within the UK) and International migration in and out of the City is, however, only one component of the churn in population within the City. Movements within the City are also important and are particularly marked in some areas. The 2011 Census shows that, on Census day, 21% of people (over 64,000) in Nottingham had a different address to the previous year, compared with 12% in England as a whole 20. Of these, just over half had moved within the City and the remainder moved to Nottingham from elsewhere in the UK or abroad. Many of these movers will be students. The wards with the greatest turnover of population were those where students are concentrated (Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 56.5%, Dunkirk & Lenton 55.1%, Arboretum 43.3% and Radford & Park 48.6%). Around 30% of the population of Bridge and St. Ann s wards had moved in the last year although these wards also contain sizeable student populations. Bulwell Forest and Wollaton West have the most stable populations with 7.5% and 9% moving respectively. Influence on health and well-being Some differences in demographic factors result in expected inequalities in health and well-being, i.e. older people suffer more from ill-health than younger people. However, differences in health as a result of geography or ethnicity tend to be in the main the impact of a range of social and environmental factors (wider determinants of health). These inequalities are considered in the second part of this section and individual chapters within the JSNA. Total population The 2011 Census asked two questions about health, although they were phrased in a different way to those asked in the 2001 Census so direct comparisons cannot be made. In 2011, 9.1% of people said they were limited a lot in their day to day activities by a health problem or disability, with a further 9.1% limited a little, compared with 8.3% and 9.3% nationally. The difference is greater for working age adults Nottingham has 14.2% limited a lot or a little, compared to 12.7% nationally. 21 Nottingham had a higher percentage of people reporting bad or very bad health in % compared to 5.3% nationally, and a slightly lower proportion of people reporting that their health is good or very good 79.9% compared to 81.4%. This is despite the City having a comparatively young population Census, Origin and destination of migrants by age and sex Census Key Statistics. Table KS301 Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 11 of 32

12 Figure 6: Health of Nottingham residents, % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Nottingham England 0% Day-to-day activities not limited Day-to-day activities limited a little Day-to-day activities limited a lot Source: ONS 2011 Census Nottingham Very good health Fair health Very bad health England Good health Bad health In 2001, 20.1% of people reported having a limiting long term illness or disability (LLTI) compared with 17.9% for England. The percentage reporting that their health was not good was 11.0% compared with 9.0%. 22 Age and gender The 2011 Census shows a clear link between age and ill health, with the percentage with bad health or a long term disability rising with age. 23 For children aged under 16 just 4.7% are limited a lot or a little in their day to day activities by a long term health problem or disability and just 0.9% report bad or very bad health. Amongst older people, this rises to 62.6% and 20.8% of over 65s. With the exception of the student dominated age group, health in Nottingham is worse than the national average in each age group. The differences are small for the under 35s but increase for the age groups between 35 and 74. Differences get smaller again for the over 75 groups but the Nottingham figures remain higher than national ones.. Women are more likely to have a long term health problem or disability than men although the differences vary with age. For under 16s a higher percentage of males have a health problem, and between the ages of 16 and 24, men and women are equally as likely to have a health problem. From the age of 25 onwards, the gap increases with age with more women than men having health problems. Between 25 and 65, the biggest increases are in problems which limit daily activities a little but for the over 65s a higher proportion of women experience problems which limit their activities a lot. Ethnic groups The proportion of people with a long term health problem increases with age for each ethnic group, but there are large differences in the patterns for different ethnic groups. There is relatively little variation in the 0-15 age group. Variations start to become more pronounced in the group with 12.3% of people of mixed ethnicity having some kind of long term health problem compared to just 7.0% of the Asian/Asian British ethnic groups and 9.7% of the White groups. The large numbers of university students from Asian/Asian British ethnic groups may have an influence Census Census, Topic Note - Disability, Health and Carers Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 12 of 32

13 here as students are much less likely to have a long term health problem than the rest of the population. The largest variations are in the age group. Again the Mixed ethnicity groups have the highest proportion of people with a long term health problem, followed by the Asian/Asian British ethnic groups. The gap between the Mixed ethnicity group and the Black/Black British groups which have the lowest proportion is 12.7 percentage points. The differences between ethnic groups shrink again in the 65 and over age group although for the first time, the Asian/Asian British groups have the highest proportion of people with long term health problems (68.6%) and the White groups have the lowest proportion (62.2%). 24 Projections over 3 to 5 and 5 to 10 years Of the demographic factors which are being considered, the total population by age and gender is the only one for which there are statistical projections. For the others, the best that can be given is an indication of the likely direction and scale of change. For convenience, the 3 to 5 year period is referred to in this section as the short term and 5 to 10 years as the medium term. Total population See here for projections of the future population by age and sex. As in the recent past, the main determinants of future changes in the total population are house building; natural change (the excess of births over deaths); international migration; and the number of university students. The number of residential properties built in was the highest since the 1970s. Although the rate of building had slowed down more recently due to the recession, it is still at a higher level than it was in much of the 1990s, particularly if student housing is included. In the longer term it is anticipated that house building will rise again. In order to meet house building targets there will need to be a rise in the number of dwellings to about 1,000 per annum. 25 Future migration is addressed below, but it seems likely to continue to make a substantial contribution to the City s population. In terms of students, the number of students at the two universities has risen in recent years following a small decline between 2012 and Office for National Statistics (ONS) population projections are trend-based. At a time when there has been substantial population growth, this means that they can give unrealistically high projections for an area with tightly drawn boundaries like Nottingham City. Indeed, the 2010-based projections 26 showed the City s population as rising to 380,000 in 2035, an increase of 79,000 (26%) from 2010, an unrealistically high increase given the housebuilding which can be accommodated in the City Census, Topic Note - Disability, Health and Carers 25 The Aligned Core Strategy, adopted in September 2014, has an average net increase of 1,000 dwellings per annum (2011 to 2028). 26 Office for National Statistics, 2010-based Sub-national population projections, Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 13 of 32

14 The latest population projections are the 2016-based population projections, published in May 2018, an update to the previous 2014-based population projections. The ONS 2016-based population projections show the population of Nottingham rising from 324,800 in 2016 to 342,000 in 2026, an increase of 17,200 (5.3%), and to 363,700 in 2041, an increase of 38,900 (12%). While this is still a large increase, the trajectory is not dissimilar to that seen in projections commissioned for the Aligned Core Strategy 27 which controlled the future population to the likely housebuilding in the City, albeit from a higher starting point. The 2016 mid year estimate is 12,870 higher than the 2016 projected figure in the Aligned Core Strategy projections. By 2031, the 2016-based projections suggest the population will be 10,670 higher than projected in the Aligned Core Strategy projections. The wards showing the greatest population increase in the short term (over the next five years) are likely to be those with the most house-building. These are Bridge, Radford and Park, St Ann s, Bestwood and Clifton South. In some other wards (e.g. Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey, Clifton North, Aspley and Sherwood) the total population is likely to change comparatively little. Age The main changes in the age-structure are likely to reflect the current structure aging rather than the effects of migration, although high levels of international migration could further increase the number of young adults. The number of children (under 15's) is projected to increase by 4,100, with most growth in the short term, and static growth in the medium and long term. The age group is projected to see one of the largest numerical increases to 2041 although the band is projected to remain the largest group primarily due to the large student population in the City year olds could account for more than one in seven of the population by Numbers in the mid age groups and particularly people in their 40's are projected to stay relatively static between 2016 and 2041, with the group declining by 100. Two of the greatest numerical increases in Nottingham are projected in the and age group. In total, the age bands comprising the over 65's account for nearly half of the total numerical increase from The age bands comprising the over 70 s are projected to have the greatest percentage increases across the 25 year period, particularly the over 85s age band which is projected to be more than one and a half times the 2016 estimate. This growth is projected mainly in the later years and reflects increased life expectancy. The geographical distribution of those in the older age-groups, in the short to medium term, is likely to be determined by where the relevant cohorts are currently living i.e. those areas with the greatest numbers in the 50s now are likely to have most people in their 60s in ten years time. For example, using the 2016 ONS Estimates 28 as a base, it is likely that, at least in the short term, the highest numbers aged 80 and over will be in Bilborough, Wollaton West and the two Clifton wards. Bilborough, Wollaton West, Clifton South and Bulwell Forest wards are likely to have the highest numbers in their 70s at the same date. 27 Adopted September Office for National Statistics Ward Population Estimates 2016 Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 14 of 32

15 Compared to some other Local Authority areas, Nottingham is projected to show little ageing or population growth in the short term. This is in part due to the large student population, which results in a large amount of internal population churn but little long term effect on the population. Births After a few years where the number of births declined, followed by a slight increase between 2014 and 2015, this year the number of births has stayed relatively static. The number is likely to continue to be fairly high. Ethnic groups Given the changes in ethnic groups between the 2001 and 2011 Census, and the younger age profile of BME groups in the City, the percentage of the population in BME groups is likely to continue to rise. Migration Patterns of migration to and from other parts of the UK are likely to remain relatively similar in the short to medium term, apart possibly from in two respects: Although student movements are likely to remain broadly similar, as the numbers are not likely to continue increasing at the same rate as in the recent past the net effect on the total population could be smaller or, as with the last year, be a net loss; The Council s policy is to encourage families to stay in the City, by providing more family housing, improving schools etc. This could have the effect of reducing migration to the surrounding districts within the period. Migration flows from Eastern Europe have slowed down in recent years. In total 29,100 people from the EU Accession countries registered for a National Insurance Number in Nottingham since 2004, but, at the time of the 2011 Census there were only 9,800 people living in the City who were born in the EU Accession countries, suggesting many of those registering to work in the City have now moved elsewhere. At the start of 2014, Bulgarians and Romanians gained the same rights to work in the UK as other EU citizens. National Insurance Number data shows that in 2016/17, 1,075 Romanian and 195 Bulgarian migrant workers registered for a NiNo in Nottingham which was a large increase on the numbers in 2013/ and 80 respectively. It is impossible to predict how many more will register in Nottingham, but the 2011 Census shows that Nottingham does not currently have large communities of Bulgarians or Romanians however, so Nottingham may not be a destination for large numbers of migrants. Beyond that, changes to immigration policy, as will the performance of the British economy relative to other countries, may have more of an effect on the levels of migration from outside of the EU. Another unknown factor is where refugee populations might arise from as a result of conflicts etc. Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 15 of 32

16 Part 2: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT Introduction This section outlines some of the factors affecting the social and environmental context within which the population of Nottingham City lives. It focuses on deprivation in the City; the MOSAIC geo-demographic classification of Nottingham; and issues around housing, employment and qualifications. Some differences in health are unavoidable e.g. older people suffer more from illhealth than younger people, but many are reversible or preventable and the result of unfairness or inequality in circumstance, access to services including NHS provision, lifestyles and behaviours, themselves often determined by a range of social and environmental factors (wider determinants of health). These inequalities are considered in the second part of this section and individual chapters within the JSNA. Summary Nottingham is ranked 8 th most deprived district in England in the 2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), a relative decline on 20 th in the 2010 IMD. About a third of super output areas in the City are in the worst 10% nationally (IMD 2015). 34% of children and 25% of people aged 60 and over live in areas affected by income deprivation. Health is the Indices of Deprivation domain on which Nottingham does worst, followed by Education, Skills & Training. The dominant Mosaic groups in Nottingham are Groups J, L, M, O and N. The employment rate is comparatively low (57.4% in 2017) the number of university students only partially explains this. 7.7% of the population aged were claiming Employment and Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance in November 2017, compared with 5.5% nationally. 3.4% were unemployed (claiming Job Seekers Allowance or Universal Credit claimants not in employment) in March 2018, compared with 2.1% nationally. More than half of jobs in the City are taken by people living elsewhere people working in higher order occupations are more likely to live outside the City. The median gross annual income of full-time working City residents was 23,500 in There are high levels of child poverty in the City. In 2015/16, 42,100 children and young people lived in workless or low income households. 12.9% of people of aged 16 to 64 have no qualifications, compared with 7.6% nationally. Rates of car ownership are low, particularly amongst pensioners living alone and lone parents. Current Situation Deprivation See here for a compendium of the 2015 Indices of Deprivation data for Nottingham City. In the District level Index of Multiple Deprivation results, Nottingham ranks 8 th most deprived out of the 326 districts in England using the Average Score measure and Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 16 of 32

17 10 th using the Average Rank measure. This compares with ranks of 20 th and 17 th in the 2010 index and 13 th and 12 th in the 2007 index. 29 In the Lower Super Output Area level results, 61 of the 182 City Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) fall amongst the 10% most deprived in the country for the Index of Multiple Deprivation (the overall measure of deprivation). 110 LSOAs fall in the 20% most deprived. The lowest ranking LSOA in the City is in Bulwell, which ranks 63 rd nationally out of 32,844, and is one of two City LSOAs ranking in the most deprived 100 LSOAs in the country the other being in Aspley ranking 78 th. Out of the seven separate domains that make up the Index of Multiple Deprivation, Health and Disability is the domain in which Nottingham performs worst. 63 LSOAs rank within the 10% most deprived in the country. St Ann s ward has all LSOAs in the 20% most deprived in the country. Nottingham s LSOAs also rank poorly for Education, Skills and Training deprivation (62 LSOAs, including all of the LSOAs in Aspley, rank in the 10% most deprived in the country) and Crime, (56 of the 182 City LSOAs, including all in Arboretum rank in the 10% most deprived) Mosaic Classification 30 See here for more information about Mosaic in the City Mosaic tables are included on the next two pages. Mosaic Public Sector is a geo-demographic dataset produced by Nottinghambased Experian describing the UK population in terms of their typical demographics and their social, economic, cultural and lifestyle behaviour. The analysis below focuses on the latest (2014) version of Mosaic Public Sector see footnote for more information. Analysis of the 2014 Mosaic public sector dataset suggests that Nottingham City is a diverse area with 13 of the 15 Mosaic groups represented. Over 70% of the City falls into just 5 Mosaic Groups. In England as a whole, there is more of a spread across the groups, with the top 5 groups accounting for 50% of people. Mosaic Group J - Educated young people privately renting in urban neighbourhoods, are the largest group comprising just under a fifth (19.6%) of the population. The groups is characterised by young, single students or young professionals, with relatively good incomes and career prospects. Mosaic Group M - Families with limited resources who have to budget to make ends meet, make up the second largest Mosaic group - just over 18% of people, and are characterised by families with school age children in social housing. They have low incomes, often topped up with state benefits and a squeezed budget. 29 Department of Communities and Local Government 2015 Indices of Deprivation. The results of Nottingham can be found at: 30 The 2014 version of Mosaic classifies the population into 66 Types that identify groups of individuals or households that are as similar as possible to each other and as different as possible from any other group. These Types group together hierarchically into 15 Groups. The 2014 version superseded the previous (2009) version of Mosaic which had 69 Types and 15 Groups. Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 17 of 32

18 Mosaic Group L - Single people privately renting low cost homes for the short term, comprise a further 18% of Nottingham s households. This group are young, single, transient and often in shared housing. The often have low skilled and lower income jobs with some benefits being claimed. Mosaic Group N - Elderly people reliant on support to meet financial or practical needs, comprise a further 10%. They are elderly, living alone and requiring support. They generally have low incomes. Mosaic Group O - Urban renters of social housing facing an array of challenges, make up 7% of households. This group are working age social renters on lower incomes. They have higher levels of unemployment and benefits. Figure 7: Mosaic breakdown of Nottingham A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Well-off owners in rural locations enjoying the benefits of country life Established families in large detached homes living upmarket lifestyles High status city dwellers living in central locations and pursuing careers with high rewards after neighbourhoods Thriving families who are busy bringing up children and following careers Mature suburban owners living settled lives in mid-range housing Elderly people with assets who are enjoying a comfortable retirement Householders living in inexpensive homes in village communities Younger households settling down in housing priced within their means Residents of settled urban communities with a strong sense of identity Educated young people privately renting in urban neighbourhoods Mature homeowners of value homes enjoying stable lifestyles Single people privately renting low cost homes for the short term Families with limited resources who have to budget to make ends meet Elderly people reliant on support to meet financial or practical needs Urban renters of social housing facing an array of challenges The Mosaic groups above are particularly geographically constrained, see ward graph below and the map at Appendix 4, with the Educated young people privately renting in urban neighbourhoods forming a band across the centre of the City; concentrations of disadvantaged families in social housing in and around Aspley ward; lower income workers in urban terraces around the inner city; and Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 18 of 32

19 concentrations of single young people in social housing seen around the Meadows, St Ann s and the Arboretum. Also notable are a concentration of the more affluent Mosaic groups around the Wollaton and Mapperley Park areas and in the City Centre. Figure 8: Mosaic breakdown of wards and Care delivery Groups in Nottingham 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Please see the next two tables for profiles of postcodes in Nottingham compared to England, using Mosaic Groups. Appendix 2 contains a description of the Groups and Types and Appendix 3 shows a profile of the more detailed Mosaic Types. Please note that these are the names and descriptions given by Experian, not the City Council or Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 19 of 32

20 Figure 9: Profile of Nottingham postcodes compared to England Households using Mosaic Public Sector 2014 Groups Mosaic Public Sector Groups Your area/file % Comp. % Pen. % Index A Country Living ,336, B Prestige Positions ,543, C City Prosperity ,123, D Domestic Success ,863, E Suburban Stability ,345, F Senior Security ,939, G Rural Reality ,272, H Aspiring Homemakers ,175, I Urban Cohesion ,245, J Rental Hubs 1, ,807, K Modest Traditions , L Transient Renters ,508, M Family Basics 1, ,793, N Vintage Value ,507, O Municipal Challenge ,370, Total 5, ,826, Source: Experian Limited (copyright) See Appendix 2 for a description of the Mosaic Groups, and Appendix 3 for a profile of Nottingham postcodes compared to England Households using Mosaic Public Sector 2014 Types Pen. % = Penetration (target/base) * 100 High % means a high proportion i.e. if 100 in target & 500 in base = 20% Index = (target% / base%) * is average; <100 shows under-representation; >100 shows over-representation Employment The latest employment rate for the City is 57.4% 31, compared with 75.1% for England. This figure is deflated by the presence of so many university students, but even if they are excluded the rate is still low relative to the national rate (69.0% compared with 79.7% for England) 32. Figures for employment rates of working age people by gender for the City show 66.4% for males and 58.6% for females. Data on the employment rates for older people show Nottingham has an employment rate for the 50 to 64 population of 63.8%. In this age-group the male rate is considerably higher than the female rate: 63.3% for males and 51.2% for females. 31 Proportion of people aged who are in employment, Annual Population Survey, January 2017 December 2017, ONS. 32 Unofficial figures estimated by Nottingham City Council using APS data. Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 20 of 32

21 Nottingham also has a relatively low Economic Activity rate 62.4% of the working age population compared to 78.6% nationally. Again, this can be partially explained by the number of students in the City, who comprise 45% of the economically inactive. Over 25% of the economically inactive (over 20,000 people) are long term sick, a further 18% are looking after the family / home. 36,265 people aged in Nottingham City were claiming one or more Department for Work and Pensions benefits in November Just under half (17,420 people) were claiming Employment and Support Allowance (including a small number still claiming Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance), equating to 7.7% of the population aged 16-64, compared with 5.5% for England. More than 75% of City claimants who have completed work capability assessments when transferring from IB are placed in the support group for people whose condition means they are not expected to return to work. This implies that more than 13,500 claimants in Nottingham will not be expected to return to work. There were 3,550 Lone Parents claiming Income Support in Nottingham in November 2017, continuing the decrease in numbers over recent years primarily due to changes in eligibility. Changes were made in October 2010 so only parents with a child aged under 7 were eligible for Income Support and in December 2011 only those lone parents with a child aged under 5 were eligible. Eligibility is now being restricted to those parents whose youngest child is 3 years old, so further reductions in claimants are likely in the future. A high proportion of Lone Parents who are no longer eligible for Income Support have instead transferred to a different benefit, with most transferring to JSA 34. More recent unemployment data are available. There were 7,610 unemployed people (claimants of Job Seekers Allowance or Universal Credit claimants not in employment) in March This is a small increase on the previous month and previous year 35, although Nottingham has seen large falls in unemployment in recent years. Claimants now amount to 3.4% of the working age population compared with 2.1% nationally. (Please note that the national figure is not strictly comparable due to Universal Credit being implemented in some areas earlier than others, and not yet seen in large numbers locally). It is not currently possible to obtain data on the duration of unemployment due to figures not yet being available for Universal Credit claimants. However, previous data for JSA before Universal Credit was introduced in 2013, suggested that the proportion of people claiming for more than 6 months and for more than 2 years remained high, largely as a result of welfare reforms which caused people to transfer from other benefits. The proportion of people claiming for more than 6 months was significantly higher than the pre-recession level (37.7% in June 2008) and the proportion of people claiming for more than 2 years was nearly 3 times higher than the 2008 rate of 6.4%. 33 Figures adjusted by Nottingham City Council see the monthly Benefits Bulletin for further information. 34 See, for instance, DWP data at 35 Nottingham City Council s Monthly Unemployment Update, Deprivation/Unemployment-Update/ Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 21 of 32

22 The highest unemployment rates are in Aspley (5.8%), Bulwell (5.6%), Bestwood (5.2%) and Berridge (4.3%). Unemployment increased in 16 City wards during the past year. Based upon the 2011 Census, about 53% of jobs in the City will have been taken by people living outside of the City boundary. On the other hand, about 31% of City residents who are in employment work outside the City. This makes it difficult to ensure that health initiatives aimed at employers in the City are reaching City residents. To illustrate this, in % of City Council employees lived outside the City 36. People working in the City (including those who live there as well) are more likely to be in higher order occupations rather than those living there, but not by as much as one might expect. 30% of people working in the City are in managerial and professional occupations, compared with 23% of City residents 37. At the other end of the scale, 12% of those working in the City are in elementary occupations, compared with 17% of those living there. However, when looking at this comparison, it is important to realise that the figures only include people who are in employment and a high percentage of City residents are not in employment (see the employment rate above). Income The median gross annual earnings for residents who were in full-time employment in 2017 was about 23,500, ( 29,100 in England) compared with 26,000 for people working (but not necessarily living) in the City % of residents who work full time earned below 17,100 and a further 10% earn less than 19,000. There are high levels of child poverty in the City 39. In 2015/16, 42,100 Nottingham City children live in families where no adults work or where the household income is low enough to be eligible for tax credit support. This is equivalent to 62% of children compared to 41% in England. Qualifications Figures from the Annual Population Survey 40 suggest 12.9% of the age-group have no qualifications, higher than the national percentage (England 7.6%). The difference is most evident in the age band, where some 20.4% have no qualifications compared to 10.7% nationally, although the gap has decreased recently. 30.1% of 16 to 64 year olds have qualifications at NVQ4 level degree level or above, compared with 38.3% in England. Housing The JSNA has separate chapters on Housing and Homelessness. See here for Housing See here for Homelessness Geographical accessibility As in most urban areas, levels of geographical accessibility to services are generally high, but clearly in reality some groups will have much better levels of accessibility than others. Average car ownership levels are low (56.3% of all households had at 36 Nottingham City Council Resources (2015 Data) Census 38 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2017, ONS. 39 HMRC Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics, Finalised Awards 2015/16 40 Annual Population Survey, January 2017 to December 2017, ONS. Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 22 of 32

23 least one car in 2011 compared with 74.2% in England) 41, but some groups have much lower rates particularly pensioners living alone (25.7%) and lone parent households with dependent children (41%). Ward car ownership rates vary from 80.7% in Wollaton West to 35.3% in St Ann s 42. The figures above represent an upward trend in car ownership levels from figures derived from the 2001 census data and shows that car ownership rates have increased at a slightly higher rate in Nottingham than when compared with the national average. Access to hospitals and GPs by public transport Hospital services are very accessible for City residents. The latest data provided by the Department for Transport from May 2018 shows that for 2016, 46% of households are within 30 minutes travel time and 94% are within 60 minutes travel time of a Nottingham University Hospital (either the Queens Medical Centre or the City Hospital site) by public transport 43. Please note these performance indicators relate to the percentage of households within specified travel times by public transport to the nearest Nottingham University Hospital site. However not all medical services will be available at both sites and patients may need to access a specific site for the treatment they require. Indicators are also available for travel specifically to either the Queen's Medical Centre (QMC) or the Nottingham City Hospital. Access to hospital services provided by Nottingham University Hospital Trust at the QMC and City Hospital campuses and the link between the two sites was improved further in April 2016 following the increase in frequency of the Medilink, a free shuttle bus service running every 10 minutes between 06:30 and 19:00 during the week (and every 5 minutes during the morning peak between 8am and 9.30am), linking the two sites and with connections to other bus and tram services at Queens Drive and Wilkinson Street Park and Ride sites. Geographical access to local GP services by public transport is also very good for residents of Nottingham. DFT data from May 2018 showed that in 2016, 92% of all households are within 15 minutes travel time of a GP surgery by public transport 44. Influence on Health and wellbeing The link between individual factors and health outcomes is strongly mediated by an individual s socio-economic environment, their lifestyle, and their access to health and social care 45,46,47. This is illustrated in Figure 10. Nottingham's high levels of 41 Office for National Statistics 2011 Census 42 Office for National Statistics 2011 Census 43 Accessibility Figures for Key Services, which can be found on the following link: 44 Ibid. 45 Acheson (1998) Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health Report 46 DOH (2003) Tackling health inequalities: A Programme for Action e/dh_ Local Government Improvement and Development Healthy Communities Resource Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 23 of 32

24 deprivation, low educational attainment and unhealthy lifestyle (high smoking, poor diet, low physical activity) are all interrelated determinants of its poor health outcomes and high level of health inequalities. Figure 10 Social Gradient There is a social gradient in health. A recent review of health inequalities in England 48 found that the lower a person s social position, the more likelihood that his/her health would be poorer. The addressing of the social gradient of children s access to positive experiences is of particular importance in reducing health inequalities. This links directly to the early intervention agenda. Income Income level has been found to have a correlation with a broad spectrum of health and wellbeing factors. Poverty is generally regarded as the most important determinant of health, and also one of the most difficult areas in which to achieve change. However, evidence 49 suggests that the less well-off fare better if they live in an affluent area, presumably because of access to better amenities, to cleaner, safer neighbourhoods and to recreational facilities. Fair Society, Healthy Lives has identified the need for a minimum level of income to be set in order to achieve good health. Education Education plays a number of roles in influencing inequalities in health when health is viewed in its widest sense. It has an important role in influencing inequalities in one s socio-economic position, as educational qualifications are a determinant of an individual's labour market position and future social standing. Early education has a role in preparing children for life, in particular in ensuring that they have the practical, social and emotional knowledge and skills to achieve a full and healthy life. Development of good parenting skills is key to supporting the early intervention agenda. The Marmot Review has highlighted the need for access to good quality lifelong learning in order to reduce health inequalities. 48 Fair Society, Healthy Lives, The Marmot Review Strategic Review of Heath Inequalities in England post World Health Organisation Closing the Gap in a Generation Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 24 of 32

25 Housing Poor housing environments contribute to ill health through poor amenities, shared facilities and overcrowding, inadequate heating or energy inefficiency. The highest risks to health in housing are related to cold and damp conditions, particularly for those people experiencing fuel poverty. In addition, those in very poor housing, such as homeless hostels and bedsits, are more likely to suffer from poor mental and physical health than those whose housing is of higher quality. Crime Crime is associated with relative social deprivation and health inequalities. The same social and environmental factors that predict geographic variation in crime rates may also be relevant to explaining community variations in health and wellbeing. Crime can result in physical hurt such as injury, rape or abuse, but can also affect mental health leading to fear, depression, substance misuse and self-harm. Employment Unemployment is both a cause and a result of ill health. The effects of unemployment on health can be linked to poverty and low income amongst the unemployed. There are also significant psychological consequences from being out of work, especially for the long-term unemployed. There is also the effect that people with poorer health are more likely to be unemployed; this is particularly true for people with long-term disabilities. Transport and Access Access to health and social services tend to vary inversely with the need for the population served. A concerted effort needs to be made to reverse the effects of the inverse care law whereby those with the greatest need receive the poorest services. Unequal access to services is not restricted to social class and geography. People in some minority ethnic communities are less likely to receive the services they need. Improving access to services is not just dependent on capacity, geographic location and transport planning, but also necessitates ensuring information and services account for the cultural and language profile of local communities, and providing services at different times and in different ways. Other barriers affecting access to services are limited travel horizons and the affordability and perceived safety of different transport options, all of which will vary depending on the individual s gender, age and cultural and socio-economic background. Projections over 3 to 5 and 5 to 10 years Deprivation Future deprivation levels in the city will largely depend upon the performance of the national economy and the success of national and local initiatives. It is unlikely, however, that the geographical distribution of deprived people and households within the City will change very much. Mosaic Classification It is unlikely that the Mosaic groups and types will change much in the short to medium term, although there could be changes in local areas as regeneration schemes progress. Employment Changes to the employment rate will depend upon the availability of jobs, although initiatives to improve the skill levels of City residents could also make them more Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 25 of 32

26 competitive in the local labour market. The performance of the national economy will, however, be the most important determinant of future trends. Qualifications Improved educational attainment of city children will start to work its way through the adult population, improving education levels amongst young adults. Increased graduate-retention would do likewise in slightly older age-groups. Anecdotal evidence says that EU migrants have higher qualification levels than the indigenous population, so, if they stay they could have an effect. Key Contacts Nicola Kirk, Information and Research Officer, Development Department, Nottingham City Council, Connectivity / accessibility analysis: Robert Smith, Senior Transport Planner, Development Department, Nottingham City Council, robert.smith3@nottinghamcity.gov.uk Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 26 of 32

27 Appendix 1: Ward and Care Delivery Group Areas Map Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 27 of 32

28 Appendix 2: Mosaic Classification Group Description Type Description A B C D E F G H Well-off owners in rural locations enjoying the benefits of country life Established families in large detached homes living upmarket lifestyles High status city dwellers living in central locations and pursuing careers with high rewards after neighbourhoods Thriving families who are busy bringing up children and following careers Mature suburban owners living settled lives in midrange housing Elderly people with assets who are enjoying a comfortable retirement Householders living in inexpensive homes in village communities Younger households settling down in housing priced within their means A01 A02 A03 A04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 C10 C11 C12 C13 D14 D15 D16 D17 E18 E19 E20 E21 F22 F23 F24 F25 G26 G27 G28 G29 H30 H31 H32 H33 Country-loving families pursuing a rural idyll in comfortable village homes while commuting some distance to work Older households appreciating rural calm in stand-alone houses within agricultural landscapes Prosperous owners of country houses including the rural upper class, successful farmers and second-home owners Retirees enjoying pleasant village locations with amenities to service their social and practical needs Mature couples in comfortable detached houses who have the means to enjoy their empty-nest status Well-off families in upmarket suburban homes where grown-up children benefit from continued financial support High-achieving families living fast-track lives, advancing careers, finances and their school-age children's development Influential families with substantial income established in large, distinctive homes in wealthy enclaves Retired residents in sizeable homes whose finances are secured by significant assets and generous pensions Global high flyers and families of privilege living luxurious lifestyles in the most exclusive locations of the largest cities City workers renting premium-priced flats in prestige central locations, living life with intensity Ambitious people in their 20s and 30s renting expensive apartments in highly commutable areas of major cities High status households owning elegant homes in accessible inner suburbs where they enjoy city life in comfort Affluent families with growing children living in upmarket housing in city environs Busy couples in modern detached homes balancing the demands of school-age children and careers Professional families with children in traditional mid-range suburbs where neighbours are often older Well-qualified older singles with incomes from successful professional careers living in good quality housing Single mature owners settled in traditional suburban semis working in intermediate occupations Pre-retirement couples with respectable incomes enjoying greater space and spare cash since children left home Long-term couples with mid-range incomes whose adult children have returned to the shelter of the family home Active families with teenage and adult children whose prolonged support is eating up household resources Elders now mostly living alone in comfortable suburban homes on final salary pensions Senior singles whose reduced incomes are satisfactory in their affordable but pleasant owned homes Seniors appreciating the calm of bungalow estates designed for the elderly Lifelong couples in standard suburban homes enjoying retirement through grandchildren and gardening Inter-dependent households living in the most remote communities with long travel times to larger towns Pensioners living in inexpensive housing in out of the way locations Rural families in affordable village homes who are reliant on the local economy for jobs Mature households living in expanding developments around larger villages with good transport links Settled families with children owning modest, 3-bed semis in areas of more affordable housing Pre-family newcomers who have bought value homes with space to grow in affordable but pleasant areas Young singles on starter salaries choosing to rent homes in family suburbs Occupants of brand new homes who are often younger singles or couples with children Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 28 of 32

29 H34 Young singles and partners setting up home in developments attractive to their peers H35 I36 I37 Forward-thinking younger families who sought affordable homes in good suburbs which they may now be out-growing Thriving families with good incomes in multi-cultural urban communities Established older households owning city homes in diverse neighbourhoods I Residents of settled urban communities with a strong sense of identity I38 I39 J40 Large extended families in neighbourhoods with a strong South Asian tradition Older residents owning small inner suburban properties with good access to amenities Singles and couples in their 20s and 30s progressing in their field of work from commutable properties J41 Youngsters renting city centre flats in vibrant locations close to jobs and night life J42 Inhabitants of the university fringe where students and older residents mix in cosmopolitan locations J43 Students living in high density accommodation close to universities and educational centres J Educated young people privately renting in urban neighbourhoods J44 J45 Young renters ready to move to follow worthwhile incomes from service sector jobs Singles renting affordable private flats away from central amenities and often on main roads K46 Hard-working mature singles who own budget terraces manageable within their modest wage K Mature homeowners of value homes enjoying stable lifestyles K47 K48 Lower income owners whose adult children are still striving to gain independence meaning space is limited Ageing couples who have owned their inexpensive home for many years while working in routine jobs L49 Young people endeavouring to gain employment footholds while renting cheap flats and terraces L50 Transient renters of low cost accommodation often within subdivided older properties L Single people privately renting low cost homes for the short term L51 L52 Yet to settle younger singles and couples making interim homes in low cost properties Maturing singles in employment who are renting short-term affordable homes M53 Families supporting both adult and younger children where expenditure can often exceed income M54 Younger families with children who own a budget home and are striving to cover all expenses M Families with limited resources who have to budget to make ends meet M55 M56 Families with many children living in areas of high deprivation and who need support Stable families with children renting better quality homes from social landlords N57 Deep-rooted single elderly owners of low value properties whose modest home equity provides some security N58 Supported elders in specialised accommodation including retirement homes and complexes of small homes N59 Elderly singles of limited means renting in developments of compact social homes N Elderly people reliant on support to meet financial or practical needs N60 N61 Ageing social renters with high levels of need in centrally located developments of small units Longstanding elderly renters of social homes who have seen neighbours change to a mix of owners and renters O62 O63 Older social renters settled in low value homes in communities where employment is harder to find Hard-pressed singles in low cost social flats searching for opportunities O Urban renters of social housing facing an array of challenges O64 O65 O66 Renters of social flats in high rise blocks where levels of need are significant Multi-cultural households with children renting social flats in over-crowded conditions Long-term renters of inner city social flats who have witnessed many changes Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 29 of 32

30 Appendix 3: Profile of Nottingham Postcodes compared to England households using Mosaic Public Sector 2014 Types Mosaic Public Sector Types Your area/file % Comp. % Pen. % Index Group A - Country Living A01 Rural Vogue , A02 Scattered Homesteads , A03 Wealthy Landowners , A04 Village Retirement , Group B - Prestige Positions B05 Empty-Nest Adventure , B06 Bank of Mum and Dad , B07 Alpha Families , B08 Premium Fortunes , B09 Diamond Days , Group C - City Prosperity C10 World-Class Wealth , C11 Penthouse Chic , C12 Metro High-Flyers , C13 Uptown Elite , Group D - Domestic Success D14 Cafés and Catchments , D15 Modern Parents , D16 Mid-Career Convention , D17 Thriving Independence , Group E - Suburban Stability E18 Dependable Me , E19 Fledgling Free , E20 Boomerang Boarders , E21 Family Ties , Group F - Senior Security F22 Legacy Elders , F23 Solo Retirees , F24 Bungalow Haven , F25 Classic Grandparents , Group G - Rural Reality G26 Far-Flung Outposts , G27 Outlying Seniors , G28 Local Focus , G29 Satellite Settlers , Group H - Aspiring Homemakers H30 Affordable Fringe , H31 First-Rung Futures , H32 Flying Solo , H33 New Foundations , H34 Contemporary Starts , H35 Primary Ambitions , Group I - Urban Cohesion I36 Cultural Comfort , I37 Community Elders , I38 Asian Heritage , I39 Ageing Access , Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 30 of 32

31 Group J - Rental Hubs J40 Career Builders , J41 Central Pulse , J42 Learners & Earners , J43 Student Scene , ,429 J44 Flexible Workforce , J45 Bus-Route Renters , Group K - Modest Traditions K46 Self Supporters , K47 Offspring Overspill , K48 Down-to-Earth Owners , Group L - Transient Renters L49 Disconnected Youth , L50 Renting a Room 655 #### 526, L51 Make Do & Move On , L52 Midlife Stopgap , Group M - Family Basics M53 Budget Generations , M54 Childcare Squeeze , M55 Families with Needs 652 #### 560, M56 Solid Economy , Group N - Vintage Value N57 Seasoned Survivors , N58 Aided Elderly , N59 Pocket Pensions , N60 Dependent Greys , N61 Estate Veterans , Group O - Municipal Challenge O62 Low Income Workers , O63 Streetwise Singles , O64 High Rise Residents , O65 Crowded Kaleidoscope , O66 Inner City Stalwarts , Total 5, ,826, Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 31 of 32

32 Appendix 4: Mosaic map Demography chapter 2018_WORKING Page 32 of 32