Oldham/Rochdale Partners in Action

Oldham/Rochdale Partners in Action : Final Report May 2005 reference: P:\PDR\WP04000\Current Jobs\Oldham Rochdale\Reports\HMA Final (6-5- 05).doc Contact: Iain Jenkinson Tel: 0161 956 4016 Email: iain.jenkinson@gvagrimley.co.uk www.gvagrimley.co.uk +44 (0) 870 900 89 90

Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Defining the Housing Market Area 5 3 Demographic Change 34 4 Economic Perspectives 53 5 Strategic Context 78 6 Dwelling Stock Profile 113 7 Current Demand: Private Sector 118 8 Current Demand: Social Sector 136 9 Housing Needs 151 10 Considering Supply 156 11 Stocks and Flows 161 12 Modelling Future Supply and Demand 169 13 Dynamics of Adjacent Markets 195 14 Conclusion 200 July 2005

1 Introduction Background 1.1 Oldham/Rochdale has been designated as one of nine Pathfinder areas across the Midlands and the North identified by Government to benefit from Housing Market Renewal (HMR) funding. These nine sub-regional areas are amongst the most deprived in the country, and exhibit a number of signs of significant housing market dysfunction or failure. 1.2 The Oldham/Rochdale Pathfinder Oldham/Rochdale Partners in Action - covers a number of neighbourhoods have been identified where demand for homes is poor and there is a risk of market collapse. Through sustained investment over a 15 year period it is intended to turn around these areas to create sustainable communities and housing markets in which supply and demand are balanced. 1.3 Oldham/Rochdale Partners in Action has develop a detailed prospectus, published in December 2003, which establishes the strategic direction for the Pathfinder and more detailed plans and projects for four neighbourhoods as the basis for initial intervention. This has been used as a basis for secured funding of 53.5m from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) for the first three years of the programme (2004/5 2005/6). 1.4 In 2005 the Pathfinder must submit a scheme update, developing its initial prospectus and detailing projects for the subsequent funding period (2006/7 2008/9). Effective targeting of this investment requires a thorough understanding of the housing market the current supply/demand dynamic; key drivers; and possible trajectories of change and to this end the Pathfinder Partnership have commissioned this research. Objectives of the 1.5 The is specifically intended to respond to the recommendations of the Audit Commission in: Improving and refining the information base particularly through further investigative analysis and introducing more commercial feedback; Improving the framework for adjacency analysis particularly considering the impact of migration patterns and the implications of change in neighbouring pathfinder areas; Improving the understanding of housing market drivers and dynamics particularly economic change; and July 2005 2

Identifying the characteristics of a sustainable housing market as the basis for intervention. 1.6 Through detailed research the intention is to develop a more thorough understanding of the housing market within the pathfinder area, and its relationship with other parts of the two boroughs and the wider Greater Manchester sub-region as a basis for effective intervention. Report Structure 1.7 This report is structured as follows: Section 1: Defining the Housing Market considers migration and travel to work patterns to assess the spatial extent of the housing market and identify sub-market areas within it; Section 2: Demographic Change assesses trends and geographic patterns of population and household change; Section 3: Economic Perspectives considers the current economic position of the two Boroughs and future economic trajectories; Section 4: Strategic Context sets the current policy context for intervention, considering existing strategies/ guidance at the national, sub-regional and local levels; Section 5: Dwelling Stock Profile establishes the current housing stock profile in terms of tenure, housing types and sizes; Section 6: Current Demand: Private Sector considers evidence of demand for housing in the private sector; Section 7: Current Demand: Social Sector considers evidence of demand for social housing; Section 8: Housing Needs assesses evidence of demand from housing needs studies, as well as latent demand arising from overcrowding; Section 9: Housing Supply considers the current policy framework and recent trends in new construction by type and tenure, as well as the impact of right-to-buys on housing supply by tenure; Section 10: Stocks and Flows uses a systems approach to present trends in the supply/demand dynamic over the last few years; July 2005 3

Section 11: Modelling Future Supply and Demand models supply and demand for housing for a number of geographical areas in Oldham and Rochdale in order to further understanding of potential trajectories of change in the housing market and define a sustainable housing market in 2019; Section 12: Dynamics of Adjacent Markets assesses the opportunity for Oldham/Rochdale to capture overspill demand from households effectively priced out of adjacent housing market areas; as well as the lilkely impact of market restructuring activities in adjacent Pathfinder areas; and Section 13: Conclusion ties together the research undertaken to set out the implications for the Pathfinder programme and intervention activities. July 2005 4

2 Defining the Housing Market Area 2.1 A housing market exists where willing buyers and sellers are in contact with one another it is a geographically-limited area because most people seeking to buy or rent will remain within a fairly limited area, primarily reflecting ties with friends and family, employment and schools/ educational facilities. Housing markets, in practical terms, are therefore areas which contain both the origin and destination of the majority of households who move. 2.2 The Manual 1 identifies the principal considerations which influence the identification of functional housing markets: Patterns of relocation within a local area by homeowners or tenants (patterns of migration); Travel to work patterns; Identification of areas of high and low demand. 2.3 In technical terms, housing markets should be defined based upon patterns of relocation derived from migration data, and it is these flows of people which are of most importance in defining coherent market areas. However the process is not an exact science 2, and the Manual recommends the use of a variety of measures and the incorporation of local knowledge and expertise. Patterns of Relocation 2.4 The degree of self-containment in relation to patterns of relocation (migration patterns) is particularly important in defining coherent market areas. A tiered approach has been adopted to assessing migration patterns in Oldham/Rochdale 3, considering: Flows between local authorities areas; Flows between wards; and Flows for different ethnic groups. Migration Patterns between Local Authorities 2.5 Migration patterns between local authority areas are published annually by the Office for National Statistics, using the National Health Service Central Health Register (NHS CHR) 1 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Feb 2004) Manual, ODPM, London. 2 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004, 26) July 2005 5

which records GP re-registrations. The most recent data that is currently available is for the financial year 2002/3. 2.6 Figures 1 and 2 present migration movements over 50 persons in 2002/3 between Oldham and Rochdale and other local authorities in England and Wales. Migration movements are characteristically short distance, and so we would expect the greatest volume of movements to be with adjacent local authority areas. Figure 1: Migration Movements to/from Oldham of Over 50 Persons in 2002/3 Oldham In Migration Out Migration Net Migration Birmingham 70 60 10 Blackpool 40 90-50 Bolton 80 110-30 Bradford 70 90-20 Bury 90 130-40 Calderdale 70 40 30 High Peak 60 70-10 Kirkleees 80 180-100 Lancaster 40 70-30 Leeds 70 110-40 Liverpool 50 40 10 Manchester 1150 830 320 Rochdale 710 910-200 Rossendale 70 70 0 Salford 120 130-10 Sheffield 60 100-40 Stockport 90 130-40 Tameside 690 680 10 Trafford 90 80 10 Wigan 50 50 0 Wyre 20 110-90 Source: NHSCHR 2002/3 2.7 As we would expect, the greatest migration movements are between Oldham, and Manchester, Rochdale and Tameside. In terms of net migration, in 2002/3 Oldham gained population from mainly from Manchester (320 persons) but is exporting people to Rochdale (200 persons), Kirlees (- 100 persons), and Wyre (- 90 persons). There are smaller net losses to other local authorities, including Bury and Stockport within Greater Manchester. 2.8 In Rochdale the greatest migration movements are with Manchester, Oldham, Bury and Rossendale all areas which share borders with Rochdale. In 2002/3 Rochdale gained population from Oldham (200 persons) and Bury (90 persons), but lost population to Rossendale (- 200 persons) and Calderdale (- 100 persons). 3 Oldham MBC and Rochdale MBC are developing a model to map migration flows using Council Tax records. This is part of a wider plan to map migration movements across Greater Manchester. When complete this should inform the review of the. July 2005 6

Figure 2: Migration Movements to/from Rochdale of Over 50 Persons in 2002/3 Rochdale In Migration Out Migration Net Migration Birmingham 70 80-10 Blackpool 50 90-40 Bolton 110 160-50 Bradford 50 70-20 Bury 630 540 90 Calderdale 130 230-100 Flyde 20 60-40 Kirklees 90 100-10 Leeds 110 120-10 Liverpool 60 70-10 Manchester 990 660 330 Preston 60 70-10 Rossendale 330 530-200 Salford 180 180 0 Sheffield 50 60-10 South Lakeland 10 50-40 Stockport 70 110-40 Tameside 160 140 20 Trafford 100 90 10 Wigan 60 80-20 Wyre 40 100-60 Source: NHSCHR 2002/3 2.9 An interesting pattern emerges, showing net migration movements from the core of the conurbation to Oldham and Rochdale and from these to similar suburban/ peripheral areas in Greater Manchester and to more rural locations. The overall net-migration pattern is shown in Figure 3. July 2005 7

Figure 3: Net Migration between Local Authorities (2002/3) Source: NHS Central Health Register Migration Patterns between Wards 2.10 It is possible to consider migration patterns at a more localised level using data from the 2001 census, which charts where people were living on on census day 2001 as against one year previously. 2.11 Migration movements of over 50 persons in 2000/1 between wards in Oldham/ Rochdale and between these and wards in adjacent local authority areas have been plotted in Figure 9. July 2005 8

2.12 The results are useful in beginning to define separate areas in which major migration movements are self-contained (the ODPM manual suggesting a benchmark of around 70% self-containment for true markets). The diagram clearly identifies the following clusters of migration movements: Middleton/ Langley (Middleton West/ Central/ North/ South and Chadderton Central wards); Inner Oldham (Weneth, StPaul s, St Mary s, St James and Coldhurst wards); Saddleworth, East and South Oldham (Saddleworth West, Saddleworth East, Lees and Alexandra wards); Chadderton and South East Oldham (Chadderton North/ Central/ South and Holinwood wards); Royton (Royton North/ South and Crompton wards); Milnrow and Littleborough (Milnrow and Littleborough wards); Newbold and Kirkolt (Newbolt and Balderstone wards); Inner Rochdale (Brimrod and Deeplish, Spotland, Smallbridge and Wardleworth and Central and Fallinge wards). 2.13 Figure 5 clearly shows that the majority of migration movements are over short distances, with relatively limited interaction between adjacent towns (such as Rochdale, Middleton and Oldham). This is a particular feature of the Oldham/Rochdale housing market, and clearly distinct from patterns of movement in cities such as Manchester and Liverpool. 2.14 Indeed localised migration patterns are a particular feature in Oldham, where 63.2% moves were contained within the local authority area in 2000/1 the highest of any authority in Greater Manchester. In Rochdale 60.8% of moves were contained within the Borough. Figure 4: Migration Movements contained within Local Authority Areas Wholly Moving Households Moved within LA Moved within UK Moved from Outside the UK Bolton 9066 60.3% 98% 1.8% Bury 6506 49.4% 98% 1.7% Manchester 21527 44.9% 96% 4.1% Oldham 7186 63.2% 99% 1.2% Rochdale 7385 60.8% 99% 1.2% July 2005 9

Salford 9303 50.5% 98% 2.2% Stockport 9859 46.9% 98% 2.0% Tameside 7443 57.4% 99% 1.3% Trafford 8422 41.7% 97% 3.1% Wigan 9365 62.1% 98% 1.6% Source: Census 2001 2.15 Further analysis has been undertaken to assess the connection between North/ East Manchester and Failsworth which has produced the following results: There is a small net movement from Failsworth to Moston (14 persons) which is not significant in a single year: the census recording 29 persons moving from Failsworth West to Moston as against 15 persons moving from Moston to Failsworth West; There is a more substantial net movement from Newton Health to Failsworth West (29 persons), the census recording 54 persons moving from Newton Health to Failsworth West, as against 25 persons the other way; 2.16 Overall the evidence suggests that Moston is more strongly connected to some of the Manchester wards surrounding it (particularly in terms of out-migration) than to Failsworth. Migration flows to Moston are relatively small in size: 29 persons from Failsworth West; and 23 persons each from Charleston and Harpurhey. Migration flows from Moston (out-migration) are to Lightbowne (66 persons), Newton Heath (61), Charleston (54), and Chadderton South (49). 2.17 In-migration to Newton Heath is strongest from Moston (61 persons), Lightbowne (47) and Central (39) wards in Manchester, with 25 persons moving from Failsworth West. Outmigration is from Newton Health to Failsworth West (54 persons), followed by Lightbowne (21) and Beswick & Clayton (21). July 2005 10

Figure 5: Migration Flows of 40+ Persons between Wards (All People) July 2005 11

But what has been the impact of these migratory trends? It is useful to consider which areas within the Pathfinder are gaining and loosing people as a result of migration. 2.18 Figure 6 shows net migration in 2000/1 at a ward level as a percentage of the ward population. The lighter pink and orange colours show areas which experienced net inmigration, including the wards which contain the Failsworth West, Hollinwood 1 and 2 and Hollins, Alt and Holts, Sholver and Derker neighbourhoods in Oldham and the Newbold, South East and parts of the North East neighbourhood. The green colours show the wards which demonstrated net out-migration in 2000/1: the most significant out-migration was recorded in the Inner Oldham (Central, Westwood, Glodwick, Clarksfield, Freehold/Werneth, and Coppice neighbourhoods as well as parts of Hollins and Greenacres) and parts of Inner Rochdale (North East, North West, Wardleworth and Hamer, Central, Deeplish, Sparthbottoms) as well as Balderstone, Heywood North South and East wards. 2.19 While recognising that housing completions and demolitions can influence migration trends recorded for 2000/1, the dichotomy of trends between adjacent areas in both Rochdale and Oldham lends weight to the the idea of separate housing sub-markets within the towns. In Rochdale there is a clear distinction between a Newbold/Balderstone market as separate from the remainder of Inner Rochdale. In Oldham there appears to be a distinct inner urban market separate from that in Lees, Sholver, Royton and Shaw. Figure 6: Characteristics of Migration in 2000/1 Ward All people Migrants Turnover (Migrants/ Population) Moved within the area Out Migrants In Migrants Net Migration (Persons) Migration Balance / Population Alexandra 11159 1495 13.4 484 947 857-90 -0.8 Chadderton Central 10784 897 8.3 157 740 682-58 -0.5 Chadderton North 10269 837 8.2 147 676 645-31 -0.3 Chadderton South 10061 904 9.0 135 706 716 10 0.1 Coldhurst 11935 1587 13.3 657 929 635-294 -2.5 Crompton 11066 830 7.5 187 622 605-17 -0.2 Failsworth East 10728 784 7.3 210 556 520-36 -0.3 Failsworth West 9827 783 8.0 194 515 538 23 0.2 Hollinwood 9910 1241 12.5 365 750 760 10 0.1 Lees 10132 1272 12.6 266 751 886 135 1.3 Royton North 10588 839 7.9 185 668 619-49 -0.5 Royton South 10373 990 9.5 181 685 755 70 0.7 Saddleworth East 13042 1085 8.3 352 744 689-55 -0.4 Saddleworth West 11309 982 8.7 215 676 716 40 0.4 Shaw 10655 1026 9.6 235 766 726-40 -0.4 St. James 9684 1392 14.4 359 796 936 140 1.4 St. Marys 10785 1174 10.9 288 992 766-226 -2.1 St. Pauls 10496 1062 10.1 213 900 728-172 -1.6 Waterhead 12876 1404 10.9 324 869 986 117 0.9 Werneth 11594 1660 14.3 593 987 875-112 -1.0 Balderstone 9699 1081 11.1 300 800 717-83 -0.9 July 2005 12

Brimrod and Deeplish 8556 972 11.4 213 681 645-36 -0.4 Castleton 9715 942 9.7 243 643 630-13 -0.1 Central and Falinge 9469 1345 14.2 263 993 913-80 -0.8 Healey 13458 1500 11.1 244 913 1163 250 1.9 Heywood North 9512 1043 11.0 309 665 666 1 0.0 Heywood South 11128 955 8.6 269 763 637-126 -1.1 Heywood West 8600 917 10.7 225 593 616 23 0.3 Littleborough 12275 1295 10.5 402 679 829 150 1.2 Middleton Central 9080 891 9.8 295 579 525-54 -0.6 Middleton East 8661 657 7.6 165 564 458-106 -1.2 Middleton North 11510 1061 9.2 330 779 653-126 -1.1 Middleton South 9950 754 7.6 163 527 538 11 0.1 Middleton West 6487 699 10.8 184 506 458-48 -0.7 Milnrow 11561 1150 9.9 363 666 732 66 0.6 Newbold 11166 1696 15.2 476 891 1096 205 1.8 Norden and Bamford 12413 1103 8.9 270 756 787 31 0.2 Smallbridge and 13983 1627 11.6 602 1040 858-182 -1.3 Wardleworth Spotland 8974 930 10.4 193 607 670 63 0.7 Wardle 9160 1093 11.9 225 711 802 91 1.0 Source: Census 2001 July 2005 13

Figure 7: Net Migration at a Ward Level July 2005 14

Migration Patterns for Ethnic Minority Groups 2.20 The 2001 Census migration data categorises migration by white and non-white ethnic groups. An analysis has been undertaken of migration trends and flows by ethnic group. Figure 8 presents key migration data by ethnic group for wards in Oldham and Rochdale. Figure 9 (a and b) show flows between wards for non-white ethnic groups. 2.21 A key finding of the analysis is that flows for non-white groups between wards in the year period 2000/1 are really very small. Indeed the analysis revealed that the flow of non-white migrants between any two wards in Oldham/Rochdale/Manchester did not exceed 10 persons. The evidence suggests that Asian housing markets in the two towns are very localised; the majority of moves being very short distance. Further migration trends are largely to/from areas which already have significant ethnic communities. Figure 8: Ethnic Migration in Oldham and Rochdale All people in ethnic groups other than white Migrants in ethnic groups other than white Total number of people in ethnic groups moving into the area from both within and outside the UK and those with no usual address one year ago. People in ethnic groups other than white who moved within the area People with ethnic group other than white who moved out of the area all Total ethnic population loss/gain Ethnic population loss/gain as percentage of total ethnic population Percentage of migrants in ethnic groups who moved within the area Oldham Alexandra 3340 397 285 112 185 100 3.0 28.2 Chadderton Central 375 48 48 0 55-7 -1.9 0.0 Chadderton North 528 91 83 8 62 21 4.0 8.8 Chadderton South 388 79 73 6 56 17 4.4 7.6 Coldhurst 6792 933 427 506 328 99 1.5 54.2 Crompton 206 27 28 0 6 22 10.7 0.0 Failsworth East 344 54 44 10 17 27 7.8 18.5 Failsworth West 330 38 25 13 30-5 -1.5 34.2 Hollinwood 657 125 108 17 36 72 11.0 13.6 Lees 513 80 66 14 37 29 5.7 17.5 Royton North 212 28 29 0 27 2 0.9 0.0 Royton South 316 45 39 6 25 14 4.4 13.3 Saddleworth East 208 28 29 0 9 20 9.6 0.0 Saddleworth West 191 21 16 6 6 10 5.2 28.6 Shaw 480 61 52 9 25 27 5.6 14.8 St. James 477 101 84 17 43 41 8.6 16.8 St. Marys 4432 470 296 174 248 48 1.1 37.0 St. Pauls 2838 345 255 90 164 91 3.2 26.1 Waterhead 706 125 116 9 44 72 10.2 7.2 Werneth 6778 997 535 462 360 175 2.6 46.3 Rochdale Balderstone 318 41 28 14 31-3 -0.9 34.1 Brimrod and Deeplish 3323 360 261 99 172 89 2.7 27.5 Castleton 664 85 75 10 40 35 5.3 11.8 Central and Falinge 4184 532 416 116 286 130 3.1 21.8 Healey 872 122 108 14 34 74 8.5 11.5 Heywood North 277 40 35 7 12 23 8.3 17.5 July 2005 15

Heywood South 286 30 25 4 18 7 2.4 13.3 Heywood West 189 19 14 4 13 1 0.5 21.1 Littleborough 179 34 36 0 8 28 15.6 0.0 Middleton Central 258 39 30 9 29 1 0.4 23.1 Middleton East 175 15 9 5 43-34 -19.4 33.3 Middleton North 275 39 34 4 16 18 6.5 10.3 Middleton South 297 25 23 3 26-3 -1.0 12.0 Milnrow 234 24 21 5 22-1 -0.4 20.8 Newbold 2960 444 338 106 148 190 6.4 23.9 Norden and Bamford 937 123 108 15 35 73 7.8 12.2 Smallbridge and 6465 584 265 319 279-14 -0.2 54.6 Wardleworth Spotland 981 114 93 21 66 27 2.8 18.4 Wardle 307 74 68 6 70-2 -0.7 8.1 Source: Census 2001 = Areas with a population gain as a percentage of total ethnic population greater than 9% = Areas with a population loss as a percentage of total ethnic population 2.22 The wards with high ethnic populations demonstrate significant percentages of internal ethnic migration. An example in Oldham being Coldhurst which has a BME population which makes up 57% of the total population and records 54.2% of migrants in ethnic groups moving within the area. 2.23 Further, areas which have gained large number of ethnic migrants are the areas which already have significant ethnic communities. Obvious examples in Oldham being Alexandra, Coldhurst, St Pauls and Werneth wards. In Rochdale, corresponding areas are Brimrod and Deeplish, Central and Falinge, and Newbold. 2.24 However there are some signs of Asian households moving away from traditional settlement areas. In Rochdale, the ward of the largest with the largest existing ethnic population, Smallbridge and Wardleworth, recorded a small reduction in its ethnic population. In order to understand further the movement of ethnic groups within the area it is necessary to study the relative population losses and gains of these communities within each ward. Within Figure 12 the wards where this gain is above 9% are highlighted. These wards are clearly showing a significant relative increase of their ethnic population and suggest a migration of the BME population to areas which are not necessarily traditionally regarded as ethnic community areas. 2.25 Oldham has four such wards: Crompton, Hollinwood, Saddleworth East, and Waterhead. Two of these in particular have very small BME populations Crompton 1.86% and Saddleworth East 1.59% - indicating some initial movement from Oldham to other towns in the Borough, while growth in the other two wards suggests a spreading of ethnic population within the town. 2.26 Rochdale has only one ward where the gain is above 9% - Littleborough (15.6% increase). This growth is significant as the area is one with a current small BME population, only 1.46% a figure which includes this migration. July 2005 16

Localised Movement Patterns for Ethnic Minority Groups 2.27 Reference has already been made to the flows illustrated on the maps, Figures 13 and 14. Further examination of these illustrations provides a number of key insights. 2.28 Looking first at Oldham the following observations can be made: High levels of movement can be identified between the wards around the centre of Oldham which have established BME populations; There is very little movement from Rochdale to Oldham with only two flow lines shown, the first between Brimrod and Deeplish and St Marys and the second between Middleton East and Hollinwood. This second flow provides a valuable insight into the ethnic migration out of Middleton East identified in Figure 12; There is movement from a number of Manchester wards (Cheetham and Central) into the central wards of Oldham which have established BME communities. This movement is not reciprocated; There is identifiable migration from this core area around Oldham centre out to neighbouring wards Shaw / Crompton / Royton North / Saddleworth East / Failsworth East presumably reflecting movement of more affluent households; There appears to be no ethnic migration either into, or out of, Saddleworth West. This area still appears to be largely avoided by the BME community, further reinforced by the low ethnic population shown in Figure 12 (191 constituting only 1.7% of the wards population); A lack of ethnic migration into both Chadderton North and Failsworth West in shown. 2.29 A number of observations can also be made for Rochdale: There appears to be a some flows from Oldham to Rochdale. Flows originate in Oldham from the wards of, St Pauls, Chadderton North and St Marys and are generally going to the wards of Rochdale which already have large ethnic communities (Smallbridge and Wardleworth, Brimrod and Deeplish); A contained ethnic migration area can be identified around the inner Rochdale area where large BME communities already exist indicating a largely contained market; As with Oldham there are identifiable flows out of the wards associated with ethnic communities to a number of neighbouring wards Heywood North, Littleborough, Wardle; July 2005 17

Significantly though there are still a number of flows from peripheral areas into the Rochdale core, origin wards being Middleton West and Heywood West; It appears that does appear to be some ethnic migration from the inner Rochdale core out to neighbouring and peripheral wards to the to the north, east and west. However, this migration does not go to the south instead migration seems to come from the south to the centre; A number of wards within Rochdale appear to have no ethnic migration flows into them: Milnrow, Heywood South, Middleton West and Heywood West. It is possible that these wards have perceived barriers to ethnic communities. July 2005 18

Figure 9a: Migration Flows of 40+ Persons from Non-White Ethnic Groups (Oldham/Manchester) July 2005 19

Figure 9b: Migration Flows of 40+ Persons from Non-White Ethnic Groups (Rochdale) July 2005 20

Travel to Work Patterns 2.30 Travel to work patterns have been assessed using data from the 2001 census. A zoning pattern was develop building upon existing knowledge of travel patterns, in which: Each of the 40 wards in Rochdale and Oldham was represented by a separate zone; Each of the remaining Greater Manchester local authority areas was classified as a separate zone; and Calderlee/Kirklees and Rossendale was also defined as one zone due to a significant number of Journey to Work trips thought to be destined for this area. 2.31 The remaining areas of the UK were aggregated into four zones - northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast. Figure 10 present the zoning system. 2.32 The travel to work analysis undertaken assessed trip numbers and the densities of origin and destination of journey to work trips, segmented into public transport and multiple person vehicle (MPV) modes of transport. Densities were calculated by dividing the number of trips originating or destined for a particular zone by the area of that zone (in km 2 ). Finally origindestination matrices were produced. One matrix referred to the total number of trips made, with one matrix each for the number of trips made by motorised private vehicle (MPV), public transport. Figure 10: Zoning System Origin Destination Totals July 2005 21

2.33 Figures 11 and 12 present the number of trips generated by motorised private vehicle (MPV) and public transport (PT). In total the districts of Oldham and Rochdale generated a combined total of 181, 453 trips. 67% of these trips were made by MPV, 14% by PT and 11%, the remaining were made by other. 2.34 The total number of trips generated by the two districts are relatively evenly split with Rochdale generating 52% (93, 534 trips) of the total trip number and Oldham generating 48% (87, 919 trips). 2.35 The 2001 Census indicated that 121, 885 MPV journey to work trips were generated in Rochdale and Oldham. The split between the two towns was relatively even with Oldham generating 51% and Rochdale 49%. The difference between Rochdale and Oldham in terms of the number of PT trips generated was slightly more significant with Oldham generating 54% of trips and Rochdale 46%. This is indicative of perhaps greater PT provision in Oldham or/and increased accessibility. 20,528 WC trips were generated in total, again the split between Oldham and Rochdale was narrow with the two districts generating 52% and 58% of WC trips respectively. 1.10 According to the 2001 Census the districts of Rochdale and Oldham attracted a combined total of 127, 671 journey to work trips. The results indicate that: In terms of journey to work trips this represents a combined net loss of 53,782 trips when compared with the number of trips generated by Rochdale and Oldham; 53% of total trips were destined for a location within an Oldham ward and 47% within Rochdale; and 61% of trips attracted to the core study area were made by MPV, 12% by PT and 15% by WC with the remaining being other. 1.11 52% of MPV trips were destined for Oldham with 48% for Rochdale. Again Oldham has a higher proportion of journey to work trips being made by public transport with 57% of PT trips destined for the core study area going to Oldham and 43% to Rochdale. Just under 19,500 WC trips were destined for the core study area which is, as expected, a similar number to those generated in the core study area. 53% of these trips were destined for Oldham and 47% for Rochdale. Origin Destination Densities Motorised Private Vehicles 2.36 Figure 11 presents origin density by MPV. It shows there are at least four wards with MPV origin trip densities over 1000/sq.km. These wards are Failsworth West, Middleton East, July 2005 22

Waterhead and Spotland and it is these wards which generate the most number of trips per km 2. Therefore, all other things being equal, it is in these wards that one would expect to see the highest level of congestion. 2.37 It is apparent that the wards of Oldham have a higher density of MPV trip origins. This is perhaps indicative of density, level of car ownership etc. July 2005 23

Figure 11: Origin Densities by Private Motorised Vehicle July 2005 24

Figure 12: Destination Densities by Private Motorised Vehicle July 2005 25

2.38 Figure 12 presents destination density by MPV. It shows that there are more wards in Oldham with a higher trip destination density than Rochdale. This is likely to be indicative of the concentration of employment generators and possibly a reflection of the nature of business of these employment generators. It should be noted however that while those zones external to the core study have low MPV densities this may be a reflection of their larger area rather than the number of trips destined for them. 2.39 It is also apparent that Rochdale and Oldham are linked by a corridor of wards with relatively high density employment. This corridor runs on the same alignment as the M627 and may be a reflection of the level of access afforded by the motorway. Public Transport 2.40 Figure 13 presents origin density by PT. It shows that wards which display a high density of public transport trips are grouped together. These wards are, for the majority, coincidental with the provision of rail infrastructure. When Figure 13 is considered, along with the data contained in Figure A2, there is a strong indication that PT provision in Oldham is superior to that in Rochdale. 2.41 Figure 14 presents destination density by PT. Figure 14 is similar in appearance to Figure 12. This indicates that wards which exhibit signs of relatively high employment opportunities can be accessed by public transport although the majority of people do use their car. Whilst Manchester does not display a high density of PT trip destinations this is more a reflection of the size of the zone as opposed to the number of trips which are destined for it, which is high. July 2005 26

Figure 13: Origin Densities for Public Transport Trips July 2005 27

Figure 14: Destination Densities for Public Transport Trips July 2005 28

Origin-Destination Patterns 2.42 Four origin-destination matrices were constructed for the zoning system. Total Trips 2.43 Of the total number of trips generated in Rochdale/Oldham 127, 671 (70%) were destined for a location within Rochdale or Oldham. It is also apparent that the degree to which residents of Rochdale work in Oldham and vice-versa is slight with the employee catchment areas of high employment generating wards in Rochdale and Oldham being constrained to the town in which they are located. In Oldham these wards are Chadderton Central, Coldhurst, St Marys and St Pauls, whilst in Rochdale they are Castleton and Cental & Falinge. 2.44 There are anomalies to this however with there being a significant cross flow (1000+) from Calderdale/Kirlees/Rossendale into Rochdale and vice versa. The ward of Chadderton Central in Oldham also attracts a significant number of workers from zones outside the core study area. 2.45 In terms of trips from either Rochdale or Oldham to destinations outside the core study area the zone of most significance is Manchester, attracting 21, 875 trips in total. This equates to 12% of all trips generated in Oldham/Rochdale and 41% of all trips originating in Rochdale/Oldham destined for a location external to the core study area. 55% of trips to Manchester are generated by Oldham while 45% are generated by Rochdale. 2.46 Tameside and Salford also attract a significant number of trips from Oldham while Bury and Salford attract a significant number from Rochdale. Trips by Motorised Private Vehicle 2.47 As would be expected the matrix showing origin-destination patterns by MPV differs only very slightly from the matrix showing total origin destination patterns. This is of course because trips by MPV account for the majority of total trips made. 2.48 As would also be expected those trips which begin and end in the same zone are less likely to be made by car. However the likelihood of this decreases with the increasingly rural nature of the ward and its area, Saddleworth East for example. 2.49 As previously mentioned there is a significant commuter flow to Manchester. MPV trips account for 61% of this flow which is 6% less than the average for the core study area indicating the use of other modes to access Manchester. Public Transport Trips July 2005 29

2.50 Ultimately, in real terms, PT flows are low in comparison to MPV flows and are for the most part indicative of bus use. However, the gap between public transport and MPV use is narrowed in certain origin-destination pairings, namely from the core study area to Central & Fallinge in Rochdale and the core study area to Manchester. The reason for significant levels of public transport use on these routes is most likely due to these routes being served by a rail service. Key conclusions comprise: Public transport accounts for 27% of all trips made to Manchester from the core study area. However this is in contrast to the proportion of trips made from Manchester to the core study area by public transport which is 16%. Public transport trips account for 17% of all trips made to Central & Falinge in comparison to the core study average of 14%, whilst trips made in the other direction do not exhibit particularly significant PT flows. Walking/ Cycling Trips 1.27 As would be expected the destinations of walk/cycle trips are local to their origin. The main exception to this is those journey to work trips destined for Central Fallinge which attract a relatively high number (100+) from Brimrod & Deeplish, Healey, Newbold, Smallbridge & Wardleworth and Spotland. Conclusion of the Travel to Work Analysis 2.51 In total Oldham/Rochdale (the boroughs) generate 181,453 travel to work trips but attract just 127,671 trips. There is therefore a net movement of people out of the Borough s to work, 53,782 people (29.6%) more travelling out to work than travel into the area. 2.52 However there remains a degree of self-containment - 70% of trips generated in Oldham and Rochdale area being destined for a location within the Boroughs. There is also clearly a degree of inter-relation between the Boroughs considered individually 64% of trips generated in Oldham were for an Oldham ward, and 7% for Rochdale, while for trips generated in Rochdale 62% were for a Rochdale ward and 9% for one in Oldham. 2.53 The higher proportion of trips destined for an Oldham ward is testament to its greater importance as an employment location more people travel into Oldham to work than Rochdale. 2.54 The principal destination for travel to work trips outside the two Boroughs is Manchester which attracts 12% of total trips generated in Rochdale/Oldham. There are also significant links between Salford & Tameside and Oldham and between Salford & Bury and Rochdale. Comparing wage differentials for different occupational groups it is clear that an incentive to travel to larger employment centres such as Manchester only exists for higher-earning July 2005 30

occuations, and reduces dramatically when considering earning differentials for the less qualified [Figures 46 (a) & 46 (b)]. The implication is that those travelling are principally higher-income earners. 2.55 In terms of trips by public transport the majority (65%) do not leave the core study area. Of those that are destined for a location external to the core study area Manchester attracts the most, attracting 24% of all trips made by public transport. Public transport is therefore clearly important in aiding accessibility to Manchester, with 27% public transport trips destined for Manchester as against 12% of overall trips. Summary: Defining Housing Markets 2.56 In defining the housing market area and constituent sub-markets therin a variety of evidence has been used including the evidence presented on migration and travel to work patterns, along with information on house prices and local knowledge from stakeholders involved in the process. 2.57 The evidence suggests that Oldham and Rochdale Boroughs do indeed form a coherent housing market area, but one which exhibits some connection with parts of Manchester. The analysis particular indicates the following: A degree of separation in migration terms between the towns of Oldham and Rochdale (which sit either side of the M62) but also evidence of cross-commuting between the two Boroughs; A difference in terms of both house prices and net migration between the housing markets in the cores of Oldham and Rochdale the HMR markets and more peripheral and rural parts of the two Boroughs; Connections with Manchester critically in terms of travel to work but also in migration terms between Failsworth and Newton Heath (which both sit along the Oldham Road corridor). 2.58 Looking to a more localised level, it has been possible to identify nine sub-market areas within the two Boroughs using the same evidence base: Inner urban markets in the two towns Inner Oldham and Inner Rochdale; A Middleton market which includes the overspill council estates such as Langley; Higher prices markets in some of the more desirable, rural parts of the Boroughs Wardle and Healey; Littleborough/ Milnrow; Saddleworth/ Lees; July 2005 31

Markets in some of the other towns in the Boroughs with mid-range prices, but with limited migratory connection with the inner urban markets Royton, Crompton and Shaw; Heywood; and A market in Failsworth which extends across the borough boundary into Newton Heath. 2.59 The defined housing market area and constituent sub-markets set the geographical context for the and importantly establish a scale of impact for policy intervention the implication being that intervention in a specific locality will impact upon other parts of the identified sub-market. This has important implications for establishing a sustainable market renewal strategy. 2.60 Further, discussions with estate agents and the migration analysis undertaken suggest that the housing sub-markets are somewhat more insular than might be exepcted: demand appears to be predominantly locally-generated. July 2005 32

Figure 15: Housing Sub-Markets in Oldham and Rochdale July 2005 33

3 Demographic Change Population Structure 3.1 There were 183,143 persons living in the HMR area in Oldham/ Rochdale in 2001 (2001 Census 4 ) which represented a small reduction (- 0.2%) over the preceding decade: the previous Census recording 183, 548 persons. This compares favourably with a population decline of 5.5% across all of the HMR Pathfinder areas; indeed Oldham/Rochdale has the most stable population size of any of the Pathfinders. 3.2 Figures 16 and 17 compare the population structure in the Pathfinder areas with the subregional and national profiles. They demonstrate a very youthful population structure, with a high proportion of persons in the 16-24 and particularly the 0-15 cohort, and this is particularly the case in the ethnic minority communities. Figure 16: Population Structure Oldham/Rochdale Pathfinder Greater Manchester England and Wales 0-15 47,844 26.41% 21.24% 20.16% 16-24 22,422 12.38% 11.53% 10.91% 25-44 50,626 27.95% 29.18% 29.15% 45-64 35,884 19.81% 23.16% 23.82% 65-74 12,618 6.97% 7.91% 8.39% 75 and over 11,752 6.49% 6.98% 7.59% Source: Census 2001 Figure 17: Population Structure: Deviation from Sub-Regional/ National Profiles 75 and over 65-74 45-64 25-44 16-24 0-15 -8.00% -6.00% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% Oldham Rochdale Greater Manchester Source: Census 2001 4 2001 Census Key Statistics for Output Areas/ ODPM (2004) Home Ownership Solutions for Low Demand Areas July 2005 34

3.3 Figure 18 plots the mean age of population at a ward level: a strong correlation exists between the mean age of population and the proportion of the population of Asian origin. Overall the population structure of the Asian community is considerably younger than that of the white community, and it is within this young Asian community that much of the Borough s projected population growth is expected to occur. 3.4 The population is youngest in Coldhurst and Werneth wards in Oldham with Alexandra, St Mary s, St James and Hollinwood wards also having an average age significantly below the Greater Manchester average. These wards cover much of the HMR area in Oldham and we would therefore expect these areas to generate positive natural increase. In Rochdale Smallbridge and Wardleworth ward has the youngest population structure, with Newbold ward also having a noticeably young population and it is therefore these areas we would expect to experience net natural increase in the future. July 2005 35

Figure 18: Mean Age of Population July 2005 36

Ethnicity 3.5 The Pathfinder area contains a sizeable concentration of ethnic minority households, with 26% residents from a non-white ethnic group against 13.9% and 11.4% for the Boroughs of Oldham and Rochdale respectively, and 8.9% across Greater Manchester (2001 Census). In the Pathfinder areas 15% residents are Pakistani and 7% are Bangladeshi. Indeed in terms of total size the two towns contain the third largest Bangladeshi community outside of London. 3.6 Across the two boroughs the ethnic minority population in spatially concentrated, with the highest concentrations in Coldhurst, St Mary s and Werneth wards in Oldham and Brimrod and Deeplish, Central and Fallinge and Smallbridge and Wardleworth in Rochdale (Figure 19). 3.7 There is a sizeable Pakistani community in the wards of Alexandra, St Mary s, St Pauls and Werneth in Oldham, and Brimrod and Deeplish, Central and Fallinge and Smallbridge and Wardleworth in Rochdale. There is a large Bangladeshi community in Coldhurst ward in Oldham, with smaller proportions of Bangladeshi residents in Alexandra, St Mary s wards and Werneth wards. The largest Indian community is in St Paul s ward in Oldham. 3.8 At a neighbourhood level, Asian households are particularly concentrated in Glodwick, Coppice, Westwood and Central Oldham in Inner Oldham, as well as Deeplish, and Wardleworth and Hammer in Inner Rochdale. Figure 19: Ethnic Composition of Wards with More Than 5% Non-white Population All people White Mixed Indian Pakistani Banglades hi Other Asian Black Chinese or Other Alexandra 11,159 70.07 1.57 0.49 19.91 6.23 0.51 1.04 0.17 Chadderton North 10,269 94.86 1.05 0.64 0.85 1.82 0.18 0.38 0.23 Coldhurst 11,935 43.09 1.87 1.46 2.42 48.99 0.93 1.06 0.17 Hollinwood 9,910 93.37 1.29 0.5 2.77 0.72 0.16 0.55 0.62 Lees 10,132 94.94 1.59 0.16 2.11 0.3 0.06 0.54 0.32 Shaw 10,655 95.5 0.58 0.36 0.98 1.81 0.08 0.39 0.33 St. Marys 10,785 58.91 1.73 0.56 29.96 6.04 1.04 1.46 0.31 St. Pauls 10,496 72.96 1.04 4.49 17.04 3.14 0.53 0.59 0.22 Waterhead 12,876 94.52 1.17 0.24 2.44 0.71 0.09 0.6 0.23 Werneth 11,594 41.54 1.65 2.22 39.57 11.9 1.8 0.85 0.45 Brimrod and 8,556 61.16 1.43 0.58 34.37 0.48 1.23 0.46 0.3 Deeplish Castleton 9,716 93.16 0.67 0.5 3.98 0.62 0.72 0.15 0.18 Central and Falinge 9,469 55.81 1.36 0.83 37.52 1.62 1.37 1.03 0.45 Healey 13,458 93.52 0.92 0.29 3.82 0.15 0.58 0.4 0.32 Newbold 11,166 73.5 1.18 0.31 20.8 2.25 1.31 0.36 0.3 Smallbridge and 13,982 53.77 0.97 0.57 28.84 13.69 1.54 0.2 0.41 Wardleworth Spotland 8,973 89.08 1.07 0.39 7.93 0.37 0.48 0.17 0.51 Oldham 217,273 86.14 1.13 0.72 6.33 4.52 0.31 0.57 0.29 Rochdale 205,357 88.57 0.92 0.36 7.71 1.26 0.47 0.32 0.38 Greater Manchester 2482,328 91.07 1.33 1.45 3.03 0.81 0.36 1.19 0.77 July 2005 37

North West 6,729,764 94.43 0.94 1.07 1.74 0.39 0.22 0.62 0.6 Source: Census 2001 3.9 Figure 20 shows concentrations of ethnic minority residents at a localised level in 1991 and 2001. Comparing the distribution of BME population in 1991 and 2001 provides a number of insights into spatial dynamics of its population growth. 3.10 In 1991 Asian communities in Oldham and Rochdale (Figure 20) were strongly spatially concentrated in just a handful of areas: In Oldham in the Coppice, Glodwick and Westwood neighbourhoods; while in Rochdale in the Deeplish, Wardleworth & Hamer and Sparth neighbourhoods. Between 1991 and 2001 there was a consolidation of these communities, with a growth of the Asian population in these areas, and out-migration of the white population. The communities also began to expand laterally as they grew. This resulted in increasing Asian population in settlement areas (which already has a sizeable Asian population) and particularly in adjacent areas, which has a lower concentration in 1991. In terms of neighbourhoods there was a marked growth in the Asian population in Central Oldham, Clarksfield, Freehold, Hathershaw and Hollins. In Rochdale growth was focused in Newbold, North East Rochdale, and Spotland and Fallinge. 3.11 If this trend was to continue we would expect increasing growth of the Asian community in the cores of the two towns through consolidation and coalescence of communities, along with outward expansion (particularly in the directions in which BME growth has been strongest). 3.12 There is also evidence of initial dispersal/ suburbanisation of Asian households away from the core settlement areas. A particularly strong concentration has developed in Shaw and in South West Rochdale/Castleton, with additional growth in Chadderton, Lees, Failsworth and Balderstone/Newbold. Manchester University (2004) suggests that much of this is likely driven by those who can afford a choice of accommodation the more affluent Asian households. However there has been very limited dispersal into the more rural areas to the east of the towns. July 2005 38

Figure 20: Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Population 1991/ 2001 July 2005 39

Existing Population Projections 3.13 Manchester University has been commissioned to produce population projections for both Boroughs and to develop an understanding of the demographics within the HMR areas. Until this research is published in full, we must rely on previous population projects undertaken by Oldham MBC in 1997 and Bradford MBC policy unit for Rochdale in 2000. 3.14 Across Oldham/ Rochdale the demographics of the South Asian population are particularly important in influencing the population size and household characteristics. The population of South Asian origin is increasing in terms of both its size and proportion of the total population in both Boroughs. Between 1991 2001 it grew by 57% in Oldham and 48% in Rochdale. This population of South Asian origin is predicted to further increase: to reach 17.7% of Oldham Borough s population in 2021 (vs. 11.6% in 2001); to reach 15.5% of Rochdale Borough s population in 2021 (vs. 9.3% in 2001) 5. 3.15 Therefore over the period 2001-21 it is anticipated that both boroughs will experience a similar level of growth in the South Asian population (6%), the population of South Asian origin growing by 39,000 persons in Oldham and 33,100 persons in Rochdale (totalling 72,100 persons). It is therefore likely that demand for housing in the HMR areas in both Boroughs will be sustained by the growth in the ethnic minority population. This is an important point when considering the primary need to plan for the existing population. This is developed further in subsequent sections of this report. 3.16 In contrast, the white population in both boroughs is projected to fall marginally. Between 1991 2001 the white population fell by 7% in Oldham and by 2.4% in Rochdale, driven by net outmigration. The projection is that this will the white population will continue to fall in most age groups, although there will be increases in those aged 10-14, 35-39, 50-64 and 85+. 3.17 In terms of age structure Oldham s population projections (1997-base) indicate a trend of: A small decrease of around 800 (2%) in the number of children of compulsory school age (5-15); An increase of just over 1,600 (7%) in the number of young adults aged 16-24, with the proportion of these from ethnic minority groups increasing from 19% to 24%; An increase in the number of people of working age (1,100 persons; 0.8%) of which the proportion from ethnic minority groups will increase from 9% to 17%; 5 Source: Pathfinder Prospectus July 2005 40

An increase of almost 1,500 (4%) in the number of people of personable age. 3.18 The implication is that the significant increase in young adults is a potential generator of demand for first time homeowners, maintaining stability at the lower end of the housing market, while the increase in pensioner households may create demand for sheltered and adapted housing. 3.19 To assess the spatial implications of population growth below the borough level, figure 21 shows wards which are likely to generate positive natural increase, based upon the relationship of births to deaths in 2003. Figure 21: Births/Deaths 2003 6 Ward Live Births Deaths Natural Change Coldhurst 380 101 279 Smallbridge and Wardleworth 339 115 224 St. Marys 277 97 180 Werneth 278 137 141 Newbold 213 92 121 St. Pauls 189 106 83 Central and Falinge 198 134 64 Balderstone 152 94 58 Hollinwood 152 96 56 Healey 152 96 56 St. James 159 105 54 Waterhead 169 115 54 Alexandra 208 167 41 Milnrow 119 85 34 Lees 144 114 30 Source: ONS (Sourced from PCT) 3.20 In Oldham demand for housing is likely to be generated from expanding BME households in the traditional settlement areas in Coldhurst (Westwood neighbourhood), in St Mary s (Glodwick and surrounding neighbourhoods), and in Werneth/St Paul s (Coppice and Freehold neighbourhoods). This growth is expected to continue for two decades (Manchester University 2004). Evidence of Recent Population Change 3.21 This section considers recent population change both in Oldham and Rochdale, in adjacent local authority areas and begins to look in more detail at the components of population change. 3.22 Figure 22 plots population change from a common 1991 base for Oldham, Rochdale, the two boroughs combined and for Greater Manchester, based on Census mid-year estimates. It demonstrates a loss of population from Oldham MBC since 1993 at a rate of just under 100 6 Note: This uses different wards to the maps, the later based on new 2004 wards in Oldham July 2005 41

persons per annum, while in Rochdale, although the Borough lost people between 1993 and 1997, it gained population between 1997 2001 and has since had a largely static population. Figure 22: Population Change in Oldham and Rochdale 2% 1% 1% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003-1% -1% -2% -2% Oldham MBC Rochdale MBC Oldham & Rochdale Greater Manchester Source: Census Mid-Year Estimates 3.23 Figure 23 shows population change in absolute terms in the two boroughs. Figure 23: Population Change in Oldham and Rochdale 1991 2003 225.0 220.0 215.0 210.0 205.0 200.0 195.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Oldham MBC Rochdale MBC Source: ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates July 2005 42

3.24 What though is perhaps particularly marked is the reversal of population decline in Greater Manchester as a whole since 1999, with a net growth in population in the sub-region recorded in both 2002 and 2003. Figure 24 shows population change in each of the local authorities in Greater Manchester. Figure 24: Population Change in Greater Manchester Local Authorities 4% 2% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003-2% -4% -6% -8% -10% -12% Bolton Bury Manchester Oldham Rochdale Salford Stockport Tameside Trafford Wigan Source: ONS Mid Year Estimates 3.25 There has clearly been a reversal of population trends in Manchester since 1999, with a levelling off of population then a dramatic population growth in 2002 such that by 2003, Manchester s population equalled that in 1991. In Tameside, Trafford, Wigan and Salford longterm more marginal population loss has also ceased with these authorities gaining population since 2001. However this growth has not been from other areas within Greater Manchester, the sub-region s population growing as a whole. 3.26 Drilling down to look at Oldham and Rochdale individually, it is possible to consider how the different components of population change (birth rate, death rate and migration) have influenced these trends. Figure 25 shows the relationship between births and deaths in Oldham. It shows that over the twelve year period, the birth rate has been higher than the death rate in Oldham and therefore the Borough has experienced net natural increase in population. However both the birth and death rates are falling, but based on current trends the birth rate is falling marginally less fast than the death rate indicating a marginally increasing natural population growth. July 2005 43

3.27 In Rochdale (Fig. 26), as in Oldham, the birth rate has consistently exceeded the death rate over the twelve year period (1991 2003) and therefore there has been a natural increase in population. However in Rochdale, the birth rate and the death rate are converging and hence natural population growth in falling. Figure 25: Natural Population Change in Oldham MBC 4.0 3.5 3.0 Change (thousands) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1991-2 1992-3 1993-4 1994-5 1995-6 1996-7 1997-8 1998-9 1999-00 2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 Live births Deaths Natural change Source: ONS Mid Year Population Estimates Figure 26: Natural Population Change in Rochdale MBC 3.5 3.0 2.5 Change (thousands) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1991-2 1992-3 1993-4 1994-5 1995-6 1996-7 1997-8 1998-9 1999-00 2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 Live births Deaths Natural change July 2005 44

Source: Census Mid Year Population Estimates 3.28 As well as natural increase, population change is influenced by migration trends. Figures 27 and 28 record natural increase and population change in Oldham MBC and Rochdale MBC respectively. Figure 27: Oldham MBC Components of Population Change 1.0 0.5 Change (thousands) 0.0-0.5 1991-2 1992-3 1993-4 1994-5 1995-6 1996-7 1997-8 1998-9 1999-00 2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 Natural change Net migration Total change -1.0-1.5 Source: ONS Mid Year Population Estimates 3.29 Figure 27 demonstrates that net population change in much more dependent on migration, which is more variable than natural change population losses reflecting higher levels on net out-migration. From a position of population gain in 1991-3, Oldham has since lost people in the order of 300 persons per year, with the exceptions of 1995-6 (marginal growth) and 2000-1 (400 persons growth). In 2002-3 there was a reduction in the level of population loss compared to the previous year. July 2005 45

3.30 Figure 28 shows a corresponding graph of population change for Rochdale. As in Oldham, it shows that migration trends are driving population change. Overall the Borough experienced net out-migration in 1995-7, but between 1997-2001 positive natural change coupled with low out-migration (and significant in-migration in 1999-2000) produced overall population growth. However in 2001-2 the Borough lost 600 people, contributing to a marginal net reduction in population. Net out-migration continued in 2002-3 albeit at a lower rate, but balanced against natural population growth there was a net increase in Rochdale s population. Figure 28: Rochdale MBC Components of Population Change 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1991-2 1992-3 1993-4 1994-5 1995-6 1996-7 1997-8 1998-9 1999-00 2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 -0.5-1.0-1.5 Natural change Net migration Total change Source: ONS Mid Year Population Estimates 3.31 There is still evidence of international migration contributing to population change into Oldham and Rochdale. Figure 29 plots international migration into wards in Oldham and Rochdale in the year 2000/1, as recorded by the census. It shows that international migration is most significant into Central and Fallinge (Rochdale) and Werneth (Oldham) where it is in the region of 100 persons in the single year. In the wards of Brimrod and Deeplish, Smallbridge and Wardleworth and Newbold (Rochdale) and St Mary s and Coldhurst (Oldham) over 40 people moved into the area from outside the UK in 2000/1. July 2005 46

Figure 29: International Migration 120 Persons moved to area from outside UK 2000/1 100 80 60 40 20 0 Failsworth West Heywood North Heywood South Royton South Littleborough Spotland Waterhead Lees Shaw St. Pauls Wardle Saddleworth East Norden and Bamford Alexandra Hollinwood Newbold Coldhurst St. Marys Smallbridge and Wardleworth Brimrod and Deeplish Central and Falinge Werneth Source: Census 2001 3.32 Assessing the information available, the challenge perhaps for Rochdale is to sustain this lower level of net out-migration and over time to move to a situation of net in-migration. Given the trends emerging in the last few years of a stabilisation and growth of population in the inner core of the conurbation in Manchester (and with a stabilisation of population loss in Salford) this seems to be a conceivable objective. 3.33 In contrast in Oldham, the challenge is to replicate what has begun to occur in Rochdale to reduce out-migration so that net out-migration is more marginal and ultimately to a position of migration balance. The recent trends across Greater Manchester provide some hope that this is a realistic objective. Projecting Recent Population Trends 3.34 The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has recently published a series of population projections utilising the mid-year estimate (MYE) information. These are the 2003 Sub- National Population Projections published by ONS on 25 th November 2004 7. 7 They project forward the mid-2003 population estimates to give an indication of trends 2004 2028 based on observed levels of births, deaths and migration over the previous five years (1999 2003). They show what the population will be if recent trends continue and do not take into account future policy changes; economic change; or the impact of a changing (ageing) demographic structure. July 2005 47

Figure 30: ONS 2003-Based Sub-National Population Projections (thousands) AREA NAME DATA TYPE 2003 2004 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 Oldham Population 218.1 217.9 217.8 218.8 220.6 222.2 223.1 Oldham Natural Change 0.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 Oldham All Migration net 0.0-1.0-0.8-0.7-0.7-0.7-0.7 Rochdale Population 206.6 207.1 209.2 212.2 215.4 218.3 220.4 Rochdale Natural Change 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 Rochdale All Migration net 0.0-0.1-0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: ONS 2004 3.35 Figure 31 plots population growth to 2019. The projections indicate that Oldham s population will grow to 1.4% to 2019 (a growth of 3,100 persons). Rochdale will experience much more substantial growth, the population growing by 4.3% to 2019 (a growth of 8,900 persons). Figure 31: Projected Population 2003 2019 225.0 Population ('000s) 220.0 215.0 210.0 205.0 200.0 195.0 Oldham Rochdale 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Source: ONS 2004 3.36 The projections assume a slight rise in natural increase in Oldham from current levels of around 700 persons per annum, along with a slight fall in out-migration from around 800 persons per annum at present, resulting in population growth beyond 2008. In Rochdale stronger overall growth reflects a broad migration balance coupled with natural increase of around 600-700 persons per annum. Household Growth Current Trends 3.37 Household growth is likely to be result mainly from population growth, with some growth relating to declining average household size. July 2005 48

3.38 The Census recorded 72,593 households resident in the Oldham/ Rochdale Pathfinder area in 2001 a very similar level to the 72,424 recorded in 1991 (a 0.2% increase equivalent to an increase of 169 households). Average household size in the Oldham/Rochdale Pathfinder, at 2.52 persons/ household in 2001, is noticeably higher than the regional (2.39) and national (2.40) levels. 3.39 As both the number of persons resident and households have remained broadly consistent between 1991 and 2001, average household size has not changed significantly. Average household size fell by just 0.1 persons/household (from 2.53 in 1991 to 2.52 in 2001) in the Pathfinder area as against a regional decline of 0.15 persons/ household. Work by Manchester University (2004) has shown that: Average household size of Asian households is notably higher than average, with 3 adults and 1-2 children per household; Between 1991 2001 average household size has grown in Asian settlement areas from 3.2 to 3.5; has remained consistent in Asian growth areas at 2.4 persons, but has fallen from 2.4 to 2.3 persons in other areas; and The slight fall in household size reflects a lower number of children in households (presumably as the population structure ages this should continue). 3.40 Manchester University (2004) have shown that in 2001 the average Asian household in Oldham and Rochdale contains three adults and one or more children. 3.41 Thw trends suggests a continued (although not necessarily increasing) demand for larger housing units, particularly from South Asian households. However we would expect average household size in the white ethnic group to be falling, in line with national trends for later marriage and childbearing, falling birth rates, increasing divorce and more people living alone. This should generate demand for smaller units. Existing Household Projections 3.42 For both Boroughs the projection is that the number of households will continue to increase, generating demand for (additional) new-build housing in both Boroughs. Figure 32a: Existing Council Household Projections 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Oldham 85,210 87,821 91,501 95335 Rochdale 80,912 84,431 86,874 88,832 90,695 92,387 93,655 % Growth (Decade) 5.2% 4.3% 3.7% Source: OMBC/ RMBC July 2005 49

Figure 32b: ODPM Household Projections 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Oldham 85210 87821 91025 94346 Rochdale 80912 84431 86874 88832 90695 92387 94684 % Growth (Decade) 5.2% 4.0% 4.0% 3.43 Council projections show an overall increase across the two Boroughs of 14,295 households over the period 2001/21 an increase of 7,514 households (8.6%) in Rochdale and 6,781 households (7.8%) in Oldham. In Oldham most of this increase in households is projected to take place after 2006 with the majority in respect of households of Asian origin. 3.44 ODPM projections show stronger growth in Rochdale, with a projected increase of 7,810 households (9.0%) between 2001/21 as against 6,525 (7.4%) in Oldham. Given evidence of current population dynamics the ODPM projections appear more accurate. 3.45 Based on these projections we might therefore expect over the period 2001/21: A net growth of 325-375 households per annum in Oldham; A net growth of 340-390 households per annum in Rochdale. Manchester University s Projections 3.46 Manchester University has been commissioned by Oldham/Rochdale Partners in Action to produce population and household forecasts for the two boroughs. The population forecast adds an ethnic dimension to the population projections released by the Office for National Statistics in December 2004, using information on migration and fertility from the 2001 census. It is consistent with this in terms of overall population growth. Household growth is then projected by applying forecasts of changes in household size prepared by the two council s in the 1990s to the recent ONS 2003-based Sub-National Population Projections. 3.47 In Rochdale the Manchester University projections show a higher rate of household growth than the ODPM and Council projections between 2001/11 and 2011/21, with similar levels of growth in the two decades. It suggests that the number of households in Rochdale will be 2,600 higher in 2021 than projected by the Council and that household growth will be of the order of 550-600 per annum (2001/21). 3.48 In Oldham, Manchester University suggest similar levels of household growth to the Council s projections between 2001/11, but a significantly increased level of household growth (6.8%) between 2011/21 while the other projections suggest a similar level of growth to the previous decade (3.6 4.2%). Manchester University therefore project 3,600 more households in July 2005 50

Oldham in 2021 compared to the council s projections and 4,600 more than the dated ODPM projections. 3.49 Overall Manchester University project higher levels of household growth in Rochdale than Oldham to 2011 (6.5% growth as against 4.1% between 2001/11) but similar levels of growth in the following decade (6.6% Rochdale; 6.8% Oldham). Summary 3.50 Both Oldham and Rochdale are in the fortunate position of having a projected population growth borough-wide to 2019, although this is much more significant in Rochdale (4.3%) than in Oldham (1.4%). Growth reflects a projection that natural increase (particularly within the youthful Asian communities within the two boroughs) will exceed net out migration from the boroughs over the next 15 years. Net out-migration has been substantial in Oldham, to the tune of 800 persons per annum over the last five years, and the borough is projected to continue to loose people in the short-term. 3.51 Critically though the migration balance will be the key determinant in whether population growth does indeed occur, and this is where the policy response should be focused. A number of considerations needs to be taken into account: the importance of securing a positive economic future, recongising that economic opportunity is a key driver of migration trends; the need to deliver a greater choice of housing in attractive, safe and cohesive neighbourhoods to ensure that households are not moving out of HMR areas because their needs cannot be satisfied therein; and that it is the balance of growth in the Asian communities and out-migration of (predominantly) white households that will affect overall housing demand. 3.52 Given a range of evidence 8 suggesting the need to plan primarily for the existing population, addressing these issues will be of critical importance to the programme. 3.53 In housing market terms there is also a need to recognise the housing requirements arising from the differential demographic profile of Asian households, with an average four to five persons per household. This is an average and there are likely a number of households larger than this. This creates a demand for larger housing units within Inner Oldham and Inner Rochdale, which is currently not being adequately met by the current stock profile, bourne out in evidence of overcrowding and latent demand for larger housing units. 8 Combining demographic evidence with findings from the economic review, analysis of migration trends and discussions with estate agents and developers. July 2005 51

July 2005 52

4 Economic Perspectives Housing Markets in a Macroeconomic Context 4.1 Sub-regional housing markets are clearly sensitive to both national and local economic conditions and performance. The economy is the predominant external factor. Indeed, the fortunes of the housing market and the economy and have long been intertwined. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently argued that most stop-go problems that Britain has suffered in the last 50 years have been led or influenced by the housing market (Economist, 7th Oct 2004). 4.2 In this context, it is now generally accepted that house prices have risen well above sustainable levels, as determined by household incomes, in which nationally, the ratio of house prices to earnings is some 55% above its average level of the past 20 years. Ratios for Oldhama and Rochdale are shown below. Figure 33: Ratio of House Price to Earnings Price (Q4 2004) Weekly Earnings (2004) Annual Earnings Ratio Oldham 100303 359.7 18704.4 5.36 Rochdale 110375 386.1 20077.2 5.50 NW 130128 392.4 20404.8 6.38 E&W 182920 426.3 22167.6 8.25 Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (2004); Land Registry (Q4 2004) 4.3 Nevertheless the evidence continues to mount that the UK housing market is adjusting as house price growth continues to slow, in the face of gradual increases in the interest rate by the Bank of England. According to the Nationwide Building Society, in the first half of 2004, house prices increased by over 1.5% per month, but in August and September, house price growth was just 0.1% and 0.2% respectively. 4.4 But will the housing market crash? And will the housing market crash prompt another early 1990s economic crash? As to the latter question, the evidence suggests not as we live in different times. Capital Economics predicts a fall of 20% over the next two years but crucially, their forecast will not jolt the economy into recession but instead it is forecasted that the economy will experience only a modest slowdown in growth. This is further reinforced by Figure 34 which provides the near term consensus forecasts for the UK, USA and the EU. Figure 34: Near Term Consensus Forecasts for the UK, USA and the EU GDP Forecast Latest 2004 2005 UK 3.70% 3.40% 2.70% USA 4.70% 4.30% 3.40% EU 2.00% 1.80% 2.00% July 2005 53

Source: Economist Sept 04 4.5 Whilst the US may post stronger growth than the UK, both areas are expected to grow above the average forecast for the EU. Put simply, if there are no economic shocks, then the UK should expect strong growth but at a slightly decreasing rate, this should still be well above its long-term average growth rate of 2.5%. Forecasts for the North West indicate strong growth for the same period oscillating around the UK average. However, the consensus forecast for the UK indicates that the economy may well have peaked in 2004. 4.6 Therefore, if the recent slowdown in the housing market is not going to precipitate another early 1990s economic crash, the economy may escape the worst. However a fall in house prices might actually impact upon owner-occupiers. This is due to the fact that huge personal indebtedness has been closely associated with the feel good period in the UK as even as late as the second quarter of 2004, mortgage-equity withdrawal is running at 7.5% of households post-tax income, which is at the same peak level as in the late 1980s. Combined with an ageing population, a pensions crisis and an illusionary wealth effect, in which households are not saving due to inflated property wealth, then the situation, if not altogether inevitable, will have a significant impact upon household consumption and hence the housing market. Economic and Housing Market Trends 4.7 Sub-regional housing markets are clearly sensitive to both national and local economic conditions and peformance. Indeed the ODPM Manual identifies that the economy is the predominant external factor influencing the housing market, having implications for both supply and demand, shaping the choice that households make, and options open to them (2004, 40). 4.8 At the local level, economic performance is a key driver of both population change, through migration, and of local incomes both of which have clear implications for housing demand. Slow economic growth is indeed a characteristic of low demand areas which are experiencing population loss and have high proportions of low income households. 4.9 A strategy for housing market renewal must recongise the importance of addressing housing markets and economic development in tandem renewing a relationship which has become somewhat decoupled at the level of both policy and practice (ODPM 2004, 40). July 2005 54

Mapping the Sub Regional Economic Context Labour Market Economic Activity 4.10 The resident working age population in Oldham (Figure 33) is estimated to be 131,000 of which 103,000 are thought to be economically active; this gives an economic activity rate of 78.6% which is higher than the activity rate of the regional and national averages (75.6% for the North West and 78.3% for the UK). Approximately 7,000 economically active people are currently unemployed, giving an unemployment rate of 6.4%, which is actually higher than the prevailing rate for the North West and for England. 4.11 The resident working age population in Rochdale (Figure 35) is estimated to be 124,000 of which 91,000 are thought to be economically active; this gives an economic activity rate of 73.7% which is actually lower than the activity rate of the regional and national averages. Approximately 6,000 economically active people are currently unemployed, giving an unemployment rate of 6.2%, which again is higher than the prevailing rate for the North West and for England. Figure 35: Key Statistics for Oldham - Rochdale Working Age Population Economically Active Economic Activity Rate Unemployed Unemployme nt Rate (%) Economically Inactive Economic Inactive Rate (%) Oldham 131,000 103,000 78.6 7,000 6.4 28,034 21.4 Rochdale 124,000 91,000 73.7 6,000 6.2 32,612 26.3 GM 1,527,000 1,156,000 75.7 65,000 5.6 371,061 24.3 North West 4,077,000 3,083,000 75.6 170,000 5.5 994,788 24.4 England and Wales 31,898,000 24,958,000 78.2 1,270,000 5.1 6,953,764 21.8 Source: Local Area Labour Force Survey (March 2002 Feb 2003) 4.12 Within Oldham and Rochdale there is variation in the unemployment rate across the wards. Both areas have their extremes. Figure 36 illustrates those wards in which economic activity is particularly high and conversely, those wards in which economic inactivity is more pronounced. 4.13 In Oldham, the wards of Coldhurst, St. Marys and Werneth have the highest numbers of unemployed (14.4%, 11.4% and 12.8% respectively) while in Rochdale, the wards of Middleton West and Smallbridge and Wardleworth have the highest numbers of unemployed (10% and 10.8%). These wards are selected as being statistically significant as their unemployment count is at or greater than the regional average. July 2005 55

Figure 36: Economically Active ALL PEOPLE Economically active Economically active Employee Unemployed Oldham 152602 99003 79748 5632 Alexandra 7149 3784 2904 435 Chadderton Central 7972 5534 4645 193 Chadderton North 7376 5064 4253 182 Chadderton South 7095 4750 4037 214 Coldhurst 7396 3696 2666 532 Crompton 8205 5678 4703 176 Failsworth East 7855 5448 4503 223 Failsworth West 7068 4495 3737 231 Hollinwood 6507 3817 3094 314 Lees 7180 4497 3594 322 Royton North 7841 5461 4532 176 Royton South 7566 5357 4538 193 Saddleworth East 9703 6933 5369 182 Saddleworth West 8361 6029 4781 169 St. James 6666 4400 3601 349 St. Marys 7091 3872 2855 440 St. Pauls 7291 4579 3565 315 Shaw 7640 5427 4497 211 Waterhead 9181 6420 5330 293 Werneth 7459 3762 2544 482 Rochdale 145068 93044 74120 5649 Balderstone 6744 4191 3314 322 Brimrod and Deeplish 5790 3297 2479 269 Castleton 7013 4756 3841 233 Central and Falinge 6741 3489 2478 491 Healey 9841 6768 5459 293 Heywood North 6645 4354 3480 267 Heywood South 7951 5509 4467 312 Heywood West 6146 3932 3212 275 Littleborough 9017 6375 5218 206 Middleton Central 6371 3758 3030 352 Middleton East 6185 4121 3428 217 Middleton North 8188 5738 4778 324 Middleton South 7231 4700 3761 195 Middleton West 4461 2300 1829 230 Milnrow 8384 5854 4815 214 Newbold 7506 4320 3286 410 Norden and Bamford 9263 6506 5026 167 S bridge and W worth 8944 4536 3349 493 Spotland 6079 4000 3185 191 Wardle 6568 4540 3685 188 Greater Manchester 1781882 1147041 918826 62747 North West 4839669 3093186 2450710 175549 England & Wales 37607438 25022204 19681030 1261343 Source: Census 2001 Oldham Rochdale July 2005 56

Figure 37: Economic Activity in Oldham-Rochdale 4.14 4.15 July 2005 57

4.16 When considering economic inactivity (Figure 38), the wards with a higher percentage of economically inactive residents also correspond closely with those wards with the highest percentage of unemployed. The only addition to this would be Failsworth West, which although having an unemployment rate that compares favourably to the regional and subregional average (5.1% in 2001), there are over 36.4% economically inactive residents within the ward. Figure 38: Economically Inactive Economically inactive ALL PEOPLE Economically inactive Retired Student Looking after home/family Permanently sick/disabled Other Oldham 152602 53599 19869 6027 10151 11721 5831 Alexandra 7149 3365 765 403 865 857 475 Chadderton Central 7972 2438 1086 290 292 568 202 Chadderton North 7376 2312 1154 232 311 435 180 Chadderton South 7095 2345 965 227 371 574 208 Coldhurst 7396 3700 705 467 1086 735 707 Crompton 8205 2527 1258 278 308 528 155 Failsworth East 7855 2407 1135 243 336 491 202 Failsworth West 7068 2573 1188 218 380 579 208 Hollinwood 6507 2690 778 257 617 731 307 Lees 7180 2683 999 253 506 667 258 Royton North 7841 2380 1162 264 301 508 145 Royton South 7566 2209 1121 214 249 472 153 Saddleworth East 9703 2770 1468 384 397 343 178 Saddleworth West 8361 2332 1220 274 334 355 149 St. James 6666 2266 634 225 532 593 282 St. Marys 7091 3219 739 399 882 703 496 St. Pauls 7291 2712 971 318 511 569 343 Shaw 7640 2213 874 231 352 546 210 Waterhead 9181 2761 991 297 503 680 290 Werneth 7459 3697 656 553 1018 787 683 Rochdale 145068 52024 18909 5857 9400 11982 5876 Balderstone 6744 2553 919 221 514 631 268 B rod and Deeplish 5790 2493 692 351 549 540 361 Castleton 7013 2257 970 237 322 526 202 Central and Falinge 6741 3252 709 401 696 907 539 Healey 9841 3073 1243 323 460 565 482 Heywood North 6645 2291 837 228 389 590 247 Heywood South 7951 2442 1014 254 384 571 219 Heywood West 6146 2214 827 209 373 582 223 Littleborough 9017 2642 1166 292 373 606 205 Middleton Central 6371 2613 911 225 460 702 315 Middleton East 6185 2064 857 231 306 473 197 Middleton North 8188 2450 858 259 440 648 245 Middleton South 7231 2531 1367 276 310 425 153 Middleton West 4461 2161 685 158 398 645 275 Milnrow 8384 2530 1065 265 392 617 191 Newbold 7506 3186 819 410 788 728 441 Norden and Bamford 9263 2757 1509 367 363 346 172 S bridge and W worth 8944 4408 839 626 1188 976 779 Spotland 6079 2079 849 237 372 424 197 Wardle 6568 2028 773 287 323 480 165 Greater Manchester 1781882 634841 232635 90976 108589 139705 62936 North West 4839669 1746483 691072 223770 296065 374928 160648 England & Wales 37607438 12585234 5118950 1766784 2448856 2076243 1174401 Source: Census 2001 Oldham Rochdale July 2005 58

Unemployment Trends 4.17 The chart below shows the Job Seeker Allowance claimant count for both Oldham and Rochdale, relative to the North West picture. it is clear that there is a strong declining trend in the number of individuals claiming job seekers allowance. The number of claimants has more than halved, with a decrease in Oldham from 8,805 in January 1996 to 3,564 in July 2004 and in Rochdale, a decrease in Oldham from 8,045 in January 1996 to 3,578 in July 2004. Figure 39: JSA Claim ant Count, 1996-2004 Claimants 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Jan- 96 Jan- 97 Jan- 98 Jan- 99 Jan- 00 Jan- 01 Jan- 02 Jan- 03 Jan- 04 O ldham Rochdale North W est 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 Claimants Source: Local Labour Force Survey Economic Inactivity: Sick / Disabled 4.18 Using Figure 38 (Economic Inactivity) above as a filter, we can present a more refined picture of worklessness than is perhaps presented by the JSA Claimant Count. Figure 40: Registered Sick and Disabled 1991 2001 % Change % of Population Sick / Disabled (2001) Oldham 8672 11721 35 7.68 Alexandra 589 857 46 11.99 Coldhurst 662 735 11 9.94 Failsworth West 432 579 34 8.19 Hollinwood 524 731 40 11.23 Lees 460 667 45 9.29 St.James 399 593 49 8.9 St.Marys 635 703 11 9.91 St.Pauls 409 569 39 7.8 Werneth 667 787 18 10.55 July 2005 59

Rochdale 8829 11982 36 8.26 Balderstone 517 631 22 9.36 Brimrod and Deeplish 397 540 36 9.33 Heywood North 409 590 44 8.88 Heywood West 443 582 31 9.47 Middleton Central 510 702 38 11.02 Middleton North 435 648 49 7.91 Middleton West 469 645 38 14.46 Newbold 604 728 21 9.7 Smallbridge and Wardleworth 697 976 40 10.91 North West 294725 374928 27 7.75 England and Wales 1573930 2076243 32 5.52 Source: Census 1991, 2001 4.19 The above table indicates that between 1991 and 2001, the numbers of residents registering as permanently sick or disabled increased in both Oldham and Rochdale by 35% and 36% respectively. This is in excess of the regional and national average over the same period, which recorded an increase of 27% and 32% respectively. 4.20 At ward level, those wards of Oldham and Rochdale where economic inactivity is greater than the Greater Manchester average, all wards reported increases in the numbers of residents registering themselves as permanently sick or disabled. In the worst cases, increases of over 40% have been recorded (Alexandra, Hollinwood, Lees, St. James, Heywood North, Middleton North, Smallbridge and Wardleworth wards). Taken as an average, the wards of Oldham and Rochdale displaying the highest recorded rates of economic inactivity, contain approximately 1 in 10 of their population registered as permanently sick or disabled. July 2005 60

Labour Market Inactivity 4.21 The trend in economic inactivity has remained fairly steady between 2000 and 2004 in Oldham and Rochdale. In 2004, economic inactivity amongst the working age population in Oldham and Rochdale was 23% and 22.4% respectively. Figure 41: Labour Market Inactivity % of working age population economically inactive 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sep 2000-Aug 2001 Sep 2001-Aug 2002 Sep 2002-Aug 2003 Sep 2003-Aug 2004 Oldham Rochdale North West Entgland and Wales Source: Local Labour Force Survey Ethnicity Dimension to Inactivity Figure 42: Working Age Inactivity Rate by Ethnic Group 2002/3 All White All Nonwhite Mixed Indian Banglad eshi Black Other ENGLAND 21.5 20.0 35.5 29.7 26.7 49.6 30.9 38.8 NORTH WEST 24.4 23.4 40.6 27.4 31.1 49.7 32.4 44.5 GREATER MANCHESTER 24.3 22.5 41.9 25.5 31.1 49.3 35.6 44.5 Oldham 21.4 17.5 45.4 58.. 51.0.... Rochdale 26.3 23.4 43.5 32 33 48.1 46 22 Source: Labour Force Survey 4.22 Although there is a relatively steady trend of inactivity in both Oldham and Rochdale, it holds that there is an ethnic dimension to inactivity in the two towns, as highlighted in Figure 42 above. Labour Market Summary 4.23 Looking at the different aspects of economic inactivity, what conclusions can be drawn about the respective labour markets in Oldham and Rochdale Figure 43 (a and b) indexes the data for both authorities. July 2005 61

4.24 In both Oldham and Rochdale, the claimant count has been declining. In 2003, it is just over 84% of the rate recorded in 1999. This trend appears to be continuing. However, looking at the unemployment rate the rates in Oldham and Rochdale in 2003 as against 1999 is 102% and 94% respectively (albeit, both Oldham and Rochdale show some fluctuations between the period). 4.25 The economic activity rate and employment rate in both Oldham and Rochdale have remained relatively static (102% in Oldham relative to base year and 98% in Rochdale relative to base year). The data indicates that when people come of the JSA, then crucially, they are not re-entering the labour market, which would certainly explain the 8% increase in economic inactivity in Rochdale. Figure 43(a): Labour Market Analysis - Oldham 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 Economic Inactivity Unemployment Rate Claimant Count Employment Rate Economic Activity 0.0 Mar 1999- Feb 2000 Mar 2000- Feb 2001 Mar 2001- Feb 2002 Mar 2002- Feb 2003 Figure 43(b): Labour Market Analysis - Rochdale 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 Economic Inactivity Unemployment Rate Claimant Count Employment Rate Economic Activity 0.0 Mar 1999- Feb 2000 Mar 2000- Feb 2001 Mar 2001- Feb 2002 Mar 2002- Feb 2003 4.26 July 2005 62

Earnings a Proxy for Skills Levels 4.27 Average weekly wages (Figure 44) for employees working within Oldham and Rochdale are 402.13 and 387.79 respectively; this is well below the regional and national averages of 437.56 and 479.88 respectively. This is indicative of the economic problems faced by the area. Figure 44: Full Time Workers: Gross Weekly Pay (2002-2003) 600 500 per week 400 300 200 2002 2003 100 0 Oldham Rochdale North West England and Wales Source: New Earnings Survey (Workplace) 4.28 The evidence further suggests that wages in Oldham and Rochdale have at best remained static (in the case of Rochdale) and even started to decline (in the case of Oldham). 4.29 However, an interesting result is found when we look at gross weekly earnings by residence against the workplace profile illustrated above. One might expect that given the profile of the labour market, there may be significant differentials between residence and workplace earnings. This is certainly true for Rochdale, where there is a pay gap of 20.75 per week between those that work and those that live in Rochdale. For Oldham, no discernible gap exists (the pay gap being just 3.18 per week). This would certainly seem to suggest that those with higher level qualifications in Rochdale are forced to travel outside of Rochdale to find employment suitable to their level of skills. This is supported when considering the difference in residence and workplace based earnings in Rochdale. 4.30 In all instances, average weekly wages in both Oldham and Rochdale lag behind the regional average, more so for those that work in Oldham and Rochdale, than for those that live in Oldham and Rochdale. From Figure 45, it is clear that those living in Oldham and Rochdale have an average weekly wage that is just 21.42 less than the regional average, but for those working in Oldham and Rochdale, then there is a pay gap of 35.43 per week. July 2005 63

Figure 45: Difference between Residence and Workplace Based Earnings Residence Workplace Difference (R-W) Oldham 405.31 402.13 3.18 Rochdale 408.54 387.79 20.75 North West 426.73 437.56-10.83 England 469.38 479.88-10.5 Difference (O-NW) -21.42-35.43 Difference (R-NW) -18.19-49.77 Difference (O-E) -64.07-77.75 Difference (R-E) -60.84-92.09 Source: New Earnings Survey 4.31 Bringing the above together, paints an interesting picture for the local economy and the housing market in Oldham and Rochdale. Here is a sub-regional economy where wages are low relative to the regional economy, and at best, static. It holds that if local firms were demanding employees with higher level skills, then one would expect to see wage levels increasing, which for both Oldham and Rochdale they are not. 4.32 Moreover, average (workplace) wages in Rochdale are some 14.34 per week less than the average weekly wage in Oldham, suggesting that here is an economy that is skewed towards lower value and hence lower skills. 4.33 Figure 46 (a and b) consider average earnings in the context of the key economic drivers of Manchester and Leeds and in many respects begins to shed further light on the respective local economies of Oldham and Rochdale. Figure 46(a): Workplace Earnings in Oldham, Rochdale, Manchester and Leeds 2003 Oldham Rochdale Manchester Leeds 1 : Managers and Senior Officials 602.01 653.71 713.16 676.37 2 : Professional Occupations 527.8 602.08 639.06 630.14 3 : Associate Professional and Technical Occupations 443.68 389.11 543.03 471.74 4.34 Source: New Earnings Survey 4.35 Figure 46(a) highlights the incentivisation effect for the higher earning occupations. Managers and Senior Officials will earn some 111.15 more per week in Manchester than they would do in Oldham and 59.45 more per week than they would earn in Rochdale. Similarly the incentivisation effect is clearly evident for Professional Occupations and Associate Professional and Technical Occupations. Figure 46(b): Workplace Earnings in Oldham, Rochdale, Manchester and Leeds 2003 July 2005 64

Oldham Rochdale Manchester Leeds 4 : Administrative and Secretarial Occupations 307.34 316.71 312.52 314.5 5 : Skilled Trades Occupations 367.81 394.58 382.24 381.95 6 : Personal Service Occupations 267.26 273.03 290.36 291.53 7 : Sales and Customer Service occupations 274.95 306.17 288.71 289.32 8 : Process, Plant and Machine Operatives 306.98 323.87 346.05 353.72 9 : Elementary Occupations 267.47 283.31 313.95 282.64 4.36 Source: New Earnings Survey 4.37 Yet the incentivisation effect reduces dramatically when considering the average workplace earnings of the less qualified. In terms of Skilled Trade Occupations, Personal Service Occupations, Sales and Customer Service Occupations, then there is no discernible advantage between Manchester and Oldham and Rochdale, and hence no advantage in travelling outside of the boroughs to work. Skills 4.38 Figure 47 below outlines the qualification levels of the working age population in Oldham and Rochdale. 17.4% and 19.1% of the population of Oldham and Rochdale respectively have qualifications upto at leadt NVQ4 (first degree or higher), which is slightly below the regional average of 21.4%. 13.7% and 13% (Oldham and Rochdale respectively) are educated to NVQ 3 level, which compares favourbly with the regional average of 14.3%. 4.39 However, the percentage of the population of Oldham and Rochdale with no qualifications is considerably higher than the regional and national average. This is also illustrated at a more localised level in Figure 47b below. % 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 NVQ4+ Figure 47: Qualification Level of Working Age Population Oldham Rochdale North West England and Wales NVQ3 Trade apprenticeships NVQ2 NVQ1 Other qualifications No qualifications Source: Census 2001 July 2005 65

Figure 47b: No Qualifications in Oldham-Rochdale July 2005 66