Practical proposed steps for Gateshead.
The stages explain what should happen first. They are not promised completion dates. Funding, powers and ongoing costs need to be established before a proposal is adopted.
Proposal
Residents can see the network’s tariff decisions
The HEIGHTs charges are set out in a public council decision.
Proposed response: Provide a plain-language bill example for each affected block.
Evidence
Who could lead: Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council.
- Start now
Provide a plain-language bill example for each affected block.
- Over the next few years
Offer a clear route to billing help and complaints.
- Over the longer term
Review affordability and reliability alongside scheme finances.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Gateshead HEIGHTs energy network: Operating network; new tariffs approved.
Measure: Understandable bills and resolved complaints.
Trade-off: A financially sustainable network must remain affordable to users.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Gateshead HEIGHTs energy network →
Proposal
Land approval has not yet delivered the homes
Church Place’s transfer is conditional on planning permission.
Proposed response: Publish remaining approvals and proposed tenure.
Evidence
Who could lead: Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council.
- Start now
Publish remaining approvals and proposed tenure.
- Over the next few years
Coordinate utilities and safe access with construction.
- Over the longer term
Count homes when occupied, not when land is transferred.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Church Place housing site: Conditional land-disposal approval.
Measure: Planning, starts and occupied homes.
Trade-off: Site preparation and affordable housing can affect viability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Church Place housing site →
Proposal
Turn Chopwell’s housing milestone into a funded sequence
The regeneration plan identifies new homes in Chopwell.
Proposed response: Publish the site, tenure and funding position.
Evidence
Who could lead: Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council.
- Start now
Publish the site, tenure and funding position.
- Over the next few years
Agree infrastructure and service needs with local residents.
- Over the longer term
Track actual delivery and affordability.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Chopwell housing programme: Programme milestone; construction or completion not verified.
Measure: Funded phases and occupied homes.
Trade-off: New housing must fit village services and transport.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Chopwell housing programme →
Proposal
Higher heat charges affect household budgets
The next HEIGHTs tariff period includes heat increases and a standing charge, although electricity charges fall.
Proposed response: Explain each household’s likely bill change.
Evidence
Who could lead: Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council.
- Start now
Explain each household’s likely bill change.
- Over the next few years
Offer early support where bills become difficult to pay.
- Over the longer term
Review cost and energy performance before future tariff changes.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Gateshead HEIGHTs energy network: Operating network; new tariffs approved.
Measure: Bills, arrears and support uptake.
Trade-off: Cost recovery and affordable heating need to be considered together.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Gateshead HEIGHTs energy network →
Proposal
Make room for homes people can afford
Average private rent is £804 a month (August 2026) in Gateshead council area. This is £655 lower than the England average for the same month. Homes rented privately ranged from 8.7% in Birtley North & Lamesley to 40.2% in Saltwell — a gap of 31.6 percentage points.
Housing costs matter most alongside earnings and the number of affordable homes available. A local average cannot tell us whether a particular household can afford its home.
Who could lead: The housing and planning authorities, housing associations and developers.
- Start now
Publish the local waiting list, temporary accommodation and affordable-home delivery figures together. Start by checking the different needs in Saltwell and Birtley North & Lamesley; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Test proposed housing sites against affordable-home need, access to work, school places and water capacity.
- Over the longer term
Check whether completed homes reduce unmet need, rather than counting planning permissions as delivery.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Average private rent is £804 a month (August 2026) in Gateshead council area. Homes rented privately ranged from 8.7% in Birtley North & Lamesley to 40.2% in Saltwell — a gap of 31.6 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 22 of 22 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Affordable homes completed, households waiting, time in temporary accommodation, and rent compared with local earnings.
Trade-off: More homes can put pressure on infrastructure and land. Affordability requirements also affect development viability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Average monthly rent →
Evidence: Average home price →
Church Place housing site →
Gateshead HEIGHTs energy network →
Chopwell housing programme →
Proposal
Plan homes and care around an older population
20.3% of people in Gateshead council area were aged 65 or over (21 March 2021). People aged 65 or over ranged from 10.1% in Saltwell to 28.4% in Whickham South & Sunniside — a gap of 18.3 percentage points.
Age alone does not mean poor health or a need for care. Accessible homes, reliable transport and support close to home matter as people get older.
Who could lead: Adult social care, local health services, housing providers and transport authorities.
- Start now
Compare the location of older residents with access to care, shops and transport. Start by checking the different needs in Whickham South & Sunniside and Saltwell; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Prioritise home adaptations and care capacity in places with the clearest unmet need.
- Over the longer term
Build accessible homes and joined-up care into local development plans.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 20.3% aged 65 or over; 21 March 2021. People aged 65 or over ranged from 10.1% in Saltwell to 28.4% in Whickham South & Sunniside — a gap of 18.3 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 22 of 22 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Waits for home adaptations and care, avoidable hospital stays, and accessible homes delivered.
Trade-off: Services need skilled staff and ongoing funding. Age profiles alone cannot measure unmet care need.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People aged 65 or over →
Proposal
Bring support closer to people in poor health
7.4% of people reported bad or very bad health in Gateshead council area (21 March 2021). Across England, the figure was 5.2%. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 4.2% in Low Fell to 10.7% in Felling — a gap of 6.5 percentage points.
This is how residents described their health in the census. It can reveal differences between neighbourhoods, but does not diagnose illness or measure current waiting times. Age profiles differ between places, so these shares do not measure service quality.
Who could lead: Local health services, public health teams, employers and community organisations.
- Start now
Use neighbourhood evidence to find where poor health and barriers to services overlap. Start by checking the different needs in Felling and Low Fell; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Test accessible local support and publish who is reached and who is missed.
- Over the longer term
Review whether health gaps narrow, alongside housing and employment improvements.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 7.4% reporting bad or very bad health; 21 March 2021. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 4.2% in Low Fell to 10.7% in Felling — a gap of 6.5 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 22 of 22 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Access to services and the health gap between neighbourhoods, using comparable age-adjusted measures when available.
Trade-off: A census snapshot is dated. New service decisions also need current needs assessments and residents’ experience.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People reporting bad or very bad health →
Proposal
Connect local skills to local opportunities
28% of people aged 16 or over had a degree or equivalent (21 March 2021) in Gateshead council area. Across England, the figure was 33.9%. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 12.8% in Low Fell to 30.9% in Felling — a gap of 18.1 percentage points.
Qualifications show one part of the skills available locally. They do not show whether people have secure jobs or work that uses those skills.
Who could lead: Employers, colleges, universities and the relevant skills authority.
- Start now
Compare vacancies and employer needs with training available to local residents. Start by checking the different needs in Felling and Low Fell; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Link training to real jobs, including routes for people without formal qualifications.
- Over the longer term
Track sustained employment and earnings after training, not just course starts.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 28% with a degree or equivalent; 21 March 2021. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 12.8% in Low Fell to 30.9% in Felling — a gap of 18.1 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 22 of 22 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Sustained jobs, earnings and training completion for residents who face barriers to work.
Trade-off: Training takes time and cannot create demand for jobs on its own. Qualifications are not a complete measure of ability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent →
Evidence: People aged 16+ with no qualifications →
Proposal
Target safety work where problems repeat
Mapped police records are available for neighbourhoods in Gateshead council area.
Published locations are approximate and some crimes are not mapped. Counts show recorded incidents, not the chance of an individual becoming a victim.
Who could lead: The local police force, council community safety team and relevant services.
- Start now
Check recurring places and categories alongside local police priorities and residents’ reports.
- Over the next few years
Test focused prevention and support, with a comparison period agreed before the work starts.
- Over the longer term
Publish whether problems fall, move elsewhere or return, and adjust the response.
How to judge progress
Crime evidence and coverage →
Starting point: Use the dated, complete periods shown in Crime and safety; keep anti-social behaviour separate.
Measure: Comparable recorded incidents, repeat victimisation and residents’ reported experience; never a single crude league table.
Trade-off: More reporting can increase recorded crime. Enforcement and support may work differently for different problems.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Proposal
Turn published plans into visible progress
3 named local projects or plans have official evidence in this collection.
A published plan makes responsibilities and intentions easier to inspect. It does not prove that funding is secured or that promised benefits have arrived.
Who could lead: The named project owners and council scrutiny bodies.
- Start now
Put the scope, owner, funding position and next milestone in one public place.
- Over the next few years
Report delivery against the agreed scope and explain delays or changes.
- Over the longer term
Check the benefits residents actually receive after completion.
How to judge progress
Starting point: The dated stages in Projects; unknown costs and funding remain unknown.
Measure: Milestones met, costs against the approved budget, and measured outcomes after delivery.
Trade-off: Delivery reporting takes staff time, but a launch announcement alone cannot show value for money.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Church Place housing site →
Gateshead HEIGHTs energy network →
Chopwell housing programme →
Proposal
Target support where disadvantages overlap
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 12% in Low Fell to 33.1% in Felling — a gap of 21.1 percentage points.
These households met at least two census conditions covering education, employment, health and housing. This is not an income or poverty measure.
Who could lead: The council's housing, public health and employment teams, with local services.
- Start now
Check current advice and support access in Felling, using the census pattern as a starting point and asking residents what is missing.
- Over the next few years
Test joined-up housing, work and health support, and publish who takes part, who cannot reach it and what changes.
- Over the longer term
Track sustained outcomes and whether gaps between neighbourhoods narrow, using comparable dates and measures.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 12% in Low Fell to 33.1% in Felling — a gap of 21.1 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 22 of 22 wards.
Measure: Access to support, unresolved housing problems and sustained work or health outcomes. Census percentages alone cannot measure a new programme's success.
Trade-off: Targeting neighbourhoods can miss people in need elsewhere. Avoid labelling every resident by the average for their ward.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Households facing two or more measured disadvantages →
Church Place housing site →
Gateshead HEIGHTs energy network →
Chopwell housing programme →
