designing for wellbeing for later life Working together to make She Stakeholder …dwell.group.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DWELL... · 2014-11-28 · DWELL Stakeholder workshop

Stakeholder Conference

DWELL Stakeholder Workshop - 18th Sept 2014

Event Summary Report

Working together to make Sheffield a city for all ages

designing for wellbeing in environments

for later life

DWELL Stakeholder workshop –18th September 2014

1

Working Together to make

Sheffield a City for All Ages

DWELL Stakeholder Workshop – 18th September 2014

Purpose of this report

This report is a follow-up to the DWELL Stakeholder Workshop, held in September 2014. It

summarises the key themes and outcomes of the workshop, and outlines the next steps to

take this work forward within the broader DWELL research.

DWELL Project Background

DWELL is a multi-disciplinary research project at the University of Sheffield running for 3

years to December 2016. The research team is drawn from Architecture, Town and Regional

Planning, and the School of Health and Related Research, and the project is being undertaken

in partnership with Sheffield City Council. This research is jointly funded by the Engineering

and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the Economic and Social Research Council

(ESRC) and the Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) under the overarching theme

'Design for Wellbeing: Ageing and Mobility in the Built Environment'.

The focus of DWELL research is on built environment issues and at neighbourhood scale. The

project focuses on specific neighbourhoods across the city including Parson Cross, Sharrow,

Dore, and the city centre. The project’s central aim is to better understand how the

commissioning, design, and management of housing and neighbourhoods can be

improved to support the well-being of older people. This will be achieved by creating and

testing prototype designs for new housing and outdoor spaces in Sheffield. A key aspect of

the project is the participation of stakeholders (including older people's groups and

individuals) in the processes of brief-writing, design, and evaluation phases of the project.

To inform the brief-writing process, the research team are conducting interviews and

hosting workshops with stakeholders within Sheffield City Council and other organisations

responsible for the delivery and management of housing and neighbourhoods for older

people. These activities are being carried out to help the project team to gain a better

understanding of the contribution of different stakeholders to the processes of

commissioning, design, delivery, and management, and to gather views on current practice

and potential for improvement.


2

Workshop overview: Key aims and questions

Hosted by Sheffield City Council and led by researchers at the University of Sheffield, the

half-day Stakeholder Workshop was held on 18th September 2014 at the Showroom/

Workstation Creative Lounge in Sheffield. The workshop was attended by 35 participants

from across the City Council and other stakeholder organisations. Council representatives

attended from Public Health, Adult Social Care, Housing, Urban Planning and Regeneration,

and Transport. Working alongside Council officers were representatives from housing

associations, private developers, voluntary and community organisations, architectural

practice, and academic institutions.

The focus of the workshop was on the built environment – the city’s housing, streets,

neighbourhoods, and infrastructure. The main aim was to encourage the diverse range of

participants to work across and between organisations, disciplines and departments

– to explore how the joining up of planning, commissioning and service provision might help

to create environments that support the city’s older population to live well and remain

independent for longer.

Speakers from Sheffield City Council (SCC) set out some of the broad challenges and

opportunities that an ageing population present to the city, its diverse local communities,

and the local authority. The way in which these challenges related to current SCC policy and

The Stakeholder Workshop was

attended by a wide range of

participants interested in the

question of how to make Sheffield a

‘city for all ages’. Participants were

drawn from across Sheffield City

Council and a wide range of local and

national stakeholder organisations.


3

practice was informed by the outputs of four DWELL/ SCC working groups, which had

distilled wide-ranging discussions prior to the workshop into four key questions:

- What can the built environment do to reduce rising adult social care (ASC) costs in

both the short term and longer term?

- How can research demonstrate that investment in the built environment is worth it?

- Are Council resources going towards the right types of housing in the right places?

- How can we attract more of the right kind of private sector investment into specialist

housing for older people?

Within the context of the Stakeholder Workshop, these questions were used as prompts for

discussion and as a way of framing some of the current priorities of local authorities in

relation to ageing and the built environment. As the DWELL research project is more

focussed on a participatory design approach, it is not to set up to answer these questions

directly. However, as will be explored further in the discussion section of this report, many of

the issues raised by the warm-up groups will be addressed through the DWELL case study

work – with issues such as demonstrating value and reducing ASC costs inevitably shaping

the way in which housing and neighbourhoods are planned, designed and managed.

Keynote Address: Establishing age-friendly policies and practices in Manchester

Two invited keynote speakers set some the challenges facing Sheffield into a wider context.

Paul McGarry of Manchester City Council set out the range of activities around the ’Valuing

Older People’ (VOP) and ‘Age-friendly Manchester’ initiatives, which have been developed

over the past 10 years.

Keynote speakers Paul McGarry and

Dr Stefan White (pictured) both

highlighted the importance of

building partnerships across local

government, academic research,

community groups and local

residents. A case study in the Old

Moat estate demonstrated some of

the benefits of this approach.


4

Paul McGarry strongly advocated the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) ‘Age-Friendly

Cities’ approach, which draws together policy actions under eight broad domains.

Paul highlighted the fact that Sheffield and Manchester are already members of the UK Age-

Friendly Cities Network (supported by the Beth Johnson Foundation), which aims to bring

together policy-makers from across the UK for mutual learning and collaboration.

Paul went on to discuss the development of a citizenship model within the Age-Friendly

Manchester programme. This aims to shift the focus of policy-makers away from seeing

older people as ‘needy’ or a ‘burden’, but instead focuses on older people (alongside others)

as citizens with both rights and responsibilities. Whether at city or local community scale,

this idea of citizenship includes the right to participate in resource allocation and decision-

making processes. Paul emphasised the importance of developing a positive narrative around

ageing issues which enables cities to engage with their older citizens more proactively and

productively.

Paul’s thought-provoking presentation was followed by Dr Stefan White – architect, design

tutor and researcher at the Manchester School of Architecture. Stefan set out the potential

role of universities in partnering with local authorities to address the Age-Friendly agenda

within real places and communities. Previous work in Old Moat in south Manchester was

presented, and Stefan drew attention to the importance of working with local people to map

their neighbourhood. This mapping process was proposed as central to engaging older

The eight aspects of age-friendly city

life are illustrated in this diagram.

While each of these domains

overlaps and interacts with a number

of other areas, the DWELL research

project deliberately focusses on the

domains of housing, outdoor space

and buildings, and social

participation (in the design process)

Image: WHO (2007) Age-Friendly

Cities, p.9.


5

people’s views in order to develop a sensitive / nuanced understanding of the particularities

of how places worked (or did not work) for older people, and how they might be improved.

This type of fine-grained research was found to have real value for other local authority

agencies who may not have the resources or tools to engage residents at such a local scale.

Collaborative Working

One of the main aims of the Stakeholder Workshop was to highlight the joined-up approach

required between built environment professionals (planners, designers, and developers) and

health and social care professionals. Within SCC this is broadly translated into the

directorates of ‘Place’ and ‘Communities’.

Following the formal presentations, participants were asked to work in seven groups for a

collaborative exercise. Within each group a range of organisations and disciplines were

represented, including a mix of built environment and social care professionals.

Each group was provided with a scenario pack, containing the background story of a ‘typical’

older person in Sheffield experiencing challenges relating to housing, mobility, and/or health

. While each scenario was fictitious, the details were drawn from a number of cases

encountered directly or indirectly by DWELL researchers. Scenarios were used as a way of

promoting discussion around a set of specific/ place-based issues (e.g. considerations

around down-sizing and a shortage of specialist housing). Each scenario was framed in a way

that no single agency could provide a complete ‘solution’ to the issues, requiring participants

to work together and think creatively and laterally.


6

Examples of both the scenarios and questions used in the collaborative exercise are provided

in appendix 1 of this report.

Workshop Findings: Key themes

A strong narrative

Whilst acknowledging the context of demographic pressures and local authority budget

reductions, the experience of Manchester demonstrated the importance leading with a

strong and positive narrative around age-friendly built environments. One example given was

the citizenship or rights and responsibilities model, which represents one approach within

the Age-Friendly Cities framework. This was contrasted with preventative or ‘deficit-

reduction’-led narrative. While a preventative agenda may play an important role in future

service planning and commissioning, Paul McGarry argued that constructing a central

narrative or strategy around this agenda could create potential difficulties in engaging with a

full range local residents, service providers, and other VCF sector organisations.

Political leadership

Promoting a strong narrative around the ageing agenda requires strong local leadership. The

City for All Ages framework/ strategy document has already been developed for Sheffield,

but a recurring theme from the workshop was a need for greater ownership and political

momentum to really prioritise ageing issues and take this strategy forward. Again, the

experience from Manchester suggests that it takes a substantial amount of time (10 years +)

Each group nominated a rapporteur

who, at the end of the exercise,

reported back their interpretation of

the issues, how these issues are

addressed within their current

projects or practice and, most

significantly, ideas for joined-up or

future initiatives that may have

prevented this type of situation

arising in future.


7

to make genuine progress around these issues, and top-level leadership is vitally important in

order to maintain momentum and commitment over this long-term process. The recently

established Age Hub (part of the network of Equality Hubs) in one forum in which this

dialogue around leadership might be progressed.

Joined-up working

Promoting better joined–up working was not only a stated aim of the workshop, but was

referred to by many of the workshop participants who described issues created by the ‘silo’

mentality of local authorities and other organisations. Once again, high-level leadership was

put forward as key to realising some of the benefits and savings across departments and

directorates.

One example given was the current difficulty in utilising resources from planning, housing, or

regeneration in order to achieve outcomes associated with health and wellbeing. Similar

issues have been identified in previous attempts to join–up public expenditure at national

scale, such as the ‘Total Place Initiatives’ – the 2009 Labour government/ DCLG pilot schemes

to map public spending and identify opportunities for collaboration between agencies on

service redesign to make better use of resources. Despite the difficulties associated with this

approach, it might be argued that local authorities are well placed to make the kind of

connections between agencies and departments in order to realise some of these

efficiencies in local service delivery. While many officers highlighted the difficulties of even

communicating with other teams and departments in times of increasingly workloads and

continual re-organisation, it was generally recognised that joined-up working could unlock

benefits for the local authority and residents in terms of efficiency and effective use of

scarce resources. Creating strong lines of communication across disciplines was generally

agreed to be a good way of joining up working. It was also identified that work was needed to

develop partnerships between the local authority and partner agencies (such as housing

associations and private providers) that were based on trust and mutually beneficial goals –

rather than adversarial or paternalistic relationships.

One example of how this idea of ‘joined-up working’ will be explored within the scope of the

research is the development and design of new specialist housing in the city. Working

alongside SCC officers (from both Communities and Place directorates) and external

housing providers, DWELL aim to observe and document the process of how project teams

work to bring new developments forward, and to share any lessons that can be learned from

this process.


8

Reactive or proactive?

The scenarios used to guide the collaborative working exercise were generally considered to

be realistic and a useful way of generating discussion. However, several of the groups

reflected that it was difficult to address the types of issues that the scenarios raised using

built environment tools, frameworks or resources that were currently available. This was

principally due to the immediate nature of the issues faced by the older people portrayed.

One such example was an older couple wanting to move into specialist housing but facing a

shortage of suitable accommodation in their area. This difficulty highlights one of the key

issues faced by this project – where shorter term care and support needs (both for

individual residents and the Council) have tended to dominate the discussion, with much less

focus on longer-term planning for an ageing population. This is often made more complex by

national policies (eg. the so-called ‘bedroom tax’) – which can be difficult to plan for but can

have a significant impact on local housing demand.

It was generally acknowledged that, if backed by appropriate local strategies (such as the

forthcoming Local Plan), planning and regeneration can be an effective means of addressing

the increasing long-term demand for age-appropriate or ‘Lifetime’ homes and

neighbourhoods.

One of the DWELL participant groups is working on these issues in relation to Sheffield city

centre. Working alongside researchers and designers, participants are leading a process to

identify where such a residential quarter might be located and what types of accommodation

and neighbourhood might attract older residents to choose to live in the city centre.

Housing vs neighbourhood scale solutions

Within the stakeholder workshop, the collaborative exercise tended to be dominated by

discussions around housing, whether this was related to housing choices (affordability,

demand, downsizing, and specialist accommodation) or the forward planning of housing

(types, sizes, and quality standards). It seemed more difficult for workshop participants to

consider some of the issues at neighbourhood scale, although public transport (bus stops /

routes), benches and public toilets were discussed. This perhaps reflects the lack of scope

for making ambitious changes to the urban realm in the current political and financial

climate, or the fundamental problem of attempting to make the environment more

accessible given the steep topography of much of Sheffield. Discussions also referred to the

timing and scope of the ‘Streets Ahead’ contract (principally a like-for-like replacement of


9

streets and pavements) which some participants viewed as a missed opportunity in terms of

progressing an age-friendly agenda.

In neighbourhoods such as Dore and Sharrow, DWELL researchers are working alongside

local residents and community organisations to develop small interventions within the urban

realm (such as seating, shelters, or traffic management), and explore how these might make

a significant difference to the way in which older residents are able to use their local centre,

particularly those with mobility restrictions.

Ageing in place: Downsizing vs adaptations

Across the different participant groups the subject of downsizing and adaptations produced

an intense level of discussion. Encouraging or incentivising a move to more age-appropriate

housing was put forward as a way of supporting people to remain physically mobile while

preventing accidents (particularly falls), tackling social isolation, supporting people to

manage chronic health conditions, and freeing up larger homes. At the same time, keeping

people in their existing homes (supported by appropriate housing adaptations and/or

domiciliary care) was seen as a way of maintaining vital social and support networks.

Although both sides of this (often competing) debate made reference to the wider research

and policy aims, they tended to exclude the older person (as an individual with their own

agency) and reduce them (and their sense of home or place) to a set of ‘irrational’ wishes or

feelings.

Within the DWELL project, a particular focus has been placed on working with older

residents across different areas of the city (and different housing tenures). One priority of

the DWELL ‘citywide’ group is to generate a better understanding of the conflicting

motivations for downsizing or ‘staying put’. The research team are working with potential

‘downsizers’ to better understand issues of quality, cost, and choice (or lack of choice) –

including specialist housing, ‘age-banded’ bungalows/ apartments, or multi-generational

living. As well as working with participants, this process involves working alongside SCC

planners to map the current supply of specialist accommodation and any gaps in provision.

Summary

The level of discussion around ageing and age-friendliness has made progress in Sheffield,

but there is still some ground to make up on other cities in the UK and Europe. The key

questions raised by the City Council ‘warm-up groups’ prior to the workshop suggests that

their current priority is deficit-reduction - as a necessary response to the current level of


10

budget cuts faced by local authorities. However, Paul McGarry and others have warned of the

potential knock-on effects of this in terms of policy narrative - with ageing and older people

framed in terms of a burden on the city. There is a further risk that this narrative becomes a

frame through which to view community engagement and participation (asking older people

what they want and how they can be part of making changes), which might be seen as

problematic in terms of raising expectations and resulting in demands or expectations that

are unaffordable or unrealistic.

In contrast, the keynote speakers and other workshop participants stressed the need for

city leaders and policy-makers to change the narrative towards a more positive agenda for

ageing - one that empowers local people to lead on creating a vision for the type of city or

local neighbourhood that they will want to grow old in. Without such a shift, there is a danger

that a division will emerge between the ‘age-friendly’ rhetoric and the more immediate

priorities of an increasingly over-stretched local authority. The City Council’s newly-formed

Age Equality Hub should provide an avenue for further discussion around these complex

issues.

Feedback from the collaborative exercise revealed that this process has produced a number

of new ideas. One that had particular resonance with the DWELL approach was the

discussion around implementing a more fine-grained or localised approach - as a way of

understanding local housing supply and demand (including specialist housing), and specific

barriers to mobility (such as a lack of handrails on a particular set of steps or a lack of public

transport connections). The way in which this approach might work in practice has been

demonstrated by the work in Old Moat and Whalley Range in Manchester, but also in the

work of groups such as the charity ‘Living Streets’, who use local residents as volunteers to

audit the walkability of neighbourhoods. As this neighbourhood-scale analysis is potentially

more resource-intensive to carry out across a city such as Sheffield, a next step might be for

the local authority to develop further partnerships. This might include working in close

collaboration with academic partners, community groups, charities or housing associations,

in order to better understand the highly localised drivers that enable or prevent people to

age well in place.


11

Next steps and future opportunities for stakeholder engagement with DWELL research

Over the next 2 years the DWELL project will be continuing to engage with Sheffield

residents, local planners, and housing providers (social / private) as the team begin to

develop prototype designs and proposals. As part of this process, the research team are

keen to keep potential stakeholders involved in order to incorporate a wide range of views

and expertise and to build on existing work in the city. Continued engagement with DWELL

stakeholders is envisaged to manifest in one of several ways:

Project updates

The DWELL research team will contact stakeholders from time-to-time (approx. every 3-6

months) with updates on this project. Note: If any individual had been identified as a

stakeholder but does not wish to be contacted in this way or receive these updates, they

should contact the DWELL research team.

Further interviews

As a stakeholder you may be asked to be interviewed by a member of the DWELL research

team in your professional capacity. The format, ethics procedure and timing of interviews

will be discussed in further detail with potential interviewees prior to the arrangement of

these sessions.

Stakeholder consultation

As part of the ongoing research project, DWELL stakeholders may be approached from time-

to-time to share their views on work-in-progress or to participate in specific design and

research activities. This might include:

- Taking part in ‘design reviews’ of proposed housing or neighbourhood projects

- Providing comments on specific/ local research findings

- Providing comments on draft reports or academic/ practice journal articles

Note: There is no obligation for stakeholders to become involved in any of these research

activities, and DWELL understands that any participation has to fit alongside existing projects

and workloads. However, we would like to encourage stakeholders to participate in one or

more of these engagements if at all possible in order to provide the greatest opportunity to

influence the project.


12

Author contact details

Adam Park

Research Associate, DWELL

0114 222 8396

[email protected]

dwell.group.shef.ac.uk

ICOSS

Portobello

Sheffield, S1 4DP

mailto:[email protected]

http://dwell.group.shef.ac.uk/

A group leader will have already been identifi ed by the workshop organisers. Please also identify a scribe and a rapporteur for the group.

Each group leader has been provided with a scenario pack, which contains information and resources (images / maps) in order to take on the role of advocate of an older person.

The group leader fi rst describes the scenario to others in the group. This is followed by an initial round of questioning by the group to clarify the older person’s situation and circumstances.

Part A - To be answered by each group member in turn.

How does your own work, department or current projects relate to the older person’s situation in the scenario (without thinking about solutions at this point)?

The scribe will record this discussion of how each professional and their work relates to one or more aspects of the older person’s life (e.g. adult social care, support, housing, urban design, transport).

Part B - Group discussion - led by the group leader and structured around the following three questions:

QUESTION 1How might the wellbeing of the older person be improved? What measures or changes in the housing or wider built environment could have a positive impact on the older person’s life?

QUESTION 2How might joined-up working between agencies and departments lead to improvement in the planning and management of housing and urban environments?

QUESTION 3Based on the issues arising from this scenario, what measures or initiatives might prevent this type of situation arising in the future?

Specifi cally consider joined-up ways of working, preventative measures, and the impact of housing and/or the built environment.

Reporting back

Please discuss and take notes. Following the completion of this exercise, the rapporteur will report back to rest of the workshop - proposing three of the group’s measures or initiatives.

Instructions for Collaborative Exercise (45 minutes)

DWELL Stakeholder Workshop - Collaborative Exercise

Penny is 58 years old and separated from her husband. She lives in a two-bedroom fl at rented from a local housing association In Parson Cross. She has lived in the area for 37 years and has brought up her children here.

Penny has two children and a granddaughter of primary school age. She often looks after her granddaughter so her daughter can work, and sometime has her for sleepovers in the school holidays.

She has recently had to give up work for health reasons and is currently claiming job-seekers allowance. She is not registered as disabled and is still able to walk to the local neighbourhood centre at Margetson Crescent to access the post offi ce and Coop. However the need for regular rest stops is making this journey increasingly diffi cult.

Because of her two bedrooms Penny is now subject to the so-called ‘bedroom tax’, meaning that she has lost £11 out of her weekly budget and is beginning to get into debt. Because of this she is looking to move to a smaller, one bedroom fl at. There is currently a shortage of suitable housing available in this part of the city, and she is worried that if she moves to Batemoor (where she has been off ered an alternative fl at) she would no longer be able to continue supporting her daughter and looking after the grandchildren.

The stress and anxiety of the situation (coupled with her mobility problems) has caused her to become depressed, and she has become less motivated to leave the house independently to socialise with friends.

Scenario 1: Penny


FACILITATOR’S PROMPT’S

What are the likely impacts on the rest of the family if Penny has to move to the other side of the city?

What are the housing op ons open to Penny?

What other measures or interven ons could address Penny’s worsening mental health?

Based on the issues raised in this scenario and other informa on available to the Council, what is the future demand for smaller (1 bedroom) apartments likely to be in diff erent parts of Sheffi eld?

Are there any ways of allowing Penny to remain in her home within her current weekly budget?

Margaret and John are in their early 70s. They have lived in a three-bedroom terraced house in Sharrow for most of their married life and have brought up their children here. They own their home, but their income is limited to the basic state pension. They own a car which only Margaret drives now. Due to the popularity of the area with student housing, they often have problems parking the car near to the house. They have also made a number of recent complaints about their noisy neighbours.

John has become increasingly forgetful and his wife is worried that it might be an early sign of dementia. He is not interested in getting a diagnosis, and has tried to keep up his regular visits to meet friends at the local pub, but now increasingly depends on his wife to support him in everyday life. He needs someone around to supervise him because he gets confused and frustrated.

Margaret has severe arthritis and needs a knee replacement over the next months. She is fi nding it increasingly diffi cult to negotiate the steps up to the house and the stairs within the home. They cannot aff ord to pay for major adaptations themselves.The couple’s children live in Sheffi eld and help out with general tasks such as occasional heavy shopping or maintenance of the house. However, the children all work and cannot take on their father’s full-time care. Margaret is concerned about who will look after John when she goes into hospital for her knee replacement and during her period of convalescence.

The terraced house has 2 downstairs rooms (a kitchen-dining room and a living room) and the front door goes directly into the living room. There is no downstairs toilet or bathroom, and the stairs up to the fi rst fl oor are very steep. Margaret is very concerned about how she will cope in the house after the operation, as her mobility will be severely restricted while she recovers.

Scenario 2: Margaret and John



What services or adapta ons are available to support the couple in the short-term?

How might this scenario develop over the next few years (without interven on)?

What policies or services could be put in place to enable students and older residents to live well together on the same street?

Constance is 83 years old. She has been widowed for many years but has remained very active and independent, participating in a number of local voluntary groups. Constance has macular degeneration (a visual impairment) and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD).

She has been living in a 4-bedroom semi-detached council owned family home in Foxhill for almost 50 years. The house is situated mid-way up a relatively steep slope, with access to all facilities such as shops, GP, chemist requiring a trip either up or down the hill. The nearest bus stop is about a 400m walk away.

Her home has become over-sized for her needs and is increasingly diffi cult to keep warm enough in winter. However, she is reluctant to move as she has a very strong attachment to the place where she brought up her children. In addition, Constance is afraid of moving because at least in her own home she can fi nd her way round with her increasingly poor eye-sight. Constance has three children who all live in the South of England. She sees them only occasionally. Constance had a close friend in the street whom she met every day and with whom she carried out many activities. This friend has recently died.

Since the death of her friend she has lost her confi dence to go out as she feels too vulnerable to go out by herself. She used to attend a local church and other activities, but cannot now get there. She can also no longer manage the steep hill home with her shopping and regularly has to pay for a taxi to ASDA.

She is worried about how she will cope through the next winter.

Scenario 3: Constance



What support is available to help Constance access services and to socialise?

How might her current and future housing needs be addressed (as she is reluctant to move)?

How might this scenario develop over the next few years?

Harry and Elisabeth are in their mid 60s and are very active in their community. They love walking in the nearby Peak District and gardening. They own their 3-bedroom semi-detached house in the Stannington area of Sheffi eld, which is located on a relatively steep hill. They own a car, but Elisabeth has never learnt to drive.

Harry has recently had a tumour removed from his lower spine which has left him temporarily (it is hoped) semi-paralysed. The prognosis for him to regain full mobility is uncertain. The couple therefore currently relies on taking a taxi to make Harry’s regular appointments at the Northern General hospital.

Since his discharge from hospital Harry has been unable to go anywhere because he cannot leave the house and he is beginning to get depressed. Fortunately the house already has a downstairs toilet, and they have also converted the front living room into a temporary bedroom.

A neighbour has recommended that they look into buying a mobility scooter so Harry can get around the local area. However the couple feel that there is little point in getting a scooter until the house and neighbourhood has been made more easily accessible. Harry and Elisabeth are unsure of how to proceed.

Scenario 4: Harry and Elisabeth



What temporary or permanent interven ons can help Harry in his recupera on?

What might the couple mean by a ‘more easily accessible’ neighbourhood?

Is there a role for the Council or other agencies in assis ng people like Harry & Elizabeth in planning for the future?

What planning / urban design issues are raised by the steady increase in use of mobility scooters in the city?

Zaida and Mohammed are in their late 60s and live in a private-rented terraced house in the Highfi eld area of Sheffi eld. The house has a small off -shot kitchen, a small rear courtyard, three upstairs bedrooms and one upstairs bathroom.

Zaida speaks little English and she suff ers from arthritis in her knees. Mohammed has Type 2 diabetes as well as intermittent diffi culties with his breathing. The couple have four children.

Their eldest son, Ali, has recently got married but continues to live with his wife in Zaida and Mohammed’s home. Because of his parents’ poor health, Ali’s wife Sana is largely responsible for looking after the everyday running of the household.

Zaida is fi nding it increasingly diffi cult to negotiate the steps up to the house and the stairs within the home, and is on a waiting list for a knee replacement. Zaida is very concerned about how she and the family will cope in the house after her operation, as her mobility will be severely restricted while she recovers.

Meanwhile, Sahar is also dreading the future where she has to continue looking after her ageing family whilst also having a young family herself, all in this small, cramped, and frequently damp terraced house. Her parents recognise that they are a burden to the young couple but cannot see any alternative as they need the support.

Despite the diffi culty of their situation, Zaida and Mohammed are unwilling to seek help or discuss things outside of their immediate family.

Scenario 5: Zaida and Mohammed



How is the family’s current housing situa on impac ng on their health and well-being?

What services or adapta ons are available to support the couple in the short-term?

Which agency is best placed to advise the family on a way forward?

How might the increasing number of an older BME popula on impact on the commissioning and design of housing and care services?

Caroline and James are in their early 70s. They live in a three bedroom semi-detached former council house in Shiregreen, which they bought in the mid-1990s.

James recently had a stroke which has left him incontinent and fearful of being too far away from the house. Caroline is afraid that he may have another stroke and doesn’t like to leave him unattended for any length of time. Since James’ illness, he has been unable to take care of the maintenance of house or garden, which he has always enjoyed.

They are interested in moving into accommodation that would provide a more supportive environment, and have heard good things about the extra-care facility which has opened in the area. The facility includes some areas for socialising and a shared garden. This would allow James to safely move around, potentially do some light work in the garden and socialise, whilst Caroline can regain some of her freedom because she knows that he has help if required. However they have been told that there is little chance of moving to this extra-care development any time soon as there is a signifi cant waiting list.

The couple have begun to look for similar schemes in other parts of Sheffi eld, but are worried the value of their home would not cover the purchase price for the fl at. They are unsure what to do next.

Scenario 6: Caroline and James



What advice and/or fi nancial support are available to the couple to help them in their decision-making process?

How might this scenario develop over the next few years (if they do or don’t move)?

Is extra-care the best op on for Caroline and James, or are there alterna ve housing types that might be more suitable?

Jean and Roy are a recently retired couple in their early 60s living in a detached family house near Low Bradfi eld on the rural edge of Sheffi eld. They own their house outright. The couple both drive and regularly go into Sheffi eld for social events, the theatre, cinema and restaurants. Their only daughter is currently working abroad in Australia.

Both Roy and Jean consider themselves to be in good health but feel that they have less energy to spend on looking after a large house and garden. The house is old and cold in the winter and needs constant maintenance. They have begun to seriously consider the possibilities of downsizing to a property closer to the city centre. They think that such a move might enable them to spend more time on the things they enjoy such as going to the theatre without having to travel by car.

Roy previously worked in construction, and has persuaded Jean to consider a self-build project. The couple like the idea of cutting their outgoings by building a much more energy-effi cient home. They have a number of close friends living in the Nether Edge/ Carterknowle area of the city, a few of whom have also expressed an interest in fi nding a site together. Despite their knowledge and expertise, the couple are really struggling to progress to the next stage due to the diffi culties of fi nding suitable land in south-west Sheffi eld.

The problems in progressing the project has led the couple to now consider other options, including moving abroad or further afi eld.

Scenario 7: Jean and Roy



What advice and/or support is available to the couple to help them fi nd a suitable site?

How might the shortage of available land in south-west Sheffi eld impact on the fu-ture provision of accommoda on for older people?

What are the wider benefi ts/ issues for the city in a rac ng similar downsizers from other nearby areas?

What can agencies do to create greater awareness of housing op ons and help when choosing future accommoda on?

Lily is a recently widowed woman in her late 70s. She has lived in a three-bedroom bungalow in Dore for around 10 years and enjoys living in a part of the city that has a ‘villagey’ feel to it.

Lily and her husband never had children, and her only other family is a brother and his children who she rarely sees. She owns the house and is relatively comfortable fi nancially due to her late husband’s teaching pension. She has never learned to drive.

Lily’s mobility has become increasingly restricted due to ongoing pain in her joints, which has been diagnosed as osteoarthritis. She fi nds it diffi cult to negotiate the 500m walk into the village centre and is also having problems maintaining the medium-sized garden.

Last year she fell on uneven pavement whilst walking back from church and had to spend 2 weeks in the Northern General hospital recovering from a badly broken wrist. Following the accident she had an assessment from an occupational therapist, and received a walking frame and some other minor adaptations to the house. Lily is unwilling to use the frame, suggesting that it is not really suitable for the narrow footpaths to and from her house.

She gets on quite well with the couple next door (also in their early 60s), who often off er to pick up some shopping and help out trimming the hedges. Despite this, Lily feels increasingly lonely and lacking in confi dence to leave the house herself.

Scenario 8: Lily



How is the Lily’s current situa on impact-ing on her health and well-being?

How might this scenario develop over the next few years (without interven on)?

What statutory / other services might be available to support Lily?

How might the built environment in Dore be adapted to meet the mobility needs of Lily (and others like her)?

What planning / urban design issues are raised by the steady increase in use of walking aids + mobility scooters in the city?

Documents

designing for wellbeing for later life Working together to make She Stakeholder …dwell.group.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DWELL... · 2014-11-28 · DWELL Stakeholder workshop