Strand East | Sugar House Lane, London E15
Health Impact Assessment | February 2012
Landprop Holding BV
Strand East
Health Impact Assessment
Project Ref: 23627/021
Doc Ref: Rev001
February 2012
Peter Brett Associates LLP Caversham Bridge House Waterman Place Reading Berkshire RG1 8DN T: 0118 9500761 F: 0118 9597498 E: [email protected] Strand East Health Impact Assessment
We print on 100% recycled paper from sustainable suppliers accredited to ISO 14001.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA ii Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Document Control Sheet
Project Name: Strand East Project Ref: 23627/021 Report Title: Health Impact Assessment Doc Ref: Rev001 Date: February 2012
Name Position Signature Date Environmental Lucy Whitter L. Whitter 27.02.12 Prepared by: Scientist
Principal Sue Parr Environmental S. Parr 23.01.12 Reviewed by: Scientist
Henk Gelens LLP Director L. Whitter 27.02.12 Approved by:
For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP
Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved
Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.
© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2012
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA iii Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA iv Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Contents
Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Background to the Application 4 1.2 HIA Purpose and Ethos 5 1.3 Structure of the report 6 2 Summary of the proposed development 7 2.1 Development description 7 2.2 Construction 7 3 Health and wellbeing policy context 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 National Context 8 3.3 London Context 10 3.4 Local Context 11 4 Summary of major pathways of health impact 13 4.1 Introduction 13 4.2 Social capital and cohesion 14 4.3 Health and social care services 14 4.4 Education 15 4.5 Employment and access to work 15 4.6 Leisure, recreation and culture 15 4.7 Opportunities for physical activity 15 4.8 Accessibility and transport 15 4.9 Housing standards 15 4.10 Crime reduction and community services 16 4.11 Access to healthy food 16 4.12 Air quality and contamination 16 4.13 Noise and neighbourhood amenity 16 4.14 Adaptation to climate change 16 5 HIA methodology 18 5.1 Introduction 18 5.2 Screening 18 5.3 Scoping 18 5.4 Baseline Assessment and Community Profile 19 5.5 Stakeholder Consultation and Involvement 20 5.6 Analysis 21 5.7 Recommendations / Incorporated Mitigation 22 5.8 Next Steps 22 6 Baseline assessment and community profile 23 6.1 Introduction 23 6.2 Population Profile 26 6.3 Social Capital and Cohesion 27 6.4 Health and Social Care Services 28 6.5 Education 29 6.6 Employment and Access to Work 30 6.7 Leisure, Recreation and Culture 31 6.8 Opportunities for Physical Activity 31 6.9 Accessibility and Transport 31 6.10 Housing Standards 31 6.11 Crime Reduction and Community Services 32 6.12 Access to Healthy Food 32
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA v Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
6.13 Air Quality and contamination 32 6.14 Noise and Neighbourhood Amenity 32 6.15 Accidents, poisoning and physical injury (health outcome) 32 6.16 Infectious diseases (health outcome) 32 6.17 Summary 32 7 Community involvement 34 7.1 Consultation 34 7.2 Community Concerns 34 7.3 Response and Changes to the Scheme 35 8 Analysis of the health impacts of the proposed development and recommendations 37 8.1 Assessment Matrix 37 9 Priorities 45 9.1 Introduction 45 9.2 Opportunities for Physical Activity 45 9.3 Education 46 9.4 Employment and access to work 47 9.5 Access to health and social care services 48 9.6 Housing standards 48 9.7 Children in poverty, diverse ethnic and cultural communities and young people 49 9.8 Cumulative Effects 49 10 Conclusions and next steps 50 10.1 Conclusions 50 10.2 Next steps 50 11 References 51 12 Glossary / Abbreviations 53
Tables Table 1: Demolition and construction and operation effects considered Table 2: GP practices within 1 mile of the site Table 3: Examples of comments from the public exhibition
Figures Figure 1: Location Plan Figure 2: Determinants of health and wellbeing Figure 3: Administrative boundaries Figure 4: Aerial photograph of land use – prior to demolition (Ref: Google Earth, image date June 2010) Figure 5: Provision of community infrastructure
Appendices Appendix A: Key Plan Appendix B: Scoping Report Appendix C: Scoping meeting notes Appendix D: Community profile graphs
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA vi Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Executive Summary
This Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP on behalf of Landprop Holding BV. It relates to a hybrid planning application for a mixed use development comprising predominantly residential, office, retail, leisure/community, food and beverage and hotel space in addition to the provision of associated infrastructure including public transport routes. It is anticipated that the construction will be undertaken in a number of phases starting in 2013 and to be complete by approximately 2022.
The application site, Stand East, is predominantly located in the London Borough of Newham. The site is located within a wider area known as Sugar House Lane approximately 1.3km to the south west of Stratford town centre and is south of the Olympic Park.
There is an increasing awareness of the links between how places are planned and delivered and the health of the communities who live and work in them. The aim of this HIA is to assess the potential positive and negative health and wellbeing effects on the existing communities around the proposed development, and the communities that are likely to live and work in it. Additionally, the HIA recommends options, where appropriate, for enhancing the positive impacts, mitigating the negative ones and reducing health inequalities.
Whilst there is currently no direct statutory requirement to use HIA in the UK, its role and value have been endorsed or highlighted in a range of policy and strategy contexts including the London Health Inequalities Strategy April 2010 and the London Plan 2011. The London Borough of Newham’s Core Strategy January 2012 (interim version) states “ Developers will be expected to conduct a Health Impact Assessment for major residential / mixed-use proposals, or address its scope in their Design and Access statements and environmental impact assessments”.
An individual’s inherited traits interact with lifestyle, community, environmental, social and economic factors as well as a much wider range of issues to determine their health. This HIA focuses on the determinants of health, which a new development can, to a greater or lesser extent, influence.
social capital and cohesion; health and social care services; education; employment and access to work; leisure, recreation and culture; opportunities for physical activity; accessibility and transport; housing standards; crime reduction and community services; access to healthy food; air quality and contamination noise and neighbourhood amenity (tranquillity); adaptation to climate change.
An HIA Scoping Report was developed and sent to NHS East London and the City (The Primary Care Trust (PCT)) and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) who are acting as the planning authority. A meeting was then held with Andre Pinto from the PCT on 23rd November 2011 to discuss the approach.
A full assessment has been undertaken of the potential positive and negative effects on all the determinants using a matrix. Key priorities have been highlighted in the matrix for discussion in the text. These have been established through the policy review, baseline assessment, community
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 1 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
involvement and discussions with the PCT, along with assessment of the potential for the scheme to have an effect.
Potential negative effects associated with demolition and construction are common to all development projects, particularly in London with its dense urban development and residential population and can be controlled through good communication with neighbours and various management mechanisms during construction such as a code of construction practice. Beneficial effects during construction are those associated with job creation.
Operational priorities include the following:
Opportunities for physical activity
Physical activity is an important consideration as current activity levels in the population are low and rates of obesity are high. Increasing activity levels can contribute to the prevention and management of many conditions and diseases including cardio-vascular disease.
The scheme provides significant opportunities for physical activity both for the new community and improving facilities for existing communities. Promotion of walking and cycling are maximised. Play infrastructure will include free to use high quality inclusive infrastructure for play at appropriate locations accessible to new and existing communities. As the site is located on the river it provides a good opportunity for river based sports to take place such as canoeing.
Education
Education is an important consideration for this development as qualification levels in the existing population are low. This can lead to reduced job opportunities and earning capability.
There is potential for links to be made with local colleges (such as Newham College) with regard to the hospitality industry. There is potential for educational opportunities associated with the history of the site and the space it could provide for education within the leisure uses (such as Riverside Park) and cultural facilities (such as creative industries). Further work will be undertaken with the local authority to better understand plans for school provision in the Olympic area. Landprop is also working with the British Academy of New Music (BANM), a Further Education/Higher Education college currently based on the site, to explore opportunities to retain them on Strand East.
Employment and access to work
As established through the baseline assessment, employment is an important consideration for this development as employment levels in the existing population are low. This can lead to poverty and a reduction in personal and social esteem.
There is significant opportunity for the creation of jobs through employment uses to be located on site (offices and workshops, retail, financial and professional services, restaurants cafes and bars, non- residential institution, assembly and leisure and a 350 bedroom hotel). Landprop is working with the London Borough of Newham and Workplace to ensure employment opportunities are available for local people.
Access to health and social care services
Access to health and social care services are an important consideration for this development as there are issues surrounding access to GPs in the area. Reduced access to health services can exacerbate ill–health. Based on assumptions in the socio-economics assessment, the residents in this development would require at least 1.3 GPs. Discussions are planned between the developer and the PCT in order to explore how Strand East may be able to contribute to the health services available to
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 2 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
residents in this part of Newham. The PCT have been approached and advised that they would not be in a position to hold meaningful discussions with Landprop until spring/summer 2012.
Housing standards
Housing standards are an important consideration for this development as overcrowding is an issue in East London. This can lead to reduced immunity to infections, and adverse impacts on mental health and well-being.
The development will provide a significant contribution to good quality housing stock of 1200 residential units overall, including 40% family housing, including 4 and 5 bed properties Opportunities for provision of Lifetime Homes (applies 16 criteria to homes to ensure they are accessible) will be maximised as much as possible within the urban setting.
Vulnerable groups
There are significant numbers of specific vulnerable groups in the population including children in poverty, diverse ethnic and cultural communities and young people.
Educational and employment opportunities for young people are provided will be provided along with opportunities for inclusive physical activity and affordable housing provision.
An inclusive ethos should be adopted for the new development where existing residents in the wider area are encouraged to use facilities within the new development. This should accommodate the diverse ethnic and cultural population. A consultation could be run for young people in the local area by linking with community groups or schools and colleges, to identify any ideas for the scheme moving forward.
Cumulative effects
Operational cumulative effects are likely to be positive as the site is part of the strategic Olympic regeneration of the area and fits with the wider ethos for provision of sustainable communities.
Next steps
There are opportunities for the further consideration of health inequalities. Potential impacts should be considered throughout the detailed design of the scheme and beyond, along with opportunities for mitigation of any adverse effects and enhancement measures that could contribute to improving health for the new and existing communities.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 3 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
1 Introduction
1.1 Background to the Application 1.1.1. This Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP on behalf of Landprop Holding BV. It relates to a hybrid planning application for a mixed use development, known as Stand East, comprising predominantly residential, office, retail, leisure/community, food and beverage, creative industries and hotel space in addition to the provision of associated infrastructure including public transport routes.
1.1.2. The application site is predominantly located in the London Borough of Newham. The site is located within a wider area known as Sugar House Lane approximately 1.3km to the south west of Stratford town centre and is south of the Olympic Park.
Figure 1. Location Plan 1.1.3. The Primary Care Trust (PCT) which serves the area is NHS Newham , although the three primary care trusts serving City and Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets started working together as NHS East London and the City in 2011.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 4 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
1.1.4. There is an increasing awareness of the links between how places are planned and delivered and the health of the communities who live and work in them. The aim of this HIA is to assess the potential positive and negative health and wellbeing effects on the existing communities around the proposed development, and the communities that are likely to live and work in it. Additionally, the HIA recommends options, where appropriate, for enhancing the positive impacts, mitigating the negative ones and reducing health inequalities.
1.1.5. This HIA has drawn on findings in other documents that will be submitted as part of the planning application including:
Environmental Statement Consultation Statement Flood Risk Assessment Transport Assessment & Travel Plan Sustainability Assessment Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Housing Statement
1.2 HIA Purpose and Ethos 1.2.1. The international Gothenburg consensus definition of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is: “A combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, programme or project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those effects within the population.” (1)
1.2.2. HIA uses a range of structured and evaluated sources of qualitative and quantitative evidence including public and other stakeholders' perceptions and experiences as well as public health, epidemiological, toxicological and medical knowledge. The approach is particularly concerned with the distribution of effects within a population, as different groups are likely to be affected in different ways, and therefore how health and social inequalities might be reduced or widened by the proposed development.
1.2.3. HIA recognises that although illness and disease (mortality and morbidity) are useful ways of understanding and measuring health they need to be understood and viewed within a broader understanding of health and wellbeing to be properly useful (See Figure 2).This definition builds on and is complementary to the longer established World Health Organization (WHO) definition that “Health is a state of complete physical, social and mental wellbeing and not simply the absence of disease or infirmity.” (2).
Figure 2: The Determinants of Health and Wellbeing (3)
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 5 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
1.3 Structure of the report 1.3.1. The report continues with the following sections:
Summary of the proposed development Health and wellbeing policy context Summary of major pathways of health impact HIA methodology Baseline assessment and community profile Analysis of the health impacts of the proposed development and recommendations Priorities Conclusions and next steps
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 6 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
2 Summary of the proposed development
2.1 Development description 2.1.1. The design of the proposed development draws upon the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation’s (LTGDC) Land use and Design brief (Consultation Draft December 2010).
2.1.2. Parameter plans have been developed for the hybrid application which shows the extent of proposals which have been submitted as part of the planning application. The Key Plan is given in Appendix A. The overall scheme is outlined below and reference should be made to the planning statement for a full description of the two elements:
Demolition of certain existing buildings; Creation of 1,200 residential units (use class C3); o studio – 8 (1%) o 1 bed – 468(39%) o 2 bed – 244 (20%) o 3 bed – 430 (36%) o 4 bed – 34 (3%) o 5 bed – 16 (1%) (10% of residential units will be wheelchair adaptable) Shops (use class A1); Financial and professional services (use class A2); Restaurants and cafes (use class A3); Businesses, offices and workshops (use class B1); Hotel (use class C1) 350 bedroom; Non-residential institution (use class D1); Assembly and leisure (use class D2); Ancillary parking comprising 1275 spaces; A new riverside park A new pedestrian bridge from the east side of the Strand East development site across Three Mills Wall River to Three Mills Island. Associated infrastructure; Means of access.
2.2 Construction 2.2.1. It is anticipated, subject to receipt of planning permission, that the construction will be undertaken in a number of phases. Construction is expected to start following completion of the Olympic and Paralympics Games in 2013 and to be complete by approximately 2022.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 7 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
3 Health and wellbeing policy context
3.1 Introduction 3.1.1. Whilst there is currently no direct statutory requirement to use HIA in the UK, its role and value have been endorsed or highlighted in a range of policy and strategy contexts including the London Health Inequalities Strategy April 2010 and the London Plan 2011.
3.1.2. Spatial planning has a key role to play in shaping healthy environments, and policies seek to promote ‘healthy communities’ through the following means; social cohesion and inclusion; contributions to people's well-being; protection of human health; health and safety; provision and access to health services; sustainable development and the control of the health impacts of developments.
3.1.3. This chapter discusses the wider framework and delivery mechanisms for the key health, social care and well-being policies which are applicable to the development at a national, regional and local level.
3.1.4. Planning Policy relating to the wider application is provided in Chapter 4 of the Environmental Statement which includes a description of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPGs).
3.2 National Context
The Marmot Review (4) 3.2.1. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: A Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post-2010 was published on 11 February 2010. This was the culmination of a year long independent review into health inequalities in England which Professor Sir Michael Marmot was asked to chair by the Secretary of State for Health of the previous government. The review proposes the most effective evidence-based strategies for reducing health inequalities in England from 2010.
3.2.2. Key messages of this Review were as follows:
Reducing health inequalities is a matter of fairness and social justice. In England, the many people who are currently dying prematurely each year as a result of health inequalities would otherwise have enjoyed, in total, between 1.3 and 2.5 million extra years of life.
There is a social gradient in health – the lower a person’s social position, the worse his or her health. Action should focus on reducing the gradient in health.
Health inequalities result from social inequalities. Action on health inequalities requires action across all the social determinants of health.
Focusing solely on the most disadvantaged will not reduce health inequalities sufficiently. To reduce the steepness of the social gradient in health, actions must be universal, but with a scale and intensity that is proportionate to the level of disadvantage. We call this proportionate universalism.
Action taken to reduce health inequalities will benefit society in many ways. It will have economic benefits in reducing losses from illness associated with health inequalities. These currently account for productivity losses, reduced tax revenue, higher welfare payments and increased treatment costs.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 8 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Economic growth is not the most important measure of our country’s success. The fair distribution of health, well-being and sustainability are important social goals. Tackling social inequalities in health and tackling climate change must go together.
Reducing health inequalities will require action on six policy objectives:
o Give every child the best start in life
o Enable all children, young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and have control over their lives
o Create fair employment and good work for all
o Ensure healthy standard of living for all
o Create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities
o Strengthen the role and impact of ill health prevention
Delivering these policy objectives will require action by central and local government, the NHS and private sectors and community groups. National policies will not work without effective local delivery systems focused on health equity in all policies.
Effective local delivery requires effective participatory decision-making at local level. This can only happen by empowering individuals and local communities.
Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities (2008) (5) 3.2.3. Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities Statutory Guidance , adopted in July 2008, provides guidance to local authorities and their partners on creating strong safe and prosperous communities, specifically relating to new legislation introduced in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
Healthy Lives, Healthy People (6) 3.2.4. This White Paper sets out the coalition Government’s Strategy for public health published in November 2010. The paper responds to the Marmot Review and adopts its framework for tackling the wider social determinants of health. It builds on the NHS white paper (Equality and Excellence: Liberating the NHS) published in July 2010. An update paper was published in July 2011.
3.2.5. The intention is that localism will be at the heart of the proposed public health system. The core proposals of the public health white paper are:
The transfer of the role of directors of public health, currently within PCTs to local authorities.
Ring-fenced public health funding, allocated to local authorities.
A dedicated public health service, Public Health England, within the Department of Health.
An evidence-based approach to public health initiatives, with the set up of a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), School for Public Health Research and a Policy Research Unit on Behaviour and Health, and the regular publication of health outcomes.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 9 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
A central role for the chief medical officer and the planned NHS Commissioning Board (NHSCB) in public health.
“Stronger” incentives for GPs to play a role in public health.
3.2.6. The core elements of the proposed system will be set out in the upcoming Health and Social Care Bill, which will go through parliamentary approval. Subject to this, the government has pledged to have the proposed system in place by April 2013.
3.3 London Context
Health Issues in planning - Best Practice Guidance 2007 (7) 3.3.1. Developed in 2007, the best practice guidance (BPG) draws together the ways that planning policy and development can tackle health inequalities, build healthier choices into the lives of Londoners and promote greater strategic integration of health and planning.
3.3.2. The BPG set a set of health indicators specific to London by which the London Plan could be monitored.
Unemployment Unemployment among black and ethnic minority population Education attainment: percentage of pupils achieving 5 GCSE grades A*-C. Proportion of homes judged unfit to live in Burglary rate per 1000 population Air Quality Indicators – NO 2 and PM 10 Road Traffic casualty rate per 1000 population Life expectancy at birth Infant mortality rate Proportion of people with self assessed good health
London Health Inequalities Strategy 2010 (8) 3.3.3. The London Health Inequalities Strategy (HIS) was published by the Mayor in April 2010, and sets out the need to address health inequalities in the city. It presents a framework for action to improve the wellbeing of all Londoners and to reduce the gap between those with the best and worst health outcomes.
3.3.4. In setting out the Mayor’s plan for tackling health inequalities in London, this strategy has identified five core objectives:
Empower individuals and communities to improve health and well-being.
Improve access to high quality health and social care services particularly for Londoners who have poor health outcomes.
Reduce income inequality and the negative consequences of relative poverty.
Increase the opportunities for people to access the potential benefits of good work and other meaningful activity.
Develop and promote London as a healthy place for all.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 10 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
London Plan 2011 (9) 3.3.5. The replacement spatial development strategy for London (the London Plan) was published in July 2011. Policy 3.2 ‘Improving health and addressing health inequalities’ includes the following:
“The Mayor will take account of the potential impact of development proposals on health and health inequalities within London….. The impacts of major development proposals on the health and wellbeing of communities should be considered through the use of Health Impact Assessments (HIA) ……New developments should be designed, constructed and managed in ways that improve health and promote healthy lifestyles to help to reduce health inequalities.”
Fair London, Healthy Londoners? (10) 3.3.6. The report provides an overview of health inequalities in London, both in terms of health outcomes and also in relation to key indicators for the wider social determinants of health. It is intended to illustrate the current situation and to stimulate and inform discussion on the focus for future action across London.
3.3.7. The indicators selected and developed for this report were based on the national high level indicators proposed in the Marmot Review.
Indicator 1 - Life expectancy at birth Indicator 2 - Health expectancy: ‘disability-free life expectancy at birth’ Indicator 3 - Wellbeing: ‘perceived social support’ and ‘mental wellbeing’ Indicator 4 - Readiness for school: ‘children achieving a good level of development at age 5’ Indicator 5 -Young people not in education, employment or training [NEET] Indicator 6 - Income status: ‘minimum income for acceptable standard of living’ and ‘people in households in receipt of means-tested benefits’
3.4 Local Context
Newham Unitary Development Plan (2001) Saved Policies (2012) (11) 3.4.1. The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) is Newham's statutory development plan until replaced by the emerging Local Development Framework (LDF). Saved policies which particularly relate to health include:
S1 - Community Safety and crime reduction S21 - Housing special needs
The London Borough of Newham’s Interim Core Strategy (January 2012) (12) 3.4.2. The London Borough of Newham’s Core Strategy January 2012 (interim version) states “Developers will be expected to conduct a Health Impact Assessment for major residential / mixed-use proposals, or address its scope in their Design and Access statements and environmental impact assessments”.
London Borough of Newham’s Sustainable Community Strategy (13)
3.4.3. The Sustainable Community Strategy sets out what it will be like to reside in Newham by 2020; how it will be safer, greener, healthier and a better place to live and work. A number of core themes are supported by the proposed mixed use development: housing; provision of education and health infrastructure; and economic opportunities.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 11 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
3.4.4. With regards to health, Newham aims to deliver high quality services and healthcare. The borough and its partners will ‘work together to improve the choice, access and quality of healthcare and social care provided to all our residents, through providing more locally based, responsive and tailored services. We are committed to moving our health and wellbeing services closer to local people both geographically and in terms of individual needs’.
Newham Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) 3.4.5. The Newham Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2010 (14) was jointly produced by NHS Newham and the London Borough of Newham to identify health and wellbeing needs of the people of Newham. Nine priorities have been identified which include:
Lifestyle factors Wellbeing and emotional resilience Maternity and early years Cancer and circulatory disease Education and employment Long term conditions and disability Timely access to excellent services/support Crime/fear of crime Housing
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 12 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
4 Summary of major pathways of health impact
4.1 Introduction 4.1.1. Figure 2 in Section 1 shows that an individual’s inherited traits interact with lifestyle, community, environmental, social and economic factors as well as a much wider range of issues to determine their health.
4.1.2. Every aspect of government and the economy has the potential to affect health. These include employment, housing, education, transport, crime and the environment.
4.1.3. The physical environment is shaped by spatial planning decisions and can encourage a healthy lifestyle. The propensity of people to walk, cycle, or play outside is affected by the convenience, quality and safety of pedestrian and cycling routes and by the availability of local open space. It is especially important that children are encouraged to adopt regular exercise and develop healthy routines for the rest of their life.
4.1.4. There is a substantial body of evidence on the relationship between socio-economic factors and health (15) and on the influence the built environment has on health (4). According to the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health “Where people live affects their health and chances of leading flourishing lives. Communities and neighbourhoods that ensure access to basic goods, that are socially cohesive, that are designed to promote good physical and psychological well-being and that are protective of the natural environment are essential”.
4.1.5. There are large inequalities in health within our society. The poor and disadvantaged typically experience worse health than the rich and powerful, have less access to services and die younger. This is illustrated by the large extreme difference in male life expectancy in Carlton, an inner city ward of Glasgow, where life expectancy is 54 years and the nearby affluent village of Lenzie, where it is 82 years (4) . However, those who are wealthier may also be at risk of poor health, if for example they live in an unsafe community with poor social cohesion and inadequate access to health and social care.
4.1.6. The built environment can have a significant impact on health. For example, the ways in which buildings and places are configured influence people’s living, working and travel patterns; the shape of the local economy; people’s opportunities to access goods and services; and their propensity to be physically active. At the same time, patterns of pollution will affect the local environment and in turn health.
4.1.7. According to the recent review of health and the built environment, undertaken as part of the Marmot Review (4) the presence of green space encourages physical activity that not only reduces the risk of heart disease by up to 50% but also has a positive impact on stress, obesity and a general sense of well-being and cuts the risk of premature death by 20 to 30%.
4.1.8. This HIA focuses on the determinants of health, which a new development can, to a greater or lesser extent, influence.
4.1.9. The determinants of health and wellbeing that have been considered are:
Social capital and cohesion; health and social care services; education; employment and access to work;
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 13 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
leisure, recreation and culture; opportunities for physical activity; accessibility and transport; housing standards; crime reduction and community services; access to healthy food; air quality and contamination noise and neighbourhood amenity (tranquillity); adaptation to climate change.
4.1.10. Additionally lifestyle behaviours such as smoking and drinking influence population health and are socially patterned. Lifestyle factors are considered in relation to opportunities for physical activity and access to healthy food. Access to shops and other retail facilities can also be a determinant of health. This is also considered within the access to healthy food category to focus the assessment to this specific issue.
4.1.11. Health outcomes to which the determinants contribute include accidents, poisoning and physical injury; infectious diseases; non infectious diseases and mental health. Comment is also made where outcomes may occur but not in relation to a determinant identified e.g. road traffic accidents.
4.1.12. To put this HIA into context, in the following sections a brief description, and examples, of how a new development can impact on each of these health determinants is given. It should be noted that the factors are all interrelated and more complex than described.
4.1.13. For a fuller description of the impact of development and the planning system on health see the Delivering Healthy Communities, RTPI Good Practice Note 5, 2009 (16) and the documents published on the built environment as part of the Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post-2010 (the Marmot Review (4) ).
4.2 Social capital and cohesion 4.2.1. A sense of community identity and belonging is important for health, affecting the length and quality of life. There is evidence that those people with fewer social interactions have poorer health than those who have many. The feeling of isolation and exclusion can lead to depression and poor mental well-being.
4.2.2. While a development cannot create ‘communities’, it can encourage the formation of social cohesion and social capital by providing social infrastructure or good access to existing facilities, and appropriate governance of the new community, to ensure that it is well maintained and that the local people have a say in the way it is run.
4.2.3. The opportunity for communities to help shape their surroundings is central to creating a sense of ownership, and acceptance of change. Therefore involving nearby communities in the evolution of the design of new major development is important in relation to this determinant of health.
4.3 Health and social care services 4.3.1. Reduced access to health care and social services exacerbates ill–health, making treatment more difficult and more likely to lead to a permanent physical or mental impairment. Reduced access to social care services leads to stable chronic conditions becoming worse and the loss of independent living skills which in turn lead to greater physical and mental impairment (4).
4.3.2. Development can affect health and social care by the provision of new services or the provision of good access to these existing services off-site (i.e. away from the development).
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 14 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
4.4 Education 4.4.1. Access to education improves job opportunities and earning capability, the understanding of health promotion and disease prevention information and being able to articulate need and hence access services more effectively. It affects all age groups but the greatest effects are on children and young people.
4.4.2. New development can affect education by disruption to access to an education facility due to closure of a road for construction purposes; disruption of the ability to deliver education/training due to construction noise or it can provide training and educational facilities.
4.5 Employment and access to work 4.5.1. Unemployment generally leads to poverty and a reduction in personal and social esteem. It excludes people from being able to afford goods and services, some leisure activities, and lifetime learning opportunities. It can also restrict travel and make accessing other services difficult. These factors can lead to increased levels of mental as well as physical illness in adults. For children, they can lead to poorer physical growth and development, reduced immunity to disease and reduced mental health well-being.
4.5.2. A new development can affect employment and the local economy by providing facilities that will create jobs.
4.6 Leisure, recreation and culture 4.6.1. As well as encouraging physical activity, participation in recreational and cultural activities has been linked to improved self-esteem, reduced depression and decreased stress and anxiety. Recreation plays a vital role in learning and skills development.
4.6.2. Development can provide facilities for leisure, recreation and cultural participation.
4.7 Opportunities for physical activity 4.7.1. Increasing activity levels can contribute to the prevention and management of many conditions and diseases including cardio-vascular disease, diabetes and certain forms of cancer. Physical activity can also help to improve mental health.
4.7.2. Provision of facilities to encouraging walking and cycling increases the opportunity for increased physical fitness and associated reduction in obesity.
4.8 Accessibility and transport 4.8.1. New roads can cause severance to existing communities affecting social cohesion and access to goods and services.
4.8.2. In the design of new development it is important to ensure that there is good connectivity between new development and existing communities and access to goods and services. In addition the provision of facilities to encouraging walking and cycling increases the opportunity for increased physical fitness and decrease risk of obesity and stress leading to healthier lifestyles.
4.9 Housing standards 4.9.1. Poor housing that is damp and cold with poorly maintained water, electric and gas appliances has an effect on children’s physical growth and development. This combined with overcrowding can lead to reduced immunity to infections, and adverse impacts on mental health and well-being.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 15 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
4.9.2. New housing developments increase the housing stock and can play a part in reducing overcrowding; however, during construction workers seeking accommodation can put additional demands where there is limited availability. Construction can cause vibration and structural damage to existing homes. However, a new housing development also provides the opportunity to replace poor quality homes with better quality ones.
4.10 Crime reduction and community services 4.10.1. High incidences and fear of crime can reduce social cohesion which can contribute to isolation and vulnerability, particularly for those groups most at risk such as the elderly, people with disabilities, children and lower socio-economic groups. In addition, it can reduce physical activity when people feel safer travelling by car than walking and cycling.
4.10.2. Fear of crime causes stress which reduces immunity to disease and mental well-being. Actual experience of crime can cause both stress and physical injury. It affects all age groups but fear of crime is greatest among women.
4.10.3. New development can be designed to reduce crime, for example ensuring buildings and walkways have natural surveillance from neighbours and using ‘designing out crime’ building design principles.
4.11 Access to healthy food 4.11.1. Diet has a key role to play in health. Poor diet is linked to numerous diseases including obesity and heart conditions. Low income and area deprivations are barriers to purchasing fresh or unfamiliar foods. Lower income households are the hardest hit by food price fluctuations.
4.12 Air quality and contamination 4.12.1. Living close to busy roads increases exposure to poor air quality and noise, with associated impacts on respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms and loss of sleep.
4.12.2. Polluted air, water and land can result in physical symptoms, such as respiratory symptoms or cancer. These issues are well regulated.
4.13 Noise and neighbourhood amenity 4.13.1. A relationship between transport noise and elevated blood pressure and medication for hypertension and a small increased risk of cardiovascular disease has been identified.
4.13.2. The provision of good quality open space and nature conservation areas has a positive impact on health and well-being, both in terms of the opportunity it presents to encourage physical activity and the mental health benefits of having access to such areas. Street cleaning, removal of litter and maintenance of outside space is importance to ensure good quality environments. This will reduce injury that litter can cause (e.g. from glass) as well as improve the sense of belonging and social cohesion.
4.13.3. Developments can have a significant impact on the environment in terms of the amount, variety and quality of open space and other outdoor facilities provided as part of the design. Long term governance can also affect the maintenance and cleanliness of a development.
4.14 Adaptation to climate change 4.14.1. Climate change is predicted to result in an increase in deaths, disability and injury from extreme temperature and weather conditions, heat waves, floods and storms including health hazards from chemical and sewage pollution. It is estimated there will be an increase
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 16 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
in respiratory problems from the damaging effects of surface ozone during the summer as well as an increase in skin cancers and cataracts.
4.14.2. Climate change will also have long-term, less direct impacts such as the effects on mental health of flooding and other climate-related events, which could cause anxiety and depression.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 17 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
5 HIA methodology
5.1 Introduction 5.1.1. The HIA has followed the standard accepted HIA methodology as set out in guidance issued by the Department of Health (DoH) and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE, which has been subsumed within the Health Development Agency)(17) (18) . The checklist tool to assess health impact of projects within the document Watch out for Health by the Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU)(19) has also been used to inform the HIA. Additionally, the assessment has used PBA’s Comprehensive Health Assessment Toolbox (CHAT) which is a systematic approach to HIA drawing upon good practice.
5.1.2. The core steps of the HIA process are:
Screening
Scoping
Baseline and Community Profile
Stakeholder Involvement
Evidence and Analysis
Mitigation and Enhancement
Reporting
5.1.3. The following sections outline the different stages completed for the HIA and how they were undertaken.
5.2 Screening 5.2.1. The first step in the HIA process is known as Screening, where the need for HIA is established. As noted in section 3, whilst there is no statutory requirement for HIA, it is noted as a policy requirement in both the replacement London Plan (2011) which states “The impacts of major development proposals on the health and wellbeing of communities should be considered through the use of Health Impact Assessments (HIA)” and the London Borough of Newham’s Core Strategy January 2012 (interim version), which states “Developers will be expected to conduct a Health Impact Assessment for major residential / mixed-use proposals, or address its scope in their Design and Access statements and environmental impact assessments”.
5.2.2. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report was sent to NHS Newham (now part of NHS East London and the City), the Primary Care Trust (PCT) which covers the area. It included a proposal to undertake an HIA, which was supported by NHS Newham.
5.3 Scoping 5.3.1. An HIA Scoping Report developed and sent to the PCT and London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) who are acting as the planning authority. A meeting was then held with Andre Pinto from the PCT on 23rd November 2011 to discuss the scope.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 18 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
5.3.2. The scoping report and subsequent meeting notes can be seen at Appendices B and C.
5.4 Baseline Assessment and Community Profile
5.4.1. Data has been collected to establish the community profile and health of people currently living in the area.
5.4.2. The site is predominantly located in the London Borough of Newham, in the ward of Stratford and New Town and within the Lower Super Output Area 1 013A.
Figure 3: Site administrative boundaries
5.4.3. Stratford and New Town includes the following Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs):
Newham 013A Newham 013B Newham 013C Newham 012A Newham 012B Newham 012C Newham 012D Newham 013D
1 Super Output Areas (SOAs) are small areas specifically introduced to improve the reporting and comparison of local statistics.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 19 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
5.4.4. Stratford and New Town is adjacent to the following wards in the following London Boroughs:
London Borough of Newham Forest Gate North Forest Gate South West Ham Canning Town North
London Borough of Waltham Forest (to the north) Cathall Leyton Cann Hall King’s Park
London Borough of Hackney (to the west) Wick
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (to the south west) Bow East Bromley by Bow
5.4.5. Community profile data has been collected at the super output area level for Stratford and New Town (the ward where the site is located); ward and local authority level for Newham and Tower Hamlets; and within the London and national context. Given the distance away from the site, it is not considered necessary to collect data for Hackney and Waltham Forest.
5.4.6. A variety of sources have been consulted to develop the community profile.
Association of Public Health Observatories and Department of Health (DoH) health profiles; Data within the Newham and Tower Hamlets Joint Strategic Needs Assessments; Mayhew data (estimates population not captured in official figures, including international migrants and people living in the Borough for less than 12 months – data acquired from PCT); the Office for National Statistics (ONS) census and neighbourhood data; Audit Commission area profiles; London Health Observatory data; Previous relevant HIA reports.
5.4.7. Whilst it is acknowledged that census data 2001 is out of date and will not represent accurately the situation in 2012, certain data sets are only available from the census data such as the percentage of people describing their health as poor. Therefore this data has been presented in the absence of the availability of more up to data and is provided as relative rather than absolute figures for comparison. Additionally census data is often the only readily available data at the LSOA level.
5.5 Stakeholder Consultation and Involvement 5.5.1. It is considered a health impact assessment (HIA) featuring focussed consultation with key professional stakeholders is the most suitable approach for this development given the
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 20 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
level of consultation undertaken for the wider application. This is commonly referred to as a ‘rapid’ HIA 2.
5.5.2. In line with the rapid approach, section 7 describes recent consultation regarding the proposed development.
5.6 Analysis 5.6.1. As discussed in Chapter 4, analysis of the potential positive and negative effects has been undertaken based on the determinants of health which can be affected by development.
5.6.2. Full analysis is presented within the matrix in Section 8, whilst text within Section 9 focuses on the priorities established through development of the policy context, baseline and discussions with the PCT.
5.6.3. As established through discussions with the PCT an approach was required using a matrix identifying potential impacts and priority recommendations. Non-significant effects are therefore not presented in the matrix and are scoped out in Table 1 below indicating where determinants have been considered in relation to either the demolition and construction phases or operation.
Table 1 Demolition and construction and operational effects considered
Determinants Demolition & Construction Operation Social capital and cohesion Considered in matrix Considered in matrix Health and social care No existing services to be Considered in matrix services affected during demolition and construction Education Considered in matrix Considered in matrix Employment and access to Considered in matrix Considered in matrix work Leisure, recreation and Considered in matrix Considered in matrix culture Opportunities for physical Considered in matrix Considered in matrix activity Accessibility and transport Considered in matrix Considered in matrix Housing standards Unlikely to be significantly Considered in matrix affected by construction Crime reduction and Considered in matrix Considered in matrix community services Access to healthy food Unlikely to be significantly Considered in matrix affected by demolition & construction Air quality and Considered in matrix Considered in matrix contamination Noise and neighbourhood Considered in matrix Considered in matrix amenity Adaptation to climate Unlikely to be significantly Considered in matrix change. affected by demolition and construction Additional potential Construction Operation outcomes Accidents, poisoning and Considered in matrix Considered in relation to road physical injury traffic accidents Infectious diseases Considered in matrix Unlikely to be significantly affected by operation
2 Health Development Agency (HDA), (2002), Introducing health impact assessment (HIA) informing the decision- making process, HDA; England
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 21 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
5.6.4. Additionally, it was considered that by using this approach it would not be appropriate to assign significance levels to effects (e.g. minor, moderate or major) or assess the scheme against a ‘do nothing’ scenario. It is assumed that without the development health and wellbeing trends in the local population would continue as presented in the baseline. The following questions have been asked to establish of there is likely to be a significant effect associated with an element of construction or operation.
5.6.5. Consideration has been given to the potential impacts on vulnerable groups in the community. Health inequalities and social exclusion has been considered and the potential for the proposed development to affect them.
5.6.6. Potential cumulative health impacts of this development and other planned development have been considered.
5.7 Recommendations / Incorporated Mitigation 5.7.1. A range of measures to minimise the potential negative health effects and maximise the positive health benefits are detailed within Section 8 and 9.
5.7.2. Some of these are already incorporated into the development and these are indicated where this is the case.
5.8 Next Steps 5.8.1. Health impacts will be considered at all stages in the development of proposals in particular at the detailed design stage where mitigation and enhancement measures can be more thoroughly considered.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 22 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
6 Baseline assessment and community profile
6.1 Introduction
The site and immediate surroundings
Figure 4. Aerial Photograph of Land Use – prior to demolition (Ref: Google Earth, image date June 2010)
6.1.1. The site, Strand East, is bounded to the north by the High Street (A118), a dual carriageway, and to the east and west by the Three Mills Wall River and the River Lee Navigation respectively. The confluence of the Three Mills Wall River and River Lee Navigation Channel forms the southern boundary with the River Lea Tidal Mill (The House Mill, The Millers House). This means the site is highly constrained to pedestrians.
6.1.2. The site is located within an area of predominantly residential development, but with a significant amount of other uses are present in the vicinity including the new Olympic Park (under construction), 3 Mills Studio (south), Porsche car showroom (north), warehouses and light industrial (north and west) and retail (Tesco) (southwest). The closest residents live at
Island House, a development comprising 47 flats located south of the application site on the west side of the River Lee Navigation and a number of apartment blocks to the north of High Street, Stratford low rose, terraced houses on Bisson Road to the east across Three Mills Wall River
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 23 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
6.1.3. The buildings on the Site comprise a variety of historical industrial, warehouse and office buildings mostly from a period spanning c1900 to c1960 and later. The warehouses at the south end of Sugar House Lane are occupied by television studios, 3 Mills Studios. The remainder of the site is largely vacant with the remaining occupiers include a number of creative businesses such as the British Academy of New Music, artist workshops and studios (part of the 3 Mills studios) which can be hired on a temporary basis as well as tool hire businesses and a paint shop. The vacant properties are progressively being demolished in preparation for the proposed redevelopment of The Site.
6.1.4. The Sugar House Lane Conservation Area and part of the Three Mills Conservation Area are both present on the Site and, in addition, the Site lies within the River Lea ‘Archaeological Priority Area / Area of Archaeological Importance’,
6.1.5. The Site is situated on the historical flood plain of the River Lea but is protected by flood defences. The river corridors afford some limited opportunities for wildlife as recognised by the local designations of The Lea Valley Sites of Metropolitan Grade Importance for Nature Conservation (SMI) on the western boundary and the Bow Back Rivers Sites of Borough Grade 1 Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) lies within the Site along on the eastern and southern boundaries.
6.1.6. The main vehicle and pedestrian access is from the northern boundary directly from High Street (A118). Strand East also connects to Three Mills Island via a private pedestrian and vehicle bridge which is accessed through the film studios. The Lea Valley regeneration and Olympics development have triggered a number of improvements for pedestrians, such as Fatwalk on the eastern side of the Three Mills Wall River. The cycle superhighway route 2 has also been opened and is intended to be extended passed the site later in 2012, after the Olympic Games have finished.
6.1.7. The London Underground Hammersmith and City and Metropolitan lines are accessed 450m south west at Bromley by Bow and the central line is 1.5km east at Stratford Station and 1.5km west at Mile End Station, and the District line is approximately 1km west at Bow Road Station. Docklands Light Railway (DLR) stations, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park and Pudding Mill (450m north), are located to the north. Stratford High Street DLR Station is approximately 15 minutes by foot (~800m) to the north east, with Bow Church DLR and Abbey Road approximately the same distances west and east respectively. A number of bus routes also run along High Street and the A12 and are easily accessed from the Site.
Health Overview 6.1.8. The London Boroughs which surround Newham (Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Waltham Forest) make up the five Olympic host boroughs along with Greenwich. Taken together, the five Olympic boroughs experience the highest levels of deprivation and the poorest health outcomes in the country (8).
6.1.9. As noted in section 5 community profile data has been collected at the super output area level for Stratford and New Town (the ward where the site is located); ward and local authority level for Newham and Tower Hamlets; and within the London and national context. Given the distance away from the site, it is not considered necessary to collect data for Hackney and Waltham Forest (refer to Figure 3).
6.1.10. With regard to the Association of Public Health Observatories (APHO) Health Profile for Newham and Tower Hamlets 2011, the health of people in Newham is mixed compared to the England average. The health of people in Tower Hamlets is generally worse than the England average.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 24 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
6.1.11. Deprivation is higher than average in both London Boroughs and life expectancy for both men and women is lower than the England average.
6.1.12. In Newham itself over the last 10 years, all cause mortality rates have fallen. Early death rates from cancer and from heart disease and stroke have fallen but the latter is worse than the England average.
6.1.13. About 25.9% of Year 6 children are classified as obese. A lower percentage than average of pupils spend at least three hours each week on school sport. Levels of teenage pregnancy and GCSE attainment are worse than the England average.
6.1.14. An estimated 20.2% of adults smoke and 25.3% are obese. Rates of smoking related deaths and hospital stays for alcohol related harm are higher than average.
6.1.15. Indicators in Newham for which results are significantly worse than the England average include:
Deprivation Children in poverty GCSEs achieved Violent crime Long term unemployed Physically active children Obese children Teenage pregnancy Physically active adults Hospital stays for alcohol related harm Drug misuse People diagnosed with diabetes New cases of tuberculosis Life expectancy – male Life expectancy – female Deaths from smoking Early deaths: heart disease & stroke
6.1.16. Similar results are found in Tower Hamlets.
6.1.17. Data from the 2001 census indicated that the proportion of people with a long term limiting illness in the Borough, ward and LSOA in which the site is located are approximately the same as the England average but higher than the London average. Refer to Graph 1 in Appendix D. Bow East Ward and LSOA 012B have the highest averages of the areas surrounding the site. The proportion of people in good health in the Borough, ward and LSOA in which the site is located is lower than the England and London average. Conversely the proportion of people in not good health in the Borough, ward and LSOA is higher than the London and England averages.
6.1.18. More current, but less comprehensive data is available from claimants of Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance. In November 2009, Newham had 10,200 people in receipt of these benefits, ranking 3rd among Olympic Host boroughs. Nearly one-third of all claimants claimed for a condition of mental and behavioural disorders (14) .
Health Priorities 6.1.19. With regard to the Newham JSNA (14) , priorities in Newham include employment and education, circulatory disease including diabetes, cancer (especially one year survival) and maternity and early years.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 25 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
6.1.20. The key recommendations within the Tower Hamlets JSNA (24) included maintained focus on cardiovascular disease; intensified focus on cancer; maintained focus on chronic respiratory disease; and support for healthy, active lifestyles among all population groups, particularly those most affected by deprivation.
6.2 Population Profile
Population growth 6.2.1. There are two main sources of population data - the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The Newham Joint Strategic Needs Assessment recommends that GLA figures are used in preference to ONS. 2010 round GLA population estimates calculate Newham’s population in 2011 as 268,854 and Tower Hamlets as 254,246 (20).
6.2.2. In discussion with the PCT it was recommended that data was used from the Mayhew Study which estimates the population not captured in official figures. Data sent across from the PCT indicates that in 2011 there were a total of 104,909 households in Newham.
6.2.3. Overall, Newham is set for a very significant rise in population numbers. While Newham’s population is young, it is ageing in line with national trends, which will lead to a growth in population with one or more long term conditions and / or disabilities (14) .
Age
6.2.4. The 2001 census indicates the Borough, ward and LSOA in which the site is located all have a higher proportion of people under 18 than the national and London average. The same is true for the surrounding Boroughs and Wards (apart from Bow East Ward). Refer to Graphs 2a-2c in Appendix D.
6.2.5. The proportion of people aged 18-64 in the study areas surrounding the site are all approximately equal to the London and England averages apart from LSOA 013B which is greater and 012B which is lower.
6.2.6. Generally all Boroughs, wards and LSOAs studied surrounding the site have a lower proportion of over 65s than the England and London average apart from Bow East Ward and LSOA 012B which are higher than the London average.
6.2.7. Using more up to date data, GLA projections also show that, in common with London as a whole, Newham has more people of working age than the national average and fewer older people. In 2010, three quarters of Newham’s population were under 45, compared to two- thirds for London as a whole (14) .
6.2.8. Over one-third of Newham’s population was under 25 years of age, compared to the London average of 31% (14) .
6.2.9. Tower Hamlets has a larger than average proportion of the population aged under 10 years, or aged between 20 and 39 years, and a correspondingly smaller than average proportion aged 40 and above. Although numbers of people in all age groups are expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years, the age structure of the Tower Hamlets population is not expected to change dramatically (24) .
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 26 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
6.3 Social Capital and Cohesion
Ethnic profile 6.3.1. Newham is one of the most diverse London boroughs (14) .
6.3.2. According to the 2001 census, there are lower proportions of people classifying themselves as white compared to the England and London averages in all Boroughs, wards and LSOAs areas surrounding the site (as indicated in the lists above) apart from Bow East Ward which is greater than the London average but not the England average. Refer to Graphs 3a-3e in Appendix D.
6.3.3. There are greater proportions of people classifying themselves as mixed, Asian or Asian British, black or black British in the Borough, Ward and LSOA in which the site is located when compared to the London and England averages.
6.3.4. Using more recent data, in Newham (according to the 2008-round projections from the GLA), 70% of the population is from non-white ethnic groups. The largest non-white group is Black African with 15.8% of the total population in 2010, and this remains the largest non- white ethnic group over time. Asian ethnic groups are also significant in Newham with Indians (11.8%), Pakistanis (10.8%) and Bangladeshis (10.7%) comprising nearly one third of the boroughs population (14) .
Religion 6.3.5. The only comprehensive source of data on religion is the 2001 Census. Refer to Graphs 4a- 4g in Appendix D.
6.3.6. There are a lower proportion of people classifying themselves as Christian in Newham and Tower Hamlets than the averages for England and London. This is also true for Stratford and New Town and the surrounding wards and LSOA in which the site sits (although there is a higher proportion in the LSOA than the Newham average).
6.3.7. There are a greater proportion of Hindus in Newham than the average for England and London. However, the ward and the LSOA 013A in which the site sits are lower than the London average, suggesting there is a concentrated population of people classifying themselves as Hindus elsewhere in Newham.
6.3.8. There are a higher proportion of Muslims than the England and London average in all London Boroughs, wards and Super Output areas.
6.3.9. There are a lower proportion of people with no religion than the England and London average in the Borough, Ward and LSOA in which the site is located. However there are higher proportions in some areas surrounding the site including Bow East Ward (in Tower Hamlets) and LSOA 012C.
Deprivation 6.3.10. The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 ranks all Lower Super Output Areas in England according to a combination of indicators encompassing: income; employment; health and disability; education, skills and training; barriers to housing and services; crime and disorder; living environment. These seven indicators are then weighted and aggregated into summary measures of deprivation.
6.3.11. Based on this measure, the LSOA around the site and large parts of Newham are amongst the 20% most deprived areas in the country. The significant number of children in poverty is a key issue in Newham
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 27 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
6.4 Health and Social Care Services 6.4.1. A search for GP practices within 1 mile of the site (postcode E15 2QS)21 has indicated 11 practices which are all accepting new patients as shown in Table 2.
6.4.2. Additionally there were 364 GP practices within 5 miles and 65 practices within 2 miles. The closest hospital with an A&E department is Newham General Hospital 2 miles from the site (postcode E15 2QS).
Table 2: GP practices within 1 mile of the site
Practice Address Distance From GPS Currently E15 2QS Accepting New Patients: Bromley-By-Bow St. Leonards 0.28 Miles 3 Male and 6 Yes Health Centre Street Bow E33BT Female Stroudley Walk 38 Stroudley Walk 0.4 Miles 2 Male and 0 Yes Centre E33EW Female St Andrew's 1-3 Birchdown 0.45 Miles 2 Male and 1 Yes Health Centre House Devons Female Road Bow E33NS Carpenters Road 17 Doran Walk 0.53 Miles 1 Male and 2 Yes Medical Practice Stratford Newham Female E152JL Bhowmik PR 401 Corporation 0.75 Miles 2 Male and 0 Yes Street E153DJ Female Yates H & 28a Abbey Road 0.75 Miles 2 Male and 2 Yes Partners South West Female Newham E153LT Harley Grove 15 Harley Grove 0.77 Miles 1 Male and 2 Yes Medical Centre - E32AT Female PMS Merchant Street 5 Merchant Street 0.81 Miles 1 Male and 3 Yes Practice E34LJ Female Ruston Street Ruston Street 0.83 Miles 1 Male and 2 Yes Clinic E32LR Female Tredegar Practice 35 St. Stephens 0.93 Miles 1 Male and 2 Yes Road E35JD Female St Stephens Bow Community 0.94 Miles 2 Male and 7 Yes Health Centre Hall William Place Female E35ED
6.4.3. Figure 5 shows the provision of community infrastructure in and immediately around the site. It includes medical facilities.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 28 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Figure 5: Provision of community infrastructure
6.4.4. The closest surgeries are all located in Tower Hamlets which in practice means that Newham residents cannot register there. This has been confirmed through discussions with residents in the new developments north of the High Street, across from the site. The closest Newham-based surgery to the site is Carpenters Road Medical Practice. It is unlikely to have enough capacity for the new residents on the site. The other surgeries are further away and can be difficult to access.
6.4.5. There is currently a move in the NHS towards developing formal clinical networks. For the Northwest area in Newham, the two main hubs will be the Olympic health centre (operational (22) from September 2013) and Vicarage Lane . Additionally a new walk in centre is mooted in the Pudding Mill Lane area to the north of High Street. However, these services are located a considerable distance from the site.
6.5 Education 6.5.1. The 2001 census data indicates that there are a higher proportion of people in all study areas with no qualifications compared to the England and London averages except for LSOAs 013B and 012C. Refer to Graph 5a Appendix D.
6.5.2. Whilst the proportion of people with level 4/5 qualifications is lower than the London average in the Borough, ward and LSOA in which the site is located – it is higher than the England Average. Certain areas are also higher than the London average including LSOA 012C, suggesting pockets of highly educated people. Refer to Graph 5b Appendix D.
6.5.3. More recent data collected as part of the socio-economics assessment for the scheme (23) indicates that Newham’s working age population is more poorly qualified than those of
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 29 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
London and England. Only 28% of working age residents have degrees compared to 41.9%in London and 31.1% nationally. At the other end of the spectrum, a comparatively higher proportion of residents have no qualification. It is also worth noting that Newham is characterised by a very high proportion of residents with ‘other’ qualifications (these tend to be foreign qualifications which have not been classified according to UK categories).
6.5.4. The socio-economics assessment undertaken for the scheme has identified that according to Newham borough council, the catchment school for the site is Carpenters Primary School near Stratford. This is the school where pupils residing on the site will be given highest priority. According to Ofsted, Carpenters’ School was ranked ‘good’ as a result of dramatic improvement in recent years.
6.5.5. The other closest schools within the borough are all over a mile away: Manor Primary School (1.17 miles); West Ham CofE Primary School (1.41 miles); St Francis’ RC primary school (1.51 miles); Ranelagh Primary School (1.55 miles). There are a number of other schools closer to the site but they are in Tower Hamlets making it unlikely that residents at Sugar House Lane will be given priority for places.
6.5.6. It is understood that a Free School, to be called School 21, will open in September 2012 for 4 to 18 year olds. This school is less than a mile from the Site in the buildings of the old Rokeby Secondary School, close to Stratford High Street DLR station, which has been rebuilt in Canning Town.
6.5.7. Newham College of further education is approximately 1.5km to the north East of the site.
6.5.8. British Academy of New Music which offers GCSE, A level, apprenticeships and Foundation courses in music, with 310 students is currently based on site, off Sugar House Lane.
6.6 Employment and Access to Work 6.6.1. The 2001 census data indicates that the proportion of economically active people in the Borough, Ward and LSOA which the site is situated in is less than then England and London average. Conversely, the proportion of economically inactive people is greater than the England and London averages. Refer to Graphs 6a-6b Appendix D.
6.6.2. More recent data collected for the socio-economics assessment for the scheme indicates that in 2010, there were approximately 164,000 people of working age in Newham, 64% of which were economically active and 55% of which were in employment (23) .
6.6.3. Since 2004, when data is first available, the economic activity and employment rates of both Newham and Tower Hamlets have remained consistently below the London average. However, Tower Hamlets’ rates have improved steadily and more quickly over this period than Newham’s. (23) .
6.6.4. In September 2011, there were approximately 110 JSA claimants in the LSOA i.e. 0.9% of the borough compared to 3% of the jobs. This reflects the low levels of population in the area. (23) .
6.6.5. Lower qualified and lower paid occupations are significantly more represented amongst Newham’s working age residents than in London or England. Together elementary occupations and plant & machine operatives account for 27.1% of Newham’s working age residents compared to 13.1% in London and 17.7% in England. On the other hand, 37.7% of residents are employed in the top 3 occupation categories compared to 55% in London and 45% in England . (23) .
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 30 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
6.7 Leisure, Recreation and Culture 6.7.1. The site is south of the Olympic Park and approximately 1.3km to the south west of Stratford town centre with its culture and leisure facilities including shops, pubs, bars, restaurants, cinemas and theatres. Facilities on the High Street for children include “Discover” (Children’s storytelling venue).
6.7.2. There is a limited amount of open space in Newham but the site is close to the waterways that flow through the Lower Lea Valley. Additionally, Newham is home to four leisure centres: Atherton, Balaam, East Ham and Newham.
6.7.3. Stand East is well located in relation to the Greenway cycle and pedestrian route providing easy access to sports facilities at both the Memorial Recreation Ground to the south east (football, rugby and basketball) and Victoria Park to the north west (crickets, tennis etc).
6.7.4. The area will benefit from the Olympic legacy which will leave superb facilities: parks, wildlife habitats and leisure venues including the world-class Aquatics Centre just 900m north of the site. The Aquatics Centre will be transformed into a facility for the local community, clubs and schools, as well as for elite swimmers after the Games.
6.8 Opportunities for Physical Activity 6.8.1. Surveys show that Newham has the second lowest levels of physical activity in London with only 1 in 7 adults being active for 3 times 30 minutes a week and 60% of people say that they are inactive. Although there are no reliable data on obesity in adults, childhood obesity rates are the second highest in the country with a quarter of 11 year old children being obese. However as the method of calculating obesity is not appropriate for all ethnicities, the problem of obesity in Newham is exaggerated.(14)
6.9 Accessibility and Transport 6.9.1. Data from the 2001 census shows the proportion of people taking a train or bus to work who are resident in the Borough, ward and LSOA is similar to the London average and much higher than the England average.
6.9.2. The proportion of people walking or cycling to work who are resident in the Borough, ward and LSOA is lower than the London and England averages. The same is true for the majority of wards and LSOAs surrounding the site. However, the overall figures for Tower Hamlets are higher than the England and London averages.
6.9.3. The proportion of people getting to work in a car is lower in all areas surrounding the site than the England and London averages. Refer to graphs 7a-7c in Appendix D.
6.10 Housing Standards 6.10.1. London has a higher percentage of local authority homes not meeting the decent homes standard than other parts of the country (26% of homes in London are non-decent compared to 16% in England, 2009/10). Housing quality is noticeably poorer than average in East London. Fifty six percent of Tower Hamlets Homes properties are classed as non-decent (the second highest proportion in the country). Overcrowding is also a problem across London and East London in particular. The overall over-occupation level (whereby a dwelling does not have sufficient bedrooms to meet the requirement according to age and gender of occupants) in Tower Hamlets is 16.4%, with the majority of overcrowding found in Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) households.(24)
6.10.2. Data from the Mayhew study sent across by the PCT indicates that in 2011, 788 households in Newham had more than 10 persons.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 31 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
6.11 Crime Reduction and Community Services 6.11.1. Rates of violent crime are considerably higher than the London average in both Newham and Tower Hamlets. Around 50% of residents in Newham and Tower Hamlets perceive anti social behaviour to be a problem in the local area, the London average being 26.77% in 2008. (24)(25)
6.12 Access to Healthy Food 6.12.1. Access to affordable fresh food varies across London and tends to be lower in areas of high deprivation where there is a proliferation of fast food shops and restaurants. A 2009 study found that 76% of households in Tower Hamlets are within 10 minutes walk of a supermarket, retail market, bakers or greengrocers, but 97% are within 10 minutes walk of a fast food outlet (8). Equivalent data was not identified for Newham.
6.13 Air Quality and contamination
6.13.1. The Application Site lies within two Air Quality Management Area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2) and fine particulate matter (PM 10 ) declared by London Borough of Newham along High Street and by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets across the whole borough.
6.13.2. Newham has the fifth highest rate for asthma admissions in London, 25% higher than the England average. This is statistically significantly higher than both the London and England rates. Newham also has a high prevalence rate, with the 11th highest prevalence rate in London between April 2008 and March 2009 (14) .
6.14 Noise and Neighbourhood Amenity 6.14.1. As part of the noise assessment undertaken for the ES, the noise climate was observed to be dominated by the local road network and at existing residential properties in the vicinity of the site is consistent with a fairly load urban area.
6.14.2. Accessible green space is available at the 3 Mills Green.
6.15 Accidents, poisoning and physical injury (health outcome) 6.15.1. Based on the collision analysis undertaken for the Transport Assessment (26) it has been established the study area has higher than local, national and regional statistics of collisions involving a pedestrian resulting in a fatality or serious injury. The collisions with a very likely attributing factor of drivers / riders failing to look properly and being careless, reckless or in a hurry are 14% higher than national statistics.
6.16 Infectious diseases (health outcome) 6.16.1. Newham currently has one of the highest tuberculosis rates in the country. Childhood immunisation rates did substantially improve but have now fallen off (14) .
6.16.2. Some sexually transmitted diseases, e.g. Chlamydia and herpes have been increasing although a Chlamydia screening programme has detected many cases that will have previously been undiagnosed. There are over 1,200 people living with HIV (14) .
6.17 Summary 6.17.1. Overall there is high deprivation and poor health outcomes in the area compared to the rest of London and the rest of the country. Housing standards are poor. In particular physical activity is low, obesity is high. There is a low level of qualification and employment. In the immediate area, access to GPs has been an issue for existing residents. There are a
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 32 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
significant amount of children in poverty, diverse ethnic and cultural communities and young people.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 33 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
7 Community involvement
7.1 Consultation 7.1.1. As noted previously, this HIA uses a ‘rapid’ method of assessment which is considered most appropriate to both the size and nature of development, therefore no specific community consultation has been undertaken for the HIA. Consultation undertaken as part of the pre- application process is described in this chapter.
7.1.2. The consultation statement submitted with the planning application provides full details of how the local community and other stakeholders have been engaged regarding proposals.
7.1.3. The community consultation programme for the current application for mixed use development comprised the following:
Public exhibition for three days, including a Saturday and Sunday; Letter drop to nearby residents; and Advertising and press releases in local newspapers Special meetings with key groups of close neighbours, notably the residents of Island House and those living in narrow boats on the Three Mills River Wall river, east of the site, known as the ‘Boat Community’.
7.1.4. The aim of the event was to involve the local community, as well as stakeholders, in the development process and make them aware of the wider development proposals at a stage early enough to influence the proposals
7.2 Community Concerns
Public exhibition 7.2.1. The following table shows some examples of comments from local residents received from the public exhibition (27).
Table 3 Examples of comments from Public Exhibition (27).
Address Comments Support/Oppose Central House Brilliant idea. Positive Don’t want views blocked. George Hudson Tower Looks good. Positive No need for high street shops because Westfield is close but independent shops would be good. More green space would be good. Thomas Frye Court Fantastic proposal. Positive
Balfour Road Very good. Positive Need bridge to connect to West Ham station and consider developing the Gas lands. Manley Grove Looks promising. Positive Make rooms as large as possible. Central Rise Looks good but prospect of long building time Positive not good. Should include 24 hour shop, gym, dry cleaners Albert Bigg Point Should have lots of green space N/A E15 2 Map has errors. Oppose
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 34 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Address Comments Support/Oppose Will produce slums all over again. Island House Overall positive but concerns about bus bridge Overall positive but and scale of towers. concerns
Three Mills Mooring Mixed responses: Considerable Association (Boat •need security for barges; concerns and People) •unhappy about towpath passing directly past requests to be met. pontoons; •unhappy about position of high rise towers Objection not being adjacent to moorings (shadow on boats); specified. •want info on disruption during construction; •storage for coal and bikes, laundry facilities; •private garden •meeting for responsibilities of maintenance/management; needed, who will be responsible for the pontoons now; •require 20 parking spaces; •facilities need to be within their boundary; •turning circle for boats.
7.2.2. The response to both the event and also subsequent postal comments was largely positive with the most concerned local residents being those in closest proximity to the site i.e. Island House and the ‘Boat Community’ to the south and east of the application site respectively.
Meetings with other residents of island House and the Boat Community 7.2.3. A separate meeting was held with the residents of Island House who raised the following points of concern;
Proximity of the bus bridge crossing the Lee Navigation; The height of the proposed blocks surrounding the southern tip of the site known as ‘The Hub’
7.2.4. The main points raised during meetings with the boat community (including a visit to their community) and subsequent correspondence can be summarised as follows;
General support for the redevelopment subject to re-provision of their existing facilities; Proximity of towers/accents/overshadowing; Proposed footbridge and security; Loss of garden; Loss of laundry, etc.
7.3 Response and Changes to the Scheme
‘The Boat Community’ 7.3.1. Further to consultation with the boat community, the re-provision of some of the facilities is being explored. Additionally, the buildings now proposed nearest to the moorings are therefore limited in height.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 35 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Island House Residents 7.3.2. Further to consultation with then Island House residents there has been a reduction in the height of several of the blocks proposed to be located at the southern tip of the site, which is detailed in the Design and Access Statement and the Consultation Statement.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 36 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
8 Analysis of the health impacts of the proposed development and recommendations
8.1 Assessment Matrix
8.1.1. The following matrix presents a full analysis of the potential positive and negative effects of the scheme on the determinants. Recommendations are give or a description of where mitigation has already been undertaken as part of the scheme.
x Potential adverse effect Potential beneficial effect POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACT RECOMMENDATION / DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED MITIGATION PHASE
Social capital and cohesion
Accumulation of demolition and construction Communication of plans with the local community is an effects (potential noise, dust, PM 10 , visual, effects essential part of minimising concern and anxiety. A have been identified) could cause significant programme is in place to inform people of the programme effects on stress manifested as worry, concern, of demolition and construction so they can prepare for it. frustration, anger and upset among existing This can be undertaken through communication boards x residents, which could result in resulting in tension on site, through letter drops, leaflets or newsletters. A amongst the community. The construction period dedicated point of contact for concerns should be given. will last nine years and will be phased. Demolition and Construction effects should be mitigated with the use of a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) which controls when and where construction activities including HGV movements can take place. This should be developed to minimise effects on local communities.
Education
Potential for construction workers to gain Communication should be undertaken with Workplace experience and on-the-job training and local colleges in order to examine ways in which local jobseekers and young people can be helped to access the new jobs created by the development.
Employment and access to work
Potential difficulty for existing community to A programme is in place to inform people of the x access places of employment at 3 Mills Studio programme of demolition and construction so they can prepare for it.
A vibrant construction industry will ensure demand Local supplier and contractors should be procured where for a range of opportunities including suppliers and possible contractors, construction, professional and managerial roles.
Potential to create jobs during the construction To increase the amount of jobs for job seekers in phase - the socio-economic assessment Newham, communication is underway with Workplace undertaken for the scheme identified construction and local colleges. activity at Strand East will support the equivalent of 75-95 jobs in Newham. This amounts to 0.1% of total jobs in Newham.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 37 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Leisure, recreation and culture
Potential to reduce access to existing facilities Ensure access to BANM is maintained and keep users x (BANM) during the demolition and construction informed of the demolition and construction programme phase
Opportunities for physical activity
Potential to reduce use of the outdoors for nearby Nuisance issues should be mitigated through x residents and on Three Mills Green during implementation of a Code of Construction Practice. demolition and construction though physical segregation, and nuisance effects
Accessibility and transport
Demolition and construction traffic will have some The CoCP should detail construction traffic route and impact on the movement of private and public timing plan, in consultation with local people, so that transport during the construction period. construction traffic avoids peak times on the key routes. Local people should be made aware of the plan so that x they can be proactive in avoiding those routes and those times when possible. It will be important to ensure that local people are made aware of all updates. Positive measures should be taken to reduce the number of heavy construction vehicles entering and exiting the Application Site such as balancing the earthworks as far as possible.
Crime reduction
Construction sites with their store of materials and It is recommended that consultation takes place with the the influx of new people can make an area more local police authority and Crime and Safety Partnership to x vulnerable to crime or, at least, perceived as being assess the needs and best ways of meeting the needs of more vulnerable to crime. the local area to prevent crime and enhance safety.
Air quality and contamination
x Construction and demolition could result in dust Mitigation in the ES for controls during construction nuisance and an increase in PM10 to existing including a Code of Construction Practice should be receptors taken forward.
x Potential for construction works to come into Recommendations for PPE and safety procedures within contact with contaminated ground / ground gases the ES should be taken forward.
Noise and neighbourhood amenity
Potential for adverse effects on noise nuisance to Mitigation in the ES for controls during construction x existing residents during the demolition and including a Code of Construction Practice should be construction phase taken forward.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 38 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Accidents, poisoning and physical injury (health outcome)
Potential for the presence of demolition and Risk can be controlled through a route strategy and x construction traffic to result in an increase in risk of timetable for major traffic movements. road traffic accidents.
Local children could potentially gain access to the The risk of unauthorised access and entry to the x site and get injured or come into contact with construction site should be managed through a CoCP hazardous chemicals. and appropriate hoardings and security patrols on site.
Some workers may be injured on the construction Risks of accidents on site can be managed through the site from falls, falling objects, collisions, etc. developers Health and Safety at Work practices, risk x Construction sites can and do have hazardous assessments and provision of appropriate Personal substances on-site. Protection Equipment (PPE) as well as the CoCP.
Infectious diseases (health outcome)
Workers coming into contact with sewage pipes This should be mitigated through the developer’s Health x and contaminated water can be affected by micro- and Safety at Work practices, risk assessments and organisms such as leptospirosis. provision of appropriate Person l Protection Equipment (PPE).
If construction workers move into the area, This could be mitigated through the provision of x particularly those who are single this can lead to a information to workers in the form of leaflets or as part of rise in sexually transmitted diseases. a workers induction package.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 39 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACT OPERATION PHASE RECOMMENDATION / INCORPORATED MITIGATION
Social capital and cohesion
Opportunities for social interaction at the new site Ensure all public areas and leisure facilities are within public areas such as the public square and accessible for those with disabilities. leisure facilities such as the Riverside Park and at the Hub on the southern tip of the site, where a Explore partnership with local organisations to provide multi-use community space/building will be activities for a range of ages, particularly young people. provided
Opportunities for new facilities to be available to An inclusive ethos should be adopted for the new existing communities development where existing residents are encouraged to use facilities within the new development. This should accommodate the diverse ethnic and cultural population.
The development could provide opportunities for Explore opportunities for a Newham based charity to voluntary work facilitate this e.g. at the community space in the hub.
Opportunities for existing local community to be Run a consultation for young people in the area by involved in influencing the activities on site linking with community groups or schools and colleges, to identify any ideas for scheme moving forward Explore use of roof space for resident-led uses e.g. gardening, play areas, leisure/barbecue space etc; this could be encouraged by allowing access to roofs and providing water and electricity supply.
Potential to cause disruption to the lives of the boat Explore possibilities and options of re- provision of the x community facilities to be displaced by development, where possible.
Opportunities to reduce physical segregation at the Could be further improved by opening up the, currently, site will be addressed with provision of new private bridge to Three Mills Island for pedestrians and pedestrian bridge across Three Mills River Wall to cycles as soon as possible. Three Mills Island
Health and social care services
Based on assumptions in the socio-economics Continue discussions and to work in partnership with assessment, the residents in this development PCT with regard to locating health care facilities within would require at least 1.3 GPs, with associated the development, consistent with the strategy for health potential for exceedance of the existing GP provision within the wider context of housing growth in capacity. the Olympic area. X / However, there is potential for space within the new development to provide health care services – both GP (or walk in centre) and dentist (within the D1 class). As well as helping to meet demand from the new community, new health facilities could provide additional capacity for the existing population.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 40 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Education
Potential for educational opportunities within the Work with local schools and colleges to explore how leisure (such as Riverside Park) and cultural facilities could be used by them for educational facilities (such as creative industries) to be located purposes in the development
Potential for links to be made with local colleges Work with local colleges to establish whether existing with regard to the hospitality industry courses or new courses could be set up to provide the development with employees with skills in the hospitality industries to be located in the development (hotel, bars and restaurants)
Based on assumptions in the socio-economics Continue to work with the local authority to better assessment the development will result in the need understand plans for school provision in the Olympic for: area and explore ways to work together. 70 for early years and childcare X 73 for primary school 44 for secondary school Projected population data indicate that surplus current places will diminish throughout the next decade, moving into deficit by 2012/13 for primary schools and by 2014/15 for secondary schools.
X Potential that existing educational facility (BANM) Work with BANM to explore ways for them to be may be displaced retained on site
Employment and access to work
Opportunity for the creation of jobs through Communication should be undertaken with Workplace employment uses to be located on site (offices and and local colleges in order to examine ways in which workshops, retail, financial and professional local jobseekers and young people can be helped to services, restaurants cafes and bars, Non- access the new jobs created by the development. The residential institution, assembly and leisure and a net new jobs represent 11% of the number of Job 350 bed hotel). Based on assumptions in the socio- seekers allowance claimants in Newham in September economics assessment the operation of Strand 2011. East will support a total of around 3,600 jobs, 1,100 - 1,300 of which will benefit Newham.
Potential for enhancement of creative industries in The detailed part of the application - the North East the area Quarter - is aimed at providing premises for the creative industries at as affordable rents as possible in an enhanced environment with space for different businesses to get to know each other on an informal basis and benefit each others’ businesses.
Potential to displace existing jobs from the site Efforts are in place to retain the British Academy of New X Music on site as well as other users, by providing the buildings aimed at creative industries.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 41 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Leisure, recreation and culture
Opportunity for provisions of significant resources An inclusive ethos should be adopted for the new including the Riverside Park and space allocated development where existing residents are encouraged for assembly and leisure (class D2) within the to use facilities within the new development. This development. The existing population will benefit should accommodate the diverse ethnic and cultural from leisure facilities incorporated into the scheme. population. Access to those with disabilities must also be considered.
Potential for beneficial effects on the Conservation Maximise opportunity for promotion and education Area - Enhancement of setting and increased associated with historic environment accessibility
Potential for closure of creative businesses existing Ways to retain the British Academy of New Music are X on the site - British Academy of New Music, artist being explored. Discussions with the current users workshops and studios (part of the Three Mills could be held to understand their needs in terms of studios) which can be hired on a temporary basis. premises for them or similar businesses/users.
Potential for enhancement of creative industries in There will be access to restaurant and exhibition space the area at Dane’s Yard, space for outdoor performances, and markets. Buildings designed and specified to keep operating costs as low as possible to attract creative industries.
Opportunities for physical activity
Opportunities to encourage cycling Ensure infrastructure to enable cycling on site and links to offsite is maximised including dedicated routes, cycle spaces and showers within work places.
Opportunities to encourage walking through Take opportunities to promote these walks to new and provision of the new pedestrian bridge, the riverside existing communities through information distribution walk and links to the fatwalk and lower lea valley walk
Opportunity to increase ‘play’ through infrastructure Ensure the high quality inclusive infrastructure for play integrated into green space at appropriate locations that is to be included is accessible to new and existing communities.
Opportunity to encourage outdoor activities at the Consider provision of an urban gym skateboard Riverside Park and within the leisure uses of the ‘spaces/’’obstacles’. development Develop links with local leisure centres and the Olympic Legacy to identify opportunities for communities to access off-site sports facilities. Explore the opportunity of locating canoeing/rowing/boating on the river at the site.
Opportunity to increase physical activity through Consider wide range of leisure activities at the leisure activities community Space (in the Hub) to enable as many people as possible to take part (yoga, ballet, tae Kwan do etc) Explore use of roof space for resident-led uses e.g. gardening, play areas, leisure/barbecue space etc; this could be encouraged by allowing access to roofs and providing water and electricity supply.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 42 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Accessibility and transport
Generation of additional traffic could cause delay Recommendations in the Travel Plan should be taken X through the road network (existing junctions are forward. Infrastructure improvement to the access already over-capacity) junction could result in benefits to the existing population.
Potential to improve access to existing residents by All opportunities for reducing segregation of the site the bridge across 3 Mills River Wall to 3 Mills should continue to be explored including delivery of the Green, a new pedestrian crossing and junction intended bridges (for bus, bikes and pedestrians) across the High Street and opening up of private across the Lee Navigation and ongoing discussions with bridge to the south; dredging an area on the Lee the river taxi service. Navigation to allow water-taxi/bus. Discussions with TFL with regard to bus services should continue to understand bus service provision in the context of the wider area. Current proposals are for bus services to entre the site via Hunts Lane, stop to the South and exit via Sugar House Lane.
Housing standards
Efforts should be made to maximise the space inside The development provides an opportunity for a dwellings and ensure they are appropriately located significant contribution to good quality housing with regard to daylight and sunlight and noise. The stock: design codes and the designs at detailed design stage should ensure that the housing is a long term positive asset. Opportunities for provision of affordable housing should be maximised, subject to viability.
Opportunities for provision of ‘Life time Homes’ Opportunities for provision of lifetime homes should be maximised.
Crime reduction and community services
Any new development and its associated buildings It is recommended that consultation takes place with the and population could attract the potential for crime. local police authority to assess the needs and best X / Although it should be noted that the existing site is ways of meeting the needs of the local area to prevent largely vacant and the development also introduces crime and enhance safety. All public areas should the opportunity for an enhanced environment and include measures to design out crime at the detailed additional surveillance. design stage.
Access to healthy food
Potential for unhealthy, low quality fast food outlets Work with other cafes to encourage them to provide X / and takeaways to be introduced has been removed good quality, healthy foods and no poor quality ‘junk as no A5 uses are being applied for in the foods’ application
Opportunities for residents to grow their own Given the contamination of the site, the best route to do this is to encourage the use of roof terraces to ‘grow your own’ through information provided but also through allowing access to roofs where possible and provision of water and electricity supply. Information regarding other facilities e.g. Allotments at Bisson Road should also be provided.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 43 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Air quality and contamination
Potential for future site works and site users to Recommendations for clean soil cover in landscaped X come into contact with contaminated ground / areas, adoption of safety procedures with respect to ground gases ground gases, and PPE for site workers within the ES should be taken forward.
Potential for additional traffic caused by the All opportunities to reduce travel by car should be X development to result in adverse air quality effects undertaken in particular by ensuring recommendations (NO 2) for existing residents (72-78 high St – as for walking and cycling are taken forward and links for identified in the Environmental Statement). public transport are provided. Recommendations in the Travel plan should be taken forward
Potential for additional traffic caused by the Mitigation presented in the ES for mechanical X development to result in exceedance of air quality ventilation should be taken forward objectives (NO 2) for new residents and the hotel. Assumptions in the Environmental Statement should be referred to.
Noise and neighbourhood amenity
Potential for tall buildings to result in adverse Mitigation presented in the ES for light coloured building X effects on visual amenity and daylight and sunlight surfaces should be taken forward for existing community
Opportunities for improved local amenity through Ensure the tranquillity of the Riverside Park and its use provision of a good quality development and access as an asset for the local community to experience the to green space at the Riverside Park and Three natural environment are preserved. Mills Green (through new and opening up of existing, bridges to provide access). Publicise this amongst wider community who may be unaware of this resource.
Adaptation to climate change
Potential for new residents to be exposed to flood Recommendations in the Flood Risk assessment for X risk (although ground raising at residential areas maintenance of existing defences should be taken will take climate change scenario into account) forward.
Potential for infrastructure (including roads, Appropriate and robust materials should be used and X dwellings and offices) to be exposed to extreme the orientation of all buildings considered in relation to temperatures passive solar gain but cooling should also be considered.
Potential for development to contribute to carbons Recommendations within the Sustainability Assessment and other Greenhouse gas emissions and Travel Plan should be taken forward, including X provision of electric car charging points, real-time information on public transport, car clubs, smart technologies and measures which reduce car use.
Accidents, Poisoning and physical injury
Potential for road traffic accident levels to be Any recommendations in the Transport Assessment improved for existing residents by infrastructure with regard to safety of road infrastructure should be improvements on the existing network such as the taken forward new pedestrian crossing across the High Street
Opportunities to provide ‘Home Zones’/shared Consider the widest possible area of development to be spaces to reduce the risk of road accidents, are a covered by Home Zones/shared spaces speed key part of the urban design and landscaping restrictions and pedestrianised areas using materials strategy and landscaping to make this as pleasant as possible.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 44 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
9 Priorities
9.1 Introduction 9.1.1. Detailed assessment against all determinants is provided in the matrix in Section 8.
9.1.2. In this section, as requested by the PCT through the scoping process, the key potential impacts and recommendations are summarised with regard to priorities and particular vulnerable groups in the wider area and immediate vicinity of the site. These have been established through the policy review, baseline assessment, community involvement and discussions with the PCT, along with assessment of the potential for the scheme to have an effect. They include the following:
Determinants Opportunities for physical activity – linked to obesity and cardio-vascular disease Education Employment and access to work Access to health and social care services Housing standards
Vulnerable groups Children in poverty Diverse ethnic and cultural communities Young people
9.2 Opportunities for Physical Activity
Baseline 9.2.1. As established through the baseline assessment physical activity is an important consideration for this development as current activity levels in the population are low and rates of obesity are high. As established within the analysis of the pathways of impact (Section 5) this can lead to cardiovascular disease (a health priority in the area).
Demolition and Construction 9.2.2. Whilst it is unlikely that the demolition and construction phase will have significant adverse effects on the opportunity for physical activity for the existing community, nuisance issues such as dust and noise could deter people from using the outdoors although it is already a highly urbanised environment. Nevertheless nuisance should be mitigated through a Code of Construction Practice to limit these effects. Communication with the local community is key to minimising disruption and could be undertaken through information boards or newsletters. A point of contact for concerns should be provided.
Operation 9.2.3. The scheme provides significant opportunities for physical activity both for the new community and improving facilities for existing communities.
9.2.4. Infrastructure to enable cycling on site and links to offsite have been maximised including dedicated routes, cycle spaces (82 provided) and should be enhanced by providing showers within work places.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 45 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
9.2.5. Opportunities to encourage walking are provided through provision of the new pedestrian bridge linking the site to the Three Mills Island – a cultural and recreational asset, the riverside walk and links to the Fatwalk and Lower Lea Valley walk. Opportunities should be taken to promote these walks to new and existing communities and the wider population through information distribution such as on a website, through leaflets and information boards which could explain the history of the area.
9.2.6. Play infrastructure will be integrated into green space within the site. This should include free to use high quality inclusive infrastructure for play at appropriate locations accessible to new and existing communities.
9.2.7. There is an opportunity to encourage outdoor activities at the Riverside Park and other indoor activities within the leisure uses of the development. Consideration should be given to provision of an urban gym within the landscaping and provide a flexible enough multi-use space at the Hub to provide the opportunity for a range of activities to maximise involvement. Additionally, links with local leisure centres and the Olympic centre could be developed to identify opportunities for communities to access off-site sports facilities, and this information communicated.
9.2.8. As the site is located on the river it provides a good opportunity for river based sporting opportunities to be located there such as canoeing/rowing/boating. This opportunity should be further explored.
9.2.9. Any opportunities for people to be active and engaged with the community and surroundings will contribute to increasing physical activity. The use of roof space for resident-led uses e.g. gardening, play areas, leisure/barbecue space etc; could be encouraged by allowing access to roofs and providing water and electricity supply.
9.3 Education
Baseline 9.3.1. As established through the baseline assessment education is an important consideration for this development as qualification levels in the existing population are low. As established within the analysis of the pathways of impact (Section 5) this can lead to reduced job opportunities and earning capability.
Demolition and Construction 9.3.2. Construction jobs (see section 9.4 below) will provide opportunities for construction, and related, workers to gain experience and on-the-job training.
Operation 9.3.3. There is potential for links to be made with local colleges (such as Newham College) with regard to the hospitality industry to establish whether existing courses or new courses could be set up to provide the development with employees with skills in the hospitality industries to be located in the development (hotel, bars and restaurants).
9.3.4. There is potential for educational opportunities associated with the history of the site and the space it could provide for education within the leisure uses (such as Riverside Park) and cultural facilities (such as creative industries). There is an opportunity to work with local schools and colleges to explore how these facilities could be used by them for educational purposes.
9.3.5. With regard to schools capacity, based on assumptions in the socio-economics assessment the development will result in the need for:
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 46 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
70 for early years and childcare 73 for primary school 44 for secondary school
9.3.6. Projected population data indicate that surplus current places will diminish throughout the next decade, moving into deficit by 2012/13 for primary schools and by 2014/15 for secondary schools. Further work will be undertaken with the local authority to better understand plans for school provision in the Olympic area and ensure new residents have good quality schools in the vicinity for children’s education.
9.3.7. Discussions are underway with the British Academy of New Music (BANM) – a Further Education music college currently on site – to explore how they may remain on site.
9.4 Employment and access to work
Baseline 9.4.1. As established through the baseline assessment, employment is an important consideration for this development as employment levels in the existing population are low. As established within the analysis of the pathways of impact (Section 5) this can lead to poverty and a reduction in personal and social esteem.
Demolition and Construction 9.4.2. The socio-economic assessment undertaken for the scheme identified construction activity at Strand East will support the equivalent of 75-95 jobs in Newham. This amounts to 0.1% of total jobs in Newham. To increase the amount of jobs for job seekers in Newham, communication should be undertaken with local colleges and Workplace. A meeting has been arranged for 23 rd February 2012.
9.4.3. Workplace is a recruitment centre in Newham which supports local people to get jobs. The service is free to Newham residents and employers across London.
9.4.4. A vibrant construction industry will ensure demand for a range of opportunities including suppliers and contractors, construction, professional and managerial roles. Local suppliers and contractors should be procured where possible.
Operation 9.4.5. There is significant opportunity for the creation of jobs through employment uses to be located on site (offices and workshops, retail, financial and professional services, restaurants cafes and bars, Non-residential institution, assembly and leisure and a 350 bed hotel). Based on assumptions in the socio-economics assessment the operation of Strand East will support a total of around 3,600 jobs, 1,100 - 1,300 of which will benefit Newham. The net new jobs represent 11% of the number of Job seekers allowance claimants in Newham in September 2011. Again, liaison should be continued with Workplace and local colleges.
9.4.6. There is potential to displace existing jobs on the site. Efforts are in place to retain the British Academy of New Music on site as well as other users, by providing buildings aimed at ‘’creative industries’’, at as affordable rents as possible. This will provide enhanced environment for these industries with space for different businesses to get to know each other on an informal basis and benefit each others’ businesses.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 47 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
9.5 Access to health and social care services
Baseline 9.5.1. As established through the baseline assessment, access to health and social care services are an important consideration for this development as there are issues surrounding access to GPs in the area. As established within the analysis of the pathways of impact (Section 5) this can exacerbates ill–health.
Operation 9.5.2. Based on assumptions in the socio-economics assessment, the residents in this development would require at least 1.3 GPs.
9.5.3. The need created by Strand East cannot be looked at in isolation of the changes occurring in the broader Olympic area. Population in this part of the borough has been rising but this has not yet been matched by an expansion of health services; the nearest surgeries are located in Tower Hamlets and as such are not available to these new residents. This will be exacerbated as Strand East is developed and occupied and as the Olympic area’s legacy is built. It is therefore important to consider the impacts on health infrastructure in cumulative terms, at a wider geographical level.
9.5.4. This part of Newham is set for a very significant rise in population numbers. The NHS is working on options to address this issue, including a health centre to the north of the Olympic site and a walk-in centre near Pudding Mill Lane.
9.5.5. There is potential for space within the new development to provide health care services – both GP (or walk in centre) and dentist (within the D1 class). As well as helping to meet demand from the new community, new health facilities could provide additional capacity for the existing population.
9.5.6. Discussions are planned between the developer and the PCT in order to explore how Strand East may be able to contribute to the health services available to residents in this part of Newham. The PCT have been approached and advised that they would not be in a position to hold meaningful discussions with Landprop until spring/summer 2012.
9.6 Housing standards
Baseline 9.6.1. As established through the baseline assessment, housing standards are an important consideration for this development as overcrowding is an issue in East London. As established within the analysis of the pathways of impact (Section 5) this can lead to reduced immunity to infections, and adverse impacts on mental health and well-being.
Operation 9.6.2. The development provides an opportunity for a significant contribution to good quality housing stock of 1200 residential units overall, and a high proportion of family homes as set out in the Housing Statement submitted with the application.
9.6.3. Efforts should be made to maximise the space inside dwellings and ensure they are appropriately located with regard to daylight and sunlight and noise. The design codes that will be prepared at the detailed design stage should ensure that the housing is a long term positive asset. Opportunities for provision of affordable housing should be maximised, taking into account financial viability.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 48 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
9.6.4. Opportunities for provision of Lifetime Homes (applies 16 criteria to homes to ensure they are accessible)(28) should be maximised as much as possible within the urban setting.
9.7 Children in poverty, diverse ethnic and cultural communities and young people 9.7.1. As established through the baseline there are significant numbers of specific vulnerable groups in the population including children in poverty, diverse ethnic and cultural communities and young people.
9.7.2. Along with the educational and employment opportunities for young people, opportunities for inclusive physical activity and affordable housing provision noted above, further measures to reduce inequalities should be considered
9.7.3. A consultation could be run for young people in the local area by linking with community groups or schools and colleges, to identify any ideas for the activities and uses at the scheme, moving forward.
9.7.4. Opportunities should be explored for a Newham based charity to facilitate voluntary work e.g. at the community space in the hub.
9.7.5. An inclusive ethos should be adopted for the new development where existing residents are encouraged to use facilities within the new development. This should accommodate the diverse ethnic and cultural population. Partnerships should be explored with local organisations to provide activities for a range of ages, particularly young people.
9.8 Cumulative Effects 9.8.1. Cumulative effects of the scheme itself have been considered within the assessment (such as the cumulative nature walking and cycling measures on the opportunity for physical activity).
9.8.2. As would be expected for an urban area, cumulative effects with other planned development could arise. If construction activities for the Stand East and other schemes take place at the same time, there could be cumulative environmental effects such as additional noise or dust nuisance with associated health effects on community cohesion.
9.8.3. Within the Environmental Statement a total of 34 schemes have been identified for consideration in terms of cumulative impact. In terms of health the cumulative impact has been considered qualitatively with respect to employment. There is insufficient knowledge of many of these schemes at this stage to generate precise estimates of jobs and population. However, the socio-economic assessment indicates that the cumulative impact including Strand East could potentially result in up to 14,200 gross additional jobs in Newham and 40,400 residents. Applying general household size for London suggests these schemes could potentially generate up to 37,900 residents. Therefore there will also be cumulative effects on access to GP and school places. Additional operational cumulative effects are likely to be positive as the site is part of the strategic Olympic regeneration of the area and fits with the wider ethos for provision of sustainable communities.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 49 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
10 Conclusions and next steps
10.1 Conclusions
10.1.1. Overall, the development at Strand East provides significant opportunities for an inclusive development with excellent new facilities and resources for both the community that will move into the site and those that already live in its surroundings.
10.1.2. This will have overall beneficial effects on the determinants of health that are priorities for Newham in particular by encouraging physical activity and by providing opportunities for employment for people in Newham.
10.1.3. All opportunities should be taken to promote use of the development such as the Riverside Park and community facilities to those from the diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds in the area and the significant amount of young people that live in Newham, in particular children from low income backgrounds. All efforts have and should continue to be taken to accommodate existing interests on the site where communities and livelihoods are concerned.
10.1.4. Potential negative effects associated with demolition and construction are common to all development projects, particularly in London with it’s dense urban development and residential population and can be controlled through good communication with neighbours and various management mechanisms during construction such as a code of construction practice.
10.2 Next steps 10.2.1. There are opportunities for the further consideration of health inequalities. Potential impacts should be considered throughout the detailed design of the scheme and beyond, along with opportunities for mitigation of any adverse effects and enhancement measures that could contribute to improving health for the new and existing communities.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 50 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
11 References
1. WHO European Centre for Health Policy (1999). Health impact assessment: main concepts and suggested approach; Gothenburg consensus paper; WHO Regional Office for Europe.
2. World Health Organization (1948). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June 1946, and entered into force on 7 April 1948.
3. Peter Brett Associates, Adapted from Dahlgren G and Whitehead (1991). Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health ; Institute of Future Studies; Stockholm.
4. Marmot et al (2011). Fair Society, Healthy Lives: A Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post 2010, The Marmot Review; The Institute of Health Equity, UCL.
5. HM Government (2008). Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities, Statutory Guidance; Communities and Local Government, London.
6. HM Government (2011). Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Update and way Forward ; Department of Health, London.
7. Mayor of London (2007). Health Issues in Planning Best Practice Guidance; Greater London Authority.
8. Mayor of London (2010). Health Inequalities Strategy ; Greater London Authority.
9. Mayor of London (2011). The London Plan, Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London; Greater London Authority.
10. Baker et al (2001). Fair London, Healthy Londoners?; Greater London Authority.
11. Newham Council (2001). The Unitary Development Plan; Newham Council.
12. Newham Council (2012). Newham 2027, Planning Newham – The Core Strategy; Newham Local Development Framework, Newham Council.
13. Newham Council (2010). Making Newham a place where people choose to live work and stay, Newham’s Sustainable Community Strategy for 2010 – 2030; Newham Council.
14. London Borough of Newham and NHS Newham (2010). Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, Newham 2010; London Borough of Newham and NHS Newham.
15. WHO (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: health equality through action on the social determinants of health. Commission on Social Determinants of Health, WHO, Geneva.
16. The Royal Town Planning Institute (2009). Delivering Healthy Communities, RTPI Good Practice, Note 5; The Royal Town Planning Institute.
17. Health Development Agency (2002). Introducing health impact assessment (HIA) informing the decision-making process, England; Health Development Agency, London.
18. NHS Executive (2000). Resources for HIA: Volumes 1 & 2; England.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 51 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
19. NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (2009). Watch out for Health, A checklist for assessing the health impact of planning proposals. NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit.
20. Greater London Authority (2010) Round of Demographic Projections - SHLAA Website - http://data.london.gov.uk/datafiles/demographics/gla-popproj-2010-round-shlaa-clg08-sya- borough.xls
21. NHS Choices Website - http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx
22. NHS Newham. NHS Newham Commissioning Strategy Plan 2010 – 2015; NHS Newham.
23. Peter Brett Associates (2012) Stand East Environmental Statement - Socio Economics assessment
24. NHS Tower Hamlets (2010). Health and Wellbeing in Tower Hamlets, Tower Hamlets Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2010-2011; NHS Tower Hamlets.
25. Newham London Website - http://www.newham.info/profiles/profile?profileId=135&geoTypeId=#iasProfileSection4
26. Peter Brett Associates (2012) Stand East Transport Assessment
27. GL Hearn (2012) Stand East Consultation Document
28. Lifetime Homes Website - http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 52 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
12 Glossary / Abbreviations
APHO Association of Public Health Observatories
BANM British Academy of New Music
BPG Best Practice Guidance
CHAT PBA’s Comprehensive Health Assessment Toolbox
CoCP Code of Construction Practice
DoH Department of Health
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ES Environmental Statement
GIA Gross Internal Area
GLA Greater London Authority
HDA Health Development Agency
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicles
HIA Health Impact Assessment
(HIS) Health Inequalities Strategy
Home Zones Home Zones are an attempt to strike a balance between vehicular traffic and everyone else who uses the street, the pedestrians, cyclists, business people and residents.
HUDU Healthy Urban Development Unit
JSA Job Seekers Allowance
JSNA Joint Strategic Needs Assessment
Lifetime A housing standard which applies 16 criteria to homes to Homes ensure they are accessible
LSOA Lower Super Output Areas
NEET Young people not in education, employment or training
LSOA Lower Super Output Area
LTDC London Thames Gateway Development Corporation
NICE National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 53 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
ONS Office for National Statistics
PCT Primary Care Trust
RTPI Royal Town Planning Institute
SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance
UDP The Unitary Development Plan
NHSCB NHS Commissioning Board
N02 Nitrogen dioxide
PCT Primary Care Trust
PPE Personal Protection Equipment
PM 10 Particulate Matter
TFL Transport for London
Workplace A local recruitment agency providing a free service and supporting local jobs
WHO World Health Organization
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 54 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Appendix A
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA Report.doc Blaker Road KEY PLAN
Outline Planning Application Boundary
Pudding Mill Lane
Detailed Planning Area
Plot Boundary
Abbey Lan
Bow Back River
Marshgate Lane MU1 Bisson Road High Street
Three
Mills
Wall River
Bow Back River
Cook´s Road MU2
R1
MU4
R2 High Street MU3 Prescott Project: Channel Strand East
Location: R5 Sugar House Lane, R7 London, E15
Prepared for: R3 LandProp Holding BV Notes: 1. Do not scale drawings 2. Site verify all dimensions prior to construction 3. Report all discrepancies to ARC-ML immediately R6 4. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant documents and drawings Revisions
No. Description: Date:
River Lee Navigation
R4
River R8 MU5 Drawing Status Wall FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES
ARC-ML Project Number Scale: 1:2.500 @ A3/ 1:1.250 @ A1 Date drawn: 20.02.2012 Drawn by: Three Mills 0915 Reviewed by: Drawing Title PARAMETER PLAN KEY PLAN
NorthernBlackwall
Original drawing sheet is A1
Drawing Number Revision ApproachTunnel PO-0-001 Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Appendix B
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA Report.doc
Landprop Holdings
Sugar House Lane
Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
Project Ref: 23627/021
Doc Ref: Draft 002
November 2011
Peter Brett Associates LLP Caversham Bridge House Waterman Place Reading Berkshire RG1 8DN T: 0118 9500761 F: 0118 9597498 E: [email protected] Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
We print on 100% recycled paper from sustainable suppliers accredited to ISO 14001.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping ii report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
Document Control Sheet
Project Name: Sugar House Lane Project Ref: 23627/021 Report Title: Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report Doc Ref: Draft 002 Date: November 2011
Name Position Signature Date Environmental Lucy Whitter Prepared by: Scientist
Principal Sue Parr Environmental Reviewed by: Scientist
Henk Gelens LLP Director Approved by:
For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP
Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved
Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.
© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2011
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping iii report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping iv report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
Contents
1. Introduction 2 1.1 Background to the Development 2 1.2 Health Impact Assessment Purpose, Ethos and Approach 3 2. Site Context 5 2.1. Site and Surroundings 5 2.2. Health Profile 6 3. Proposed Development and Application Process 7 3.1. Development Description 7 3.2. Application and Construction 7 4. Proposed Scope of Health Impact Assessment 8 4.1. General Approach 8 4.2. Screening 9 4.3. Scoping 9 4.4. Baseline and Community Profile 9 4.5. Stakeholder Involvement 11 4.6. Evidence and Analysis 11 4.7. Mitigation and enhancement 12 4.8. Reporting 12 5. Summary 13
Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Plan Figure 2 - The determinants of health and wellbeing Figure 3 - Proposed Application Boundary (Red Line) Figure 4 – Administrative areas surrounding the site
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 1 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
1. Introduction
1.1 Background to the Development This Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Scoping Report has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP on behalf of Landprop Holdings.
The Scoping Report relates to a planning application for proposed development at Sugar House Lane predominantly located in the London Borough of Newham. The site is located approximately 1.3km to the south west of Stratford town centre and is south of the Olympic Park. The site location is shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 Site Location Plan
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 2 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
The proposed mixed use development comprises predominantly residential, office, retail, leisure/community, food and beverage, creative industries and hotel space in addition to the provision of associated infrastructure including public transport routes.
The aim of the HIA will be to assess the potential positive and negative health and wellbeing impacts on the existing communities around the proposed development and the communities that are likely to live and work in the new development.
The first step in the HIA process is known as Screening, where the need for HIA is established. Whilst there is no statutory requirement for HIA, it is noted as a policy requirement in both the replacement London Plan (2011) which states “The impacts of major development proposals on the health and wellbeing of communities should be considered through the use of Health Impact Assessments (HIA)” and the Newham Council’s Proposed Submission Draft Core Strategy (March 2011), which states “Developers will be expected to conduct a Health Impact Assessment for major residential / mixed-use proposals, or address its scope in their Design and Access statements and environmental impact assessments”.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report was sent to the NHS Newham, the Primary Care Trust (PCT) which covers the area. It included proposal to undertake an HIA, which was supported by NHS Newham.
After the need for HIA is established, the scope of assessment must be agreed. The scope of the HIA should identify which potential health and wellbeing issues it will cover and the methodology that will be used for the assessment, taking into account the wider planning context. The aim of this Scoping Report is to present the scope of the HIA so it can be agreed with NHS Newham and London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) who are acting as the planning authority.
In addition to the HIA, as noted above, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is also being undertaken in support of the proposed planning application. The EIA is also at the scoping stage and the Scoping Report has included the following disciplines for consideration in the EIA:
Transportation Noise & Vibration Air Quality Wind Daylight / sunlight Ground Conditions & Contamination Waste Hydrology, Flood Risk & Drainage Heritage Assets & Archaeology Townscape & Visual Biodiversity Socio-Economics & Community
Other application documents will include an Energy Strategy, a Sustainability Strategy, a Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement, Transport Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment, and Statement of Community Involvement.
1.2 Health Impact Assessment Purpose, Ethos and Approach The international Gothenburg consensus definition of health impact assessment (HIA) is: “A combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, programme or project may be judged
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 3 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those effects within the population.” 1
HIA recognises that although illness and disease (mortality and morbidity) are useful ways of understanding and measuring health they need to be understood and viewed within a broader understanding of health and wellbeing to be properly useful (See Figure 2).This definition builds on and is complementary to the longer established World Health Organization (WHO) definition that “Health is a state of complete physical, social and mental wellbeing and not simply the absence of disease or infirmity.” 2
3 Figure 2 - The determinants of health and wellbeing
Whilst there is currently no direct statutory requirement to use HIA in the UK, its role and value have been endorsed or highlighted in a range of policy and strategy contexts including the London Plan and Newham Core Strategy submission as noted above.
The aim of HIA is to use a systematic approach to identifying the differential health and wellbeing impacts, both positive and negative, of a project. The approach is particularly concerned with the distribution of effects within a population, as different groups are likely to be affected in different ways, and therefore how health and social inequalities might be reduced or widened by the proposed development. Additionally, an HIA should recommend options, where appropriate, for enhancing the positive impacts, mitigating the negative ones and reducing health inequalities.
HIA uses a range of structured and evaluated sources of qualitative and quantitative evidence including public and other stakeholders' perceptions and experiences as well as public health, epidemiological, toxicological and medical knowledge.
1 WHO European Centre for Health Policy; Health impact assessment: main concepts and suggested approach; Gothenburg consensus paper; WHO Regional Office for Europe; 1999. 2 World Health Organization; Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June 1946, and entered into force on 7 April 1948 3 Peter Brett Associates; Adapted from Dahlgren G and Whitehead, Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health; Institute of Future Studies; Stockholm; 1991.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 4 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
2. Site Context
2.1. Site and Surroundings The site is centred approximately on grid reference TQ382832 and occupies an area of approximately 12 hectares. The application site boundary is demarcated by the red line in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3 - Proposed Application Boundary (Red Line) The site is located 1.3km to the south west of Stratford town centre and to the south of the Olympic Park.
The site is occupied by various industrial and commercial premises; the southern end of the site currently houses part of the Three Mills Studios. The north-eastern part of the site comprises the Sugar House Lane Conservation Area (for built heritage). Considerable demolition has already taken place, with further demolition planned.
A review of available historic maps has identified that the site has been occupied since the start of the record (1869) by a collection of warehouses, wharfs and industrial works, albeit with intermittent development and changes in use within the site.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 5 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
The site is bounded to the north by Stratford High Street, which is a dual carriageway for the section adjacent to the site. Three Mills Wall River comprises the site’s eastern boundary. To the south of the site is Three Mills tidal mill, while the River Lea Navigation forms the site’s western boundary.
The nearest residential dwellings to the site are relatively recently constructed apartments to the north of Stratford High Street, with semi detached housing to the east of Three Mills Wall River. Residential apartments are located at Island House to the south of the site.
To the west of the site are a number of light industrial units and to the north of the site retail outlets and car show rooms.
2.2. Health Profile
The site is predominantly located in the London Borough of Newham in the ward of Stratford and New Town which is in the north west corner of Newham.
The following is taken from the Association of Public Health Observatories (APHO) Health profile for Newham 2011.
The health of people in Newham is mixed compared to the England average. Deprivation is higher than average and 32,370 children live in poverty. Life expectancy for both men and women is lower than the England average.
Life expectancy is 5.3 years lower for men and 4.8 years lower for women in the most deprived areas of Newham than in the least deprived areas (based on the Slope Index of Inequality published on 5th January 2011).
Over the last 10 years, all cause mortality rates have fallen. Early death rates from cancer and from heart disease and stroke have fallen and the latter is worse than the England average.
About 25.9% of Year 6 children are classified as obese. A lower percentage than average of pupils spend at least three hours each week on school sport. Levels of teenage pregnancy and GCSE attainment are worse than the England average.
An estimated 20.2% of adults smoke and 25.3% are obese. Rates of smoking related deaths and hospital stays for alcohol related harm are higher than average.
Priorities in Newham include employment and education, circulatory disease including diabetes, cancer (especially one year survival) and maternity and early years.
Indicators for which results are significantly worse than the England average include: Deprivation Children in poverty GCSEs achieved Violent crime Long term unemployed Physically active children Obese children Teenage pregnancy Physically active adults Hospital stays for alcohol related harm Drug misuse People diagnosed with diabetes New cases of tuberculosis Life expectancy – male Life expectancy – female
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 6 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
Deaths from smoking Early deaths: heart disease & stroke
3. Proposed Development and Application Process
3.1. Development Description The development will comprise a mix of uses, falling within various classes of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010 up to maximum areas as follows:
C3 – Residential - 120,000sqm B1 – Business (Offices, workshops) - 35,000sqm C1 – Hotels and Hostels (Hotel) – 25,000sqm A1 – A5 – Shops (A1)/Financial and Professional Services (A2)/Food and Drink (A3)/Drinking Establishments (A4)/Hot Food Take-away (A5) (i.e. small scale shops and restaurants) - 5,000sqm D1 – Non-Residential Institutions (i.e. Health Centre, Community Centre, Nursery School) - 4,000sqm D2 – Assembly and Leisure (i.e. Dance Studio, Martial Arts, Gym facilities) - 2,000sqm Plus ancillary car parking and open space
The total floor area of buildings will not exceed 200,000sqm.
As part of the development it is proposed to provide a new bus route that would connect Stratford High Street to the A12 via Sugar House Lane and Hancock Road. This will involve the construction of a new vehicular bridge over the River Lea.
3.2. Application and Construction The design of the proposed development draws upon the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation’s (LTGDC) Land use and Design brief (Consultation Draft December 2010).
It is anticipated, subject to receipt of planning permission, that the construction will be undertaken in a number of phases. Construction is expected to start following completion of the Olympic and Paralympics Games in 2013 and to be complete by approximately 2018.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 7 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
4. Proposed Scope of Health Impact Assessment
4.1. General Approach
Aim of the HIA The aim of the HIA will be to assess the potential positive and negative health and wellbeing impacts on the existing communities around the proposed development and the communities that are likely to live and work in the new development.
General Methodology The HIA will follow the HIA methodology as set out in guidance issued by the Department of Health (DoH) and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE, which has subsumed the Health Development Agency) 4 5 and the London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) 6. Additionally, the assessment will use PBA’s Comprehensive Health Assessment Toolbox (CHAT) which is a systematic approach to HIA drawing upon good practice.
A ‘rapid’ approach will be used for the HIA which will involve a desk-top investigation of the health impacts with an exchange of existing knowledge and expertise, research from previous HIAs and consultation with key professional stakeholders. This will assess the fit of the proposed development with the health, social care and well-being policies and strategies of the local authority and region whilst also capturing key health and well being issues and concerns. The HIA will also utilise information and consultation undertaken as part of the EIA and design process.
This level of HIA is considered most appropriate for the planning and site context and the level of development proposed.
The Process The core steps of the HIA process that will be followed are as below.
Screening
Scoping (current stage)
Baseline and Community Profile
Stakeholder Involvement
Evidence and Analysis
Mitigation and Enhancement
Reporting
4 Health Development Agency, Introducing health impact assessment (HIA) informing the decision-making process, England; 2002. 5 Department of Health (2010). Health Impact Assessment Tools: Simple tools for recording the results of the Health Impact Assessment
6 Healthy Urban Development Unit (2009) Watch out for Health: A Checklist for assessing the health impact of planning proposals.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 8 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
4.2. Screening As noted previously, whilst there is no statutory requirement for HIA, it is noted as a requirement in both the replacement London Plan (2011) which states “The impacts of major development proposals on the health and wellbeing of communities should be considered through the use of Health Impact Assessments (HIA)” and the Newham Council’s Proposed Submission Draft Core Strategy (March 2011), which states “ Developers will be expected to conduct a Health Impact Assessment for major residential / mixed-use proposals, or address its scope in their Design and Access statements and environmental impact assessments”.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report was sent to the NHS Newham who is the Primary Care Trust (PCT) which covers the area. It included proposal to undertake a stand alone HIA (separate from the EIA), who responded with the following comment “This proposition will be supported by NHS Newham as long as the scope of the HIA is agreed with NHS Newham and as long as the cumulative effects and interactions between the identified topics in the EIA Scoping Report and health are reported. A holistic approach to health must underpin the development of the proposed HIA if it is to understand and effectively evaluate the impact of the proposal on its wider determinants. The HIA must also be carried out prior to the full development of the planning application and concluded in time to inform it”.
4.3. Scoping The HIA will focus on objectives of the NHS Newham and the Local Authority. The main issues to be addressed in the HIA will be the following:
1 collection of baseline data and preparation of a local community health profile (refer to section 4.4);
2 assessment of how the development fits with the health, wellbeing and related policies and strategies of the local area focusing on NHS Newham and Newham council;
3 assessment of the potential positive and negative health and wellbeing effects of the proposed development on existing and new communities;
4 assessment of health inequalities and social exclusion and the potential for the proposed development to affect them;
5 assessment of the potential impacts on vulnerable groups in the community e.g. older people, children, families, people with disabilities, people on low incomes/unemployed;
6 assessment of the potential indirect, cumulative and synergistic health impacts;
7 the HIA will recommend appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures as required (alongside and complementary to the EIA and other mitigation measures);
4.4. Baseline and Community Profile Stratford and New Town ward, in which the site is predominately located, is adjacent to the following wards:
London Borough of Newham Forest Gate North Forest Gate South West Ham Canning Town North
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 9 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
London Borough of Waltham Forest (to the north) Cathall Leyton also partly Cann Hall and King’s Park
London Borough of Hackney (to the west) Wick
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (to the south west) Bow East Bromley by Bow
Figure 4 – Administrative areas surrounding the site
Where available, community profile data will be collected at the super output area 7 level for Stratford and New Town (the ward where the site is located); ward and local authority level for Newham and
7 Super Output Areas (SOAs) are small areas specifically introduced to improve the reporting and comparison of local statistics.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 10 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
Tower Hamlets; and within the London and national context. Given the distance away from the site, it is not considered necessary to collect data for Hackney and Waltham Forest.
The population considered will be the resident population in these geographical areas and the new population likely to live and/or work in the proposed development. Vulnerable groups will be considered to assess any potential health inequalities that might be widened or narrowed by the proposed development.
In terms of temporal limits, the HIA will consider both the current and future populations at the site in line with the sustainable development agenda.
The range of information sources to be considered will include Office for National Statistics (ONS) census (where this is the most up to date data) and neighbourhood data; Association of Public Health Observatories and Department of Health (DoH) health profiles; Audit Commission area profiles; London Health Observatory data; information from NHS Newham, Newham Council, as well as previous relevant HIA reports, databases and review of health impact evidence. In relation to assessing the potential health and social care implications of the proposed development any relevant local guidance that is available will be used as well as good practice guidance on HIA from elsewhere.
4.5. Stakeholder Involvement NHS Newham and the LTGDC will be consulted on this Report to provide an opinion on the scope of the HIA.
The HIA will utilise information and consultation undertaken as part of the EIA and design process which will include public exhibitions. Stakeholder consultation undertaken as part of the EIA and design process will be fully described in the Statement of Community Involvement that will accompany the planning application.
It is not proposed to undertake further public consultation specific to the HIA, but rather draw upon the public consultation which informed the proposals and limit HIA consultation to key stakeholders, in line with the ‘rapid’ approach.
4.6. Evidence and Analysis Changes in certain factors caused by development such as housing, environment, and employment may affect the health and wellbeing of existing and new residents.
The indicators of health and wellbeing that will be considered are: Social capital and cohesion; population profile; accidents, poisoning and physical injury; infectious diseases; health and social care services; education; employment and access to work; leisure, recreation and culture; opportunities for physical activity; accessibility and transport; housing standards; crime reduction and community services; access to healthy food; lifestyles; shops and other retail facilities; air quality, noise and neighbourhood amenity; adaptation to climate change.
A future baseline will be established in order to predict the health consequences of implementing the option of ‘doing nothing’ in order that the assessment of the health effects of the development can be compared with an alternative.
The assessment / analysis will be predominantly qualitative except where data is available to enable quantification or where quantification of health impacts is undertaken in other assessments e.g. technical studies for the Environmental Impact Assessment.
A matrix will be used to analyse the potential positive and negative health and wellbeing impacts. The potential impacts will be assessed against the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario for the construction and operational phases of the proposed development with consideration of the impact of the phasing of the development over time.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 11 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
4.7. Mitigation and enhancement Recommendations will be made for enhancing the positive impacts, mitigating the negative ones and reducing health inequalities where identified.
4.8. Reporting A Health Impact Assessment report will be produced documenting the assessment findings. The following provides an indicative structure of the report:
Executive Summary Introduction Summary of the proposed development Health and wellbeing policy context Summary of major pathways of health impact HIA methodology Baseline assessment and community profile Analysis of the health impacts of the proposed development and recommendations Conclusions
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 12 report.doc Sugar House Lane Health Impact Assessment Scoping Report
5. Summary
This Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Scoping Report relates to a planning application for proposed development at Sugar House Lane in East London. The site is located approximately 1.3km to the south west of Stratford town centre and is south of the Olympic Park.
The proposed mixed use development comprises predominantly residential, office, retail, leisure/community, food and beverage, creative industries and hotel space in addition to the provision of associated infrastructure including public transport routes.
The site is predominantly located in the London Borough of Newham in the ward of Stratford and New Town which is in the north west corner of Newham. The health of people in Newham is mixed compared to the England average. Deprivation is higher than average. Life expectancy for both men and women is lower than the England average.
Changes in certain factors caused by development such as housing, environment, and employment may affect the health and wellbeing of existing residents in the surrounding area and new residents in the new site.
The aim of the HIA will be to assess the potential positive and negative health and wellbeing impacts from the development, on the existing communities around the proposed development and the communities that are likely to live and work in the new development.
The indicators of health and wellbeing that will be considered are: Social capital and cohesion; population profile; accidents, poisoning and physical injury; infectious diseases; health and social care services; education; employment and access to work; leisure, recreation and culture; opportunities for physical activity; accessibility and transport; housing standards; crime reduction and community services; access to healthy food; lifestyles; shops and other retail facilities; air quality, noise and neighbourhood amenity; adaptation to climate change.
Recommendations will be made for enhancing the positive impacts, mitigating the negative ones and reducing health inequalities where identified will be developed.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\011111 HIA scoping 13 report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Appendix C
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA Report.doc
Meeting Title: Sugar House Lane - HIA and Socio-economics
Attendees: Andre Pinto, Valli Van Zijl, Lucy Whitter, Stephanie Cesbron
Apologies: cc:
Date of Meeting: 23rd November 2011
Job Number: 23627-021
Item Subject
1. HIA baseline data
With reference to section 4.4 with the Scoping Report - The baseline will be informed by the Mayhew Study which is considered to most accurately reflect characteristics of the local area. AP to forward to LW with regard to the geographical areas identified in the scoping Report.
2. HIA analysis
With reference to section 4.6 in the Scoping Report – analysis will be specific to particular problems in the area e.g. obesity, children in poverty, CVD, and low rates of physical activity. Mitigation measures will be prioritised to provide solutions to these particular problems.
3. HIA good practice
The 2014 Commonwealth Games Health Impact Assessment Report will be referred to as a good practice HIA example.
4. Future of PCTs and commissioning
NHS Tower hamlets, Hackney and City and Newham form a consortium of PCTs now called NHS East London and the City.
Government Guidance on who will be responsible for commissioning new facilities is not entirely clear at this stage.
5. Access to health care facilities
Proposals from Government suggest that in the future, residents should be able to access whichever GP they want.
There is anecdotal evidence to suggest residents in new dwellings in Newham which are closest to facilities in Tower Hamlets cannot access those facilities.
The closest facility in Newham to the Sugar House Lane development is in the Carpenters Estate – but there are some issues with quality.
The proposed E20 Health Centre and new Vicarage Lane Health Centre are a considerable distance from the site.
The development could accommodate new health care facilities. Landprop will continue discussions in partnership with the PCT, who will be in a better position to
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\Appendices\231111 SHL PCT meeting notes LW.doc Page 1 of 2
confirm requirements next year.
It is difficult to establish if provision of walk in centre places can replace GP surgery places.
6. Socio-economics and population estimates
Whilst Newham experiences problems with overcrowding, it is not expected that this would not apply to the new development at Sugar House Lane. The development is likely to contain <25% affordable housing.
The socio-economics assessment of population estimate from the development (to be reported in the HIA) will include a maximum and minimum range.
Population estimates must use averages applicable to East London which is not accurately represented by the national average.
7. Dentist provision
There is a general lack of dentistry services in the area. Information on the NHS Newham website ( AP to provide link if cannot be found ).
NHS dentistry provision needs to fit in with the overall strategy. The business case for the E20 Health Centre includes dentistry services.
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\Appendices\231111 SHL PCT meeting notes LW.doc Page 2 of 2
Strand East Health Impact Assessment
Appendix D
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment
J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graph 1: Proportion of Population with Long Term Illness (Census data 2001)
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
ts h h h t w on le Nort Ham Eas Bo ngland ond Town Sout t Nort y 013B 013C 012A 012B 012C 012D 013D E L Ham e e w b Newham at o am Gat Wes B ey ham ham ham ham ham ham er New t G Town l ow d t T ng rom Newham New013A New Newh New New New New ores res B F o F ford an Canni trat S
Graphs 2a – 2c: Proportion of Population within Age Category (Census data 2001)
Graph 2a - Under 18
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
East England London Newham West Ham Bow
Tower Hamlets NewhamNewham 013A Newham 013B Newham 013C Newham 012A Newham 012B Newham 012C Newham 012D 013D Forest Gate North Bromley by Bow Forest Gate South Canning Town North Stratford and New Town
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graph 2b: Aged 18 – 64
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
d s w n m n rth rth 3A 3B 2B 2D ha let w o o 1 12A 1 1 m 01 0 0 Engla London ew te N e South w East m m 013C m m 0 m 0 m 013D N t o y by Bo a am a a a a a West Ham B e New To Ga Ga Town N wh wh wh wh st t e e e e Tower Ha roml N N Newh Newh N NewhamN 012C Newh and ore res B F o ord F tf Canning tra S
Graph 2c: Over 65
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
d n th h m h B B C D n o m r rt A 3 2 2 3 a d a o o ow 1 1 1 gl n h N B 0 0 0 n o w Town N Sout st Ha y E L e te n b m m m N w a w y a am 012A a We o Bow Easte h h h t G Gate T l w w w wha s g m e e e e Tower Hamlets re n NewhamN 013 NewhamN 013C NewhamN 01 NewhamN 012D and Neo ni Bro F n Forest Ca Stratford
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graphs 3a – 3e: Proportion of Population classifying themselves within Ethnic Profile Groups (Census data 2001)
Graph 3a: White
100.0
90.0 80.0 70.0
60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0
20.0 10.0 0.0
n th th am rth 3A 3D w or o 1 12A 12C ham N H N 0 0 01 st 013B England London ew m 012B N ate e am 013C G W Bow East ham h ham ha ham ham Gate Sou wham 0 w e ew ew ew ew Tower Hamlets est ng Town N N New N N N NewhamNe 012D or i d and New To Bromley by Bow r F Forest Cann ratfo St
Graph 3b: Mixed
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
h on ts th t d am e r 12C h Town o Nor 013A 013B 012A 0 N Ham East 012B 012D 013D England Lon e w by Bow New at est o am am New B ey h h er Haml G W Town l w nd t g To a es n rom NewhamNewham Newham Newham 013C Newham NewhamNew New d B for For Forest Gate SouthCanni rat St
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graph 3c: Asian or Asian British
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
d n t wn th m rth an do u 3A 3B 3C 2A 2B l To No Eas Bow 01 01 01 01 01 North Ha Lon So t w Eng Newham te e by own Bo am am am am am Ga Wes T nd Newt t Gat g a es s n Newh Newh Newh Newh Newh NewhamNewham 012C Newham 012D 013D Tower Hamlets r ni re n Bromley ford Fo Fo Ca Strat
Graph 3d: Black or Black British
45.0 40.0
35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0
0.0
s h th A C on wn t m r st 3 2A 2B 2 2D 3D d o r a 1 1 No 01 013C 01 01 01 T No Ha y Bow Lon e st w E m m m 0 m m m 0 m England Newham ew t wn o b r Hamlet e B y a a N Ga W To wha wha d t t Gate South mle an es s o NewhaNewhamNewha 013B Newh Ne NewhaNewh Ne Towe r ning rd Br o Fo Fore Can tratf S
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graph 3e: Chinese or other Ethnic Group
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
d n B B C n o th m rth 3 2 2 2D 3D la d o 1 1 mlets Town ou Ha N 0 0 ng on a North S t E L te e w East by Bow m m Newham a t o am 013Aam 01 am 01 am 01 er H Wes own B ham 013Cham 012A d New Ga T wh wh w w wh wh wha w n g e a Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne N Newha To nin n Bromley ford ForestForest G Ca Strat
Graphs 4a – 4g: Proportion of Population classifying themselves within Religious Groups (Census data 2001)
Graph 4a: Christian
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
n s n th m C C D o m u A 3 A 2 d a et w ow 13B 1 1 n h ml Ha B o So North 0 England L n m 0 m 0 New Ha te ow East am a a r West B we Ga wh wh wh o st e T romley by NewhamNe 013 N NewhamNewham 012 Ne 012B NewhamNewham 012 013D re B Forest Gateo North F tford and New To Canning Tow a Str
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graph 4b: Buddhist
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
n th th B B D m ets am r st land o a ow 13A 13 13C 12 12C 13 g ha ml B 0 0 0 0 0 0 n w a Tow t H E London by m Ne r H ate Nor y am am e Wes Bow E ham ham ham G wha w wh w wh w e e e Tow N Ne N NewhamNe 012A N NewhamNe 012D ning Town N Bromle Forest Forest Gate Southan tford and New C a Str
Graph 4c: Hindu
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
ts h t e ut orth as Bow 013C aml E y England London n N Newham ow er H West Hamow B ham 013Bham ham 012A ham 012Dham 013D T wham 013A w w ow e ew ew ew T romley b N N N Ne NewhamNewham 012B Ne 012C N B Forest Gate North Forest Gate Soanning C atford and New Town tr S
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graph 4d: Jewish
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
n ts th t o n r am rth s w 2D land e o 13B 13C 12B 12C 1 13D ham 0 0 0 0 0 ond aml Tow South t H y B Eng L ew te No m m m m m N H es b ew W Bow Ea Ga ha ha ha ew ew ew Tower NewhamN 013A NewhaNewhamN 012A Newha NewhamN 0 Bromley Forest Forest Gate Canning Town No Stratford and N
Graph 4e: Muslim
50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0
on th th w lets or am or ast o 3A ham 013C 012B 012D N N E y B 012A England Lond n New am 01 am 013B am er Ham West How Bow h h w g T ewham ewham To nd New Town New New NewhamNewh N NewhamN 012C Newham 013D orest Gaterest Gate South Bromley b d a F o F annin C atfor tr S
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graph 4f: Sikh
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
n ts t B C B C D D o n am s w 2 land e w outh 3A 2A g ham o H Bo 01 013 013 01 012 012 013 n ond aml T S y 01 E L ew te North m N H a ow Ea b m m ew West B a ham a ham ham N ley d st Gate ew ew ew Tower om Newh N NewhamNewh N NewhamNewhaN an re Br d Forest Go F for Canning Town North at Str
Graph 4g: No Religion
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
th h m t D a w am lets as 12D h out 13A 12A 0 ondon S t H y Bo 0 0 England L m 013B m 012B m 012C m m 013 New Ham es b m m a W Bow E ha ha ha New Town Gate ley wha wha wha d t m e e e ew Tower n ro N New NewhamN 013C New Newh N N a B d Forest Gate Nor r Fores Canning Town North Stratfo
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graphs 5a – 5b: Proportion of Population with Qualifications (Census data 2001)
Graph 5a: No Qualifications
50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0
d n h h o st w B C lan am uth a o 13C 2A 13D nd h own Nort o B 0 ng w T Nort E 0 E Lo e te n w by m m N w a am 01 am 012am 012 a Ga West Ham Bo ey h h h h h New wham 013A w w w w w d ml e e e e e Tower Hamlets n o N NewhamN 013B N N N NewhamNe 012D a orest ning To Br rd F Forest Gate S n o a tf C tra S
Graph 5b: Level 4/5 Qualifications
45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0
h m h st ets wn a ha 13A 12A 12D 13D ml To t Ham y Bow 013B 012B w a s 0 0 England London e te Nort b m 013C m 0 m 0 N r H a Bow E am am a am am 012C e New We h h ha h h h t G t Gate Sout w w w w w w ow s e e e e e e T res Bromley N N N N N N NewhaNewham Fore ford and Fo Canning Town North Strat
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graphs 6a – 6b: Proportion of Population and Economic Activity (Census data 2001)
Graph 6a: Economically Active Population
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
th h A B or uth rt 3C ndon ham 13A 13B 12C 12D amlets y Bow 0 012 013D England Lo ew e So b N H w Town ate N est Ham wn No am 0 am 01 am 0 am 0 am e at W o Bow East h ham wh wh t G wham ewh Tower est G Ne Ne New New NewhamN 012 Ne Newh and N ores ning T Bromley d F For an C Stratfor
Graph 6b: Economically Inactive Population
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
s B D don let 2 3 Lon England Newham West Ham Bow East
Tower Ham NewhamNewham 013A Newham 013B Newham 013C Newham 012A Newham 01 Newham 012C Newham 012D 01 ning Town NorthBromley by Bow Forest GateForest North Gate South Can Stratford and New Town
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graphs 7a – 7c: Proportion of Working Population and Mode of Transport to Work (Census data 2001)
Graph 7a: Train or Bus
50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0
m ts th m th w B A C D land a le r o 3A 2 g ndon ou Ha 1 13 12 13 n m S t y B E Lo ewh Town N e es b ew W Bow Easty am 0 am 0 am 0 er Ha le ham 0 w N Gat w wh wh wh o d st m T n ro Ne Ne NewhamNewham 013C Newham 01 Ne 012B NewhamNe 012D a B Forest Gate North Fore ord Canning Town No tratf S
Graph 7b: Bicycle or by Foot
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
d n th th A A n m u 3 2 o ast 1 13B 13C 1 12B 12C 12D 13D mlets Nor E Bow 0 0 0 0 0 0 a w Engla Londo by m 0 m 0 Newhar H y a a e West Ham Bo e h h w Gate l w w st st Gate S m e e To re N NewhamNewham N NewhamNewham Newham Newham Bro Fo Fore Canning Town North Stratford and New Town
Strand East Health Impact Assessment Appendix D
Graph 7c: Car, Van or Motorcycle
45.0
40.0 35.0
30.0 25.0 20.0
15.0 10.0
5.0 0.0
th m B D D m a rth 3 2 3 and a u o 1 13C 1 1 gl H 0 0 12A 0 0 wh amlets So N 0 En London e H m m m N r ew Town ate wn a a a e West Bow East h N t Gate NorthG To wham 013Awh wham wham 012B wh w g e e e e ew e To est in N N N NewhamN NewhamN 012C N and r n Bromley by Bow d Fores n Fo a C ratfor St