This document summarizes a workshop on the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) for new communities in Cambridgeshire. It includes presentations from public health experts, planners, developers, and researchers. Key topics discussed included the purpose of the JSNA, health and wellbeing needs of new residents, preferences for neighborhood characteristics, and factors that help or hinder community development. Presenters shared data from surveys of residents in new housing developments on reasons for moving, travel patterns, and facilities/amenities that attract or deter residents.

1. Cambridgeshire
New Communities JSNA
Angelique Mavrodaris - Consultant in Public Health, CCC
Wendy Quarry - JSNA Programme Manager, CCC
Iain Green - Health Improvement Specialist, CCC
28 July 2015

2. Welcome, introductions & housekeeping

3. Angelique Mavrodaris
Consultant in Public Health
Medicine
Iain Green
Health Improvement Specialist

4. What is the JSNA?
Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs)
are used to identify the health and well being
needs of a local population and steer the
commissioning of services to meet these
needs.
They aim is to establish a shared, evidence
based consensus on key local priorities to
support commissioning to improve health and
wellbeing outcomes and reduce inequalities.

5. Joint Strategic Needs
Assessment (JSNA)
Commissioners & Local Authorities jointly
describe health, care & wellbeing needs
& service delivery
Focus on:
• Outcomes
• Partnership working
• Consultation
Drives commissioning process

7. The JSNA Process

8. Objectives of this Workshop
Scope of the New Communities JSNA
Stakeholder contribution: Bring their knowledge and
experience to the JSNA
 Key issues: what are they?
Current work: its contribution?
The Evidence: data sources?

9. Claire Astbury
External Affairs Manager
National Housing Federation

10. Planning and Health
Juliet Richardson- Growth and Development Business Manager
Charlotte Humble – New Communities Manager

11. The role and purpose of Town Planning
The planning system helps us to decide who can build
what, where and how. It makes sure that buildings
and structures that the country needs (including
homes, offices, schools, hospitals, roads, train lines,
power stations, water pipes, reservoirs and more)
get built in the right place to the right standards. A
good planning system is essential for the economy,
environment and society.’
A plain English guide to the Localism Bill
DCLG 2011, page 10

12. Good Planning ensures…..
Right Development……….
Right place…………….
Right time……..

13. Cambridgeshire Growth
Locations of north west and southern fringe developments in relation to Cambridge city
50 000 houses over next 20
years
Economic hub of UK,
international centre of
excellence
Shortage of housing supply
Affordable housing shortage

14. Why do we need to increase house
building?
Average house price in Cambridge £357,639.
Average Cambridge salary £35K
New houses built per year Cambridgeshire approx 2000
dependant on market conditions.
Greater Cambridge job total 516,000 (rapid growth since
2000)
Cambridge has 30% of the county jobs
27% increase in jobs 2011 -2031 in Cambridge area
Not including Astra Zeneca………

15. Section 106
 Often referred to as ‘developer contributions’
 Legally binding agreement between developer and other parties.
 Can be enforced by injunction
 Agreement runs with the land
 Cover the following areas;
 Restrict the development or use of the land in any specific
way
 Require specified operations or activities to be carried out in,
or under or over the land
 Require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a
specified date or dates.

16. Section 106 funding of
New Communities & urban
extensions
 Land Value
 £10k per acre agriculture
 Greenfield £150k per acre (with planning permission)
 Brownfield £500k per acre
 Transport
 100m single estate road £150k
Dual Carriageway
 £10m per mile-Complete
 £1200 per linear mile tarmac (no junction)
 £5m per junction

17. How to make new communities
successful
 Image and branding
 Community cohesion
 Balancing communities, not all young families!
 Timely infrastructure eg roads, education, community and health facilities
 Access to jobs
 Connectivity with adjoining settlements (all modes)
 Affordability
 Quality urban design and sense of place
 Community activities

18. More to planning than Planning

19. Learning lessons from the past

20. Explaining these patterns: a focus
on buildings not people?
Planning concentrates on buildings and land - creating a
pleasant built environment.
Planning tends not to look beyond the houses being built
Focus on community development not community building
Resulting in:
Early residents feel displaced & isolated
Supportive services are underprepared
Support is difficult to find
Social networks take time to form

21. So how should we plan to support new
communities

22. Funding service provision
High demand for
services
Growth at a time of
austerity
Delay in government
funding
Reducing developer
contributions

23. Workshop 1: What are the health
and wellbeing needs/issues of a
new community in
Cambridgeshire

24. NEW HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT SURVEYS
2006 2012‐
SUMMARY of findings
Sue Beecroft
Cambridge housing sub-region

25. Background
Between 2006 and 2012, surveys of new
developments across the Cambridge housing
sub region.‐
Carried out by Cambs County Research Group
9,287 surveys were sent out (over time)
2,784 were returned, slightly under 30%
This gives us an overall confidence rating of
+/-3% @ 95% confidence, normal for this kind
of survey.

26. Sites were
classed as
 New town:
dwelling stock
doubled
 Substantial
extension:
dwelling stock
increased by
>20%
 Infill: dwellings
increased by
<20%

27. When were
the surveys
done?
 Cambourne 2006
 Huntingdonshire
2007
 East Cambs 2009/10
 Fenland 2010
 Cambridge 2012
 Red Lodge in Forest
Heath 2011
 St Edmundsbury
2011
2006

28. When were
the surveys
done?
 Cambourne 2006
 Huntingdonshire
2007
 East Cambs 2009/10
 Fenland 2010
 Cambridge 2012
 Red Lodge in Forest
Heath 2011
 St Edmundsbury
2011
2006
2007

29. When were
the surveys
done?
 Cambourne 2006
 Huntingdonshire
2007
 East Cambs 2009/10
 Fenland 2010
 Cambridge 2012
 Red Lodge in Forest
Heath 2011
 St Edmundsbury
2011
2006
2007
2009/10

30. When were
the surveys
done?
 Cambourne 2006
 Huntingdonshire
2007
 East Cambs 2009/10
 Fenland 2010
 Cambridge 2012
 Red Lodge in Forest
Heath 2011
 St Edmundsbury
2011
2006
2007
2010
2009/10

31. When were
the surveys
done?
 Cambourne 2006
 Huntingdonshire
2007
 East Cambs 2009/10
 Fenland 2010
 Cambridge 2012
 Red Lodge in Forest
Heath 2011
 St Edmundsbury
2011
2006
2007
2010
2009/10 2011
2011

32. When were
the surveys
done?
 Cambourne 2006
 Huntingdonshire
2007
 East Cambs 2009/10
 Fenland 2010
 Cambridge 2012
 Red Lodge in Forest
Heath 2011
 St Edmundsbury
2011
2006
2007
2010
2009/10 2011
2012
2011

33. People were asked
Where they were moving from & reasons for
leaving
Household structure on the new development -
to help assess change to population, additional
demand for school spaces, size and types of
homes needed.
Where they work, study and shop and how they
travel to these locations.
Opinions about the area, positive and negative

34. Findings: why do people
move “overall”
“Push” factors
 To move to a larger or
smaller home
 Wanting to set up own
home
 To move nearer to
work or new job
“Pull” factors
 Like the design of the
new home or
development
 Price / affordability
compared to
neighbouring areas
 Like the idea of living
in a new development

35. Findings: specific issues
Attracts
 School with good rep
 Access to good quality
shopping, entertainment,
education & health care
 Links to e.g. Cambridge,
Peterborough and Bury St
Edmunds (employment and
non-food shopping)
 Good public transport. More
satisfied with public transport
where there is rail and less
satisfied where only served by
bus
Deters
A lack of facilities
 poor range of shops
 lack of post office
 lack of pub
 lack of sporting facilities

36. The most popular reasons for wanting to
move was
 “to find a larger or smaller home”
… which implies a mix of property sizes
helps encourage moves, and so may help
attract people.
Findings – sizes of homes

37. Some people were positive about the mix of
social groups and tenures on their
development.
However some mentioned mix as a negative
factor.
Typically people were negative about the
amount of social housing developed
However in Cambridge some respondents felt
there were too many privately rented properties!
Findings – mixed tenure, mixed
feelings

38. Findings – design of
homes, design of development
Likes
The most popular reason for choosing a new home was
design or appearance of the home or development.
2nd
most popular reason was price or affordability
compared to neighbouring areas
The idea of living in a new development was also
attractive for many.
Quality of the development and its landscape and
maintenance is important for satisfaction, also mentions
that new homes are cheaper to run.

39. Findings – design of
homes, design of development
Dislikes
Include lack of privacy due to being overlooked, small
garden or no garden and living on a partially finished
development
High on the list are anti social and youth behaviour -‐
though not clear if design contributes to this.
Terms such as “friendly” and “good community spirit” were
mentioned more than the negative terms such as
“unfriendly” and “no community spirit”.
However, some people said that they felt isolated, though
not clear whether design is a contributory factor.

40. New towns and substantial developments
 higher numbers of under 16s than in the ‘host’ district.‐
 higher proportion of 30 44 year olds‐
 lower proportion of older people.
In fill sites‐
 slightly older population than new towns and substantial
developments with more people aged 60+
 … though proportion of 60+ lower than the ‘host’ district
Findings – population comparison

41. Some 77% of new development residents in the sub‐
region travel to work/study by car (alone or shared)
Across all new development surveys, new housing
development residents have a slightly higher number of
cars per household, compared to the ‘host district’
population – but Cambridge, East Cambridgeshire and
Fenland are exceptions where fewer cars per
household compared to all residents.
Interesting variations between districts…
Findings – travel

42. How do you travel to work?

43. How do you travel to work?
Car alone

44. How do you travel to work?
Car alone
Car
share

45. How do you travel to work?
Car alone
Car
share
Walk

46. How do you travel to work?
Car alone
Car
share
Walk
Cycle

47. How do you travel to work?
Car alone
Car
share
Walk
Bus
Cycle

48. How do you travel to work?
Car alone
Car
share
Walk
Bus
Cycle
Train

49. How do you travel to work?
Car alone
Car
share
Walk
Bus
Cycle
Train
WFH

50. New Housing Development
Surveys
Find summary, and reports for each district, at
http://
www.cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/new-homes-communities-data
Housing priority: new homes &
communities
Find out more at http://
www.cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/housing

51. School for Public Health Research
Relocation to New Environments (RENEW):
New Communities JSNA Stakeholder Scoping
Workshop
Calum Mattocks, Cambridge Institute for Public Health, University of
Cambridge
This is an outline of independent research funded by the
National Institute for Health Research’s School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR).
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the
Department of Health.
28th
July 2015

52. School for Public Health Research
Relocation to New Environments
(RENEW)
• Pilot study to assess the feasibility of using new housing
developments to investigate the impact of changes to
the environment on PA, active travel and well-being
• Semi-structured interviews with participants and key
stakeholders

53. School for Public Health Research
Qualitative study
participants
• 17 women and 4 men with an average
age of 52 years (range 25-73)
• Largely middle-class either working or
retired professionals
• Moderate to high awareness of lifestyle
as a determinant of health

54. School for Public Health Research
Topic areas examined
• Neighbourhood preferences
• Physical activity and travel
• Green space
• Reasons for moving
• Reasons for choosing

55. School for Public Health Research
Neighbourhood preferences
• Younger people
• Proximity to transport and amenities
important
• Tended to be practical and less
community minded
“I guess I wasn’t really looking for anything in particular but it would help that I lived in a
location where they had good bus service and good cycle paths, etc,”
Female, single, 20s
“I would say the younger … people who have got no children or anything like that couldn’t give
a monkeys, bluntly. It’s when you get children … you begin to take some interest in the
local community…”
Local authority housing manager

56. School for Public Health Research
Neighbourhood preferences
• Established couples:
• Access to good transport links
important
“when I go to old towns and cities you can feel the difference as a pedestrian
or a cyclist of how you’re… less well taken care of…even down to things
that look quaint like cobblestones which are great for the tourists but as a
cyclist they’re a nightmare… I think it’s helpful for everyone to get
dedicated paths.”
Male 30s, married
“…this is one of the reasons why it took us so long, we only wanted to live a
mile from the train station and it just got widened and widened … because
we just either couldn’t afford what we wanted or it was just absolutely
awful … so we would have preferred this place to be a bit closer really”
Female 30s, partner

57. School for Public Health Research
Neighbourhood preferences
• Older people
• Amenities or family within easy reach
• Often concerned about traffic
“I mean for us …, we’re looking out for … reasonable distance and ease of
getting to the doctors, the chemist, and basic shops and so on”
Retired male, married, grown-up children and grandchildren
“… I don’t drive, I used to but I don’t drive anymore, I don’t like driving and I
haven’t driven for a long time so I definitely need to be able to access
places, shops, public facilities and things like that. I like to walk and I like to
walk in a pleasant place particularly so really that’s my main aims.”
Retired female, married, grown-up children and grandchildren

58. School for Public Health Research
Stakeholder priorities and
aspirations
• Differing priorities among developers and local
authorities around planning
• All were keen to provide healthy, sustainable
communities
• Access to transport, green space, bike storage etc
• Weight attached to each aspect often differed
among stakeholders

59. School for Public Health Research
Stakeholder pressures and barriers
• Commercial pressures mean aspirations of developers
and local government not always aligned
• Not always stereotypical
• For example developers’ connectivity plan
compromised trunk road traffic
• How can stakeholders collaborate to build healthy
communities?

60. School for Public Health Research
Collaboration on future
studies- how should we proceed?
• Can stakeholders work in a more collaborative way
with academics to conduct research?
• What form might that take?
• E.g. Collaborating to frame research questions, study
design and recruitment strategies?
• What are the key research questions?
• North West Cambridge development opportunities
• Institute of Public Health advised on writing the tender
for NWC Elderly Living Facility

61. School for Public Health Research
• The University of Sheffield
• The University of Bristol
• The University of Cambridge
• University College London
• The London School for Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
• The Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry
• The LiLaC collaboration between the Universities of Liverpool and Lancaster
• Fuse; The Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, a collaboration
between Newcastle, Durham, Northumbria, Sunderland and Teesside
Universities
The National Institute for Health Research’s
School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR)
is a partnership between:

62. School for Public Health Research
 David Ogilvie, UoC (PI)
 Jamie Anderson, UoC
 Fiona Bull, UWA
 Conny Guell, UoC
 Felicia Huppert, UoC
 Andy Jones, UEA
 Calum Mattocks, UoC
 Nick Osborne, UoE
 Jenna Panter, UoC
 April Saunders, UoC
http://www.cedar.iph.cam.ac.uk/renew/
cm726@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Collaborators

63. School for Public Health Research
Physical activity
and active travel
• Many participants physically active
• Most cited walking as a convenient
activity
• Walking and cycling in city parks or in the
country side
• Active travel or public transport preferred
travel choices where convenient
• Enjoyment, health, environmental concerns
and convenience were all reasons given

64. School for Public Health Research
Physical activity
and active travel
“I’d like to think I don’t do too many journeys that I really couldn’t do under my own steam, I
do have a bicycle and I’m fairly fit so I like to think I can do the ones I can in a fairly green
way so I’m a fairly environmentally aware bloke”
Male, 30s, partner no children
“I like to walk and I like to walk in a pleasant place particularly so really that’s my main
aims.”
“My confidence in cycling in Cambridge, … I don’t like how much traffic there are, is now. I
mean in the twenty years since I lived here and have moved back I can’t believe the
difference.”
Retired female, husband, grown-up children
“I think the decision to cycle is for convenience but it makes me feel good that I get some
health benefits.”
Female 20s, single

65. School for Public Health Research
Green space and
the outdoors
“Well I’m interested in … my environment and probably more so as I’m getting older and
probably more so as I’m looking for possibly … the last place that I might be going to live, you
know. So I’m quite specific about what I’m looking for regarding access to public transport,
walking, lifestyle ... ”
Retired female, married, grown-up family
“…some of them were kind of drop dead issues, so closer to recreational facilities, if we
include the park in that …, we weren’t going to move somewhere that just had no green
spaces…”
Male, 40s, married
“Not particularly” (when asked if green space was an issue)
Female, 20s, single
Swanwick, Land Use Policy, 26, S62-75, 2009

66. School for Public Health Research
Green space and
the outdoors
• Reasons for wanting green space varied
• some liked the idea of being closer to nature and observing seasons
• a place to exercise was important for others
“You can see how the seasons develop, if you have open space and green space and
woods and rivers …, they’re different nearly every day and I think nature is … amazing
really, … how everything gets to the stage it wants to be at the right time … I think it’s
fascinating, yeah.”
Retired widower
• Green spaces were also thought of as general resources that were
appreciated for what they could offer the community
“…you see dog walkers, at Jesus Green I’ve seen circus acts going on, … I’ve seen the
primary school children playing and the boot camp early morning … and just relaxation
as well and open space I think are very important to peoples’ wellbeing”
Female, married, 30s

67. School for Public Health Research
Collaboration on future studies-
how should we proceed?
• Recruiting participants for RENEW was very
challenging
• The need to recruit prior to moving was key
• Gatekeepers were vital to the process
• Gatekeeper engagement varied
• Participant uptake was low

68. School for Public Health Research
Stakeholder views
• Stakeholders involved in the provision of housing
• Physical activity provision
• Views on attitudes to green space and public
space
• Priorities and attitudes of movers
• Priorities of stakeholders themselves

69. School for Public Health Research
Perceptions of buyers’ views
• Awareness of buyers aspirations from the commercial
sector
• Often heavily marketed in advertising material
• Some contrasting views on what customers want from
new developments
• E.g. cost and house type dominates all other factors
• Awareness that new developments should not just be
a collection of houses

70. Workshop 2:What does a
successful/resilient new
community in Cambridgeshire
look like?

71. Evidence starting points
What are the local assets?
Are there local and national examples of
successful new communities we can
learn from?
What data and information sources do
we have?
What do
you have?

72. Workshop 3:What
evidence/intelligence do you
need to plan services in a new
community?

73. Prioritise
 Have a look at the ideas for the scope of
this JSNA and why.
Which are the most important issues
 You have 3 sticky dots to put against the
topics you feel are most important.

74. Next steps –
producing the JSNA together
Data capture and analysis
Writing Final Report
 Key Findings Workshop
 Full report to Health and Wellbeing Board
 Dissemination to general stakeholders
 Early dissemination of key findings
 Dissemination to wider groups

75. Thank you for your time.
Let’s work together on this exciting piece
of work.