THAMES ESTUARY LEVELLING up DATA ATLAS Understanding Inequalities Across the Thames Estuary’S Communities

THAMES ESTUARY LEVELLING UP DATA ATLAS Understanding inequalities across the Thames Estuary’s communities.

Commissioned by the Thames Estuary Growth Board, May 2021.

WE’RE IN A GOOD PLACE. JOIN US. The role of the Thames Estuary Growth Board in levelling up the region

“Redressing social inequalities and imbalances is at the heart of what the Thames Estuary Growth Board is trying to achieve. To do this, we must first understand what the social inequalities and imbalances are: who they affect, where they are most prominent, how severe the issue is. Understanding at each stage the people at the heart of these issues. Then, we can address these inequalities and come up with practical solutions that truly work for all the people of the Estuary.” Kate Willard OBE, Estuary Envoy and Chair of the Thames Estuary Growth Board The brief

The Thames Estuary Growth Board recognises the need for Contents future growth to be inclusive in its approach, and for investment to be targeted at creating jobs and enhancing prosperity in the 1. Defining Levelling Up for the Thames parts of the Estuary that need it most. Estuary – slide 4 Reflecting this, the Growth Board commissioned research to 2. Headline Findings – slide 8 define what levelling up means for the Thames Estuary and where the region and its places stand now. The research 3. The Data – slide 13 presented in the Data Atlas will inform the refreshed Thames Estuary Growth Board strategy, activities and investments going Glossary of Key Terms forward so growth benefits reach across our communities. TE Thames Estuary This research aims to sit alongside and complement the Growth LSOA Lower Super Output Area (the smallest statistical geography) Board’s existing ‘Measuring Success Framework’ and provides MSOA Middle Super Output Area (the 2nd smallest statistical an initial evidence base to inform longer term approaches to geography) evidence collection and sharing by the Growth Board. IMD Index of Multiple Deprivation

This research has been undertaken by PRD – a consultancy GVA Gross Value Added specialising in place based socio-economic research and ONS Office of National Statistics strategy. MHCLG Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government DWP Department for Work and Pensions 1. DEFINING LEVELLING UP IN THE THAMES ESTUARY

WE’RE IN A GOOD PLACE. JOIN US. Defining the Thames Estuary There is no formal boundary for the Thames Estuary. However, for the purposes of this research, we have focused on a core ‘Thames Estuary’ geography which comprises 20 local authority areas neighbouring the River Thames. The geography stretches from Tower Hamlets and Lewisham in the west, to Rochford and Thanet in the east. Map Key:

1. Barking & 11. Lewisham Dagenham 12. Medway 2. Basildon 13. Newham 3. Bexley 14. Redbridge 4. Brentford 15. Rochford 5. Canterbury 16. Southend-On- 6. Castle Point Sea 7. Dartford 17. Swale 8. Gravesham 18. Thanet 9. Greenwich 19. Thurrock 10. Havering 20. Tower Hamlets What do we mean by Levelling Up?

There is no formal government definition of levelling up, and in The Thames Estuary Growth Board’s many respects, levelling up will mean different things in different Measuring Success Framework places and contexts. 1. Economic The Thames Estuary Growth Board’s Measuring Success Prosperity The Density and Framework focuses on the need to take a balanced approach Productivity of when thinking about future growth and prosperity across the the Economy Estuary, balancing economic, social, environmental and financial considerations. Long Term This full prosperity ‘spectrum’ is equally relevant when thinking 2. Social Aim: 3. Environmental about levelling up: the Thames Estuary’s ability to maximise its Prosperity Thames Estuary Prosperity converging with, contribution to national objectives while also responding to Prosperity and The Resilience and personal and then Sustainable of the highly localised variations in performance and outcomes will be outcomes of exceeding, Natural influenced by a range of economic, social, environmental and Individuals national Environment averages commercial factors. However, to provide a starting point in what is clearly a complex 4. Financial topic across a large and complex geography, this initial piece of Prosperity research focuses explicitly on social prosperity: the inequalities Value and Returns to the facing the Estuary’s residents and communities. Public Purse 10 indicators to help understand inequalities in the Thames Estuary region

A small number of indicators was Indicator Measures Why it has been included a) % LSOAs in top 10% most deprived (IMD) To understand poverty across the estuary and 1. Overall Deprivation identified to help understand social b) % children living in low-income households where deprivation is concentrated outcomes and inequalities in a Sheds light on the extent to which local people are a) Household income after housing costs 2. Financial Prosperity sharing in value created in the local economy and consistent way across the Estuary, b) Housing affordability ratio are able to afford to live in the area and across a range of scales. a) Claimant count as % of working age To understand whether residents are accessing b) Employment rate 3. Economic Participation economic opportunities and the inequality between c) Gap in employment rate between ethnic different ethnic groups in the Estuary These indicators – and related groups To understand whether residents have the measures – are summarised in the 4. Labour Market Skills % working age with no qualifications qualifications to engage in high value jobs table to the right. All of the a) % in employment, education or training To understand whether young people have b) % school leavers going to university measures draw on publicly 5. Youth Participation sufficient opportunities and pathways as to access c) % disadvantaged school leavers going to employment, training and education opportunities accessible information from university government datasets, with a focus a) Life expectancy at birth 6. Health and Wellbeing b) Inactivity levels Health and wellbeing outcomes are closely linked to on those which provide relatively up Outcomes c) Mental health prevalence deprivation and wider challenges around prosperity to date information at local authority d) Life Satisfaction Reflects the types of jobs and sectors in the area 7. Workplace Productivity Gross Value Added per job level or lower. and how much value these create % premises with access to superfast and Poor digital accessibility can be a key barrier for 8. Digital Infrastructure ultrafast broadband participation in the economy Civic participation is key to creating successful, 9. Civic Participation Local election voter turnout prosperous places a) % residents furloughed To understand the impact that covid has had on the 10. Covid Impact b) Increase in claimant count due to the levelling up challenge pandemic 2. HEADLINE FINDINGS

WE’RE IN A GOOD PLACE. JOIN US. Inequality in the Estuary at a glance

While the research finds a number challenges which are ‘pan-Estuary’, there is also significant variation in the nature and severity of challenges experienced by different parts of the Estuary. Thames Estuary (TE) London, for example, is characterised by lower levels of life satisfaction, significant mental health challenges and the pandemic has had a greater impact on economic hardship. Outside London, relative multiple deprivation is more localised, but arguably more severe; other challenges include low productivity, weaknesses in civic participation and weaker pathways for young people after school into university.

Examples of Key Challenges Facing: The Whole Estuary • Economic participation - people claiming government support • Residents with no qualifications • House price affordability • Low levels of physical activity TE London • Relatively widespread deprivation • Children living in low-income households • High prevalence of mental health disorders • Lower levels of life satisfaction • Higher proportion of workers on furlough • Increases in claimant count due to Covid • Gap between employment rate in different ethnic groups TE Kent and Essex • Pockets of most severe deprivation • Low productivity • Limited pathways for young people and disadvantaged young people into university after school. Weakest Best performing performing Top 10 levelling up stats Brentwood, England, Thames Barking & Dagenham, 0% 30% Estuary, 36% 83%

1. Deprivation: 36% of LSOAs in the Thames Estuary are in the top 30% most deprived.

Lewisham, England, Thames Gravesham, 13% 4% 7% Estuary, 8% 2. Qualifications: 8% of the working age population in the Thames Estuary have no qualifications. This means over 29,000 people would need to gain qualifications in the Thames Estuary to reach the England average (7%).

Brentwood, England, Thames Tower Hamlets, 3. Children in poverty: a higher proportion of children live in low-income 11% 18% Estuary, 20% 27% households in the Thames Estuary (20%) than England average (18%). Almost 12,700 children would need to be lifted out of poverty across the Estuary to meet the England average.

4. Claimant count: the Thames Estuary has a notably higher claimant rate (8% Rochford, England, Thames Newham, of working age) than the England average (6%). Over 36,600 people in the 4% 6% Estuary, 8% 11% Thames Estuary would need to stop claiming to reach the England average.

5. Inactivity levels: 29% of the population in the Thames Estuary are active for less than 30 mins per week compared to 25% in England Canterbury, England, Thames Barking & 17% 25% Estuary, 29% Dagenham, 38% Weakest Best performing performing Top 10 levelling up stats (cont.)

6. Pathways after school: the proportion of school leavers going to university is a Redbridge, TE London, England, TE Kent/Essex, Basildon, 25% 19% significant challenge outside London. Disadvantaged school leavers in TE Kent 62% 43% 12% and Essex are much less likely to go to university than TE London counterparts (19% in TE Kent and Essex vs 43% in TE London). An extra 241 disadvantaged school leavers a year in TE Kent and Essex would need to go to University to meet England average of 25%. Rochford, England, Thames Newham, 7. Mental health: a higher proportion of the 16+ population have common mental 13% 17% Estuary, 19% 24% health disorders in the Thames Estuary (19%) than the England average (17%). To reach the England average, over 57,000 people in the Thames Estuary would need to be supported to overcome mental health disorders. 8. Housing affordability: house prices across the Estuary are less affordable (9.6 Medway, England, Thames Newham, 7.5 7.8 Estuary, 9.6 12.1 times the average resident earnings) than the England average (7.8 times) and prices are particularly high compared to earnings in London boroughs as well as Canterbury. 9. Productivity: GVA per job is below the England average (£60,000) in 11 Tower Hamlets, Thames Estuary, England, Southend, Thames Estuary local authorities. Productivity is markedly lower in the eastern £107,000 £69,000 £60,000 £45,000 authorities (including Southend - £45,000, Castle Point - £46,000, Thanet - £48,000).

10. Covid Impact: claimant count has risen dramatically across the country due to Thames the pandemic, in part driven by changes to eligibility enabling more people who Thanet, England, Estuary, Newham, +76% +117% +241% are in work to claim as a response to Covid-19. But there has been a larger +152% percentage increase across the Thames Estuary (+152%, an additional 128,000 people) between March 2020 and Feb 2021 than the England average (+117%). How the Thames Estuary compares to other parts of the country

The research shows that social inequality and polarisation is a major challenge across and within the Estuary. At worst, the challenge is severe as anywhere within the UK, a point highlighted by the fact that seven of the twenty local authority areas across the Estuary have been identified by the government as priority 1 locations for levelling up investment. Examples of the severity of the challenges include: • Gravesham is the 14th worst performing local authority in the country in terms of the proportion of working age people with no qualifications. It has a higher % than other priority 1 places like Liverpool and Newcastle. • Newham has the 4th highest proportion of working age people claiming in England (11%). The Thames Estuary as a whole has the same proportion of working age people claiming (8%) as Blackburn and a higher % than Leeds, Sunderland, Newcastle and Mansfield (all priority 1 locations). • The Isle of Sheppey and Margate are two of the most deprived places in the country. Sheerness town centre is ranked 48th most deprived out of 32,844 LSOAs (top 0.14%) and Margate town centre is 67th. • Newham, Tower Hamlets and Barking & Dagenham are the worst performing nationally for the prevalence of mental health disorders amongst the 16+ population (2nd, 3rd and 6th highest in England, respectively). 3. THE DATA

WE’RE IN A GOOD PLACE. JOIN US. Introduction to the data and maps

Indicators have been selected based on availability of up-to-date information at relevant geographical How to read the maps in this atlas scales – please refer to slide 7 for the full list of indicators and measures. • Data is mapped at the local authority district (LAD) level, and, where possible, As defined on slide 5, the Thames Estuary is defined at smaller geographies. as the 20 local authorities along the River Thames in East London, South Essex and North Kent. • Across all of the maps, the LADs which Brentwood and Redbridge have also been included are performing worse than the England within the 20 authorities. average are coloured in. LADs Where possible, data has been aggregated for the performing better than England are in Thames Estuary to allow comparison to England white. average. In addition, characteristics are compared for the Thames Estuary inside and outside London, reflecting significant variations within the Estuary area. 1A. Overall Deprivation – Indices of multiple deprivation

NATIONAL POSITION

Geography %

Thames Estuary 36%

TE London 42%

TE Kent and Essex 29%

England 30%

Key messages: • There is deprivation across the Estuary, but it is concentrated in London boroughs. • 4 London boroughs have more than 50% of LSOAs in the top 30% most deprived nationally.

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Barking & Dagenham (1) 83% Basildon (2) 42% Gravesham (8) 28% Havering (10) 15%

Newham (13) 73% Greenwich (9) 41% Thurrock (19) 26% Castle Point (6) 14%

Tower Hamlets (20) 60% Medway (12) 39% Canterbury (5) 21% Redbridge (14) 11%

Lewisham (11) 51% Swale (17) 36% Dartford (7) 17% Rochford (15) 2%

Thanet (18) 44% Southend (16) 33% Bexley (3) 16% Brentwood (4) 0%

Slide source: MHCLG, 2019 1A. Overall Deprivation – differences in the profile of deprivation (mapped by LSOA)

There is widespread deprivation across the population in TE London compared to smaller pockets of more severe deprivation in TE Kent and Essex: the 10 places with the most severe deprivation in the Estuary are all in Swale, Thanet, Medway and Southend.

National LSOA Rank (out The 10 places in the Estuary of 32,844) where 1 is the with the most severe Local Authority most deprived in the % deprivation country

Sheerness, Isle of Sheppey Swale 48 0.14% Margate Town Centre Thanet 67 0.20% Cliftonville, Margate Thanet 117 0.36%

Southchurch, Southend Southend-on-Sea 136 0.41% Chatham Medway 144 0.44% Newington, Ramsgate Thanet 284 0.86% Leysdown-on-Sea, Isle of Swale 322 0.98% Sheppey

Sittingbourne Swale 337 1.02% Dane Valley, Margate Thanet 423 1.29%

East Church, Isle of Sheppey Swale 591 1.80%

Slide source: MHCLG, 2019 1B. Overall Deprivation – Children in poverty

NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 20% TE London 22% TE Kent and Essex 17% England 18%

Key messages: • Thames Estuary as a whole is worse than the England average. • This is particularly driven by poverty in London boroughs. 27% of children live in low-income households in Tower Hamlets. • Almost 12,700 children would need to be lifted out of poverty to meet the England average.

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % Tower Hamlets (20) 27% Lewisham (11) 20% Basildon (2) 17% Bexley (3) 16%

Barking & Dagenham (1) 26% Gravesham (8) 19% Thurrock (19) 17% Dartford (7) 16%

Newham (13) 26% Swale (17) 19% Havering (10) 17% Castle Point (6) 15%

Thanet (18) 25% Redbridge (14) 19% Southend (16) 16% Rochford (15) 12%

Greenwich (9) 21% Medway (12) 19% Canterbury (5) 16% Brentwood (4) 11%

Slide source: DWP and HM Revenue and Customs, 2018/19. Households are classed as low-income if a family has claimed child benefit and at least one other household benefit (universal credit, tax credits or housing benefit) at any point in the year. 2A. Financial Prosperity – Median annual income after housing costs

NATIONAL POSITION

Geography £ Thames Estuary £29,100 TE London £29,500 TE Kent and Essex £28,500 England £28,550

Key messages: • Overall, income is generally above the national average – however the TE Kent and Essex average is just below this level. • 9 out of 20 districts are below the England average.

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities £ TE Local Authorities £ TE Local Authorities £ TE Local Authorities £

Barking & Dagenham (1) £25,650 Swale (17) £27,800 Castle Point (6) £29,300 Rochford (15) £30,500

Thanet (18) £25,700 Southend (16) £27,900 Redbridge (14) £29,400 Lewisham (11) £31,100

Newham (13) £26,000 Medway (12) £27,950 Greenwich (9) £29,600 Brentwood (4) £31,800

Tower Hamlets (20) £26,800 Thurrock (19) £28,100 Dartford (7) £29,900 Havering (10) £32,050

Basildon (2) £27,400 Gravesham (8) £28,900 Canterbury (5) £30,000 Bexley (3) £32,650

Slide source: ONS Household Income Estimates for Small Areas, 2018. Net equivalised figures have been used and aggregated to Local Authority area. Data is rounded to the nearest £50. 2A. Financial Prosperity – more detailed look at median annual income after housing costs (by MSOA) Key messages:

• This slide shows a more detailed breakdown of the same data as is on the previous slide.

• Pockets of lowest household incomes are in Margate, Chatham, Isle of Sheppey, Barking, Poplar.

Slide source: ONS Household Income Estimates for Small Areas, 2018. Net equivalised figures have been used. 2B. Financial Prosperity – Housing affordability ratio

NATIONAL POSITION Geography Ratio Thames Estuary 9.6 TE London 11.3 TE Kent and Essex 9.0 England 7.8 Key messages: • Housing across the Estuary is less affordable than England as a whole. • Affordability is particularly an issue in London boroughs as well as Brentwood and Canterbury • Medway is the only area more affordable than the England average.

Weakest performing Best performing TE Local Authorities Ratio TE Local Authorities Ratio TE Local Authorities Ratio TE Local Authorities Ratio

Newham (13) 12.1 Havering (10) 10.7 Barking & Dagenham (1) 9.6 Southend (16) 8.9

Tower Hamlets (20) 12.1 Canterbury (5) 10.4 Basildon (2) 9.3 Thurrock (19) 8.7

Greenwich (9) 12.0 Brentwood (4) 10.2 Bexley (3) 9.3 Dartford (7) 8.4

Redbridge (14) 11.6 Rochford (15) 9.8 Castle Point (6) 9.0 Swale (17) 8.0

Lewisham (11) 11.6 Gravesham (8) 9.8 Thanet (18) 9.0 Medway (12) 7.5

Slide source: ONS, 2021 3A. Economic Participation – Claimant rate

NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 8% TE London 9% TE Kent and Essex 7% England 6% Key messages: • Thames Estuary has a notably higher claimant rate than the England average. • 3 local authorities rank in the top 10 for highest % of claimants nationally. • Over 36,600 people in the Thames Estuary would need to stop claiming to reach the England average.

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Newham (13) 11% Greenwich (9) 8% Basildon (2) 7% Dartford (7) 5%

Barking & Dagenham (1) 10% Redbridge (14) 8% Medway (12) 7% Castle Point (6) 5%

Thanet (18) 10% Southend (16) 8% Swale (17) 6% Brentwood (4) 5%

Lewisham (11) 9% Gravesham (8) 7% Havering (10) 6% Canterbury (5) 5%

Tower Hamlets (20) 9% Thurrock (19) 7% Bexley (3) 6% Rochford (15) 4%

Slide source: ONS Claimant Count, January 2021 3B. Economic Participation – Employment rate (aged 16-64)

NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 76% TE London 75% TE Kent and Essex 77% England 76% Key messages: • Employment rates across the Thames Estuary are generally in line with England. • There is significant variation in performance – 3 local authorities ranked in bottom 10% nationally and at the same time 3 ranked in the top 15% nationally.

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Brentwood (4) 66% Medway (12) 74% Havering (10) 78% Southend (16) 79%

Barking & Dagenham (1) 68% Redbridge (14) 74% Basildon (2) 78% Lewisham (11) 82%

Tower Hamlets (20) 71% Thurrock (19) 75% Bexley (3) 79% Gravesham (8) 83%

Thanet (18) 71% Greenwich (9) 76% Castle Point (6) 79% Rochford (15) 83%

Newham (13) 73% Swale (17) 76% Canterbury (5) 79% Dartford (7) 86%

Slide source: ONS Annual Population Survey, 2020 3B. Economic Participation – Ethnicity employment gap NATIONAL POSITION Geography % point difference Thames Estuary -8.3 TE London -10.3 TE Kent and Essex -3.0 England -9.6 Key messages: • There is a lower employment rate amongst ethnic minority groups compared to White groups across the Thames Estuary and England. • The gap between the two rates in the Thames Estuary is slightly smaller than the England average. • The gap is significantly worse in TE London compared to TE Kent and Essex and is as high as a -27.4 % point difference in Tower Hamlets. Weakest performing Best performing TE Local Authorities %p TE Local Authorities %p TE Local Authorities %p TE Local Authorities %p

Tower Hamlets (20) -27.4 Basildon (2) -10.2 Thurrock (19) -0.5 Barking & Dagenham (1) +7.2

Gravesham (8) -25.8 Newham (13) -10.1 Havering (10) +0.4 Medway (12) +7.5

Lewisham (11) -20.9 Bexley (3) -9.6 Southend (16) +1.1 Brentwood (4) +17.9

Swale (17) -19.9 Redbridge (14) -6.6 Greenwich (9) +2.0 Castle Point (6) n/a Data has Thanet (18) -11.8 Canterbury (5) -3.8 Dartford (7) +6.7 Rochford (15) n/a been supressed

Slide source: Annual Population Survey 2020. Notes: data is only available at the two broad groups of ethnicity, but this hides significant variation within these groups; 2. data has been supressed where the sample size is too small; 3. figures may be skewed by small ethnic minority populations in some areas 4. Labour Market Skills – No qualifications NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 8% TE London 8% TE Kent and Essex 9% England 7%

Key messages: • Only 4 local authorities perform better than the England average. • 6 local authorities rank in the bottom 20% nationally. • Over 29,000 people would need to gain qualifications in the Thames Estuary to reach the England average.

Weakest performing Best performing TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Gravesham (8) 13% Tower Hamlets (20) 10% Canterbury (5) 9% Greenwich (9) 7%

Basildon (2) 12% Swale (17) 9% Barking & Dagenham (1) 8% Bexley (3) 6%

Southend (16) 10% Havering (10) 9% Medway (12) 8% Brentwood (4) 6%

Newham (13) 10% Thurrock (19) 9% Redbridge (14) 8% Dartford (7) 5%

Thanet (18) 10% Rochford (15) 9% Castle Point (6) 8% Lewisham (11) 4%

Slide source: ONS Annual Population Survey, Dec 2019 5A. Youth Participation – In employment, education or training NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 80% TE London 81% TE Kent and Essex 79% England 81% Key messages: • The Thames Estuary as a whole is about level with the England average. But an extra 300 young people a year would need to enter EET to meet the England average. • There is significant variation between districts e.g. Brentwood (89%) vs. Thanet (70%).

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Thanet (18) 70% Greenwich (9) 78% Thurrock (19) 82% Swale (17) 86%

Canterbury (5) 74% Newham (13) 79% Dartford (7) 82% Redbridge (14) 86%

Medway (12) 76% Basildon (2) 79% Havering (10) 82% Castle Point (6) 87%

Barking & Dagenham (1) 77% Tower Hamlets (20) 80% Gravesham (8) 86% Rochford (15) 88%

Southend (16) 77% Lewisham (11) 81% Bexley (3) 86% Brentwood (4) 89%

Slide source: DfT, 2018/19 Cohort 5B. Youth Participation – School leavers going to university

NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 39% TE London 45% TE Kent and Essex 32% England 35%

Key messages: • Generally, the region has a higher proportion of school leavers going to university than the national average. • There is, however, considerable variation, with 9 out of 20 local authorities in the Thames Estuary below 35%.

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Medway (12) 25% Southend (16) 31% Greenwich (9) 42% Gravesham (8) 47%

Basildon (2) 27% Barking & Dagenham (1) 32% Tower Hamlets (20) 43% Bexley (3) 52%

Thanet (18) 27% Havering (10) 33% Rochford (15) 44% Lewisham (11) 52%

Canterbury (5) 28% Thurrock (19) 34% Newham (13) 46% Brentwood (4) 53%

Castle Point (6) 30% Dartford (7) 38% Swale (17) 46% Redbridge (14) 65%

Slide source: DfT, 2018/19 Cohort 5C. Youth Participation – Disadvantaged* school leavers going to university

NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 35% TE London 43% TE Kent and Essex 19% England 25% Key messages: • Generally, a much higher proportion of disadvantaged school leavers attend university in the Thames Estuary compared to England. • This overall figure masks much lower levels in parts of Kent and Essex, with 7 local authorities below the national average.

Weakest performing Best performing TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Basildon (2) 12% Dartford (7) 21% Swale (17) 29% Newham (13) 47%

Thanet (18) 14% Castle Point (6) 23% Thurrock (19) 34% Tower Hamlets (20) 48%

Southend (16) 15% Barking & Dagenham (1) 26% Greenwich (9) 40% Lewisham (11) 53%

Canterbury (5) 16% Havering (10) 27% Bexley (3) 42% Brentwood (4) 61%

Medway (12) 16% Rochford (15) 27% Gravesham (8) 46% Redbridge (14) 62%

Slide source: DfT, 2018/19 Cohort. *’Disadvantaged’ defined as children who have been on free school meals in the last 6 years, are in care or were formally in care 6A. Health & Wellbeing Outcomes – Life expectancy (LE) at birth

NATIONAL POSITION Geography LE HLE Thames Estuary 81 n/a TE London 82 n/a TE Kent and Essex 81 n/a England 81 64 Key messages: • Overall, Thames Estuary life expectancy is in line with national average, but Thanet and Barking & Dagenham have lower than average life expectancies. • Healthy life expectancy (HLE) at birth is an adjusted measure that shows the expected number of years of living in a state of 'good' general health. This isn’t available for all the districts, but where it is it shows a much lower number of Weakest performing years than standard life expectancy. Best performing

TE Local Authorities LE HLE TE Local Authorities LE HLE TE Local Authorities LE HLE TE Local Authorities LE HLE

Thanet (18) 80 n/a Dartford (7) 81 n/a Canterbury (5) 81 n/a Havering (10) 82 65

Barking & Dagenham (1) 80 61 Basildon (2) 81 n/a Castle Point (6) 81 n/a Bexley (3) 82 65

Southend (16) 81 62 Swale (17) 81 n/a Lewisham (11) 82 63 Rochford (15) 83 n/a Thurrock (19) 81 62 Greenwich (9) 81 62 Gravesham (8) 82 n/a Brentwood (4) 83 n/a Medway (12) 81 63 Tower Hamlets (20) 81 59 Newham (13) 82 60 Redbridge (14) 83 65

Slide source: ONS, 2018 6B. Health & Wellbeing Outcomes – Inactivity levels NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 29% TE London 31% TE Kent and Essex 28% England 25% Key messages: • The Thames Estuary is less active than the national average. • Most Estuary authorities have a higher % of people who are active for less than 30mins per week than the England average. • Only 3 districts perform better than the England average.

Weakest performing Best performing TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Barking & Dagenham (1) 38% Bexley (3) 31% Southend (16) 29% Rochford (15) 27%

Thurrock (19) 36% Redbridge (14) 31% Tower Hamlets (20) 29% Dartford (7) 26%

Gravesham (8) 34% Havering (10) 30% Greenwich (9) 28% Lewisham (11) 20%

Basildon (2) 33% Castle Point (6) 30% Medway (12) 27% Brentwood (4) 20%

Newham (13) 33% Swale (17) 29% Thanet (18) 27% Canterbury (5) 17%

Slide source: Sport England Active Lives Survey, October 2020 6C. Health & Wellbeing Outcomes - Mental health prevalence

NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 19% TE London 20% TE Kent and Essex 17% England 17% Key messages: • Newham, Tower Hamlets and Barking & Dagenham are some of the worst performing nationally (2nd, 3rd and 6th highest in England, respectively). • To reach the England average (17%), over 57,000 people in the Thames Estuary would need to be supported to overcome mental health disorders.

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Newham (13) 24% Thanet (18) 18% Thurrock (19) 17% Dartford (7) 16%

Tower Hamlets (20) 23% Redbridge (14) 18% Basildon (2) 17% Havering (10) 16%

Barking & Dagenham (1) 22% Southend (16) 18% Gravesham (8) 17% Castle Point (6) 15%

Lewisham (11) 22% Swale (17) 18% Canterbury (5) 16% Brentwood (4) 13%

Greenwich (9) 21% Medway (12) 17% Bexley (3) 16% Rochford (15) 13%

Slide source: Public Health England, 2017. Data covers common mental health disorders including anxiety and depression 6D. Health & Wellbeing Outcomes – Life satisfaction NATIONAL POSITION Geography Score Thames Estuary n/a TE London n/a TE Kent and Essex n/a England 7.66 Key messages: • London local authorities particularly struggle with lower levels of satisfaction – however the lowest score is in Thanet. • Data isn’t available to be aggregated to the Thames Estuary level, but it does show that 40% districts in TE have average life satisfaction scores above the England average. Weakest performing Best performing TE Local Authorities Score TE Local Authorities Score TE Local Authorities Score TE Local Authorities Score

Thanet (18) 7.03 Thurrock (19) 7.56 Gravesham (8) 7.62 Havering (10) 7.73

Barking & Dagenham (1) 7.33 Basildon (2) 7.57 Canterbury (5) 7.64 Bexley (3) 7.75

Greenwich (9) 7.46 Tower Hamlets (20) 7.57 Southend (16) 7.71 Swale (17) 7.78

Lewisham (11) 7.48 Redbridge (14) 7.60 Medway (12) 7.72 Rochford (15) 7.91

Newham (13) 7.48 Brentwood (4) 7.62 Dartford (7) 7.73 Castle Point (6) 7.99

Slide source: ONS Personal Wellbeing Estimates, 2020 7. Workplace Productivity – Gross value added per job

NATIONAL POSITION Geography £ Thames Estuary £69,000 TE London £78,000 TE Kent and Essex £56,000 England £60,000 Key messages: • Overall GVA per job is higher in the Thames Estuary than England, but this is caused by anomalies in London. • Productivity is lowest in eastern districts (Southend, Castle Point, Thanet) and is well below the England average in 8 districts.

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities £ TE Local Authorities £ TE Local Authorities £ TE Local Authorities £

Southend (16) £45,000 Rochford (15) £51,000 Barking & Dagenham (1) £59,000 Havering (10) £65,000

Castle Point (6) £46,000 Swale (17) £51,000 Thurrock (19) £60,000 Basildon (2) £66,000

Canterbury (5) £47,000 Lewisham (11) £55,000 Dartford (7) £60,000 Bexley (3) £76,000

Thanet (18) £48,000 Newham (13) £56,000 Greenwich (9) £61,000 Brentwood (4) £89,000

Gravesham (8) £49,000 Medway (12) £56,000 Redbridge (14) £62,000 Tower Hamlets (20) £107,000

Slide source: ONS, 2018. Figures rounded to the nearest £1,000. 8. Digital Infrastructure - Access to broadband

NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 96% TE London 97% TE Kent and Essex 96% England 95% Key messages: • Thames Estuary on the whole has better access to superfast and ultrafast broadband compared to England. • But access is unequal, with below average access in five local authorities.

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Tower Hamlets (20) 91% Dartford (7) 95% Lewisham (11) 97% Redbridge (14) 98%

Brentwood (4) 92% Basildon (2) 96% Medway (12) 97% Greenwich (9) 98%

Canterbury (5) 92% Gravesham (8) 96% Bexley (3) 97% Havering (10) 98%

Swale (17) 94% Thurrock (19) 96% Thanet (18) 98% Castle Point (6) 99%

Rochford (15) 94% Southend (16) 96% Newham (13) 98% Barking & Dagenham (1) 99%

Slide source: OFCOM Connected Nations Spring Update, 2019 9. Civic Participation – Voter turnout in local elections

NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 35%¹ TE London 37% TE Kent and Essex 32%¹ England 34%¹

Key messages: • The Thames Estuary overall has similar civic participation rates to the England average. • TE London performs much better than the England average and turnout is as high as 43% in Tower Hamlets. • TE Kent and Essex has lower than England average turnout rates. Weakest performing Best performing TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Basildon (2) 29% Thurrock (19) 31% Rochford (15) 33% Havering (10) 37%

Dartford (7) 30% Medway (12) 31% Brentwood (4) 34% Lewisham (11) 38%

Barking & Dagenham (1) 30% Gravesham (8) 31% Newham (13) 36% Bexley (3) 38%

Castle Point (6) 30% Swale (17) 32% Canterbury (5) 36% Redbridge (14) 39%

Thanet (18) 30% Southend (16) 33% Greenwich (9) 37% Tower Hamlets (20) 43%

Slide source: The Electoral Commission, 2018 and 2019. Note that the Kent authorities held their local elections in 2019, all others were in 2018. ¹ average calculated by combining 2018 and 2019 voter turnout results 10A. COVID Impact - Residents furloughed

NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 11% TE London 11% TE Kent and Essex 11% England 11% Key messages: • The employment impact of Covid across the Estuary is relatively consistent with the England average. • The greatest proportion of residents furloughed is in Newham, which has the 9th highest rate nationally. • Only 3 authorities performed better than the England average.

Weakest performing Best performing

TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Newham (13) 14% Gravesham (8) 11% Havering (10) 11% Tower Hamlets (20) 11%

Redbridge (14) 13% Dartford (7) 11% Rochford (15) 11% Bexley (3) 11%

Barking & Dagenham (1) 12% Lewisham (11) 11% Greenwich (9) 11% Canterbury (5) 10%

Thurrock (19) 12% Brentwood (4) 11% Thanet (18) 11% Medway (12) 10%

Castle Point (6) 12% Southend (16) 11% Basildon (2) 11% Swale (17) 9%

Slide source: Coronavirus Job Retention Statistics from HMRC, January 31st 2021 10B. COVID Impact – Increase in claimant count NATIONAL POSITION Geography % Thames Estuary 152% TE London 178% TE Kent and Essex 113% England 117% Key messages: • Claimant count has risen dramatically across the country due to Covid, but there has been an even larger % increase across the Thames Estuary. • Changes to the criteria for claiming support during the pandemic (now open to more people who are in-work) has shone a light on the challenges of low paid work and in-work poverty. • Two London boroughs have seen an increase in claimants of over 200%. Weakest performing Best performing TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities % TE Local Authorities %

Newham (13) 241% Bexley (3) 167% Havering (10) 154% Gravesham (8) 115%

Redbridge (14) 218% Tower Hamlets (20) 164% Lewisham (11) 151% Medway (12) 109%

Brentwood (4) 183% Greenwich (9) 161% Basildon (2) 123% Southend (16) 106%

Castle Point (6) 171% Barking & Dagenham (1) 157% Thurrock (19) 121% Swale (17) 84%

Rochford (15) 171% Dartford (7) 155% Canterbury (5) 118% Thanet (18) 76%

Slide source: ONS Claimant Count, March 2020 vs February 2021. March 2020 is assumed as representing the situation just before the effects of the pandemic hit. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: thamesestuary.org.uk www.prd.solutions [email protected]

WE’RE IN A GOOD PLACE. JOIN US.