Living at Kidbrooke Village Foreword

his work has been supporting thriving communities commissioned to from academic research, policy understand what life is and practical experience. like for the first residents The Berkeley Group describes social of Kidbrooke Village, a sustainability as being: ‘ … about T new community in the Royal Borough of people’s quality of life, now and Greenwich, south London, and currently in the future. It describes the extent one of the largest regeneration projects to which a neighbourhood supports in the UK. individual and collective wellbeing.’ Kidbrooke Village has replaced the Ferrier Social sustainability combines design Estate, built between 1968 and 1972. of the physical environment with a focus This consisted of 1,906 dwellings made on how the people who live in and use up of 74 blocks ranging from thirteen a space relate to each other and function storey towers to two storey houses. The as a community. It is enhanced by estate was inaccessible and isolated development, which provides the from the surrounding areas. It had a very right infrastructure to support a strong different character to the local area and social and cultural life, opportunities was ultimately beset by severe social for people to get involved, and scope and economic problems. for the place and the community Its regeneration since 2009 has been to evolve.’ led by the local authority with Berkeley, The term social sustainability is not yet the GLA / Homes and Communities widely used by housing developers Agency, and Southern Housing. or public agencies in the UK, although This research project makes use of an it has been an object of academic innovative new framework that has been research for over a decade. We believe created for the Berkeley Group by Social it should become central to the way Life and the University of Reading, to that everyone involved in the process measure social sustainability in new of building new housing settlements housing developments. It is based understands sustainability in the on what is known about creating and years ahead

2 3 Contents About this report

About this report 05 his report describes measuring the social sustainability Executive summary 07 the findings of a research of new housing and mixed-use Social sustainability rating 10 project exploring developments. The framework was community strength and developed by Social Life and Professor 1. Kidbrooke Village: an introduction 12 quality of life at Kidbrooke Tim Dixon of Reading University and 2. Our approach 16 T Village in the Royal Borough of published in September 2012 as 2.1 What Is social sustainability? 18 Greenwich, south London. Berkeley, Creating Strong Communities. the developer of Kidbrooke Village, 2.2 Measuring quality of life and community strength 19 This report was written by Saffron commissioned this work to understand 2.3 The indicators 20 Woodcraft and Nicola Bacon. The what life is like for new residents 2.4 Analysing the results 21 survey design and statistical analysis and to understand how to support 3. Applying this approach 24 was carried out by Dr John Brown. the community as it starts to form. 3.1 Benchmarking the resident survey results 24 3.2 Contextual interviews and site survey 24 The research involved a resident survey About the Berkeley Group carried out by an independent agency, The Berkeley Group builds homes 4. Living At Kidbrooke Village 28 ComRes, statistical analysis of the survey and neighbourhoods. We seek to create 4.1 Who did we survey? 29 data by Dr John Brown of Social Life, beautiful, successful places. We work 4.2 Kidbrooke Village rating 32 a site survey by an independent together with other people to tackle 4.3 Social and cultural life 34 assessor, Matt Lally, and interviews the shortage of good quality homes, 4.4 Voice and influence 43 with organisations based in Kidbrooke and we make a lasting contribution to 4.5 Amenities and infrastructure 44 Village, carried out by Lucia Caistor the landscape and to the communities Arendar and Zoe Spiliopoulou from 5. Quality of life at Kidbrooke Village 50 we help create. Social Life. The work was undertaken 6. Analysis by tenure 54 between January and March 2013. The Berkeley Group is a FTSE 250 company and made up of 5 7. Contextual interviews: key themes 60 This report contains the summary autonomous businesses: St George, 7.1 Community safety 60 findings of the project. A technical St James, Berkeley, Berkeley First and 7.2 Open spaces and community facilities 62 appendix has been written to accompany St Edward. It was voted Britain’s Most 7.3 Local relationships and community identity 63 the summary, containing a detailed Admired Company across all industries 7.4 Moving from the Ferrier Estate to Kidbrooke Village 64 description of the research method, in 2011 and has been ranked the UK’s 7.5 Integration with the wider neighbourhood 64 statistical analysis and data files. most sustainable major housebuilder The project uses a framework for 8. Conclusion 66 for the last 7 years in a row.

4 5

About Social Life • 63% of residents report that local This project has explored Executive summary friendships are important Social Life is a new social enterprise how the first people to move created by the Young Foundation • 95% reported feeling very or fairly to Kidbrooke Village are Kidbrooke Village is a large-scale, new in 2012. Social Life’s Founding Directors safe at Kidbrooke Village after dark experiencing life in the new suburban community in Greenwich, are Nicola Bacon and Saffron Woodcraft, and 96% of residents felt fairly or community. The aim of the south London. It is currently one of the who set up and led the Young very safe in the surrounding largest regeneration projects in the UK Foundation’s work on communities from research is to understand neighbourhood and has been planned to transform 2005 to 2012. Social Life’s mission is to what can be done by the the former Ferrier Estate into a new • Over 71% agree they can influence reconnect placemaking with people’s developer, the local mixed-tenure, mixed-used community. decisions affecting the local area. everyday experience and the way that authority, local voluntary Over the next 15 – 20 years, 4,800 communities work. Our expertise is in organisations and the homes, schools, shops, health facilities, the social dimensions of placemaking Who did we survey? residents themselves, to restaurants, offices, community facilities and sustainability, in understanding how support people’s quality and new open spaces will be created • 83 respondents lived in affordable to accelerate local social innovation, of life. The research involved at Kidbrooke Village. housing and 47 in private housing; and in knowing how to translate these a household survey, a site 32 respondents (just over 25%) had insights into practice and policy. The results of the resident survey survey, and a number previously lived on the Ferrier Estate. Social Life is working in the UK and and one-to-one interviews with local of in-depth, one-to-one internationally. For more information organisations paint a picture of • Immediately before moving to visit www.social-life.co. interviews. Kidbrooke Village as good place to Kidbrooke Village, 13% of live, where people feel safe and settled. respondents reported having lived The household survey results Residents feel like they belong to the in Greenwich, almost 10% in Woolwich were benchmarked against neighbourhood. They say they intend and 9% elsewhere in Kidbrooke. data from four national to remain resident in the neighbourhood 32% moved to Kidbrooke Village government surveys to for some time and feel that people from other London boroughs. Almost assess the experience of from different backgrounds get on well 4% came from outside the UK. Kidbrooke Village residents together. Residents report high levels • Respondents were aged between of overall life satisfaction. against that of people living 18 and 90 years old. 35% were aged in comparable places. 125 residents (or 24% of current between 31 and 40, 25% between This work has been carried households) were interviewed in 19 and 30, and almost 17% between out at an early stage in the January and February 2013: 41 and 50. life of Kidbrooke Village. • Almost 93% of residents plan to • 30% of respondents describe It describes a community remain resident in the neighbourhood themselves as White British, 20% that is still forming and for a number of years African, almost 14% as Other White, will continue to experience almost 9% as Caribbean, 6.5% Indian, • Over 90% feel like they belong in significant change in the and almost 6% Chinese. A small the neighbourhood coming years. At the time number of respondents described of the research 519 • Almost 80% of residents agree or themselves as Arab, Pakistani, Irish, homes were occupied strongly agree that the local area and Other Asian background. is a place where people from different out of a projected total • 43% were in full or part-time backgrounds get on well together of 4,800. paid employment, 20% were

6 7 unemployed, 11% were retired, is already having a significant, positive 8% full-time students, almost effect on the wider neighbourhood. 8% involved in some form of Safety and a much-improved public family or childcare, 6% were realm are the most noticeable changes, self employed. and were widely commented on in the contextual interviews. • Combined household income ranged from below £7,000 a year People said: to over £100,000 a year. 32% of • ‘Kidbrooke has been completely respondents reported household transformed’ income of up to £7,000, almost 19% reported household income • ‘It’s no longer a concrete jungle. of £7,001– £14,000, just over Suddenly the area is green again, 15% reported household income it’s got a lake!’ of £21,001– £34,000. Over 13% • ‘No one came to Kidbrooke before. of respondents reported average There was no reason to come. It had household income of a terrible reputation and I remember £41,001– £48,000. the constant helicopters hovering Although Kidbrooke Village is a new over the estate. Now people are community, many of the first residents using the station and coming in from are returning to the neighbourhood other areas’ having previously lived on the Ferrier • ‘The Ferrier had no green space so Estate. The resident survey and this is a big improvement’ interviews with local organisations show that ‘old and new’ residents are However, they also felt that the area’s getting along well. Interviews with social poor reputation, from the days of the housing providers at Kidbrooke indicate Ferrier estate, had not yet disappeared, that returning residents are very happy and that it will take a longer period with the quality of their new homes and of time for people from outside the with improvements to the public realm Kidbrooke area to be convinced and open spaces. about improvements. Much work has been done by the When asked which aspects of the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Southern neighbourhood most contribute to Housing Group and Berkeley, to make their quality of life, the top four responses sure residents who are returning from residents were: the peacefulness to Kidbrooke Village are housed close of the development; good transport to people they know. links; the cleanliness and tidiness of the development; safety and security. The one-to-one interviews with people who have lived and worked in the area for many years show that the Opposite: Zinab Sokar and husband Jamel Bettayeb regeneration at Kidbrooke Village with children Ibrahim and Khawla

8 9 The five indicators measuring social Social sustainability and cultural life are assessed through rating an independent resident survey. ‘Over 90% of residents reported feeling The local identity indicator measures feelings of belonging to the like they belong to the neighbourhood.’ Kidbrooke Village performs well neighbourhood, whether people intend against the 13 indicators used to assess to stay resident in the neighbourhood, community strength and quality of and if the neighbourhood has a role of support networks and how much social interaction, and whether there life. Ten of the 13 indicators receive a in contributing to individual identity. interaction with neighbours residents is scope within the development for positive rating, which means residents Over 90% of residents reported feeling have, and whether other people can future adaptation to address changing reported experience above the like they belong to the neighbourhood. be trusted. social needs. benchmarks for comparable places. Almost 93% of residents plan to remain Two of the indicators – adaptable Residents report they are satisfied The architecture and high-quality resident in the neighbourhood for a space and local facilities – are rated with the facilities currently available materials used in the residential and number of years. Over 95% felt that as satisfactory, which means residents at Kidbrooke Village, although they public areas was noted to be important where they live is important to reported experience that was the would like to see more shops, play in giving Kidbrooke Village a distinctive their identity. same as the benchmarks. One of the spaces, and activities for young people. character, and the emphasis on using indicators – links with neighbours – is The links with neighbours indicator open spaces to integrate new Both of the indicators measuring voice red, which means the residents reported measures asks six different questions residential areas with existing and influence were rated as positive. experience below the benchmarks for about how much local friendships and neighbourhoods was felt to be positive. The ratings reflect that residents report comparable places. relationships matter to people, what kind Spatial planning and design have also very high rates of being consulted been used to create streets and open about the environment and local spaces that are intended to be friendly facilities, and high levels of attempting Figure 1: and to encourage interaction between to get something done about the local Kidbrooke Village neighbours. Particular attention has environment. These indicators are also social sustainability been paid to making sure the same assessed through an independent assessment high standards of design and materials resident survey. are used in all housing types so there Five of the indicators measuring the is no visible difference between amenities and infrastructure were different tenures. positive and one satisfactory. These Overall, the research suggests that indicators are assessed through the majority of people living at an independent site survey. These Kidbrooke Village already feel settled, measures assess the appropriate secure and like they belong in the and timely provision of a wide range community. This is a positive finding of community facilities, transport links, for a new community that is at a very the quality of design, architecture and early stage of development and spatial planning, the accessibility of the continues to experience a considerable street layout, how well the development amount of change integrates with surrounding areas, the extent to which the spatial plan, design Source: Social Life, 2013 and architecture encourage and support

10 11 1. Kidbrooke Village: an introduction

idbrooke Village is a neighbourhoods and the extent to £1billion regeneration which it makes a positive contribution project in the Royal to the overall Kidbrooke area as a new Borough of Greenwich, suburban centre. south east London, that There will be a mixture of housing types K over the next 15 – 20 years will create a and housing tenures at Kidbrooke new, suburban community on the site Village including one, two, three and of the former Ferrier Estate. four bedroom flats and three and four Kidbrooke Village has been planned bedroom houses. The intention is to and designed as a sustainable suburb. make the area attractive to families and The intention is to transform the former young professionals. There will be 1,525 Ferrier Estate and create a new mixed- affordable homes at Kidbrooke Village. tenure, mixed-used community of 4,800 On completion, the tenure mix will be homes, schools, shops, health facilities, approximately 38% affordable and restaurants, offices, community facilities 62% private. In the early stages of and new open spaces. Particular development, the tenure mix will be attention has been paid to the spatial 50% affordable and 50% private. planning, landscaping and design of Much emphasis has been placed Kidbrooke Village, to create new areas on applying the same standards of residential development, commercial of design to all housing tenures. and community facilities that will The Ferrier Estate was built on a connect with and be widely used brownfield site, a previous Balloon by residents and people living in Centre at RAF Kidbrooke, in response neighbouring areas. The development to housing need in London. The Ferrier has been planned as an extension to Estate was built in two phases and when existing neighbourhoods, rather than as it was completed in 1972, it was an a separate estate renewal programme. award winning development of 1,906 Consequently, a key indicator of homes. Compared to similar housing success will be how well Kidbrooke estates completed in London during Village integrates with surrounding previous years, the Ferrier Estate offered

12 13 ‘Accounts of life on the Ferrier Estate reported high levels of violence and crime.’

residents a better environment: The masterplan for Kidbrooke Village a significant percentage of the estate received planning consent in June was landscaped and large areas of 2009. Demolition of some buildings green open space were intended to on the Ferrier Estate began shortly encourage residents to enjoy the after. The Homes and Communities outdoors and live a healthy lifestyle. Agency provided £43 million of funding to support construction of the However, a combination of social first new homes at Kidbrooke Village problems, neglect and design issues and a further £65 million grant for meant the Ferrier Estate quickly affordable homes. Altogether 1,159 declined and developed a notorious new homes have now received detailed reputation for crime and vandalism. planning in phases one and two, with Newspaper articles, blogs and a further 1,320 homes in phases three anecdotal accounts of life on the Ferrier and four submitted for consent. At the Estate report high levels of violence time of writing, 175 private home and and crime, and suggest the Estate’s 344 affordable homes have been built, poor quality design and spatial plan of which 150 are occupied by residents contributed to residents’ fear from the Ferrier Estate and unease. The London Plan (2004) originally identified Kidbrooke as an Area for Intensification and this was carried forward into the London Plan (2008) and the replacement London Plan (2011). The Kidbrooke Development Area was designated as a mixed-use, residential led, regeneration area by the Royal Borough of Greenwich in July 2006. The Kidbrooke Development Area Supplementary Planning Document was adopted in 2008 and provides a policy framework to guide the regeneration.

14 15 North

E H 2. Our approach

6 B D

C

n early 2012, Social Life, published the findings from this work in 2 working with Professor Tim the report Creating Strong Communities Dixon from Reading University, (September 2012) 1. Two supplementary 2a G was commissioned to devise reports were also published: Creating 3 and test a social sustainability Strong Communities Part 2: developing I measurement framework for the the framework, a detailed report Berkeley Group. This innovative project describing how the framework F set out to understand and measure was developed, and the Technical 5 people’s quality of life and the strength Appendix, a summary of the data tables, of community on new housing data treatments and statistical tests. developments, and the impact of In October 2012, Social Life carried new housing developments on the out an assessment of Beaufort Park surrounding neighbourhoods over time. in Colindale, north London, for the The concept of social sustainability developer St George. The Berkeley was used as a way to bring together Group social sustainability 4 and measure a wide range of factors measurement framework was used that influence local quality of life and for this work, with several minor the strength of a community now and amendments designed to improve in the future. Within the framework, its effectiveness. The research findings particular attention is paid to how were published in the report Living at residents describe their quality of life, Beaufort Park (2013).2 Site plan with phases feelings of safety, satisfaction with In January 2013, Social Life was Numbers refer to phases of the development local amenities like shops and public commissioned by Berkeley to carry out transport, and their views on the Key: a social sustainability assessment of the 1 strength of the community. A Sutcliffe Park A The framework was tested on four B Kidbrooke Station 1 Berkeley Group developments: two Bacon, N., Cochrane, D., Woodcraft, S., 2012. Creating C Village Square Strong Communities: A measurement framework for in inner London, one in the south London assessing quality of life and community strength in new D Senior Living housing developments. London: The Berkeley Group. suburbs, and one in a semi-rural area E Pedestrian and Cycle Links to Blackheath 2 Bacon, N., Woodcraft, S., 2012. Living at Beaufort Park. near Portsmouth. Berkeley Group London: St George. F ‘One Space’ Village Hall G New Park, Wetlands and Sports Pitches

H A216 Road – Links to 02 & Central London 17 first two phases of development opportunities, high quality public at Kidbrooke Village. The aim of the 2.1 What is social ‘Three core dimensions: services, good quality and research is to explore and understand sustainability? social and cultural life; sustainable public realm, good how residents feel about living transport connections. in Kidbrooke Village and how voice and influence; and • ‘Non-physical factors’ encompass it is developing as a new There is increasing global interest in amenities and infrastructure.’ safety, local social networks, social community. social sustainability amongst policy inclusion and spatial integration, makers, academics, governments and The Kidbrooke Village study included cultural heritage, a sense of belonging the various agencies involved in the Between 2010 and 2011, the Social Life a resident survey carried out by an and identity, and wellbeing.5 process of house building, planning and team (then at the Young Foundation) independent market research agency urban regeneration. The term originates carried out a review of available The Berkeley Group measurement ComRes and independent statistical from the ‘three pillars’ of sustainable evidence about what makes communities framework organises these factors analysis of the survey data carried out development – environmental, economic, flourish, in particular, large-scale new into three core dimensions: social and by Dr John Brown of Social Life. The social – which date from the 1987 developments and settlements. This cultural life; voice and influence; and work was carried out between January Brundtland Commission to the United work was commissioned by the Homes amenities and infrastructure. and March 2013. Nations. The former Norwegian Prime and Communities Agency (HCA) and This report summarises the research Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, was an attempt to consolidate the findings and the approach used in defined sustainable development available, but disparate, evidence 2.2 Measuring quality this project. Further detail about the as development that ‘meets the needs to make the case for investment in research methods can be found in of the present without compromising community infrastructure. The evidence of life and community the Appendices (available online), the ability of future generations to meet gathered in the review is published 4 strength including information about the their own needs’.3 in Design for Social Sustainability questions used in the research on www.futurecommunities.net. 3 Brundtland, Gro Harlem, World Commission On The Berkeley Group defines social framework, the sampling methods This body of work was the starting point Environment and Development (1987). Our Common sustainability as being: ‘about people’s and quotas, and statistical testing. Future. Oxford University Press, New York. for developing a practical measurement quality of life, now and in the future.’ framework for the Berkeley Group. Social sustainability describes the extent The Berkeley Group’s measurement to which a neighbourhood supports framework is grounded in academic individual and collective wellbeing. research about social sustainability and It combines design of the physical its relationship to the built environment, environment with a focus on how the and evidence from national surveys people who live in and use a space carried out by government and research relate to each other and function as councils about what is known to boost a community. It is enhanced by quality of life and wellbeing in a local development which provides the right area. The factors that underpin local infrastructure to support a strong social quality of life can be categorised as and cultural life, opportunities for physical and non-physical: people to get involved, and scope for • ‘Physical factors’ include decent the place and the community to evolve’. and affordable housing, access to

5 Dempsey, N. et al., 2011. The social dimension of sustainable 4 Woodcraft, S., Bacon, N., Hackett, T., Caistor-Arendar, L. development: Defining urban social sustainability. (2012). Design for Social Sustainability. London: Social Life. Sustainable Development, 19(5), pp.289–300.

18 19 The indicators in the framework were 2.3 The indicators selected because they report on issues that are known to be important to local communities, such as quality of life, The Berkeley Group’s measurement community involvement in local framework contains thirteen different decision-making, wellbeing, and indicators to measure the three perceptions of safety. dimensions: social and cultural life, voice and influence, and amenities and The indicators for the social and cultural infrastructure. The 13 indicators are life and voice and influence dimensions constructed from the results of 45 were created by selecting questions different questions, which are drawn from large-scale national datasets: from a resident survey and a site survey. the Understanding Society Survey, Full details about the indicators used in the Taking Part Survey, the Crime Survey the assessment process can be found in for England and Wales, and the the Appendices to this report, including Citizenship Survey. and cultural life, because appropriate in which the development is situated. a list of the indicators and the survey questions did not already exist in The Office of National Statistics A number of questions were created questions that underpin them, and national surveys. Output Area Classification (OAC) is to measure residents’ satisfaction with a description of the process used used to benchmark questions taken local facilities for this indicator in social The indicators in the amenities to select the indicators. from Understanding Society and Taking and infrastructure dimension of Part surveys, and the Index of Multiple the framework are based on CABE’s Deprivation (IMD) for the Crime Survey Figure 2: Building for Life assessment tool. A for England and Wales and the Framework number of new questions were created Citizenship survey. This approach and 13 indicators for the integration with the wider enables comparison between the neighbourhood indicator, where responses of people living in one area appropriate questions did not to the averages that would be expected already exist. for people from comparable social The rationale for incorporating pre- groups in comparable places. existing questions was twofold: first, The differences between the actual they have already been tested and and expected scores are subjected validated; and second, they enable to statistical testing. These results are comparisons between the experience then used to populate the voice and of residents in a specific neighbourhood influence and social and cultural life and other similar areas. dimensions of the framework. These benchmarks are referred to as the ‘benchmarks for comparable places’ 2.4 Analysing the results (see Appendix for more detail about the research method and statistical testing). The results of the resident survey Source: The Berkeley are benchmarked against the geo- A small number of questions Group, 2013 demographic classifications for the area underpinning the social and cultural

20 21 ‘13 indicators are constructed from the results of 45 different questions.’

life dimension have been created • For questions in the residents survey specifically for the framework; these that reflect national datasets, RAG filled gaps where there were no ratings were based on the statistical questions from national surveys. significance testing of the difference In these cases, it is not possible to between actual and expected results. benchmark the results. Red = statistically significant responses below the benchmark The amenities and infrastructure for comparable places; amber = dimension of the framework is based responses the same as or similar on the site survey, which follows the to the benchmark for comparable structure and scoring system of the places or where the response was original Building for Life survey. not statistically significant; and green A RAG (red-amber-green) rating system = statistically significant responses has been created to provide a simple above the benchmark for graphic representation of the results, comparable places. where green indicates a positive result, • For the residents survey responses higher or better than would be to questions created for the frame expected; amber a satisfactory result work where no benchmark exists, in line with what would be expected green = better response than for a comparable place; and red average of the four developments, a negative response, lower than would amber = average response, red = be expected. poorer than average response. The RAG rating system was adopted • The site survey data was RAG rated for two reasons: to present the results on a similar basis, using responses in a form that is practical and meaningful expected in a Building for Life survey for different audiences, and secondly to similar questions to enable presentation of a range of responses rather than a single social sustainability ‘score’. More detail about the approach to scoring the different data sources is in the Appendix. RAG ratings were constructed to take account of different types of data sources.

22 23 3. Applying this approach

3.1 Benchmarking the 3.2 Contextual interviews resident survey results and site survey

The resident survey results were then A number of contextual interviews benchmarked against the results of with organisations based in or near the four national surveys, based on Kidbrooke Village were carried out the Office for National Statistics Output in February and March 2013; these Area Classification (OAC) and Index half-hour to hour-long semi-structured of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) discussions with people working and classifications for the area where living locally explored perceptions Kidbrooke Village is situated. of the development and how it is functioning as a community. The aim The two OACs for the output areas that was to capture a range of perspectives include Kidbrooke Village are Younger that would be valuable in interpreting Blue Collar (1b2) and Afro-Caribbean the results of the resident survey. Communities (7b2). By analysing how Interviews took place with affordable people in these OAC / IMD groups housing providers, local businesses, respond to the questions in the resident local schools, the management survey we can generate a set of company, and a community benchmarks for an area that is organisation. comparable to Kidbrooke Village. This means we can anticipate how people in An independent surveyor was a comparable area will respond to the commissioned to carry out a site survey questions in the resident survey and assess the response of residents at Kidbrooke Village against these results. The benchmarks for the two OAC / IMD groupings that cover Kidbrooke Village are on pages 26 – 27. Opposite: Youth Workers (Thursday Drop In)

24 Chapter 3: Applying this approach to Kidbrooke Village 10 Figure 3: OAC / IMD benchmarks: Group 1b2 – Younger blue collar worker Figure 4: OAC / IMD benchmarks: Group 7b2 – Afro Caribbean Communities

Tried to get something done about local environment Tried to get something done about local environment I would be willing to work with others to improve my neighbourhood t

t I would be willing to work with others to improve my neighbourhood ac ac Willingness to Willingness to People pull together to improve neighbourhood People pull together to improve neighbourhood

How important is it for you personally to feel that you How important is it for you personally to feel that you can influence decisions in your local area? can influence decisions in your local area? Has any organisation asked what you think about … Has any organisation asked what you think about … influence influence Ability Ability to Ability Ability to Can you influence decisions affecting area Can you influence decisions affecting area

How safe do you feel walking around this area during the day How safe do you feel walking around this area during the day safet y safet y

How safe do you feel walking around this area after dark of of How safe do you feel walking around this area after dark How does the level of crime in your local area How does the level of crime in your local area eelings eelings F F compare to the country as a whole compare to the country as a whole

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live? How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live? Satisfaction of your life overall Satisfaction of your life overall Been feeling reasonable happy llbeing

llbeing Been feeling reasonable happy We We Felt you were playing a useful part in things Felt you were playing a useful part in things

In local area people get on well In local area people get on well Most people can be trusted or you cannot be too careful with people Most people can be trusted or you cannot be too careful with people Friendships in my neighbourhood mean a lot to me Friendships in my neighbourhood mean a lot to me neighbours neighbours Regularly stop and talk with people in my neighbourhood Regularly stop and talk with people in my neighbourhood with with with with I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbours I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbours Links Links Links Links If I needed advice I could go to someone in my neighbourhood If I needed advice I could go to someone in my neighbourhood

Importance of where you live to sense of who you are Importance of where you live to sense of who you are dentity i Feel like I belong to this neighbourhood dentity i Feel like I belong to this neighbourhood Local Local Local Local Plan to remain resident of this neighbourhood for a number of years Plan to remain resident of this neighbourhood for a number of years

-0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 Source: Office of National Statistics /Social Life, 2013 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Source: Office of National Statistics/Social Life, 2013

26 27 4. Living at Kidbrooke Village

32 respondents (just over 25%) had 4.1 Who did we survey? previously lived on the Ferrier Estate. When asked where they had lived This captured the views of 125 residents immediately before moving to Kidbrooke or 24% of the current population at Village, 13% of respondents said Kidbrooke Village. 83 respondents lived Greenwich, almost 10% said Woolwich in a type of affordable or social housing, and 9% said elsewhere in Kidbrooke. 42 respondents lived in privately owned 32% moved to Kidbrooke Village from or privately rented housing. Of these, other London boroughs. 3.2% came just over 11% were owner-occupiers. from outside the UK.

Figure 5: Where did you live before moving to Kidbrooke Village?

40 40 35 equenc y Fr 30 25

20 16 16 15 12 11 9 ‘Kidbrooke Village residents report 10 7 7 4 5 very high levels of satisfaction with 0 Ferrier Greenwich Woolwich Kidbrooke Bexley Lewisham Other Outside Outside UK life overall against the benchmark Estate Heath London London 16% of respondents lived in single person households, 40% in 2-person households, almost 18% in 3-person for comparable places.’ households, almost 20% in 4-person households, and a small number in households with 5 or 6 people. Source: Social Life /ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013

28 29 Figure 6: What is your ethnic group? Figure 7: Employment status of Chief Income Earner

40 38 Frequency Unpaid, family business 1 Frequency .8 Percent Percent Long Term sick or disabled 2 1.6 Full-time student 10 35 8 Family care or home 10 30.6 8 40 1 On maternity leave 30 .8 14 35 Retired 11.2 25 Unemployed 25 20 30 25 54 Paid employment (full-time/part-time) 43.2 20.2 8 Self employed 6.4 25 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 17 20 43% were in full or part-time paid employment, 20% were unemployed, 11% were retired, 8% full-time students, almost 8% involved in some form of family or childcare, 6% were self employed. 13.7 15 Source: Social Life/ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013 15 11

8.9 10 Figure 8: What is the combined annual income of your household before tax? 10 8 7 6.5 % 5.6 5 35 32.2

5 3 3 3 3 30 2.4 2.4 2.4 2 2.4 0 1.6 1 1 1 1 25 BritishOtherIrish WhiteWhite background &White Black andCaribbean WhiteBlackOther African and mixed Asian backgroundIndianPakistanOtherChinesei Asian backgroundCaribbeanAfricanAnyArab other ethnic group .8 .8 .8 .8 20 0 15 13.6 n e n p ritish Irish Asia Arab 10.2 B ribbean African Indian Chines ribbea African 8.5 8.5 Ca Pakistani Ca 10 6.8 White and 5.1 5.1 White background Asian background 3.4 3.4 hite and Black ther Any other ethnic grou 5 Other White & BlackW Other mixed background O 1.7 1.7 0 Respondents were aged between 18 and 90 years old. 35% were aged between 31 and 40, 25% between Up to 7,001 – 14,001– 21,001– 28,001– 34,001– 41,001 – 48,001– 55,001– 69,001– 83,001– 100,001– £ 19 and 30, and almost 17% between 41 and 50. 7,000 14,000 21,000 28,000 34,000 41,000 48,000 55,000 62,000 76,000 100,000 150,000 30% of respondents describe themselves as White British, 20% African, almost 14% as Other White, almost 9% as Caribbean, 6.5% Indian, and almost 6% Chinese. A small number of respondents Combined household income ranged from below £7,000 a year to over £100,000 a year. 32% of respondents described themselves as Arab, Pakistani, Irish, and Other Asian background. reported household income of up to £7,000, almost 19% reported household income of £7,001– £14,000. Source: Social Life/ComRes, Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey, 2013 Source: Social Life/ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013

30 31

Kidbrooke Village performs well * = significant (ns) = not significant 4.2 Kidbrooke Village against the 13 indicators used to Figure 10: Kidbrooke Village Resident survey – assess community strength and quality results benchmarked against OACs / IMDs rating of life. Ten of the 13 indicators receive a positive rating. Two of the indicators –

adaptable space and local facilities – Tried to get something done about local environment* t

are rated as satisfactory. One of the ac I would be willing to work with others to improve my neighbourhood (ns) to to Willingness indicators – links with neighbours – is red. People pull together to improve neighbourhood*

How important is it for you personally to feel that you Figure 9: Kidbrooke Village social sustainability assessment can influence decisions in your local area? (ns) Has any organisation asked what you think about … influence

Ability Ability to Can you influence decisions affecting are*

How safe do you feel walking around this area during the day* safet y

of How safe do you feel walking around this area after dark* How does the level of crime in your local area eelings

F compare to the country as a whole

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live?*

Satisfaction of your life overall*

llbeing Been feeling reasonable happy* We Felt you were playing a useful part in things*

In local area people get on well* Most people can be trusted or you cannot be too careful with people (ns) Friendships in my neighbourhood mean a lot to me (ns) neighbours Regularly stop and talk with people in my neighbourhood* with with I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbours* Links Links If I needed advice I could go to someone in my neighbourhood*

Importance of where you live to sense of who you are* dentity

i Feel like I belong to this neighbourhood*

Local Local Plan to remain resident of this neighbourhood for a number of years*

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Source: Social Life, 2013 Source:Social Life / ComRes Kidbrooke Village Residents Survey 2013

32 33 4.3.1 Local identity The majority of people living at Over 90% of residents feel like they 4.3 Social and Kidbrooke Village already feel settled belong to the neighbourhood. Almost This indicator is designed to explore in the neighbourhood. Compared to 93% of residents plan to remain resident cultural life the impact of local identity through the benchmark for comparable places, in the neighbourhood for a number of questions that investigate individual residents of Kidbrooke Village reported years. Over 95% felt that where they live feelings about the importance of place high levels of feeling that where they is important to their identity. and belonging. Much research about • Plan to remain resident of this live is important to their sense of who communities explores the role of local This is a positive finding for a new neighbourhood for a number they are, high levels of intention to identity in creating a sense of place and community that is at a very early stage of years remain resident in the neighbourhood, making people feel like they belong of development and continues to and high levels of feeling they belong • Feel like I belong to this to an area. This identifies that a number experience a considerable amount to the neighbourhood. neighbourhood of physical and social factors can of change. • Importance of where you live contribute to positive local identity to sense of who you are including distinctive architecture or landscape, community history, and Figure 12: I plan to remain a resident of this neighbourhood local social events like street parties. for a number of years

Private

equency Social Housing Figure 11: I feel like I belong to the neighbourhood Fr 40 38 50 Private 40 Social Housing equency 51 35 Fr 40 30

25 30 25 26 20 20 17

20 15

10 10 10 6 4 4 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree / Disagree disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree / Disagree Strongly disagree disagree

91% of residents in social/affordable households and 85% of residents in private households strongly agree 93% of social / affordable households and 88% of private households strongly agree or agree with or agree with the statement ‘I feel like I belong to this neighbourhood’. the statement ‘I plan to remain resident of this neighbourhood for a number of years’ Source: Social Life/ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013 Source: Social Life / ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013

34 35 4.3.2 Links with neighbours surprising given that almost 77% of rates of neighbourly behaviour than Overall, the resident survey survey respondents had lived in their private residents: they were more likely suggests that local relationships homes for a year or less. to regularly speak to other neighbours, matter to residents of Kidbrooke • If I needed advice I could go to to have local support networks to call Village and most people feel that it someone in my neighbourhood Of the six questions in this indicator, on, and were more likely to feel people is an area where people get on well. residents at Kidbrooke Village report • I borrow things and exchange could be trusted than residents in private The majority of residents are planning higher levels of feeling like people from favours with my neighbours housing. The number of residents in this to stay in the neighbourhood for the different backgrounds get along against sample returning to Kidbrooke Village coming years so is likely that levels of • I regularly stop and talk with the benchmark for comparable places. from the Ferrier Estate (25%) who will interaction with neighbours will increase people in my neighbourhood For the three questions about regularly already have friendships and social as people have the opportunity to get talking to neighbours, exchanging • Friendships in my neighbourhood ties in the neighbourhood, could help to know more people and more local favours with neighbours, and seeking mean a lot to me explain this result. facilities create opportunities for advice from neighbours, residents local interaction. • Most people can be trusted or you at Kidbrooke Village report lower cannot be too careful with people responses than the benchmark for comparable areas. • People from different Figure 13: Local support networks to call on backgrounds get on well Responses to questions about friendships in the neighbourhood and If I needed advice about something I could go to someone in my neighbourhood whether most people can be trusted are in line with the benchmark, which means Social ties at neighbourhood level Private they are no higher or no lower than would 35 are acknowledged to make a positive 32 Social Housing

be anticipated in a comparable place. equency contribution to individual wellbeing Fr 30 and community resilience. Work by Almost 50% of residents reported that CABE and others has demonstrated that friendships and local relationships 24 25 well-designed and high quality public are important to them and 37% say 22 spaces, street layouts that connect and they regularly stop and talk to their integrate different neighbourhoods, neighbours. Less than 28% of people 20 17 and shared facilities like shops and felt they could go to someone in the 16 parks, can encourage informal daily neighbourhood if they needed advice 15 interaction between people of different about something and only 13% say they backgrounds. This kind of daily social borrow things or exchange favours with interaction between people living and their neighbours. Only 20% of residents 10 7 working in a neighbourhood has been agreed that most people can be trusted. demonstrated to build trust and over Almost 51% agreed with the statement 5 2 time, to encourage the type of weak ‘you can’t be too careful in dealing with 2 1 social ties that are often described people’ yet almost 80% of residents 0 as ‘latent neighbourliness’ or agree or strongly agree that the local area 0 ‘collective efficacy’. is a place where people from different Strongly agree Agree Neither agree / Disagree Strongly backgrounds get on well together. disagree disagree Residents at Kidbrooke Village report relatively low levels of interaction with However, residents living in social or Source: Social Life / ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013 their neighbours. This result is not affordable housing reported higher

36 37 4.3.3 Wellbeing question and three others that complemented the other residents’ ‘Residents living in social survey questions. • Have you recently felt that or affordable housing were you were playing a useful part Residents at Kidbrooke Village report more likely to report higher in things? high levels of wellbeing. If the four questions in the indicator are taken levels of satisfaction.’ • Have you been feeling individually, Kidbrooke Village residents reasonably happy? report very high levels of satisfaction • How dissatisfied or satisfied with life overall against the benchmark are you with life overall? for comparable places, and high levels of satisfaction with the local area as a • Overall, how satisfied or place to live, feeling reasonably happy dissatisfied are you with your and feeling like they have been playing local area as a place to live? a useful part in things. 72% of residents reported feeling ONS is putting considerable focus mostly satisfied and almost 18% on the measurement of the nation’s somewhat satisfied with life overall. wellbeing following a policy direction Almost 38% reported feeling very set out by the Prime Minister after the satisfied and over 55% were fairly 2010 election. ONS uses four questions satisfied with the local area as a place to to explore different aspects of live. Almost 8% reported feeling neither wellbeing: ‘overall, how satisfied are satisfied or dissatisfied with the local you with your life nowadays?’, ‘overall, area. Overall, residents living in social to what extent do you think the things or affordable housing were more likely you do in your life are worthwhile?’, to report higher levels of satisfaction ‘overall, how happy did you feel with the local area as a place to live: 93% yesterday?’, and ‘overall, how anxious reported feeling very or fairly satisfied, did you feel yesterday?’. 7 compared to 84% of private residents feeling very or fairly satisfied. However, When this framework was designed, more private residents agreed they the commissioner and project team felt fairly satisfied with the local area as shared anxieties about the prospect a place to live (65%) than residents in of interviewers, working on behalf social or affordable housing (51%). of a property developer, asking such a personal set of questions. In addition, the national survey data used to benchmark findings pre-dated the ONS’s wellbeing reports and did not Opposite: Left to right Sue Hill (Charity group worker One Space) – Rosie Medhurst (receptionist One Space) – contain this set of questions. An Margaret Cave (Chaplain, OneSpace & Kidbrooke Village , alternative set of questions has Assistant Curate, St James’ Church) therefore been used, made up of 7 ONS (2011) Initial investigation into subjective wellbeing from the Opinions Survey. London: Office the well-established life satisfaction for National Statistics.

38 4. Living at Kidbrooke Village 39 4.3.4 Feelings of safety The survey results show that residents report significantly higher feelings Figure 14: Feelings of safety of safety than the benchmark for • How safe do you feel walking comparable places, during the day 60 alone in this area during the day? Safe during the day but especially after dark. Residents 57.3

equency Safe after dark • How safe do you feel walking reported perceptions of crime levels Fr alone in this area after dark? in line with the benchmark for comparable places. • Compared to the country as 50 a whole do you think the level This is an important finding for 48.4 47.6 of crime in your local area is... residents of Kidbrooke Village, for Berkeley Homes, and for the police and community safety teams, because Residents were asked how safe they the Ferrier Estate and the Kidbrooke feel walking alone in the area during the neighbourhood had a reputation as 40 day and during the night. In the survey, a high crime area. Contextual interviews the area was defined as being 15 – 20 with people living and working in minutes walk from home. Kidbrooke Village reinforce the Overall, residents reported positive progress that has been made. feelings of safety at Kidbrooke Village Interviewees described how people 30 and in the surrounding area during from outside the neighbourhood are 26.6 the day and at night. now regularly using Kidbrooke station, which would not previously have happened because of anxieties (from right to left) Carolyn Cartwright (Charity sector worker at one Space) and her friend visiting for the day called Ann Lorek. about crime on the Ferrier Estate. 20

14.5

10

4 1.6

0

Very safe Fairly safe A bit unsafe Very unsafe

It emerged from the contextual interviews that a group of residents had established a Neighbourhood Watch group for Kidbrooke Village. However, there have been very few reported incidents of anti-social behaviour or problems with community safety so there has been very little for the group to address. Consequently, the group has moved on to organising community-based activities for young people.

Source: Social Life / ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013

40 41 4.3.5 Local facilities facilities in the development, with a particular focus on provision for young children of different ages, and spaces • Quality of facilities for children for people to socialise. and young people (0– 4 years)? These questions were created for this • Quality of facilities for children framework because it is important and young people (5–11 years)? to capture residents’ perspectives • Quality of facilities for children about the availability and quality of and young people (12– 15 years)? community facilities, alongside the professional opinion of an independent • Quality of facilities for children site surveyor. These questions cannot and young people (16 –18 years)? be benchmarked against national • Quality of health facilities? datasets, which is a limitation. Instead, the results have been compared to the very high rates of attempting to get • Quality of sport and leisure resident survey responses captured 4.4 Voice and influence something done about the local facilities? while the assessment framework was environment, in particular, having being tested on four other Berkeley contacted a local sporting or cultural • Quality of facilities where you 4.4.1 Willingness to act socialise with friends and family? Group developments. organisation, contacted a newspaper or local TV or radio station, or attended Kidbrooke Village residents rated the a local meeting. In total, over 17% quality of sporting, community, and • I would be willing to work reported having taken action to try and play facilities for children under 11– together with others on get something done about the local This indicator includes seven questions years old as satisfactory. Residents something to improve environment. Of this group, over 11% about resident satisfaction with the were very satisfied with the local my neighbourhood. reported having joined a local residents availability and quality of community health facilities. • In the last 12 months, have group or a neighbourhood forum. you taken any of the following These are small numbers but they are actions to try to get something approximately three times higher than done about the quality of your the benchmarks which is why Kidbrooke local environment? Village performs very well against this • To what extent do you agree set of questions. or disagree that people in Residents also reported high levels this neighbourhood pull of feeling that people pull together together to improve this to improve the neighbourhood. neighbourhood? Responses to the question about willingness to work with others to improve the neighbourhood were not statistically significant, meaning they are in line with what would be expected Kidbrooke Village residents report very from a comparable place. positive responses to two of the three questions in this indicator compared Above: Children from One Space (Christian youth) Thursday to the benchmarks. Residents reported drop-in club

42 43 4.4.2 Ability to influence community facilities and public spaces improvements are an important 4.5 Amenities and have been created for the first residents. element of the Kidbrooke Village These include a Village Hub with a regeneration programme. The site • In the last 12 months, has any infrastructure supermarket, deli, a health centre and survey acknowledges that work on organisation asked you what dentist. The current Village Hub will be landscape improvements has been you think about (sporting The RAG rating for the amenities upgraded and expanded in later phases undertaken in conjunction with the facilities, cultural facilities, and infrastructure dimension of the of the development. development of residential housing. environmental facilities) framework is based on an independent New open spaces have been created The One Space community and youth • Do you agree or disagree that site survey, which has been adapted throughout Kidbrooke Village that will centre, all-weather five-a-side pitch, you can influence decisions from CABE’s Building for Life assessment. connect to Sutcliffe Park, a public park and athletics track in Sutcliffe Park have affecting you local area? at the south of the site. This includes been refurbished. new walkways, water features, benches, • How important is it for you 4.5.1 Community space The Kidbrooke Village site includes two signage and information boards. personally to feel that you can schools: The Holy Family Primary School influence decisions affecting • Does the development provide and Wingfield Primary School, which is your local area? 4.5.2 Transport links (or is it close to) community on the western part of the site and will facilities, such as a school, be relocated and redeveloped in later parks, play areas, shops, pubs phases of the regeneration project. • Does the development have Residents at Kidbrooke Village reported or cafés? (What kind? Are the Brand new premises have been built easy access to public transport? very high rates of being consulted facilities appropriate for the for Thomas Tallis School on Kidbrooke about the environment and local whole community?) Park Road, funded through S106 Kidbrooke Village has good transport sporting and cultural facilities. contributions and the previous • Have the community facilities links. Kidbrooke train station is within However, they reported significantly Government’s Building Schools been appropriately provided? the site boundary and connects to lower feelings of being able to for the Future programme. London Bridge in under 20 minutes. influence decisions about the local area. • Is public space well designed The Meadowside Leisure Centre is There are bus links to the Jubilee Line One interpretation of this finding could and does it have suitable located in the eastern part of the site at North Greenwich, and neighbouring be that residents are feeling a sense management arrangements and also will be redeveloped later. town centres (Greenwich, Eltham, of disconnection between the level in place? of consultation they are experiencing Open spaces, parks and landscape Blackheath). and the scale and pace of development, which is formidable. This indicator includes three questions Responses to the question about the appropriate and timely ‘how important is it for you personally provision of community facilities in the to feel that you can influence decisions development. It captures information affecting your local area?’ were in line about the type, adequacy, and timing with the comparable place benchmark. of provision of facilities, with a particular focus on provision for young children of different ages, and spaces for people to socialise. Kidbrooke Village received a positive rating for the provision of facilities for the community. A wide range of

44 45 4.5.3 Distinctive character 4.5.4 Local integration affordable flats and three and four- 4.5.5 Street layout bedroom houses, which will create a balance of housing types. • Does the scheme feel like a • Is there an accommodation • Do the buildings and layout place with distinctive character? mix that reflects the needs The site survey identifies three make it easy to find your and aspirations of the local ‘strategic moves’ in the Kidbrooke way around? community? Village masterplan to encourage social • Does the scheme integrate interaction. These are the clustering The site survey acknowledges that • Does the design of the site with existing streets, paths of community facilities in the Village Kidbrooke Village has a design flair encourage people from and surrounding development? Centre, which creates a focus for day- and architectural distinctiveness, which different backgrounds and to-day social interaction; the • Are the streets pedestrian, is evident in the initial phases of the social groups to interact interconnectedness of existing and cycle and vehicle friendly? development. The survey highlights on a day-to-day basis (eg new green open spaces; and the the ‘saw-toothed’ elevations of the public spaces that are open • Does the design of the local creation of a joined up street network. townhouses and the extensive use of to all, amenities situated for environment adequately brick, which are distinctive yet respectful everyone to use, amenities The landscape strategy proposes a support the needs of people of the low-rise suburban housing of accessible to all without network of enhanced public open spaces with limited physical mobility? the surrounding areas. entrance barriers?) that will integrate the development • Are public spaces and and the surrounding neighbourhoods. The character of the development is • Does the design of the site pedestrian routes overlooked In addition, buildings are arranged as influenced strongly by the existing enable people from different and do they feel safe? outward-facing perimeter blocks, lining network of open spaces, which will backgrounds and social groups streets that inter-connect with the wider be joined up and enhanced through to share community, shopping, community – an inclusive approach a ‘green river’ concept of continuous social and leisure facilities like to urban design. The site survey also Kidbrooke Village received a positive open space flowing through the area, parks and restaurants? acknowledges that the Village Centre rating for the street layout indicator. linking it up and shaping its overall is also envisaged to cater to a wider The site survey acknowledges the layout identity. catchment. is organised around a grid of streets, The site survey acknowledges the Kidbrooke Village received a positive overall landscaping has been well rating for the local integration indicator, conceived and comprises a variety which investigates considerations about of public open spaces including the social and spatial integration in the park, civic squares, green fingers, and development and its connections to a variety of streets, communal gardens, the wider area. play areas and the integration of improvements to Sutcliffe Park. The site survey acknowledges the provision of affordable housing has been weighted towards the first phases ‘The overall tenure mix will of development. The overall tenure be 37% affordable housing mix will be 37% affordable housing and 63% private housing; however, and 63% private housing.’ the tenure mix in phase 1 is 50% affordable and 50% private housing. The accommodation mix includes 1, 2, 3 and 4-bedroom private and

46 47 ‘Academic and applied research about social sustainability has repeatedly identified the importance of adaptability and flexibility to the long-term success of communities .’

development; and scope and flexibility how to support resident-led governance within governance and decision-making actively or how giving residents a voice structures for residents to shape in the planning and management of foot and cycle paths, which provides 4.5.6 Adaptable space decisions that affect the area. communities could improve the design a legible network, aligned with focal of later phases of the development. public spaces. ‘Green fingers’ are also In large-scale, long-term developments • Do external spaces and layout provided across the site, providing clear like Kidbrooke Village, the physical Kidbrooke Village received a satisfactory allow for adaption, conversion routes that interconnect with the main landscape will change continuously for rating for the adaptable space or extension? parkland and act as primary footpaths/ years to come. Flexible use of land and indicator. All the family homes have cycle paths throughout the site. Streets buildings can allow for developments small back gardens, which provide are given a traffic calmed ‘home zone’ to respond to changing needs – young residents with the option for small future treatment. Footpaths are designed with The adaptable space indicator includes children, for instance, need different building extensions. The development dropped kerbs at junctions. an assessment of the flexibility and kinds of play space as they grow older. already includes a variety of open adaptability of external spaces in the It can also create opportunities to bring spaces that could be seen as The overall approach to building development. people together to shape their own opportunities to involve residents height and massing supports the site’s space and services. Intermediate or in making decisions about use, design legibility, with taller building proposed Academic and applied research ‘meanwhile’ use of land and buildings and long-term management of the to be concentrated within the Village (about social sustainability) has can provide space for community public realm. Similarly, the interim Hub. Here mixed-uses are clustered to repeatedly identified the importance activities and for people to get to know Village Hub will be transformed in provide a central focus close to the new of adaptability and flexibility to the long- each other. Often the most successful later phases of development. Engaging transport interchange, medium-scale term success of communities. In practical projects are very small scale and led residents in this design process would buildings facing onto the park and terms, the idea of adaptability can be by residents: community gardens, give people a significant opportunity low-rise buildings around the edge interpreted as: public spaces that can grow-bag allotments or temporary play to influence future services, facilities of the development, adjacent to the be adapted for different uses as the spaces, which create the foundations for and management arrangements. existing suburban neighbourhood. community changes, for example, play more formal community organisations At present, it is not clear the extent spaces that can evolve if the average to come together. to which residents may be able age of children in a community changes; to influence these decisions flexible land use planning that leaves While most new housing developments space for residents to influence the provide a space for residents to meet Above: Mr A Assadi and son design and use of public spaces in a or for social groups to run, few consider

48 49 5. Quality of life at Kidbrooke Village

esidents were asked The most common responses were what contributed most the peacefulness of the development; to their quality of life at good transport links; the cleanliness Kidbrooke Village. and tidiness of the development; safety They were invited to and security; good quality housing and R give up to five unprompted responses. new buildings; green open spaces and parks; liking the area; and a friendly

Opposite: Bobby Mizen – Owner of the Cafe of Good Hope neighbourhood

Figure 15: Residents perceptions about quality of life at Kidbrooke Village

Overall, what five factors about living in this neighbourhood contribute most to your quality of life? Frequency

70 63

60 49 50

40 33 32

30 18 17 20 15 15 13

10

0 It's quiet Good It's clean It's safe The homes The Green Like the It's friendly & peaceful transport & tidy & secure are nice buildings spaces area / Great links / great are new & parks area

Source: Social Life / ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013

50 51 ‘The most common responses were the peacefulness of the development; good transport links; the cleanliness and tidiness of the development.’

Figure 16: Facilities Kidbrooke Village residents would like to see in the future

What kind of facilities and services would you most like to see in this neighbourhood? Frequency

29 30

25

20 17

14 14 15

11 10

10

5

0 Shops in general Playgrounds Supermarkets Activities for Swimming pool Leisure Centre young people / children Residents were also asked what facilities or amenities they would like to see in the neighbourhood in the future. They were invited to give up to five, unprompted responses. The most popular suggestions were: more shops in general; more playgrounds; more supermarkets; activities for young people; a swimming pool; and a leisure centre.

Source: Social Life / ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013

Opposite: Children from One Space (Christian youth) Thursday drop-in club

52 5. Quality of life at Kidbrooke Village 53 6. Analysis by tenure

he results of several The survey findings show that residents questions in the household from both private and social or survey about satisfaction, affordable housing feel that people belonging, local networks from different backgrounds get on well and social integration together and feel like they belong to T were analysed by tenure to investigate the neighbourhood. whether there are significant differences • Almost 67% of residents living in in the experience of people living in social or affordable housing tend to private and social or affordable housing. agree and 32% definitely agree that Housing tenure was selected as a variable people from different backgrounds for analysis because the different housing get along, compared to 59% and options offered to residents of different 23% of residents living in privately tenures emerged as a salient issue in owned or rented accommodation. research carried out for the Berkeley • Both private and social /affordable Group in 2012. households report similar levels of For this study of Kidbrooke Village, a belonging. 91% of social /affordable number of questions most indicative and 85% of private households of the nature of relationships between strongly agree or agree that they different social groups and people belong to the area. living in housing of different tenure However, people living in social or were selected for further analysis. affordable housing report significantly These include ‘to what extent do you higher levels of neighbourliness than agree or disagree that this local area residents in private housing. Residents is a place where people from different in social or affordable housing were backgrounds get on well together’, ‘I more likely to regularly stop and talk feel like I belong to this neighbourhood’, with neighbours, more likely to agree and ‘to what extent do you agree that friendships in the neighbourhood or disagree that people in this are important to them, and more likely neighbourhood pull together to to agree that people can be trusted. improve the neighbourhood’.

54 55 • 66% of social /affordable households Overall, residents in social or affordable strongly agree or agree that housing report very similar levels of Figure 17: Friendships in the neighbourhood friendships are important. 57% satisfaction with the local area as a of private households strongly place to live to people living in private 40 agree or agree. accommodation. However, residents in 40 Private social or affordable housing were more 35 Social Housing

• 42% of residents living in social or equency

likely to report feeling very satisfied Fr affordable housing strongly agree 30 (42%) than private residents (29%). 24 or agree they regularly stop and talk 25 with neighbours. 26% of residents • 94% of private residents and 93% of 19 20 living in private housing agree. social and affordable housing residents 15 14 report feeling very or fairly satisfied 15 • 37% of residents living in social 10 with the local area as a place to live. 5 or affordable housing agree or 4 3 strongly agree they could go to • 42% of social or affordable housing 5 someone in their neighbourhood residents reported feeling very 0 for support compared to only 7% satisfied and 51% fairly satisfied. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree / Disagree disagree of residents in private housing. • Almost 29% of private residents • Almost 15% of private residents reported feeling very satisfied and 66% of social/affordable households strongly agree or agree that friendships are important. and 23% of residents living in social almost 65% fairly satisfied with the 57% of private households strongly agree or agree. or affordable housing agree that local area as a place to live Source: Social Life/ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013 most people can be trusted. 54% of private residents and almost 49% of social or affordable residents feel Figure 18: I regularly stop and talk with people in my neighbourhood they can’t be too careful in dealing 35 33 Private with people. 31 Social Housing

equency 30 Fr 25 20 20

15 14 11 10 9 4 5 2 0 1 0 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree / Disagree Strongly disagree disagree

42% of social/affordable residents strongly agree or agree they regularly stop and talk with neighbours. 26% of private residents agree. Almost 40% of social/affordable and 47% of private residents neither agree or disagree. Source: Social Life/ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013

56 57 Figure 19: I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbours

30 Private 30 Social Housing

equency 25 Fr 21 21 20 15 15 13 10 10 8

5 3 3 0 0 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree / Disagree Strongly disagree disagree

69% of private residents and almost 55% of social/affordable residents disagree or strongly disagree with this statement. A similar proportion of private (almost 24%) and social/affordable (25%) residents neither agree or disagree. Source: Social Life/ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013

Figure 20: Trust in the neighbourhood

Would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people? Private Social Housing 40 40 35 equency Fr 30 23 25 23 19 20 15 13 10 6 5 0 Most people can be trusted Can’t be too careful Depends

Almost 15% of private residents and 23% of residents living social or affordable housing agree that most people can be trusted. 54% of private residents and almost 49% of social or affordable residents feel they can’t be too careful in dealing with people. Source: Social Life/ComRes Kidbrooke Village Resident Survey 2013

58 6. Analysis by tenure 59 7. Contextual interviews: key themes

The survey work was interviews. There was general complemented by a number agreement that Kidbrooke Village of contextual interviews with had transformed the area, in particular, individuals and community improvements to the design, public organisations or businesses that realm, and reductions in crime and anti-social behaviour. are based in or near Kidbrooke Village. The purpose of these People agreed that the neighbourhood conversations was to capture feels significantly safer since the insights that would enhance demolition of the Ferrier Estate, as the analysis and interpretation evidenced by many more people using of the household survey findings. Kidbrooke station and coming into the neighbourhood. Overall, most people Interviews were carried out with felt anti-social behaviour was not a social housing providers, local problem at Kidbrooke Village although businesses, local schools and there were some reports of some community organisations. The nuisance behaviour. Some people following is a summary of the main felt this may change in the summer themes from these conversations. when more young people are out on the streets, but generally this was not

seen as a cause for concern. 7.1 Community safety Interviewees commented on the improvements to spatial planning ‘No one came to Kidbrooke before. and design at Kidbrooke Village There was no reason to come. It had compared to the Ferrier Estate. a terrible reputation and I remember In particular, the design is felt to be ‘ the constant helicopters hovering over very anti-social behaviour proof … the estate. Now people are using the you can’t get lost like in the old estate, station and coming in from other areas’ it’s all gated and “intercommed”’. Crime and community safety were widely discussed in the contextual Opposite: BMX boys group.

60 61 residents. One Space was part 7.2 Open spaces and of the Ferrier Estate so has provided continuity for residents from the community facilities Ferrier Estate who are returning to new homes at Kidbrooke Village. ‘It’s no longer a concrete jungle. Sutcliffe Park is an important public Suddenly the area is green again, facility for the area. Some interviewees it’s got a lake!’ questioned the relationship between People described the public and Kidbrooke Village and Sutcliffe Park, open spaces at Kidbrooke Village in particular, whether the park gates as attractive, high quality and plentiful; should be open or closed to the public the Ferrier Estate were able to move a significant improvement on the Ferrier in the evenings. Some people were 7.3 Local relationships and back and live close together. There Estate, which had no green spaces. At concerned that leaving the gates open community identity was a sense that being aware of these the same time, people mentioned that may lead to anti-social behaviour from social ties and supporting residents some residents were unsure about the the park spilling over into the to maintain them helped people to status of the outdoor spaces: have they development, especially in the summer. ‘There is a bit of territoriality from manage a difficult and stressful process. been designed as public amenities? people who lived on the Ferrier Estate There was also a sense that different Interviewees noted that more facilities Who do they belong to and how can but they are happy to be back and new stakeholders – private, public and were needed for young people living they be used? and old residents are getting on well.’ community – were working together at Kidbrooke Village, and a post box for the interests of the community. The One Space centre was would be helpful. The majority of interviewees discussed acknowledged as very important the relationship between old and new Interviewees reported that there is little Some issues were raised about support resource in and for the community. residents at Kidbrooke Village. People in the way of self-organised community for the Holy Family School and the The centre currently plays a significant agreed that old and new residents are activity. A Neighbourhood Watch group disruption that ongoing construction role in providing activities for young mixing and getting on well together. was established but has found little to do works cause for the pupils. The local people. Beyond this role however, some Some people described how some and has since re-focused on activities for bus route has recently been moved interviewees described how the One people, especially young people, young people. This point was reinforced from outside the school, creating safety Space is an important link between past who had lived on the Ferrier Estate feel in conversations with individuals working issues for the children crossing the road. and present, and old and new a degree of territoriality and attachment in housing and estate management who to the area. However, they also reported reported that there was little interest there is no evidence of any tension from residents in setting up a Residents between old and new residents. Association or Forum. People described how residents seem Some people felt that while Kidbrooke to be happy with the mix of people Village was friendly there is not yet any in the area, describing a ‘good range ‘community spirit’ in the area. However, of social renters, private renters and they acknowledged this takes time private owners’ and a mixture of people to emerge and may flow from more from different backgrounds. people, shared spaces and community facilities being created in the area. Some interviewees described how public agencies, housing providers and other local partners have worked hard Above: Leigh Hill (daughter) Jackie Lyons (mother) residents to make sure that residents leaving of Kidbrooke and former Ferrier Estate

62 63 challenging to adjust from being a 7.4 Moving from the council tenant to being a housing association tenant; in particular, the Ferrier Estate to strictly enforced regulations concerning Kidbrooke Village the management of properties. Overall, however, residents who want Kidbrooke Village to remain a high ‘Before, there was a real sense of quality environment welcomed the community … people felt a real sense close management of the housing of loss when they moved away. Yes the and public spaces. estate did have its problems, but it was still a good place to live. Many interviewees talked about the 7.5 Integration with the experience and perspectives of residents wider neighbourhood who previously lived on the Ferrier Estate. In general, they described that people returning to Kidbrooke Village ‘People are coming to Kidbrooke now felt happy to be back in the area, and who would never have visited before’ were pleased with the high quality of Several people commented on how their new homes and the improved public people from surrounding areas are realm. However, it is also important starting to visit Kidbrooke Village now to note that some residents from the the area is safer. The train station is Ferrier Estate were unable to return to noticeably busier: ‘three times as many Kidbrooke Village because they could not people now use the station’. Although afford higher rents and higher council some people who have lived and tax payments compared to the costs of worked in the area for many years say their previous homes. Interviewees also many people are still reluctant to visit noted that overall there has been a net because the area is still associated loss of affordable housing at Kidbrooke with the Ferrier Estate. It was felt that Village from 1,906 to 1,525. it will take some time to change the As one interviewee said: ‘Residents reputation of the area, but this will have very different views about the be helped once the remaining block Ferrier being knocked-down. Some is demolished and other new people enjoyed living there and felt facilities are built, like the cinema that it was a very peaceful place to and a larger supermarket live. Others had a different experience and jumped at the chance to move. Some decided not to stay in Kidbrooke because they didn’t want to become housing association tenants.’ Interviewees also described how Opposite: Children from One Space (Christian youth) some returning residents had found it Thursday drop-in club

64 65 8. Conclusion

his work demonstrates and community strength. Academic that it is possible to research has made these links and our measure how residents own research at Kidbrooke Village and experience life in a new other Berkeley Group developments neighbourhood, to has reinforced these findings. T understand how new communities The house building industry is good at start to form, and to identify how to creating safe, well-maintained places. intervene and support new places But it lacks the tools to understand, to flourish. and therefore to support, the social This should matter greatly to the fabric of the new communities we are house building industry and planning building. Housing need and the lack authorities. The government’s wellbeing of public funding, along with new policy agenda and the National Planning Policy frameworks that emphasise wellbeing Framework (NPPF) both raise questions and sustainability, make it increasingly about what sustainable development important to create this knowledge. It means in practice, and about the role needs to be embedded across all the of developers, local government and organisations involved in planning, public agencies in creating successful development and estate management. new communities. As an industry, we must interrogate There is a strong connection between what is known about developing individual and collective wellbeing, sustainable communities and start to housing and the built environment. address what isn’t. The value of creating We know that safe, inclusive, well- places that are environmentally maintained places, where local sustainable is widely accepted and we people have a voice and can influence have the evidence and the tools to act decision-making, do make a positive on this knowledge. Social sustainability, contribution to peoples’ quality of life by contrast, is still a relatively new concept in the UK. It demands fresh evidence, new language and new tools to Opposite: Youth worker Vicky Adeoye and her boss – Hugh Ridsill-Smith. operationalise this crucial area of policy.

66 67 We need to understand what concepts like wellbeing, quality of life and community strength mean in practice.

This assessment framework is a step towards that goal. It enables us to generate valuable, measurable insights about how the built environment, public services, and local community facilities and resources can work together to support new neighbourhoods to become successful places. We believe social sustainability should become central to the way that everyone involved in the process of building new housing settlements understands sustainability in the years ahead

68 69 Quality of life: how Kidbrooke Village compares

People living People living People across People living in Kidbrooke in London the UK in comparable Village places

I feel like I belong to the 91% 62% 67% 66% neighbourhood

I feel safe 84% 65% 74% 74% after dark

I feel able to influence 72% 48% 40% 43% decisions

I plan to remain in the 93% 63% 68% 65% neighbourhood

Satisfied not with your 77% 60% 51% available* life overall

This table compares responses from the Kidbrooke Village resident survey to responses from people living in London, across the UK, and in comparable areas (based on Output Area Classifications) drawn from the following national government surveys: questions 1, 2 and 5 – Understanding Society Survey 2008 – 2009 Waves 1 and 2, question 3 – Crime Survey for England and Wales 2010 – 2011, question 4 – Citizenship Survey 2009 – 2010. *No directly comparable data set exists for life satisfaction in London. A full explanation of this data table including information about survey waves and sample sizes can be found in the appendices to this report.

Opposite: Alex and Hinga, youth workers at One Space.

Credits: The Berkeley Group and Social Life 2013 FSC logo This document is printed on FSC certified paper. It has been manufactured with windpower. It is 100% recyclable.

70 71 ‘Social sustainability is about people’s quality of life, now and in the future. It describes the extent to which a neighbourhood supports individual and collective wellbeing.’

Berkeley Homes (Urban Renaissance) Ltd 380 Queenstown Road London SW8 4PE