Redbridge Today A portrait of the Borough
Produced by the Policy Team, Strategic Services (May 2008) FOREWORD
Redbridge Today is a comprehensive document that outlines the changing economic, social and demographic structure of Redbridge. As well as giving a picture of the current state of the Borough, the document also provides projections of future trends.
In summary, this document: • Acts as an evidence-based resource for policy-makers, planners and other officers involved in developing strategies for delivering social, economic and infrastructure developments for the borough; • Identifies key trends and projections that are driving the make-up of Redbridge; • Provides Council Officers with up-to-date information at Borough and Ward level; • Provides us with the opportunity to compare our Borough with our neighbours; and • Attempts to bring all our research work together in one place.
This robust analysis of our Borough offers us more insight into the most appropriate strategies to deliver valuable services to our residents.
Cllr Alan Weinberg Roger Hampson Leader of the Council Chief Executive
2
3 Table of Contents
1. Introduction 13 4.3 Labour Market 42 4.4 Qualifications of Redbridge Residents 45 2. Demographic Analysis and Implications 15 4.5 Business and Industrial Structure 46
2.1 Introduction 16 2.2 Trends in Population Growth 16 5. Education: Children and Young People 49 2.3 Population Projections for Redbridge 17 5.1 Introduction 50 2.4 Population Trends at Ward Level 17 5.2 Early Years and Childcare 50 2.5 Population Distribution 18 5.3 Primary and Secondary School Census 51 2.6 Population Density 19 5.3.1 Total Number of School Pupils 51 2.7 Redbridge Age Profile 19 5.3.2 Pupil Mobility in Primary Schools 53 2.8 Age Structure at Ward Level 21 5.3.3 Staff, Class Sizes and Information 2.9 Components of Population Change 22 Communication Technology (ICT) 53 2.10 Natural Change in Population 22 5.4 Pupil Characteristics 54 2.11 Migration 22 5.4.1 Free School Meals 54 2.12 Ethnic Diversity 24 5.5 Ethnicity 55 2.13 Ethnic Groups at Ward Level 26 5.6 Test Results 57 2.14 Measuring Ethnic Diversity in Redbridge 27 2.15 Ethnic Population Projections 28 6. Housing 61 2.16 Religion and Faith Groups 28 6.1 Introduction 62 2.17 Redbridge Faith Forum 30 6.2 Redbridge Housing Stock and Tenure 62 2.18 Asylum Seekers in Redbridge 30 6.3 Redbridge Wards Household Tenure 63 2.19 Implications of Demographic Changes 31 6.4 House Prices and Affordability 63 6.5 Household Size and Occupancy 66 3. Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2004 32 6.6 Homelessness 66 3.1 Introduction 33 6.7 Housing-Led Development and Regeneration 66 3.2 Redbridge Deprivation Analysis 34 6.8 Sub-Regional Housing Developments 67 3.3 IMD For Small Areas In Redbridge 36 7. Culture, Sport and Community Learning 68 7.1 Introduction 69 4. Economy and Labour Market 39 7.2 Cultural Strategy 69 4.1 Introduction 40 7.3 Leisure Services 70 4.2 Macro-Economic Performance 40 7.4 Community Learning and Libraries 71 4.2.1 Economic Scale 40 7.5 Adult Education 71 4.2.2 Productivity 41 7.6 Youth and Community Involvement 72 4.2.3 Economic Change 42 7.7 Parks and Open Spaces 73
4 8. Health and Social Care 74 9.4.9 Racist Incidents 95 8.1 Introduction 75 9.4.10 Homophobic Crime 96 8.2 Life Expectancy 75 9.4.11 Crime against People with a Learning Disability 96 8.3 Infant Mortality 76 9.5 Feeling Safe in Redbridge and Fear of Crime Consultation 96 8.4 Standardised Mortality Ratio for all Causes for Persons under 75 76 10. Environment 98 8.5 The Death Rate by Cause for Persons under 75 77 10.1 Introduction 99 8.6 Redbridge PCT Annual Public Health Report 2005/06 77 10.2 Pollution 99 8.7 Community Care 78 10.2.1 Litter 99 8.8 Demand for Adult Social Care 78 10.2.2 Recycling 100 8.9 People in Redbridge with a Limiting Long-Term Illness 79 10.3 Air Quality 102 8.10 Demand for Adult Social Services by Ethnicity 79 10.4 Energy 103 8.11 Mental Health 80 10.5 Transportation 103 8.12 Children’s Trust 80 10.6 Climate Change 104 8.12.1 Children’s Trust – Neglect and Abuse 80 10.7 Biodiversity 104 8.12.2 Local Safeguarding Children Board 81 10.8 Important Sites for Biodiversity Conservation 105 8.12.3 Preventative Measures – Looked After Children 81 11. Way Forward 106 8.12.4 Looked After Children in a Safe Environment 81 8.12.5 Looked After Children Making a Positive Glossary of Terms 108 Contribution 82 8.12.6 Children and Young People with Learning Sources and References 109 Difficulties and/or Disabilities Making a Positive Contribution 82 Acknowledgements 110
9. Community Safety 84 9.1 Introduction 85 Appendices 9.2 Redbridge Safer Communities Partnership 85 9.3 Overall Levels of Offending 86 Appendix 2A Ethnic Group (Table KS06P 2001 Census) 111 9.4 Analysis by Crime Type 87 Appendix 2B GLA 2005 Round Interim Ethnic Group 9.4.1 Violent Crime 87 Projections 112 9.4.2 Anti-Social Behaviour 89 Appendix 2C Ethnic Group by Religion (Table S104 2001 Census) 113 9.4.3 Drugs and Alcohol 89 Appendix 2D Breakdown of Asylum Statistics in London 9.4.4 Domestic Burglary 91 Boroughs 114 9.4.5 Motor Vehicle Crime 92 Appendix 3A Explanation of Seven Domains of Indices of 9.4.6 Street Crime 93 Deprivation 116 9.4.7 Retail Crime 94 9.4.8 Hate Crime 94
5 Appendix 3B Demographic Profile of Most Deprived Super Output Areas in Redbridge 118 Appendix 5A 2005 GCSE Results for all Greater London Boroughs 119 Appendix 6A Provision For Additional ‘Homes’ Targets, 1997-2016 120 Appendix 6B Household Composition (Table KS20P 2001 Census) 121 Appendix 9A Hotspot Map Illustrating Night-time Data from FLARE 122 Appendix 9B Hotspot Map Illustrating Daytime Data from FLARE 123 Appendix 9C Domestic Burglaries (April 2003 – March 2005) 124 Appendix 9D Street Crime at Night (19:00 – 06:59) 125 Appendix 9E Street Crime in the Daytime (07:00 – 18:59) 126 Appendix 9F Wards where Fear of Crime is Prevalent 127 Appendix 11A Sustainable Development Scorecard for Redbridge 128
6 Index of Tables, Figures and Maps Fig 2.12 Population by Religion 29 Fig 2.13 Ethnicity and Religion in Redbridge, 2001 Census 29 Chapter 2 Demographic Analysis and Implications Table 2.15 Ward Population by Religion in Redbridge 30
Fig 2.1 Population Trend in Redbridge (1999 -2021) 16 Chapter 3 Indices of Deprivation 2004 Fig 2.2 Population Projections for Redbridge (2005-2020) 16 Table 2.1 Population Change in Redbridge Wards (1991-2011) 17 Table 3.1 London East Summary Measure of IMD 2004 34 Fig 2.3 Changes in Ward Population for Redbridge (1991–2001) Table 3.2 Average IMD Score at Ward Level 34 18 Table 3.3 Comparing LSOA in the 20% Most Deprived in England Fig 2.4 Projected Changes in Ward Population for Redbridge in 2004 and 2007 35 (2001-2011) 18 Table 3.4 Redbridge LSOA’s in the Most/Least deprived Table 2.2 Change in Population, mid-2005–mid-2006 18 20% in English 36 Table 2.3 Population Density in Redbridge Wards 19 Table 3.5 Number of LSOA’s in the most deprived 20% Fig 2.5 Population Pyramid for Redbridge 19 under all the Domain 37 Fig 2.6 Comparison of Age Structure, 1991 & 2001 Census 20 Table 3.6 Number of LSOA’s in the least deprived 20% Table 2.4 Population Changes in Specific Age Groups (1991-2011) under all the Domain 37 20 Table 2.5 Proportion of Population of Working Age (2001) London East 20 Chapter 4 Economy and Labour Market Table 2.6 Proportion of Population in Specific Age Brackets, Census 2001 21 Table 4.1 Economic Scale 40 Table 2.7 Components of Change, mid-2001 - mid–2006 22 Table 4.2 Productivity 41 Fig 2.7 Live Births for Redbridge Wards, 2004 22 Table 4.3 Economic Change 41 Table 2.8 Internal Migration for London East 23 Table 4.4 Economic Activity 42 Fig 2.8 Net Migration, mid-2006 23 Fig 4.1 Economic Activity Rate (March 1999 - Dec 2005) 43 Table 2.9 Migration (Table KS24FN 2001 Census) 24 Fig 4.2 Unemployment Rates (March 1999 - Dec 2005) 43 Table 2.10 Top ten Boroughs with large share of Black & Fig 4.3 Inactivity Rate (March 1999 - Dec 2005) 43 Minority Ethnic Groups (BME) (Table KS06 2001 Census) Table 4.5 Occupational Profiles 24 (Standard Occupational Classification 2000) 44 Table 2.11 Ethnic Group Comparison with London (Table KS06 Table 4.6 Economic Activity by Ward 44 2001 Census) 25 Fig 4.4 Qualifications of the Working Age Population 45 Fig 2.9 Ethnic Breakdown in Redbridge (1991) 25 Fig 4.5 Percentage with Qualifications Classified as NVQ 4 Fig 2.10 Ethnic Breakdown in Redbridge (2001) 25 Equivalent and Above 45 Table 2.12 Comparing Diversity, 1991 & 2001 Census 27 Fig 4.6 Areas of Employment for Redbridge Residents (2001) 46 Table 2.13 Top 15 Ethnically Diverse Wards in London 28 Fig 4.7 Areas of Residence for People who Work in Redbridge Fig 2.11 Redbridge Ethnic Population Projections (2001-2026) 28 (2001) 46 Table 2.14 Comparison of Population by Religion 29 Fig 4.8 Employment by Industrial Sector in Redbridge 47
7 Fig 4.9 Number of VAT Registered Businesses in Redbridge Chapter 6 Housing (2004) 48 Table 4.7 Registrations, Deregistrations and Stock (2004) 48 Fig 6.1 Tenure in Redbridge 62 Fig 4.10 Redbridge Company Sizes (2005) 48 Table 6.1 Tenure of Borough Housing Stock (Census 2001) 62 Table 6.2 Redbridge Wards Household Tenure 63 Chapter 5 Education: Children and Young People Table 6.3 Property Prices (April–June 2006) 64 Fig 6.2 Source of Demands for Additional Affordable Table 5.1 Early Years and Childcare 50 Housing in the Borough 64 Table 5.2 Number of Pupils in Redbridge Schools 51 Table 6.4 House Price to Income Ratio London Boroughs 65 Fig 5.1 Number of Pupils in Redbridge Schools (2002-2006) 52 Table 6.5 Household Size and Composition in Redbridge 66 Fig 5.2 Number of Primary School Pupils in North & South Table 6.6 Residential Completion 67 of the Borough (2002- 2006) 52 Table 6.7 Empty Homes to be Brought Back to Use 67 Table 5.3 Pupil Mobility 53 Table 5.4 Pupil-Teacher Ratio 53 Chapter 8 Health and Social Care Fig 5.3 ACORN categories – All Schools (2006) 54 Fig 5.4 Pupils Entitled to Free School Meals in Primary and Table 8.1 London East Boroughs, Life Expectancy at Birth Secondary Schools (2002-2006) 54 (2000-2004) 75 Fig 5.5 Percentage Take-up of Free School Meals Table 8.2 Redbridge Wards, Life Expectancy at Birth (2000-2004) 76 (2005 & 2006) 55 Fig 8.1 Infant Mortality Rate, London East (2000-2004) 76 Table 5.5 Comparison of Eligibility for Free School Meals (2005) 55 Fig 8.2 SMR All Causes under 75 Years (2000-2004) 77 Table 5.6 Ethnicity of Pupils in Redbridge Schools (2006) 56 Table 8.3 Death Rate by Cause for Persons under 75 years, Fig 5.6 The ten most common languages spoken by Pupils London East (2002-2004) 77 with English as an Additional Language (2006) 56 Table 8.4 Limiting Long-Term Illness, Census 2001 79 Fig 5.7 Religion amongst Redbridge Pupils (2006) 57 Table 8.5 Service Users by Ethnicity 80 Table 5.7 Proportion of Pupils Achieving Level 4 and 5 at Table 8.6 Ethnicity of Looked After Children in Redbridge Key Stage 2 57 (March 2006) 83 Fig 5.8 Redbridge and England Improvement Measures at Key Stage 2 (2005) 58 Table 5.8 Proportion of Pupils Achieving Level 5 and Above Chapter 9 Community Safety at Key Stage 3 58 Fig 5.9 Redbridge and England Improvement Measure for Fig 9.1 Crimes Comparison (June 2005 – Aug 2005) 86 Key Stage 3 (2005) 59 Table 9.1 Total Incidence of Crime (Sep 2004 - Aug 2005) 87 Fig 5.10 Percentage of 15 year olds Achieving 5 or more Table 9.2 Incidents of Violent Crime (2004/05) 88 A*-C Grades or Equivalent 59 Fig 9.2 Violent Crimes Comparison (June 2005 – Aug 2005) 88 Table 5.9 Average Point Score per Examination Entry Post 16 Fig 9.3 Domestic Burglary Comparisons (June 2005 -Aug 2005) 92 (2005) 60 Table 9.3 Domestic Burglaries and Incidents of Motor Vehicle Fig 5.11 Average Point Score per Examination Entry Post 16 Crime (Sep 2004 - Aug 2005) 93 (2002–2005) 60
8 Table 9.4 Incidents of Street and Retail Crime (Sep 2004 - Aug 2005) 94 Table 9.5 Racial Incidents (2002/03 - 2004/05) 95 Table 9.6 Redbridge Crime, Disorder and Substance Misuse Consultation Report 97
Chapter 10 Environment
Table 10.1 Percentage of Household Waste Recycled in Redbridge101 Table 10.2 Household Waste Collection 101 Table 10.3 Air Pollutants for Redbridge (2003-2006) 102 Table 10.4 Energy Consumption 103 Table 10.5 Means of Travel to Work 103
9 Map Of Redbridge Wards
10
FACT FILE
Redbridge Council’s Financial Summary Mayor Cllr Mrs Joyce Ryan (Conservative)
How resources will be used in 2008/09: Leader Cllr Alan Weinberg (Conservative) 2008/09
£’000 Chief Executive Roger Hampson Children's Services 289,923 Political Composition Adult Social Services 80,974 Housing 169,103 Conservative 34 Highways, Roads & Transportation 27,223 Labour 19 Culture, Sport & Community Learning 21,002 Liberal Democrat 9 Community Safety, Environment & Regeneration 35,801 BNP 1 Other Services 9,595 Total 63 Corporate Services 12,536
Total Spending on Services 646,157 Parliamentary Constituencies and MPs
Chingford and Woodford Green Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative) Other Operating Income & Expenditure 7,188 Ilford North Lee Scott (Conservative) Total Spending 653,345 Ilford South Mike Gapes (Labour) Leyton and Wanstead Harry Cohen (Labour) Partly funded by: Income from fees and charges 74,791 Northern Wards in Redbridge Government specific grants 218,194 Dedicated schools grant 174,628 Monkhams, Bridge, Fairlop, Hainault, Church End, Roding, Fullwell, Clayhall, Barkingside, Aldborough, Snaresbrook Budget Requirement 185,732
Southern Wards In Redbridge Financed By:
Wanstead, Cranbrook, Valentines, Newbury, Loxford, Clementswood, Formula Grant 91,548 Mayfield, Seven Kings, Goodmayes, Chadwell Balance to be met by Council Tax 94,183
11 Comprehensive Performance Assessment 2006
Overall performance for London Borough of Redbridge: How London Borough of Redbridge’s main services performed:
According to the Audit Commission’s assessment Redbridge is a council that is Service 2006 improving well and demonstrating a 3 star overall performance. Benefits 4 Children and Young People 3* Culture 2 Environment 3 Housing 2 Social Care (adults) 4 Use of Resources 3
Each service is scored on a scale of 1to 4, with 1 being the lowest and 4 being the highest. * - Score used is from 2005
Source: Audit Commission 2006
Source: Audit Commission 2006
12 they have a faith. There is strong respect and understanding between the 1.0 Introduction different faiths; a crucial fact in an area with both large Muslim and Jewish populations. This document provides a profile of Redbridge, its people and local conditions. Comprising one of the most culturally diverse communities in The Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) survey showed that over two London, Redbridge is also one of the most well-integrated and cohesive thirds (64%) of Redbridge residents are satisfied with their local areas as a communities. It has an exciting location, right on the edge of the Olympic place to live and only 15% were critical of their area. This is broadly Boroughs and is recognised as an area of opportunity and growth both consistent with the Outer London average (66%) although slightly below by the Government and the Mayor of London, as it is situated between the overall average for London (68%). The survey also showed that 51% the Thames Gateway and the M11 Corridor. of residents were satisfied with the way Redbridge Council is running the Borough and 15% were dissatisfied. Crime levels and clean streets were Redbridge is a relatively affluent Borough, and is consequently excluded the top priorities for residents in both 2003/04 and 2006/07. from eligibility for a raft of Government funding. Nevertheless, there are still some very deprived areas that the Council and associated partners In February 2007, the Audit Commission found Redbridge Council to be are working hard to improve. The Council and its partners have clear and improving well with strong performances in social and education services challenging ambitions for Redbridge and its people. These are set out in for children, social care for adults and benefits services. The council has the Community Strategy, ‘Making a Difference in Redbridge’, developed achieved eight of its twelve Local Public Service Agreement targets and by the Redbridge Strategic Partnership (RSP). This was completed in over two thirds of performance indicators have improved. Redbridge has October 2003 after a detailed consultation process involving a range of been rated a 3 star authority following a Comprehensive Performance events, focus groups, data from existing consultations and rich statistical Assessment (CPA) in 2006. information and knowledge about the Borough. Redbridge Council is therefore on a journey of continuous improvement. Well-established information sharing protocols help the Council and its With strong political leadership and a strategic senior management team, partners to frame their thinking and set priorities. This means that the we have worked hard to build up local partnerships; to better understand Council’s key strategies are linked to the needs of local communities. the needs of our communities; to develop a shared vision and ambitions; to constantly improve our good and excellent services; to make step Among Redbridge’s population of 251,500 there is a high proportion of changes in our weaker services; and to make the most of the many young people and a high degree of ethnic diversity. Despite troubles at opportunities we have to improve the quality of life for all our residents. home and abroad, the communities live together in relative peace and We have achieved a great deal already: harmony. An increasingly diverse ethnic profile is emerging, with many people from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh living in the Borough. • Redbridge is a safer, cleaner and greener place to live, with Redbridge is the ninth most diverse community in the country, with significant improvements in community safety and community 36.5% of the population coming from black and minority ethnic (BME) cohesion alleviating potential threats to our diverse communities. communities. Faith is important to the people of Redbridge. There are Redbridge is now the sixth cleanest London Borough. over 130 places of worship and a large number of residents (82.9%) say
13 • Redbridge is a better place to learn, with local schools achieving some of the best results for educational attainment in the country.
• Redbridge is a better place for care with 3-star performance in adult social services and our groundbreaking Children’s Trust.
• We have created a better place for business, built on our priority to regenerate Ilford Town Centre.
• Redbridge is a better place to live together. With our partners we
provided over 200 new affordable homes for Redbridge residents in 2005/06. With the neighbouring London Borough of Havering, we set up the first joint Home Improvement Agency in the country, helping people to adapt their homes so that they can live independently.
There have been previous plans and strategies and statistical profiles published on Redbridge. The purpose of this particular profile is to provide additional analysis that has not been presented before. This will subsequently help to identify the important trends and processes that are affecting local people and local conditions in Redbridge. Such information is not always readily accessible when developing strategies and prioritising local issues.
The latest statistics at ward and Borough level are provided and, where appropriate, have been compared with national, regional and wider community information. Most of the statistics have been summarised in graphs and tables, with additional explanatory and analytical text.
This profile aims to highlight the relationships between various social and economic issues in the Borough. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the Borough in the context of the Council’s main community- based priorities.
14 2.0 Demographic Analysis and Implications
Key Features
• The population of Redbridge was 238,600 in the 2001 Census. • The current population of Redbridge was estimated to be 254,400 in mid-2007, an increase of 6.6% from 2001. • In mid–2007, net migration accounted for 13% of total population change. Redbridge recorded the ninth highest growth in net migration in London and the fifth highest in Outer London. • The population of Redbridge is forecast (ONS) to grow by 13% and 14% by 2011 and 2021 respectively. • The overall proportion of children aged 0-15 within the Redbridge population is 21.6% in the mid-2007 population estimate. • Loxford and Clementswood wards were the fourth and eleventh most ethnically diverse wards in London in 2001. • In the mid-2006 population estimate, 41.4% of the population of Redbridge was from black and minority ethnic (BME) communities. • The BME population of Redbridge is projected to reach 51.4% of the total population by 2012 and 59.2% by 2026.
2.1 Introduction Fig 2.1 Population Trend in Redbridge (1981 - 2021) Population Trend in Redbridge (1981-2021) Redbridge is an outer London Borough situated in the north-east of the capital, bordering Waltham Forest, Havering, Newham, Barking and 300 Dagenham and Essex. Redbridge is a diverse Borough but with well- 290 288.0 integrated and cohesive communities. The BVPI survey conducted by 280 MORI in 2006/07 showed that 64% of residents are satisfied with their 270 area as a place to live. 264.9 260 251.9 247.4 250 254.4 238.6 249 This section provides an analysis of demographic trends in Redbridge. 240 246.3 The analysis covers the age, ethnicity and distribution of the population 230 224.7 224.7 232.8 of the Borough. The components of a changing population (birth, 220 mortality and migration) are also analysed in this section. The evolving 210 221.9 nature of the Borough’s diversity and population projections are 200 1981 1991 1993 1996 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2011 2021 examined in detail. (Census) (Census) (MYE) (MYE) (Census) (MYE) (MYE) (MYE) (MYE) (MYE) (ONS) (ONS)
All figures in '000 Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics (ONS) Mid-Year Population Estimates (MYE) The Borough’s response to these demographic changes has been presented throughout the document. Fig 2.2 Population Projections for Redbridge (2006-2021)
2.2 Trends in Population Growth Population Projections for Redbridge (2006-2021)
The population of Redbridge has shown a steady increase since the 296.0 292.0 290.1 1991 Census as presented in Fig 2.1. After a 1.2% decline in population 288.0 285.9 284.0 281.5 between the 1981 and 1991 Census, the population of Redbridge 280.0 277.0 increased by 7.5% between 1991 and 2001. 276.0 272.3 272.0 267.4 271.5 272.7 268.0 270.0 264.0 262.3 267.7 Since the latest Census in 2001, the population of Redbridge has risen 264.6 by 6.6% to 254,400 in mid-2007. The population of Redbridge has 260.0 257.0 261.8 256.0 251.9 258.0 grown twice as fast as that of Outer London (3.2%) between the 2001 252.0 253.4 248.0 248.5 Census and mid-2007. Redbridge is ranked the eleventh largest 244.0 borough in Greater London and the seventh largest borough in 240.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 London East, based on the mid-2007 population estimates. Between Year ONS 2006 Round Projections GLA 2006 PLP High Projections Mid-2006 and Mid-2007 the population of Redbridge increased by 2,400. All figures in '000 Source: GLA population projections and Office for National Statistics 2004 projections Redbridge was ranked 9th in terms of population growth (1.0%) in Table 2.1 Population Change in Redbridge Wards (2001-2011) London between mid-2006 and mid-2007. The population of Redbridge Population Mid-2006 % Change 2011 GLA % Change has grown at an average of 1.1% per year between 2001 and mid-2007, Ward 2001 Estimate 2001-2006 Projection 2001-2011 compared to 0.53% in Outer London. Redbridge recorded the seventh Aldborough 11,600 13,155 13.4% 12,400 6.9% highest increase in population in Greater London and the second Barkingside 11,300 11,627 2.9% 11,600 2.7% highest in Outer London. Table 2.2 shows the change in population Bridge 11,200 11,354 1.4% 11,400 1.8% between mid-2006 and mid-2007 for London boroughs. Chadwell 11,000 12,745 15.9% 11,900 8.2% Church End 9,900 9,485 -4.2% 11,600 17.2% 2.3 Population Projections For Redbridge Clayhall 11,800 12,136 2.8% 12,000 1.7% Clementswood 11,200 11,765 5.0% 14,600 30.4% As shown in Fig. 2.2, the Greater London Authority (GLA) 2007 PLP high Cranbrook 11,800 12,517 6.1% 12,000 1.7% Projections and the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2006 Subnational Fairlop 10,400 11,783 13.3% 11,800 13.5% Projections anticipate a steady growth in Redbridge’s population Fulwell 11,200 11,697 4.4% 11,700 4.5% between 2006 and 2021. The differences in the projection models used Goodmayes 10,900 11,752 7.8% 11,200 2.8% account for the different estimates by the GLA and ONS. The ONS uses Hainault 11,300 11,755 4.0% 12,500 10.6% a trend-based model to forecast migration while the GLA uses data on Loxford 13,500 15,323 13.5% 17,000 25.9% new housing development for the same forecast. Mayfield 11,200 11,990 7.1% 11,300 0.9% Monkhams 9,800 9,818 0.2% 10,000 2.0% There is a marked difference between the two projections. Based on Newbury 13,000 14,325 10.2% 14,000 7.7% the ONS population projections, the population of Redbridge is Roding 10,700 10,947 2.3% 11,000 2.8% estimated to grow by 11.1% between 2001 and 2011. By 2016 and Seven Kings 11,900 12,665 6.4% 12,900 8.4% 2021 the population of Redbridge is projected to increase by 16.1% Snaresbrook 10,800 10,843 0.4% 11,000 1.9% and 20.7% respectively taking 2001 as a base year. Valentines 11,600 12,576 8.4% 12,400 6.9% Wanstead 11,500 11,684 1.6% 11,600 0.9% Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics ward projections 2.4 Population Trends at Ward Level
The ONS projections for 2011 reveal that the population in the southern half of the Borough will continue to grow faster than in northern wards. As shown in Table 2.1 the populations of southern wards such as Clementswood, Loxford, Seven Kings, Valentines, Chadwell and Newbury are projected to grow significantly by 2011.
The projections anticipate that the highest growth in ward population will occur in Clementswood (30.4%). Five wards will record population growth in excess of 10% as shown in Fig. 2.4. 2.5 Population Distribution Table 2.2 Change in Population (mid-2006 – mid-2007) Actual Local Authority Mid-2006 Mid-2007 Change % Change Rank The population distribution of Redbridge in the 2001 Census revealed a Population Population No. growing population. Fig 2.3 shows that wards such as Chadwell, Loxford, Aldborough, Fairlop and Newbury recorded significant City of London 7.8 8.0 0.2 2.6% 1 Camden 227.5 231.9 4.5 1.9% 2 increases in population between 2001 and 2006. During the same Southwark 269.2 274.4 5.2 1.9% 3 period, Church End recorded a decline in population. Kingston upon Thames 155.9 157.9 2 1.3% 4 Islington 185.5 187.8 2.3 1.2% 5 Tower Hamlets 212.8 215.3 2.5 1.2% 6 Fig 2.3 Changes in Ward Population for Redbridge (2001 - 2006) Lewisham 255.7 258.5 2.8 1.1% 7
Changes in ward population for Redbridge 2001-2006 Wandsworth 279.0 281.8 2.9 1.0% 8
20.00% Redbridge 251.9 254.4 2.4 1.0% 9 16% Westminster 231.9 234.1 2.3 0.9% 10 14% 13% 13% 15.00% Hounslow 218.6 220.6 2 0.9% 11 10% Sutton 184.4 185.9 1.5 0.8% 12 8% 8% 10.00% 7% Merton 197.7 199.3 1.5 0.8% 13 6% 6% 5% Croydon 337.0 339.5 2.6 0.7% 14 4% 4% 5.00% 3% 3% 2% Barking and Dagenham 165.7 166.9 1.3 0.7% 15 2% 1% 0% 0% Hammersmith and Fulham 171.4 172.5 1.1 0.6% 16 0.00% Hackney 208.4 209.7 1.3 0.6% 17 Bromley 299.1 300.7 1.6 0.5% 18 -5.00% -4% Bridge Havering 227.3 228.4 1.1 0.5% 19 Fairlop Fulwell Roding Loxford Clayhall Hainault Mayfield Newbury Chadwell
Wanstead Newham 248.4 249.6 1.2 0.5% 20 Cranbrook Valentines Monkhams Aldborough Barkingside Church End Church Goodmayes Seven Kings -10.00% Snaresbrook Lambeth 272 273.2 1.3 0.4% 21 Clementswood Kensington and Chelsea 178.0 178.6 0.6 0.3% 22 Source: 2001 Population Census, Mid-2006 Estimate, Office for National Statistics Barnet 328.6 329.7 1.1 0.3% 23 Hillingdon 250.0 250.7 0.7 0.3% 24 Richmond upon Thames 179.5 180.0 0.4 0.3% 25 Fig 2.4 Projected Changes in Ward Population for Redbridge (2001-2011) Waltham Forest 221.7 222.3 0.6 0.3% 26
35% Bexley 221.6 222.1 0.5 0.2% 27 30% Projected changes in ward population for Redbridge 2001-2011 Greenwich 222.6 223.1 0.5 0.2% 28 30% 26% Harrow 214.6 214.6 0.1 0.0% 29 25% Enfield 285.3 285.1 -0.2 -0.1% 30
20% 17% Ealing 306.4 305.3 -1.1 -0.4% 31 14% Haringey 225.7 224.7 -0.9 -0.4% 32 15% 11% Brent 271.4 270.0 -1.5 -0.5% 33 8% 8% 8% 10% 7% 7% Outer London 4,539.40 4,556.60 17.2 0.4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% Inner London 2,972.90 3,000.30 27.4 0.9% 5% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% LONDON 7,512.40 7,556.90 44.6 0.6% 0% Source: ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates. All figures in thousands Bridge Fairlop Fulwell Roding Loxford Clayhall Hainault Mayfield Newbury Chadwell Wanstead Cranbrook Valentines Monkhams Aldborough Barkingside Church End Goodmayes Seven Kings Snaresbrook Clementswood Source: 2001 census, Office for National Statistics, GLA Projections 2.6 Population Density population density than the Inner London average of 93.1 pph in 2006. The lowest density in Redbridge is in Aldborough ward with a density Population density is a measure of the number of people per hectare. of 15.3 pph. Given the new residential developments around Ilford Redbridge’s average population density of 44.7 people per hectare Town Centre, the density of Clementswood ward is likely to increase (pph) in 2006 was below the London average of 47.8 pph. However, further. Redbridge is more densely populated than the Outer London average (table 2.3). 2.7 Redbridge Age Profile
Table 2.3 Population Density in Redbridge Wards The population profile of London boroughs tends to be younger on 2001 Area Census 2001 Mid-2006 Estimate average than the United Kingdom. The mean age of London is 35.95 All People Hectares Density PPH Density PPH compared to 38.9 for the United Kingdom. The mean age of Redbridge Loxford 13,500 126 107.1 121.6 Clementswood 11,200 127 88.2 92.6 is 36.99. The population pyramid in Fig 2.5 shows the age profile of the Chadwell 11,000 151 72.8 84.4 population of Redbridge. The Redbridge pyramid is broadly in line Valentines 11,600 150 77.3 83.8 with the UK average. Barkingside 11,300 153 73.9 76.0 Goodmayes 10,900 165 66.1 71.2 Newbury 13,000 212 61.3 67.6 Fig 2.5 Population Pyramid for Redbridge Census 2001 Mayfield 11,200 188 59.6 63.8 Church End 9,900 149 66.4 63.7 Men Seven Kings 11,900 208 57.2 60.9 Women Snaresbrook 10,800 199 54.3 54.5 Fulwell 11,200 219 51.1 53.4 Cranbrook 11,800 241 49.0 51.9 Clayhall 11,800 249 47.4 48.7 Roding 10,700 234 45.7 46.8 Bridge 11,200 258 43.4 44.0 Fairlop 10,400 359 29.0 32.8 Monkhams 9,800 307 31.9 32.0 Wanstead 11,500 520 22.1 22.5 Hainault 11,300 564 20.0 20.8 Aldborough 11,600 861 13.5 15.3 Redbridge 238,600 5,641 42.3 44.7 Greater London 7,172,100 157,205 45.6 47.8 Inner London 2,766,100 31,929 86.6 93.1 Outer London 4,406,000 125,276 35.2 36.2 Source: 2001 Population Census, Mid-2006 population estimate, Office for National Statistics
Inner London’s density of 93.1 pph is 2.5 times the density of Outer Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics London. The most densely populated wards in Redbridge are located in the south. As shown in Table 2.3, Clementswood has a higher The overall proportion of children aged 0-15 within Redbridge’s population is 21.4% and ranks the Borough as the fifty-ninth youngest Table 2.4 Population Changes in Specific Age Groups (2001-2011) (of 408) in Britain in 2001. The national average for 0-15 year olds is Age Group 2001 Mid-2007 2001/2007 2011 2001/2011 17.9% of the population. Change Projected Change
0-15 51,000 54,900 7.6% 58,800 15.3% Between 2001 and 2007 the 16-59 female/16-64 male age group 16 - 59 increased by 8.1% (Table 2.4) and this trend is set to continue (using female/64male 149,200 161,300 8.1% 167,100 12.0% 2006 ONS projections) with a projected change of 12.0% by 2011. Fig 60Female/65male+ 38,400 38,200 -0.5% 39,100 1.8% 2.6 illustrates an increase in the 30-44 and 45-59 age groups between Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics 1991 and 2001. A notable change that occurred between 1991 and 2001 was the decline in the percentage of older people in the Borough A comparison of the 2001 and mid-2007 population for the Borough (Fig 2.6). (Table 2.4) shows that those aged 0 -15 increased by 7.6%. It has been projected by the ONS that this same age group will increase by 15.3% The mid–2007 population estimates for older people, show a decline of between 2001 and 2011. 0.5% from the 2001 Census. The ONS projections show a rise in the 60+ female/65+ male age group in 2011. Table 2.5 Proportion of Population of Working Age (2001), London East
Fig 2.6 Comparison of Age Structure, 1991 & 2001 Census Proportion of population of working age (2001) Filtered by Sub Region: London East Rank. District Region % National Rank Comparison of Age Structure 1991 & 2001 Census 25% 1 London City London 75.53 1 2 Tower Hamlets London 66.28 17 20% 3 Lewisham London 66.15 18 4 Hackney London 65.66 24 15% 5 Greenwich London 63.38 53 6 Newham London 63.34 54 10% 7 Redbridge London 62.58 85 8 Bexley London 60.71 219 5% 9 Barking and Dagenham London 60.05 270 10 Havering London 59.91 280 0% United Kingdom: 63.17 0 - 4 5 - 7 8 - 9 10 - 15 16 - 18 - 20 - 25 - 30 - 45 - 60 - 65 - 75 - 85 - 90+ 2001 1991 14 17 19 24 29 44 59 64 74 84 89 Source: Local Knowledge; Crown Copyright; Census 2001 Notes: National Average=United Kingdom Average Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics
The proportion of Redbridge’s population falling within the working Table 2.6 Proportion of Population in Specific Age Brackets, Census 2001 % of % of % of % of age bracket is 62.58%, which is lower than the national average of Wards 0-15 Ward Wards 20-44 Ward Wards 16-65Ward Wards 65+ Ward 63.17%, as shown in Table 2.5. The proportion of people falling within the working age bracket in Redbridge is the seventh highest in London Loxford 3,846 28% Valentines 5,140 44% Valentines 8,043 69% Snaresbrook 2,212 20% East and eighty-fifth highest nationally. Clementswood 3,015 27% Goodmayes 4,728 43% Church End 6,842 68% Hainault 2,278 20%
Newbury 3,151 24% Loxford 5,667 42% Goodmayes 7,469 68% Monkhams 1,933 20% 2.8 Age Structure at Ward Level Goodmayes 2,476 23% Roding 4,441 41% Seven Kings 8,027 67% Fullwell 2,036 18% Chadwell 2,466 22% Snaresbrook 4,387 40% Roding 7,126 66% Barkingside 1,877 17% Loxford, Clementswood, Newbury, Goodmayes and Chadwell have a Seven Kings 2,635 22% Seven Kings 4,811 40% Cranbrook 7,833 66% Chadwell 1,700 15% significantly higher proportion of 0–15 year olds compared to other Roding 2,370 22% Church End 4,016 40% Bridge 7,352 66% Wanstead 1,756 15% wards (Table 2.6). All the wards with higher proportions of children are Barkingside 2,450 22% Clementswood 4,463 40% Wanstead 7,522 65% Aldborough 1,736 15% located in the south of the Borough. The southern wards also account Fairlop 2,232 21% Bridge 4,408 39% Newbury 8,498 65% Clayhall 1,771 15% for a higher proportion of people in the critical age band of 20–44, Aldborough 2,469 21% Chadwell 4,250 39% Snaresbrook 7,048 65% Fairlop 1,555 15% which includes people with high economic activity rates and the Clayhall 2,504 21% Newbury 4,837 37% Mayfield 7,247 65% Mayfield 1,671 15% majority of females of childbearing age. Valentines, Goodmayes and Valentines 2,452 21% Cranbrook 4,362 37% Clayhall 7,580 64% Church End 1,370 14% Loxford wards account for the highest percentage of 20-44 year olds in Bridge 2,334 21% Fairlop 3,763 36% Aldborough 7,406 64% Cranbrook 1,625 14% Redbridge. Mayfield 2,308 21% Aldborough 4,184 36% Clementswood 7,195 64% Bridge 1,525 14%
Hainault 2,329 20% Wanstead 4,141 36% Fairlop 6,633 64% Roding 1,274 12%
The other wards with relatively high percentages of 20-44 year olds are Cranbrook 2,400 20% Mayfield 3,948 35% Monkhams 6,257 63% Newbury 1,425 11% Roding, Snaresbrook, Seven Kings, and Church End. Northern wards like Snaresbrook, Hainault, Monkhams, Fullwell, and Barkingside have Fullwell 2,271 20% Hainault 3,859 34% Loxford 8,501 63% Seven Kings 1,248 10% relatively higher proportions of their populations aged over 65 Wanstead 2,228 19% Barkingside 3,656 32% Chadwell 6,864 62% Valentines 1,148 10% compared to the southern wards (Table 2.6). Church End 1,785 18% Fullwell 3,645 32% Fullwell 6,962 62% Goodmayes 1,049 10% Monkhams 1,676 17% Monkhams 3,144 32% Barkingside 6,976 62% Clementswood 1,076 10% Snaresbrook 1,594 15% Clayhall 3,737 32% Hainault 6,760 59% Loxford 1,238 9% Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics
2.9 Components of Population Change Fig 2.7a Live Births for Redbridge Wards, 2007
350 Live Birth 2007 The aggregate population change for an area is the sum of natural 300 change (births minus deaths), net migration and other changes (such 250 as changes in the number of resident armed forces and pupils in 200
boarding schools). Natural change in population underpinned Births 150 population growth in Redbridge. Net migration accounted for 12.5% of the population change in mid-2007. 100 50
0 Table 2.7 Components of Change, mid-2001 - mid–2007 Loxford Valentines Chadwell Newbury Goodmayes Clementswood Aldborough Kings Seven Cranbrook Mayfield Roding Hainault Bridge Fairlop End Church Snaresbrook Fullwell Wanstead Barkingside Clayhall Monkhams Net migration Total Population Live Deaths Natural & change Population Births Change other changes Mid-2001 Mid-2002 241.9 3.1 2.1 0.9 1.1 2 243.9 Source: Office for National Statistics Mid-2002 Mid-2003 243.9 3.4 2 1.3 1.1 2.4 246.3 Fig 2.7b Live Birth: Age of Mother 2007 Mid-2003 Mid-2004 45 + Under 18 246.3 3.4 2.1 1.3 -0.2 1.1 247.4 0.2% 0.9% Live Birth: Age of Mother (2007) Mid-2004 Mid-2005 40-44 18-19 3.6% 2.4% 247.4 3.5 2 1.4 0.2 1.7 249 20-24 Mid-2005 Mid-2006 35-39 17.5% 249 3.8 1.9 1.9 1 2.9 251.9 14.5% Mid-2006 Mid-2007 251.9 4.0 1.9 2.1 0.3 2.4 254.4 Figures in thousands, (figures in this table may not add- up due to rounding) Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics
2.10 Natural Change in Population 30-34 30.5% 25-29 There were 4,000 live births and 1,900 deaths in Redbridge, giving rise 30.3% to a natural change of 2,100 people in 2007 (Table 2.7). The General Fertility Rate (GFR) in the Borough is 73.1 (GFR is the number of live 2.11 Migration births per 1000 women aged 15-44). Loxford recorded the highest birth rate in Redbridge, three times that of Monkhams. Loxford, Levels of net migration are becoming a very important component of Valentines, Clementswood, Newbury, Chadwell and Goodmayes population change in Redbridge. In mid-2007, Redbridge recorded the accounted for 38% of all births in Redbridge (Fig 2.7a). The southern 5th highest growth in net migration in outer London and the 9th in part of the Borough recorded 61% of all births in Redbridge in 2007. Greater London (Fig 2.8).
The marked growth in the number of females aged 16-59 and males Fig 2.8 Net Migration, mid-2007 aged 16-64 between 1991 and 2001 is attributed to migration flows into Redbridge. Table 2.8 compares internal migration for boroughs in Mid-2007 Net Migration - London London East. As can be seen, Redbridge, like most London boroughs, recorded a net loss of people to other parts of the country. The largest net outflow from London was from the Inner London boroughs. This Brent -4.7 Ealing -4.4 may be due to people looking for more living space, affordable Haringey -4.0 housing, retirement etc. Newham -3.1 Enfield -2.8 Waltham Forest -2.2 Table 2.8 Internal Migration for London East Greenwich -2.1 Hackney -2.1 Internal migration for London East mid-2006 to mid-2007 (thousands) Lambeth -2.0 All Persons Harrow -1.4 -1.4 AREA Inflow Outflow Balance Barnet Hillingdon -1.2 City of London 0.8 0.7 0.1 Richmond upon Thames -1.1 Havering 10.4 9.3 1.1 Kensington and Chelsea -0.8 Barking and Dagenham -0.7 Bexley 10.9 11.0 -0.1 Hammersmith and Fulham -0.7 Redbridge 16.1 16.5 -0.4 Bexley -0.5 Greenwich 14.5 18.1 -3.6 Tower Hamlets -0.5 Merton -0.4 Barking and Dagenham 10.7 12.1 -1.4 Hounslow -0.4 Lewisham 18.3 21.1 -2.8 Wandsworth -0.4 -0.1 Tower Hamlets 14.8 17.9 -3.2 Croydon Lewisham -0.1 Hackney 13.9 17.3 -3.4 City of London 0.2 Newham 14.4 23.1 -8.7 Redbridge 0.3 Sutton 0.4 LONDON 166.9 248.4 -81.4 Bromley 0.4 All figures are in thousand. Some figures may not add up due to rounding. Source: © ONS Westminster 0.4 2004 Mid-Year Estimates Islington 0.6 Havering 0.7 Kingston upon Thames 1.0 1.8 Internal migration data indicates that London posted a net loss of Southwark 81,400 people in 2007 (Table 2.8). Over the last couple of years, growth Camden 2.6 in net migration in Redbridge has been fuelled by net flows from -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 international migration. Table 2.9 shows that migrants moving into
Redbridge are mainly concentrated in the southern part of the (000) Borough. The 2001 Census showed that 52% of all migrants moved into wards in the south. People moving into the Borough from outside All figures are in thousands the UK are also concentrated in the south. Source: © ONS 2004 Mid-Year Estimates
Table 2.9 Migration Table KS24FN 2001 Census the country, with Newham the most diverse (Table 2.10). The recent Ward All Migrants Moved Moved No usual Moved Moved ethnic estimates for Redbridge indicates that the BME population now People to area to area address within out of the account for 41.4% of the population in mid-2006. from from one year the area within outside ago area UK UK Table 2.10 Top Ten Boroughs with Large Share of Black & Minority Ethnic Groups Valentines 11643 1847 1193 208 248 198 1279 (BME) Table KS06 2001Census Loxford 13585 1826 1228 158 252 188 1210 White British & BME All BME % of Rank Church End 9997 1647 1297 122 103 125 1344 Other White Groups People Population Seven Kings 11910 1548 997 233 159 159 1117 Newham 96,130 147,761 243,891 60.6% 1 Snaresbrook 10854 1416 1075 91 100 150 1123 Goodmayes 10994 1313 995 97 106 115 1029 Brent 119,278 144,186 263,464 54.7% 2 Clementswood 11286 1235 763 115 211 146 1128 Tower Hamlets 100,799 95,307 196,106 48.6% 3 Newbury 13074 1218 873 104 118 123 1011 Roding 10770 1205 930 76 118 81 931 Ealing 176,741 124,207 300,948 41.3% 4 Cranbrook 11858 1189 868 93 143 85 918 Aldborough 11611 1178 878 58 123 119 850 Harrow 121,543 85,271 206,814 41.2% 5
Chadwell 11030 1109 843 57 116 93 766 Hackney 120,468 82,356 202,824 40.6% 6 Fairlop 10420 1070 861 37 87 85 704 Wanstead 11506 1061 805 69 113 74 923 Lambeth 166,058 100,111 266,169 37.6% 7 Bridge 11211 1039 789 45 99 106 854 Southwark 154,316 90,550 244,866 37.0% 8 Fullwell 11269 1002 749 51 47 155 748 Mayfield 11226 990 683 90 95 122 878 Redbridge 151,587 87,048 238,635 36.5% 9 Barkingside 11303 927 716 61 104 46 652 Monkhams 9866 924 734 61 50 79 720 Waltham Forest 140,803 77,538 218,341 35.5% 10
Hainault 11367 903 689 37 61 116 613 London 5,103,203 2,068,888 7,172,091 28.8% Clayhall 11855 798 575 56 77 90 639 Source: © ONS 2004 Mid-Year Estimates Outer London 3,286,598 1,119,379 4,405,977 25.4%
Inner London 1,816,605 949,509 2,766,114 34.3% 2.12 Ethnic Diversity Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics
Redbridge has a higher proportion of people stating their ethnic group According to the 2006 ethnic estimates the largest single non-white as Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) than London as a whole. In the 2001 group in Redbridge is Indian, constituting 14.5% of the population. In Census, 36.5% of the population of Redbridge was BME as compared to London, Indians make up about 6.5% of the population. Asians (Indian, the London average of 28.8%. Since the 1991 Census, the percentage Pakistani, Bangladeshi and other Asians) make up about 27% of the of people stating their ethnic background as White decreased from population in Redbridge (Table2.11). The percentage of the White 78.5% to 63.5%, making Redbridge the ninth most diverse Borough in ethnic group declined from 63.5% in 2001 to 58.6% in mid-2006. Table 2.11 Ethnic Group Comparison in 2001 & mid-2006 - Redbridge One of the most significant changes in the ethnic composition is the Mid-2006 2006 2001 2001 % Change increase in those of mixed ethnicity (this category was not used in the (No.) (%) (No.) (%) 2001-2006 1991 Census). In the 2001 Census, mixed ethnic groups constituted White: British 131.1 52.0% 137.1 57.5% -5.4% approximately 2% of the population of Redbridge. White: Irish 5 2.0% 5.6 2.3% -0.3% Fig 2.9 Ethnic Breakdown in Redbridge (1991) White: Other White 11.5 4.6% 8.9 3.7% 0.8% White Ethnic Group 147.6 58.6% 151.6 63.5% -4.9% Ethnic Breakdown In Redbridge (1991) Chinese & Mixed: White and Black Caribbean 2.3 0.9% 1.9 0.8% 0.1% Blacks Others Mixed: White and Black African 1.2 0.5% 0.7 0.3% 0.2% 4% Mixed: White and Asian 2.3 0.9% 1.9 0.8% 0.1% 2% Mixed: Other Mixed 1.8 0.7% 1.4 0.6% 0.1% Mixed Ethnic Group 7.6 3.0% 5.8 2.4% 0.6% Asian or Asian British: Indian 36.4 14.5% 33.3 14.0% 0.5% Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 17.1 6.8% 14.9 6.2% 0.5% Asians Whites & Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 6.1 2.4% 4.2 1.8% 0.7% 15% Other Whites Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 8.6 3.4% 7.2 3.0% 0.4% 79% Asian Ethnic Group 68.2 27.1% 59.6 25.0% 2.1% Black or Black British: Black Caribbean 9.8 3.9% 9.1 3.8% 0.1% Source: 1991 Population Census, Office for National Statistics Black or Black British: Black African 12 4.8% 7.8 3.3% 1.5% Black or Black British: Other Black 1.5 0.6% 1.2 0.5% 0.1% Fig 2.10 Ethnic Breakdown in Redbridge (2001) Black Ethnic Group 23.3 9.2% 18.1 7.6% 1.7% Ethnic Breakdown In Redbridge (2001) Chinese or Other Ethnic Group: Chinese 2.7 1.1% 2.0 0.8% 0.2% Chinese or Other Ethnic Group: Other 2.5 1.0% 1.5 0.6% 0.4% Chinese & Mixed Chinese and Others 5.2 2.1% 3.5 1.5% 0.6% Blacks Others 2% Total Population 251.9 238.6 8% 1% BME Group 104.3 41.4% 87.05 36.5% 4.9% White Ethnic Group 147.6 58.6% 151.6 63.5% Source :Mid-2006 Population estimate, Office for National Statistics Whites & Figs 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11 illustrate the changing ethnic makeup of the Asians Other Whites Borough in 1991, 2001 and 2006. Between the two Census periods, the 25% 64% Black ethnic group posted the highest increase of 89% and the Asian ethnic group recorded a 73% growth in Redbridge. Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics
Fig 2.11 Ethnic Breakdown in Redbridge (Mid- 2006) British Asian or Asian: Indian
Ethnic Breakdown In Redbridge (mid-2006) 13.96% of people in Redbridge are of Indian ethnicity; more than Blacks Chinese & Others double that for London as a whole, and significantly greater than the 9% 2% 2.09% for England. Wards on the edge of Ilford have particularly high Indian populations. Over a quarter of the population of Goodmayes are of Indian ethnicity. Closer to the centre of Ilford, Clementswood also has a large proportion of Indian residents, at 25.62%.
Asians However, wards in the north of the Borough have few residents of 27% Whites 59% Indian ethnicity. For example, Hainault has just 2.23% and Bridge 2.5%.
Mixed British Asian or Asian: Pakistani 3%
A lower percentage of the population of Redbridge is of Pakistani Source: Mid-2006 Population Estimate, Office for National Statistics ethnicity than of Indian ethnicity. However, at 6.24% of Redbridge’s population, this is still well above the London figure of 1.99% and the 2.13 Ethnic Groups Composition at Ward Level (2001) 1.44% figure for England.
White People of Pakistani ethnicity are concentrated in a few wards across Redbridge. These tend to be the less affluent areas, with over 18% of In Redbridge 63.52% of people describe their ethnicity as White. This is the populations of Clementswood and Loxford wards being of slightly below the London figure of 71.15%. However, both figures are Pakistani ethnicity. In contrast, less than 1% of the population of significantly lower than the 90.92% figure for England as a whole. Monkhams ward is of Pakistani ethnicity.
Several wards in the south of the Borough have a White British British Asian or Asian: Bangladeshi population of less than 50% of the total. In Clementswood, only 22.67% of the population described themselves as White: British and in Loxford Although fewer in number than those of Pakistani ethnicity, people of this figure was 23.69%. Bangladeshi ethnicity are distributed across Redbridge in a similar pattern. Between 4% and 5% of the total population of Loxford and However, in northern wards, people of White British ethnicity make up Clementswood wards are of Bangladeshi ethnicity. Once again, a very the overwhelming majority of the population. This is especially the case small proportion of the population in the north of the Borough is of in the Monkhams, Fairlop and Bridge wards in which 80% of the Bangladeshi ethnicity. population are White: British.
Black or Black British: Caribbean one or two ethnic groups. The Simpson Diversity Index score for Redbridge increased by 0.73 from the 1991 Census to 2.32 in the 2001 In contrast to people of Asian ethnicity, Redbridge is below the London Census (Table 2.12), indicating an increase in diversity within the average for its population of ethnic Caribbean. However, the 3.82% Borough. The score indicates that Redbridge is more diverse than the Borough figure is still well above the 1.14% for England. This figure Inner and Outer London averages. rises to 8.24% in Loxford and 6.39% in Goodmayes. Once again, wards in the north of the Borough, such as Monkhams and Church End, have Table 2.12 Comparing Diversity, 1991& 2001Census proportions of around 1%. Simpson's Diversity Score Simpson's Diversity Score 2001 1991 Black or Black British: African Loxford 5.71 3.60 Clementswood 5.07 3.32 The distribution of the ‘Black or Black British: African’ ethnic group Valentines 3.97 2.50 follows a similar pattern to that of Caribbean, both in terms of numbers Newbury 3.75 2.07 and location. Loxford and Clementswood have proportions of 8.24% Cranbrook 3.58 2.03 and 6.39% respectively, while Monkhams and Church End have figures Goodmayes 3.45 2.15 of 0.8% and 1.25%. Seven Kings 3.44 2.04 Mayfield 2.81 1.67 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group: Chinese Clayhall 2.52 1.55 Barkingside 2.31 1.50 Of Redbridge’s total population, 0.82% fall into this ethnic group; less Aldborough 2.07 1.46 than the 1.12% for London. The population of people of Chinese Chadwell 1.62 1.25 ethnicity is fairly evenly distributed across the Borough. Bridge ward Fullwell 1.60 1.26 has a percentage of 1.61% and Barkingside 1.49%, with Hainault and Roding 1.57 1.29 Chadwell having lower percentages. Wanstead 1.49 1.31 Snaresbrook 1.47 1.24 2.14 Measuring Ethnic Diversity in Redbridge Fairlop 1.41 1.22 Church End 1.37 1.18 The term ‘diversity’ is often used as an indicator of growing minority Bridge 1.36 1.20 populations. The Simpson Diversity Index (SDI), used in this report, Hainault 1.27 1.11 measures the diversity of population distribution and translates it into a Monkhams 1.26 1.11 single index number. The greater the index number, the more diverse Redbridge 2.32 1.59 the area, which means that there appears to be a more equal London 1.90 1.60 distribution of people in each ethnic group. A relatively low index Inner London 2.20 1.80 score does not necessarily mean there is a high white population in a Outer London 1.80 1.40 ward; it may indicate that a high percentage of the population is from Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics A third of wards in Redbridge had an SDI score above 3, all of which are 2.15 Ethnic Population Projections located in the south of the Borough. As shown in Table 2.12, a similar picture existed in 1991, when the southern wards were more diverse As can be seen from Fig. 2.12, the GLA 2007 Round Ethnic Group than the north. Projections indicate that in 2009, 52% of Redbridge’s population are from the White ethnic group and 48% are from the BME group. London’s score of 1.9 makes it the most ethnically diverse region However, the projections show that, by 2012, the BME population of compared to the national average of 1.2. Of the top ten most diverse Redbridge will be the same as the White ethnic group. wards in London, nine are in Newham (Table 2.13). Havering has eight of the ten least diverse wards in London. Loxford and Clementswood Fig. 2.12 Redbridge Ethnic Population Projections (2001-2026) wards were the fourth and eleventh most ethnically diverse wards in 70.0% White Group & Black Minority Ethnic Group Projection London in 2001. GLA 2007 Round Ethnic Group Projections - PLP Low 65.0% 63% Table 2.13 Top 15 Ethnically Diverse Wards in London 60.0% 2005-2026 58% Ethnic Ethnic Index 57% 57% 55.0% 54% 54% Diversity Diversity % Rank 53% 52% 51% 50% Ward Borough 1991 2001 Change 2001 50.0% 50% 50% 48% 49% 47% 46% Little Ilford Newham 3.4 6 180 1 45.0% 46% 43% 43% Manor Park Newham 4.1 6 147 2 42% Wall End Newham 3.1 5.9 188 3 40.0% 37% Loxford Redbridge 3.6 5.7 159 4 35.0% Green Street East Newham 4.9 5.6 116 5 30.0% Green Street West Newham 4.8 5.6 115 6 2001 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2017 2022 2026 Census East Ham Central Newham 3.4 5.4 162 7 White BME East Ham North Newham 4.1 5.3 129 8 Source: GLA 2007 round ethnic group projections Plaistow North Newham 2.9 5.2 179 9 Forest Gate South Newham 3.4 5.1 153 10 It should be noted, however, that these projections do not provide an Clementswood Redbridge 3.3 5.1 153 11 indication of levels of immigration to Redbridge from Eastern Europe or Tokyngton Brent 3.8 4.8 128 12 how these are likely to change over the next twenty years. A more Stonebridge Brent 3.5 4.7 134 13 detailed breakdown of the projections can be found in Appendix 2B. West Thornton Croydon 2.8 4.7 168 14 Boleyn Newham 2.5 4.6 186 15 2.16 Religion and Faith Groups Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics GLA
Redbridge's diversity is also illustrated by the fact that, in 2001, 50.7%
of Redbridge residents were of Christian religion, compared to 71.8%
for England and Wales. Of the other religions in the Borough, Islam was the second most common, practised by 11.9% of residents. As shown As shown in Fig 2.14, the majority of Black, Mixed and White ethnic in Table 2.14, only 9.6% of residents stated that they have ‘no religion’, groups are Christians. The majority of Muslims in Redbridge are Asians, compared to 14.8% nationally. although the Black and Mixed ethnic groups also have sizeable numbers describing themselves as Muslim. Appendices 2A and 2C provide a Table 2.14 Comparison of Population by Religion further breakdown of the data on ethnicity and religion. Redbridge England and Wales Fig 2.14 Ethnicity and Religion in Redbridge, 2001 Census Christian 50.7% 71.8% Buddhist 0.4% 0.3% Ethnicity and Religion In Redbridge Hindu 7.8% 1.1% Census 2001 Jewish 6.2% 0.5% 100% Muslim 11.9% 3.0% 90% Sikh 5.5% 0.6% 80% Other religions 0.4% 0.3% 70% No religion 9.6% 14.8% 60% Religion not stated 7.4% 7.7% 50% Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics 40% 30% Fig 2.13 Population by Religion 20% Redbridge: Religion (2001 Census) 10% No religion Religion not stated 0% 9.6% 7.4% White Mixed Asian Black Chinese & Other religions Other 0.4% Christian Buddhist Hindu Sikh Jewish Muslim Sikh 5.5% Any other religion No religion Religion not stated
Christian Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics Muslim 50.7% 11.9% Jewish Christians form the largest religious group in all the wards in Redbridge 6.2% (Table 2.15). However, the percentages of Christians and Muslims in Hindu Buddhist Clementswood and Loxford are relatively similar. Jews are 7.8% 0.4% concentrated in Barkingside and Clayhall. Hindus are evenly Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics distributed across all the wards in Redbridge. Table 2.15 Ward Population by Religion in Redbridge that showed that 82.9% of people in the Borough belonged to and practised a faith. The RFF is an independent organisation, which is Percentage of people stating religion as: supported by the Council, and aims to set up a network with other Other No Not agencies and groups. Its purpose is to promote the advancement of Christian Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh religion religion stated religion for public benefit by recognising the important contribution Aldborough 50.2 0.5 10.5 12.6 7.5 3.2 0.3 7.5 7.7 that religion and spirituality make to the life and culture of residents. Barkingside 36.2 0.5 12.0 21.1 9.4 5.2 0.5 6.0 9.0 Bridge 69.6 0.4 2.0 2.3 3.6 0.4 0.3 13.8 7.6 The Forum has already tackled issues around the environment, young Chadwell 68.5 0.2 3.2 1.7 4.5 3.2 0.3 10.6 7.7 people, urban spirituality, regeneration and health inequalities. Future Church End 61.6 0.5 3.4 5.5 3.8 0.7 0.3 17.3 7.0 public forum ideas have developed from the social climate within the Clayhall 32.1 0.4 13.9 19.9 11.1 7.6 0.3 5.6 9.1 Borough. These topics include faith and education, crime and how faith Clementswood 32.2 0.3 13.0 0.3 31.4 11.5 0.9 5.0 5.5 communities can serve as relevant agencies, the role of women and the Cranbrook 31.9 0.6 11.4 10.9 20.4 10.7 0.7 5.8 7.6 development of child protection policies amongst all faith and faith- Fairlop 63.8 0.4 4.0 7.1 3.9 1.1 0.2 11.9 7.7 based community organisations. Fullwell 57.2 0.5 6.1 11.5 6.2 2.3 0.4 9.0 6.9 Goodmayes 44.9 0.6 11.1 1.0 16.2 12.4 0.2 7.8 5.8 2.18 Asylum Seekers in Redbridge Hainault 70.2 0.1 1.4 3.5 2.7 0.7 0.2 12.4 8.8 Loxford 34.3 0.3 12.1 0.9 31.2 7.6 0.4 6.8 6.5 London has a tradition of supporting refugees from all over the world Mayfield 53.5 0.5 10.3 0.9 14.0 9.2 0.4 6.0 5.2 through provision of services to help them to settle and contribute to Monkhams 66.4 0.3 2.9 8.3 2.5 0.9 0.3 12.1 6.3 London’s economic and cultural development. The Asylum Team in Newbury 39.8 0.6 14.1 6.4 14.8 8.8 0.7 6.1 8.8 Redbridge has served refugees from Kosovo and Albania following the Roding 63.7 0.4 2.5 3.4 6.5 1.0 0.4 14.0 8.2 civil disturbances in that region. The largest group of young people Seven Kings 45.4 0.4 9.6 1.1 14.9 13.5 0.9 7.6 6.7 being served by the team are from Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly the Snaresbrook 58.2 0.6 4.0 7.4 5.8 1.5 0.4 15.3 6.9 Francophone countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Valentines 35.8 0.6 9.2 2.3 26.7 8.2 0.9 8.9 7.4 south-east Uganda), and from Kurdish Iran. Wanstead 62.8 0.8 3.3 2.4 5.2 1.6 0.4 15.9 7.6 Source: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics Asylum figures should be viewed with caution since there is a large 2.17 Redbridge Faith Forum degree of uncertainty associated with these figures. In most cases, figures concerning asylum seekers may be an underestimate since the Redbridge Faith Forum (RFF) is an umbrella organisation established in data may only refer to those asylum seekers who receive benefits from 2003 to act as a collective voice for the Borough’s faith communities. the Borough (information may exclude asylum seekers receiving There are more than 130 places of worship in Redbridge. The principles benefits from other local authorities). A table giving a breakdown of of the RFF are based on the core values of all faith beliefs: to achieve Asylum Statistics in London Boroughs is presented in Appendix 2D. good by overcoming social inequalities and injustices. The need for the Forum was identified following a feasibility study and the 2001 Census 2.19 Implications of Demographic Changes Housing provision will remain a key issue in Redbridge in the coming years. Demographic changes in Redbridge will require policy responses in a number of Service Areas over the coming years to ensure that we • The continued increase in life expectancy and the projected adequately address the demand for services and meet the expectations increase in the proportion of older people in Redbridge in 2011 is of our residents. likely to put pressure on health and social services. The quality of life of older people in Redbridge will also depend on the amount • The increasing BME population within Redbridge will have of disposable income available to them from state benefits or implications on the Council’s service delivery and strategies. The private savings. The way the Government responds to the Council commissioned a research on migrants from Eastern increased pressure to continue to provide for older people well Europe in 2008 to enable it understand the needs and views of past retirement age will impact more on older people in poor this new and growing community. Additionally, the Council has communities. embarked on the development of a community cohesion strategy.
• As noted in this section, migration has become a dominant factor in population growth in Redbridge. The statistics indicate that continued consideration should be given to the provision of adult learning and skills training facilities to cater for migrants with potentially low levels of educational attainment. This will ensure that Redbridge is creating an enabling environment to support a knowledge-based economy.
• Population growth puts pressure on the number of places in educational establishments. Recent reports by the Children’s Services indicate that the Council has put in place measures to address the demand for school places. The Council also needs to consider the possibility of increasing demand for school places from outside the Borough given the continued high educational attainment in Redbridge schools.
• Pressure on housing provision will continue given the pace of population growth in Redbridge. This situation is compounded by the fact that housing has become less affordable and the economic crisis has adversely affected the availability of credit.
3.0 Indices of Multiple Deprivation
2007
Key Features
• Redbridge is ranked as the 143rd most deprived of the 354 Local Authorities.
• There were only 6 Redbridge LSOAs in the 20% most deprived in England in 2004. This has increased to 13 in the ID2007. About 8.1% of the population in Redbridge reside in these 13 most deprived areas.
• Three Redbridge LSOAs in Valentines, Roding and Loxford are now in the 10% most deprived in England in 2007
• Council projects and initiatives, in conjunction with partner agencies, have been implemented to improve employment and training in the most deprived areas such as the Orchard Estate in Roding and Hainault.
• Clementswood Ward is the most deprived ward in Redbridge and Monkhams is the least deprived ward.
32 3.1 Introduction (IDAOPI) have also been published for 2007. All there Indices make up the Indices of Deprivation 2007. The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (IMD 2007) is a measure of multiple deprivation at small area level. This model is based on the idea The most deprived areas within London are concentrated in Inner that distinct indicators of deprivation can be measured individually and London in areas such as Newham, Camden, Tower Hamlets and Islington. combined to generate an overall score of deprivation. This measure Isolated areas of deprivation are also found in some Boroughs in Outer therefore takes account of the various elements contributing to London such as Greenwich, Croydon, Brent and Enfield. deprivation that affect people at a small area level. Deprivation is measured within Super Output Areas (SOAs) of around 1,500 people 3.2 Redbridge Deprivation Analysis across the country, allowing effective comparison of geographical areas. The IMD 2007 contains seven domains, relating to: Key Features - Borough Level
• Income deprivation; • Redbridge’s rank of average score has declined to 143rd most • Employment deprivation; deprived in England in the Indices of Deprivation 2007 (ID2007) • Health deprivation and disability; from 163rd in the ID2004. The decline in ranking implies that • Education, skills and training deprivation; Redbridge has become more deprived relative to other boroughs. th • Barriers to housing and services; Redbridge recorded the 6 highest decline in rankings in Greater London in 2007. Lower scores on the income, employment and • Living environment deprivation; barriers to housing and key services indicators contributed to the • Crime. increase in deprivation.
These seven domains have been measured for each SOA and combined • An analysis of the six measures shows that the Borough’s rankings to generate a score that is then ranked to allow comparison of SOAs in on all the six measures has worsened in 2007 compared to 2004. England. (Please see Appendix 3A for an explanation of the seven The Income Scale ranking, which measures the proportion of domains). people who are income deprived (people on low income/ income
support) has declined to 46th in 2007 from 57th in 2004. This is the The 2007 Indices are based on the ONS 2005 mid-year estimates for first time that one of the summary measures for Redbridge is in LSOAs. There are also six district summary scores for each local authority the top 501 (table 3.1). district (there are 354 districts in England) and for each county council and higher tier (there are 149 of these). A relative ranking of areas, according to their level of deprivation is then provided.
Supplementary indices measuring income deprivation amongst children and older people: the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index 1 (IDACI) and the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index Rankings are based on a total of 354 local authorities in England (where 1 is the most deprived).
33 Table 3.1 London East Rankings on Summary Measure of IMD 2007 • All the other six measures of deprivation at the local authority Borough Rank of Rank of Rank of Rank of Rank of Rank of level have worsened in ID2007 compared to ID2004 (table 3.1). Average Average Extent Concentration Income Employment Score Rank Scale Scale Key Features – Ward Level Tower Hamlets 3 3 3 21 8 36 Table 3.2: Average IMD Score at Ward level (Redbridge) Hackney 2 1 1 39 10 24 Redbridge Average IMD Average IMD Newham 6 2 2 51 7 26 Rank Ward Score 2007 Ward Score 2004 Greenwich 24 17 26 61 33 48 1 Clementswood 30.86 Loxford 27.88 Worst Barking and 2 Loxford 30.15 Clementswood 27.81 Dagenham 22 11 21 74 47 64 3 Hainault 29.09 Hainault 25.57 Lewisham 39 22 47 122 28 31 4 Valentines 27.86 Valentines 25.3 Redbridge 143 121 172 175 46 63 5 Goodmayes 24.32 Seven Kings 21.41 Bexley 194 199 177 178 86 92 6 Seven Kings 24.05 Goodmayes 20.37 Havering 200 197 187 186 79 83 7 Newbury 21.43 Newbury 18.41 City of 8 Fullwell 20.49 Roding 17.6 London 252 253 209 223 353 353 9 Mayfield 19.78 Fullwell 17.52 Redbridge 10 Aldborough 19.69 Aldborough 17.09 Rank in 2004 163 150 183 183 57 71 11 Roding 19.30 Fairlop 16.43 Source: CLG, IMD 2007. Ranks are based on 354 districts in England (1=most deprived, 354=least 12 Cranbrook 18.24 Mayfield 16.05 deprived) 13 Chadwell 17.62 Cranbrook 15.68 14 Fairlop 17.22 Snaresbrook 15.39 • High deprivation levels have become more widespread in 15 Bridge 17.20 Wanstead 15.02 Redbridge as a result of the decline in the Rank of Extent from 16 Wanstead 16.00 Bridge 14.46 183rd in 2004 to 172nd in 2007. This means that the proportion of 17 Snaresbrook 15.24 Chadwell 13.39 people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods in Redbridge 18 Barkingside 15.17 Barkingside 12.69 has increased. As more Redbridge LSOAs fall within the 30% 19 Church End 13.72 Church End 11.99 most deprived in the country, this ranking will continue to fall. 20 Clayhall 13.28 Clayhall 10.8 21 Monkhams 9.36 Monkhams 8.32 Best Source: CLG • The declined in the Rank of Concentration is a result of the worsening deprivation at the LSOA level in 2007. More LSOAs • When deprivation is considered at ward level, Clementswood has have become more deprived and 3 LSOAs are now in the 10% overtaken Loxford as the most deprived ward in Redbridge (table most deprived in the country. This means that 10% of Redbridge’s 3.2). Clementswood, Loxford and Valentines have a relatively high population are experiencing increased deprivation in their concentration of deprivation in the Borough. Most of the LSOAs neighbourhoods in these wards are within the 40% most deprived LSOA nationally.
34 Clementswood, Loxford and Valentines are priorities for tackling Table 3.3: Comparing the LSOA in the 20% most deprived in England in ID2004 deprivation. Deprivation in these wards is widespread and has and ID2007 worsened since 2004. RANK OF IMD RANK OF (where 1 is IMD (where most 1 is most • A decline in prosperity is affecting some wards. Some wards have deprived) WARD deprived) shown marked changes in their rankings. The IMD ranking for LSOA WARD NAME 2007 LSOA NAME 2004 Chadwell and Mayfield has worsened significantly between 2004 E01003783 Valentines 7% E01003761 Roding 11% and 2007 (table 3.2). Some of their LSOA are now in the 20% most E01003761 Roding 10% E01003783 Valentines 11% deprived in England. None of the LSOAs in Mayfield and Chadwell E01003735 Loxford 10% E01003735 Loxford 13% were in the 20% most deprived in 2004. At ward level these wards E01003726 Hainault 15% E01003712 Fullwell 19% have low level of deprivation. This masks some very marked E01003687 Clementswood 17% E01003785 Valentines 19% deprivation in particular neighbourhoods. E01003785 Valentines 17% E01003729 Loxford 20% E01003712 Fullwell 18% E01003728 Loxford 18% • Most of the Deprived wards in Redbridge are located in the south E01003686 Clementswood 19% of the Borough. E01003767 Seven Kings 19% E01003689 Clementswood 19% 3.3 IMD for small areas in Redbridge E01003758 Newbury 20% E01003769 Seven Kings 20% In general terms the number of deprived neighbourhoods has Source: CLG increased. A number of affluent neighbourhoods although still prosperous have become less so. The trend suggest a falling level • Clementswood, Seven Kings, Newbury and Hainault now have of relative prosperity overall. The key features of the Redbridge LSOAs in the 20% most deprived category. This is a new Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) are as follows. development since 2004.
• There were only 6 Redbridge LSOAs in the 20% most deprived in • There has been improvement in the education and skills England in 2004. This has increased to 13 in the ID2007 (table indicators. All the other domain measures have worsened 3.3). About 8.1% of the population in Redbridge live in these 13 significantly in 2007 (table 3.4). Deprivation indicators in the 20% most deprived areas. most deprived LSOA relating to income, housing and services and deprivation affecting children have worsened significantly. The • Three Redbridge LSOAs in Valentines, Roding and Loxford are main domain areas that the Council needs to focus on are as now in the 10% most deprived in England in 2007 (table 3.3). follows. There were no Redbridge LSOAs in the 10% most deprived in England in ID2004, suggesting that deprivation is worsening in 1. Income domain – 25% of Redbridge LSOAs fall within the these areas. 20% most deprived in 2007 (15% in 2004).
35 2. Barriers to Housing and Services – 13% of Redbridge LSOAs • The percentage of Redbridge LSOAs that are in the 20% most fall within the 20% most deprived in 2007 (4% in 2004). deprived under the income, barriers to housing and services and deprivation affecting children in England worsened significantly 3. Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index – 25% of between ID2004 and ID2007 (table 3.4). Redbridge LSOAs fall within the 20% most deprived in 2007 (15% in 2004). • A further analysis of the 13 most deprived LSOAs which feature in the 20% most deprived nationally, shows that with the exception 4. The 2007 crime indicators in the most deprived wards are of the Education domain, virtually all the other domains were similar to those in 2004. There have however been within the 35% most deprived in the country. There is a strong improvements in the more affluent areas of the borough. likelihood that more LSOAs will fall within the 10% most deprived in the country if steps are not taken to address deprivation in 5. Living Environment - 18% of Redbridge LSOAs fall within these neighbourhoods. the 20% most deprived in 2007 (15% in 2004). • The percentage of Redbridge LSOAs in the 20% least deprived Table 3.4: Redbridge LSOA’s in the Most/Least deprived 20% in England areas in England declined from 8.2% in ID2004 to 5.0% ID 2007. 2004 2007 2004 2007 We have fewer pockets of relative high prosperity. Most Most Least Least deprived deprived deprived deprived 20% 20% 20% 20% • One LSOA in Loxford (E01003729), which was in the most Multiple deprivation deprived 20% in England in ID2004, is no longer in the most measure 3.8% 8.2% 8.2% 5.0% deprived 20% in the ID2007. The change was due to slight Income 15.7% 25.2% 6.3% 6.9% improvements in its score under the Employment, Crime, Health Employment 3.1% 6.3% 8.8% 7.5% and Living Environment domains. Health Deprivation and Disability 0.6% 3.1% 3.1% 5.0% From our analysis of the indices at both the borough and small area level, Education, Skills and Redbridge has become relatively more deprived in 2007 compared to Training 1.9% 0.6% 35.8% 35.2% 2004. Although we have become more deprived, we are still not at the Barriers to Housing level of deprivation that will qualify us for funding to tackle deprivation in and Services 4.4% 13.2% 0.0% 0.0% Crime and Disorder 18.9% 18.9% 6.3% 4.4% the Borough. Without additional resources there is a need to consider Living Environment 15.1% 17.6% 0.6% 0.0% prioritising existing resources to tackle the higher levels of deprivation in Income deprivation certain parts of the Borough, particularly in the south. affecting Children 15.1% 25.2% 9.4% 6.9% Income deprivation affecting Older People 20.1% 21.4% 6.3% 5.7% Source: CLG
36 Table 3.5: Number of LSOA’s in the most deprived 20% under all the Domains Table 3.6: Number of LSOA’s in the least deprived 20% under all the Domains
Barriers to Barriers to ID No. Health Education, Housing Crime Living ID IDA NO. Multiple Health Education, Housing Living ID A of Multiple Employ and Skills and and and Environ A OP of deprivati Employ and Skills and and Crime and Environ AC OP SOA'sdeprivation Income ment Disability Training Services Disorder ment CI I SOA's on Income ment Disability Training Services Disorder ment I I Aldborough 8 Aldborough 8 2 2 1 Barkingside 8 5 Barkingside 8 2 Bridge 7 1 1 Bridge 7 1 1 1 2 Chadwell 7 1 Chadwell 7 1 1 Church End 7 1 2 1 1 7 1 2 1 Church End 7 2 2 1 Clayhall 8 1 1 6 1 Clayhall 8 3 1 Clementswood 7 Clementswood 7 3 7 1 3 3 6 6 Cranbrook 8 7 1 Cranbrook 8 1 2 1 Fairlop 7 1 Fairlop 7 1 Fullwell 8 Fullwell 8 1 2 2 1 2 1 Goodmayes 7 Goodmayes 7 2 4 2 2 4 Hainault 8 Hainault 8 1 6 4 1 1 1 6 1 Loxford 9 Loxford 9 2 9 1 1 2 1 4 7 7 Mayfield 7 Mayfield 7 1 1 1 Monkhams 7 4 5 5 3 7 5 4 Monkhams 7 1 1 1 Newbury 8 3 Newbury 8 1 2 2 1 2 1 Roding 7 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 Roding 7 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 Seven Kings 8 1 Seven Kings 8 2 4 2 2 3 4 1 Snaresbrook 7 1 1 1 6 1 1 Snaresbrook 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Valentines 8 4 Valentines 8 2 4 2 1 2 5 5 5 Wanstead 8 2 2 2 7 2 2 Wanstead 8 1 4 1 1 1 1 Total 159 13 40 10 5 1 21 30 28 40 34 Total 159 8 11 12 8 56 0 7 0 1 9 Source: CLG Source: CLG
37
Fig 3.1 Lower Super Output Area Map of Redbridge 20% Most Deprived
KEY
Wards
Clementswood (49, 50, 52)
Fullwell (75)
Hainault (89)
Loxford (91, 98)
Newbury (121)
Roding (124)
Seven Kings (130, 132)
Valentines (146, 148)
38 4.0 Economy and Labour Market
Corporate Aim: A better place for business
Key features
• Redbridge has an employment rate of 68%. This compares with the London East average of 65.7%.
• 24.5% of Redbridge residents in employment are employed in professional occupations.
• 35% of Redbridge residents work in Redbridge and 55% of people who work in Redbridge live there.
• The Council has been awarded an additional £3 million in Government funding for the regeneration of Ilford Town Centre and Gants Hill.
• A Business Improvement District has been established at Hainault Business Park, where some of the business rates are directly deployed by businesses to address their concerns.
• Business prospects are improving in the South Ilford area through a shopfront improvement scheme and business- related training programme, in conjunction with the Learning and Skills Council and London Development Agency.
39 4.1 Introduction 4.2.1 Economic Scale
Redbridge has a well-deserved reputation as a business location and, in a Economic Scale can be used as a proxy for the size of an economy and is 2004 survey, was recognised as one of the top two areas in the UK for presented in Table 4.1 for the Boroughs in London East. Economic Scale business start-ups. measures the size of an economy in terms of national employment and national Gross Value Added (GVA). Redbridge has a highly successful Metropolitan Centre in Ilford, a range of industrial areas including Hainault Business Park, secondary shopping Employment includes those who are employed and those who are self- centres, including the popular centres of Wanstead and Woodford and a employed, while GVA3 measures the productivity of an area and how this range of high quality office accommodation. There is a skilled and diverse contributes to the UK economy in terms of the production of goods and workforce, and an established and stable economy. services. Table 4.1 ranks the London East Boroughs in descending order of Economic Scale; the London East Region is ranked against 53 other This section explores the economy of Redbridge with regards to the sub-regions in the UK; Greater London is ranked against eleven other macro-economy, labour market, business and industrial structure of the regions in the UK. area. Each of these have been analysed to assess the extent to which the Borough’s economy fulfils the Council’s aim of striving to be a better Table 4.1 Economic Scale place for business. Area Economic Scale Share of national Share of national Economic Scale (UK=100) 2003 employment (%) GVA (% share) 2003 Score Rank (Of 2004 408) The macro-economy of Redbridge was analysed by looking at the relative City of London 569.1 1.12 1.67 5 size and productivity of the economy and the long-term change in Tower Hamlets 290.76 0.67 0.75 15 Hackney 146.77 0.31 0.41 66 employment. The business and industrial structure analysis profiles the Havering 120.23 0.3 0.29 94 prevalent industries and businesses in Redbridge. The labour market Newham 119.38 0.27 0.32 96 analysis shows how well Redbridge residents are primed to take Lewisham 114.84 0.24 0.32 99 Redbridge 110.51 0.28 0.27 116 advantage of the macro-economic and business environment. Bexley 103.18 0.26 0.25 129 Greenwich 100.29 0.25 0.24 137 4.2 Macro-Economic Performance2 Barking and 75.79 0.18 0.19 190 Dagenham London East 227.44 3.87 4.72 3 (of 53) This section examines Redbridge’s economy by analysing its size, Greater London 159.57 13.99 19.54 2 (of 11) productivity and long-term change of employment in comparison with United Kingdom 100 100 100 the other London East Boroughs, Greater London and the UK. Source: Local Knowledge, Annual Business Inquiry (2003-2004)
Redbridge has an Economic Scale score of 110.5. Of the 408 local
authorities in the UK it ranks 116. The score means that, in terms of
3 GVA per head measures productivity per person and may give a fairer reflection of the 2 The macro-economic analysis uses workplace-based indicators. contribution of Redbridge to the UK economy.
40 national employment and national GVA, Redbridge’s economy is greater Table 4.2 Productivity than the UK average of100. Area Average Gross Value Productivity Economic earnings Added (per score (UK=100) Productivity (wkpl) (£) head) 2003 2003 score rank (of London East as a whole has an Economic Scale score of 227.44, placing it 2005 404) third of fifty-three other sub-regions in the UK. The London East City of London 987.1 173,725.94 645.15 1 Economic Scale score outperforms Redbridge mainly because London Tower Hamlets 839 46,822.31 246.58 7 Hackney 575 32,089.19 168.99 17 East contains the City of London and Canary Wharf. These areas form the Newham 474.1 26,458.23 139.34 35 hub of financial and other business activity in London. Lewisham 453.4 25,303.02 133.25 43 Barking and 486.5 13,655.94 102.6 115 Dagenham With the exception of Barking and Dagenham, the London East Boroughs Greenwich 457.7 12,847.54 96.52 145 have Economic Scale scores greater than that of the UK average. Redbridge 427.9 12,011.06 90.24 182 Bexley 423.8 11,895.97 89.37 189 Havering 391.8 10,997.74 82.62 261 4.2.2 Productivity London East 498.92 21,758.38 126.82 5 (of 53) Greater London 599.6 36,102.86 184.13 1 (of 11) Productivity measures how efficient an area is in the production of goods UK 403.12 16,468 100 and services in terms of average earnings and GVA per head. Table 4.2 Source: Local Knowledge, Annual Business Inquiry (2003-2005) ranks productivity for the London East Boroughs using the same method as in Table 4.1. The productivity score of Redbridge (90.24) is below that Table 4.3 Economic Change 4 nd Area Average Change in Employment Employment Economic Economic of the UK average (100). Of 404 local authorities, Redbridge ranks 182 . earnings - GVA per change (L/T) change (S/T) change change As with the Economic Scale score, the productivity score of the London L/T change head (%) (%) 1998-2004 (%) 2003- score score (rank East Region outperforms Redbridge. Analysing the industrial and (wkpl) (%) 1995- 2004 (UK=100) of 408) 1999-2005 2003 2004 business structure of Redbridge, as will be done later, may provide some Tower Hamlets 43.59 66.76 40.94 15.56 576.57 1 indication as to why Redbridge performs relatively poorly on this Redbridge 27.77 33.37 11.88 4.17 167.3 114 measure. Some industries will naturally add more to productivity than Newham 32.39 66.76 11.1 7.84 156.3 124 others. Lewisham 20.23 66.76 5.87 -4.76 82.6 233 Havering 71.92 33.37 5.82 1.28 82.01 235 Bexley 23.02 33.37 5.56 5.01 78.28 239 Greenwich 28.21 33.37 4.43 2.26 62.42 259 City of London 27.61 48.05 0.4 -7.1 5.59 315 Hackney 14 66.76 -2.66 -2.55 -37.48 349 Barking and 25.39 33.37 -13.98 -2.78 -196.83 401 Dagenham London East 60.62 54.46 7.53 0.82 106.05 24 (of 53) Greater London 28.75 54.56 6.64 0.4 93.54 6 (of 11) UK 23.63 41.92 7.1 1.2 100 Source: Local Knowledge, Annual Business Inquiry (1995-2005) 4 Productivity scores were only obtained for 404 local authorities and not 408 as with Economic Scale
41 Table 4.4 contains labour market information for all the London East 4.2.3 Economic Change Boroughs. The Boroughs are ranked in descending order of economic activity rate. Of the ten boroughs in the London East region, Redbridge Economic change is an index that measures the long-term change in currently has the sixth highest economic activity rate at 71%. This is employment for an area, relative to the UK average. lower than the London East average of 71.4%.
Table 4.3 ranks economic change for the same areas as in Tables 4.1 and Table 4.4 Economic Activity 4.2, using the same method. Redbridge performs very well on this Area Total working Economic Employment Employees Self Unemployment Inactivity th age activity rate rate employed rate measure with an Economic Change score of 167.3, ranking it 114 of 408 population local authorities. Hence, Redbridge outperforms both London East (in 000s) City of 6.7 84.0 84.0 59.7 24.3 * * (106.05) and the UK average (100). Table 4.3 also illustrates how London Redbridge has performed on a range of economic indicators over time. Bexley 135.3 82.4 79.3 66.9 11.8 3.7 17.6 Of London East Boroughs, only Tower Hamlets (40.94%) has enjoyed a Havering 135.2 80.3 75.6 65.6 9.2 5.8 19.7 higher percentage of employment change than Redbridge (11.88%) Lewisham 168.7 76.4 70.2 60.5 9.4 8.1 23.6 Greenwich 138.9 75.6 68.5 57.7 9.9 9.5 24.4 between 1998 and 2004. Redbridge 155.1 71.0 66.4 57.4 8.8 6.5 29.0 Barking and 4.3 Labour Market Dagenham 98.8 69.6 62.3 53.8 8.4 10.5 30.4 Tower 136.3 64.4 56.4 47.7 7.3 12.4 35.6 Hamlets The labour market is one of the main engines of the economy. For an Newham 157.2 62.6 57.0 49.3 7.2 8.8 37.4 economy to perform to its optimum it needs its labour market to have Hackney 140.4 60.0 53.2 42.7 9.9 11.3 40.0 London East 1272.5 71.4 65.6 55.8 9.2 8.2 28.6 5 6 high rates of economic activity and employment and low rates of Inner 1936.1 70.0 64.4 52.9 10.9 8.0 30.0 unemployment7 and inactivity8. An area with a high proportion of its London Outer 2887 77.4 72.2 60.7 11.0 6.8 22.6 residents in employment is better able to add to the improvement of London local public services via the Council Tax. Greater 4823.1 74.5 69.1 57.6 10.9 7.2 25.5 London UK 35407.9 78.4 74.5 64.8 9.2 5.0 21.6 Source: Annual Population Survey (Jan 2005 - Dec 2005) *Estimate not available since the group sample size is zero 5 The economic activity rate is the proportion of the working age population who are in employment or unemployment. 6 The employment rate is the proportion of the working age population who are in employment. Figures are expressed as a percentage of the working age population As well as self-employed and employees, employment includes those on government-supported with the exception of those for unemployment rates, which are training and employment programmes, and those doing unpaid family work. However, Table 4.4 expressed as a percentage of those who are classed as economically shows that these make up small proportions of those classed as employed. 7 The unemployment rate is the proportion of the economically active population who are active. Fig 4.1 shows that, overall, between 1999 and 2005, the Redbridge unemployed. To be classed as unemployed a person has to be actively seeking work or waiting to economic activity rate has been below that of the UK. Between 2004 and start a job that they have already obtained. 2005 the average economic activity rate declined by 7.4%. 8 Inactivity describes those who are neither employed nor unemployed and includes those who are looking after a home or are retired.
42 Fig 4.2 shows that, overall, unemployment rates for Redbridge have been In July 2006, 3% of the working age population of Redbridge claimed Job higher than that of the UK. Between 2004 and 2005 the average Seekers Allowance (JSA9). This compares to 2.6% for the UK. unemployment rate for Redbridge increased by 2.3%. For the same period the unemployment rate for the UK increased by 0.2%. Inactivity rates for Redbridge, London and the UK are shown in Fig 4.3. For Redbridge, the inactivity rate increased by 8.4% between 2004 and 2005. Fig 4.1 Economic Activity Rate (March 1999 – Dec 2005) This compares with a fall of 0.2% for the UK in the same period. With a
Economic Activity Rate few exceptions, the occupational profile for Redbridge residents is broadly similar to that of the UK. Table 4.5 shows that Redbridge, with 79 78 56.1%, has a higher percentage of people in management, senior, 10 77 technical and professional occupations (SOC 2000 major group 1-3) 76 than the UK (42%) and Greater London (52.2%). 75 Redbridge 74 London Fig 4.3 Inactivity Rate (March 1999 - Dec 2005)
Percentage 73 72 UK 30 Inactivity rate 71 29 70 Mar 99- Mar 00- Mar 01- Mar 02- Mar 03- Jan 04- Apr 04- Oct 04- Jan 05- 28 Feb 00 Feb 01 Feb 02 Feb 03 Feb 04 Dec 04 Mar 05 Sep 05 Dec 05 27 26 Source: Annual Population Survey (Jan 2005-Dec 2005) 25 Redbridge 24 London Percentage Fig 4.2 Unemployment Rates (March 1999 - Dec 2005) 23 UK 22 8 Unemployment Rates 21 20 Mar 99- Mar 00- Mar 01- Mar 02- Mar 03- Jan 04- Apr 04- Oct 04- Jan 05- 7 Feb 00 Feb 01 Feb 02 Feb 03 Feb 04 Dec 04 Mar 05 Sep 05 Dec 05 Redbridge Source: Annual Population Survey (Jan 2005-Dec 2005) 6 London UK Percentage 5
4 Mar 99- Mar 00- Mar 01- Mar 02- Mar 03- Jan 04- Apr 04- Oct 04- Jan 05- Feb 00 Feb 01 Feb 02 Feb 03 Feb 04 Dec 04 Mar 05 Sep 05 Dec 05
Source: Annual Population Survey (Jan 2005-Dec 2005) 9 JSA is payable to people under pensionable age who are available for, and actively seeking, work of at least 40 hours a week. 10 The Standard Occupation Classification
43 Table 4.5 Occupational Profiles (Standard Occupational Classification 2000) Table 4.6 Economic Activity by Ward Redbridge Greater United Area Total Economically In Employees Self - Unemployed Inactive
London Kingdom working active (%) employment (%) employed (%) (%) age (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) population SOC 2000 major group 1-3 56.1 52.2 42 Snaresbrook 6,807 80.3 76.6 64 12.6 4.6 19.7 1 Managers and senior officials 15.5 17.6 15 Chadwell 6,655 79.7 75.7 66.6 9.1 5 20.3 2 Professional occupations 24.5 16 13 Wanstead 7,249 79 75.3 63.1 12.3 4.6 21 3 Associate professional & technical 16.1 18.6 14 Bridge 7,115 78.7 74.8 64.5 10.4 4.9 21.3 SOC 2000 major group 4-5 20.8 21 24 Monkhams 5,984 78.5 75.7 59.1 16.5 3.6 21.5 4 Administrative & secretarial 13 13.4 13 Roding 6,884 78.5 74.3 62.8 11.5 5.3 21.5 5 Skilled trade occupations 7.7 7.6 11 Fairlop 6,381 77.1 72.6 61.6 11 5.8 22.9 SOC 2000 major group 6-7 12.4 12.9 16 Church End 6,668 76.6 73.2 62.4 10.8 4.4 23.4 6 Personal service occupations 5.6 6.7 7.8 Aldborough 7,166 75.5 70.9 60.2 10.7 6 24.5 7 Sales and customer service occupations 6.9 6.2 7.7 Barkingside 6,721 75.3 71.2 58.5 12.8 5.4 24.7 SOC 2000 major group 8-9 10.6 13.3 19 Fulwell 6,671 75 70.6 58.4 12.2 5.9 25 8 Process plant & machine operatives 4.4 4.9 7.5 Clayhall 7,316 74.6 71.1 56.5 14.5 4.8 25.4 9 Elementary occupations 6.2 8.4 11 Goodmayes 7,283 73 67.1 59.2 7.9 8.1 27 Source: Annual Population Survey (Jan 2005-Dec 2005) Hainault 6,487 72.6 68 59 9 6.4 27.4 Mayfield 6,987 72.6 68 58.1 9.9 6.3 27.4 Table 4.6 shows ward-level labour market data for Redbridge. Cranbook 7,573 71.3 66.5 55.5 10.9 6.7 28.7 Snaresbrook, Chadwell and Wanstead have the highest rates of economic Newbury 8,252 71.1 65.9 56.9 9.1 7.2 28.9 activity. With the exception of Chadwell, these wards are in the north of Seven Kings 7,787 69.7 64.3 56.1 8.2 7.8 30.3 the Borough. Valentines 7,853 68.6 61.7 54.3 7.4 10 31.4 Loxford 8,326 64.2 56.9 50.6 6.3 11.4 35.8 Clementswood 7,008 62.8 55.9 48.8 7.2 10.9 37.2 Valentines, Loxford and Clementswood have the lowest rates of Source: 2001 Census of Population (Table CAS028 – Sex and age by economic activity) economic activity. All of these wards are in the south of the Borough. Monkhams, Church End, Wanstead and Snaresbrook have the lowest rates of unemployment. All of these wards are in the north of the Borough. Loxford, Clementswood and Valentines have the highest rates of unemployment in the Borough. These wards are all in the south of the Borough.
44 In summary, the ward-level labour market analysis shows that the highest Fig 4.4 Qualifications of the Working Age Population levels of economic activity and lowest unemployment rates are in wards Qualifications of the working age population in the north of the Borough. Conversely, the lowest levels of economic activity and highest levels of unemployment are in wards in the south of 80 the Borough. 70 60
4.4 Qualifications of Redbridge Residents 50 40 11 Fig 4.4 compares the qualifications of the working age population of 30 Percentage Redbridge with that of London and the UK for the period March 2003 to 20 February 2004. This is the latest data available. 10 Redbridge London 0 UK NVQ4 and above NVQ3 and above NVQ2 and above NVQ1 and above Other No Qualifications The proportion of Redbridge residents of working age with no Qualifications qualifications (19%) is higher than that of the UK (15.1%) and London (13.9%). Source: Local Area Labour Force Survey (Mar 2003-Feb 2004)
Fig 4.5 Percentage with Qualifications Classified as NVQ 4 Equivalent and Above
Percentage with qualifications classified as NVQ 4 equivalent and above 32 30 28 26
Percentage 24 22
20 Redbridge Mar 99-Feb Mar 00-Feb Mar 01-Feb Mar 02-Feb Mar 03-Feb London 00 01 02 03 04 UK 11 No qualifications applies to those who possess no formal qualifications. Other qualifications applies to those with foreign or certain professional qualifications. Source: Local Area Labour Force Survey (Mar 2003-Feb 2004) NVQ 1 equivalent applies to those with fewer than 5 GCSEs at grades A-C, foundation GNVQ, NVQ 1, Intermediate 1 national qualification (Scotland) or equivalent. NVQ 2 equivalent applies to those with 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C, intermediate GNVQ, NVQ 2, The proportion of Redbridge residents with NVQ 4 and equivalent Intermediate 2 national qualification (Scotland) or equivalent. qualifications (25.2%) is equal to that of the UK but lower than that of NVQ 3 equivalent applies to those with 2 or more A levels, advanced GNVQ, NVQ 3, 2 or more Higher or Advanced Higher national qualifications (Scotland) or equivalent. London (30.8%). Fig 4.5 shows that between March 1999 and February NVQ 4 equivalent applies to e.g. HND, Degree and Higher Degree level qualifications or equivalent
45 2004, the proportion of working age Redbridge residents with NVQ 4 or Fig 4.6 Areas of Employment for Redbridge Residents (2001) equivalent has been above that of the UK but below that of London. Areas of employment for Redbridge residents, 2001 Barking and Dagenham 35% of Redbridge residents work in Redbridge, as shown in Fig 4.6. As City of London 4.0% 8.0% 2.0% Camden shown in Fig 4.7, 55% of people who work in Redbridge live there. 4.0% According to the Local Knowledge Database, the mean salary of 3.0% Hackney 15.0% Redbridge residents in 2005 was £495.70 per week. Havering
8.0% Islington 4.5 Business and Industrial Structure 3.0% Newham The Borough’s business and skills agenda is developed through Business 5.0% Redbridge REDBRIDGE, the Local Economy Cluster of the Redbridge Strategic 7.0% Tower Hamlets Partnership. The Council will further develop, support and continue to 6.0% Waltham work with the business community to maintain and improve the vitality 35.0% Forest and economic vibrancy of the Borough’s commercial centres. Westminster Others Fig 4.8 shows that real estate and retail are the largest sectors of employment in Redbridge. Up to 30,000sqm of new and replacement Source: 2001 Census of Population and Housing, Office for National Statistics high street facilities (including shops, restaurants, cafés, and cultural and leisure facilities) are planned for Ilford Town Centre alone over the next Fig 4.7 Areas of Residence for People who Work in Redbridge (2001) ten years, which will increase further the percentage share of Areas of residence for people who work in Redbridge 2001 employment in retail and leisure. Such development will also ensure that City of London employment opportunities are secured within town centres, as well as in 9.0% Barking and 1.0% Dagenham business areas such as Hainault Business Park. 0.0% Hackney 19.0% 7.0% The health sector has the third highest proportion of employment with Havering 5.0% 12.6%. The current Primary Care Trust Estates Strategy is the largest Newham investment programme in healthcare facilities in a generation and 4.0% Redbridge represents a major employment opportunity for local people over the Waltham Forest coming years. Others 55.0%
Source: 2001 Census of Population and Housing, Office for National Statistics
46 In March 2006, Redbridge Council was successful in its £873,000 bid to the Local Development Agency’s Opportunities Fund for an Ilford Town It is estimated that the 2012 Olympic Games will create thousands of full- Centre Alliance Project. The project aims to improve the competitiveness time equivalent jobs in the construction industry alone, with thousands of Ilford Town Centre through business and employment and training more created as a result of various legacy developments currently support activities. The project will be led by Ilford Town Centre underway across East London. Management Ltd. in collaboration with Redbridge College, Redbridge Institute of Adult Education and other major partners. Many opportunities for small and medium size enterprises are likely to come from the supply chains that will surround the major contracts for Fig 4.8 Employment by Industrial Sector in Redbridge the Games.
Employment by Industrial Sector in Redbridge (2004) The London 2012 Games offer a unique opportunity for businesses of all sizes. Redbridge Council will have a role in supporting business to break into new markets and to provide long-term employment opportunities. Agriculture 0.0% Redbridge has an excellent and well-deserved reputation for 2.1% Banking 0.1% entrepreneurship. This was recognised in a 2004 Royal Mail survey that Construction indicated that Ilford was one of the top locations in the UK for business 5.0% 5.5% Education start-ups. 18.6% 11.3% Health A proxy for the health of the business population and the level of Hotels entrepreneurship is the number of VAT registrations and de-registrations Manufacturing within an area. These figures are an approximation as businesses do not 12.6% Mining have to register until they reach the VAT registration threshold (£56,000 6.6% in 2003/04 and £58,000 in 2004/05). Also, factories and branches of large 23.6% Other services firms are not included. 5.7% Public admin 4.2% Real estate In 2004, Redbridge had more deregistrations (920) than registrations 4.5% (820) making up 14.1% and 15.8% of the total stock respectively. 0.0% Retail Transport Fig 4.9 shows that in 2004 the highest proportion of VAT registered
Utilities businesses were in real estate, renting and business activities with 37.8%, followed by wholesale, retail and repairs at 26.2%. This reflects the high levels of employment in these sectors as described earlier. Source: ABI 2004 N.B. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
47 The Borough is therefore home to a high number of micro-businesses Fig 4.9 Number of VAT Registered Businesses in Redbridge (2004) and the Council sponsors the East London Small Business Centre (ELSBC) to help sustain these. ELSBC delivers, on the Council’s behalf, support and Number of VAT registered businesses in Redbridge, 2004 one-to-one business advice for small and medium-sized enterprises 0.0% 0.6% (SMEs).
4.3% 1.8% 4.9% 37.8% 11.0% The Council is also developing a programme with its partners to promote social enterprise throughout the Borough in order to create sustainable businesses. The Council recognises that these SMEs have a significant role to play in helping to create a strong, sustainable and socially inclusive economy.
Fig 4.10 Redbridge Company Sizes (2005) 0.0% 7.9% 5.5% 26.2% Redbridge company sizes in Redbridge in 2005 Agriculture; Forestry and fishing Mining and quarrying; Electricity, gas and water supply Manufacturing Construction Wholesale, retail and repairs 3.7% Hotels and restaurants 14.4% Transport, storage and communication Financial intermediation Enterprises with Real Estate, renting and business activities 20+ employees Public administration; Other community, social and personal Education; health and social work
Source: Interdepartmental Business Register, Office for National Statistics, October 2004 Enterprises with 5-19 employees Table 4.7 Registrations, Deregistrations and Stock (2004) 81.9% Enterprises with Redbridge (Numbers) Redbridge (%) <4 employees Registrations 820 14.1 Deregistrations 920 15.8
Stock (as at end of year) 5815 - Source: Interdepartmental Business Register, Office for National Statistics, October 2004 Source: The Office for National Statistics, 2004
According to Fig 4.10, the majority of businesses in Redbridge have fewer than four employees. Also of note is the proportion of private businesses (45.8%) with fewer than two employees.
48 5.0 Education: Children and Young People
Corporate Aim: A better place to learn
Key Features
• GCSE and A Level results continue to improve with Redbridge ranked one of the best local authority in the country for pupils obtaining at least 5 GCSE grades A*-C in 2005.
• Redbridge was rated the best local education authority in Britain by the Observer newspaper.
• 39% of pupils in Redbridge are White and 38% are classified as Asian or Asian British.
• Two new primary schools are being built in the Borough to meet the growing demand for school places.
• Over the next five years the number of children of primary school age is expected to increase by about 2000 and the number of secondary pupils is expected to increase by over 800.
49 5.1 Introduction is run by voluntary groups and faith groups, particularly pre-school and out-of-school clubs. Redbridge has earned an enviable reputation as a place to learn, with the Borough featuring at the top end of national league tables for ‘A’ Level, Table 5.1 Early Years and Childcare GCSE and Key Stage 2. Redbridge Council sees education as a lifelong Children's Trust area West* North South *** Totals opportunity and has plans to enhance education facilities for Redbridge Central** people from their first day at nursery through to adult learning Day Nurseries No of providers 12 13 18 43 opportunities after retirement. Number of places 567 629 689 1885 Pre-schools /playgroups No of providers 15 12 10 37 Ethnic diversity amongst the Borough’s children and young people is very high. The changing demographic profile and the increasing Number of places 506 447 328 1281 diversity of the population directly affect both the level and nature of Childminders No of providers 144 166 134 444 need within Redbridge schools. This also highlights the importance of Number of places 526 585 508 1619 planning services to meet needs according to local factors rather than on Crèches No of providers 0 2 5 7 a cross-borough basis. Number of places 0 38 90 128 Breakfast Clubs No of providers 6 4 5 15 This section provides an analysis of the educational attainment and qualifications of the pupils of Redbridge primary and secondary schools. Number of places 171 117 154 442 It also reports on other useful statistics, for example, pupil ethnicity and After-school Clubs No of providers 11 11 8 30 the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals. Details of adult qualifications are provided in Section 4. Information on adult learning Number of places 279 248 229 756 opportunities is provided in Section 7.5. Holiday Schemes No of providers 8 10 8 26 Number of places 304 384 217 905 5.2 Early Years and Childcare Source: Children’s Services (June 2006) * West – Bridge, Church End, Clayhall, Monkhams, Roding, Snaresbrook and Wanstead. ** North Central – Aldborough, Barkingside, Cranbrook, Fairlop, Fulwell, Hainault, Newbury and The Government set out a new ten-year strategy for childcare in 2004. Valentines. The strategy places a strong emphasis on ensuring that parents are able *** South - Chadwell, Clementswood, Goodmayes, Loxford, Mayfield and Seven Kings. to make real choices about how they balance work and family life. It stresses the importance of childcare being flexible to meet the needs of In addition, the Children’s Trust Early Years and Childcare Team organise families and of high quality so that families can be confident that their childcare in some Children’s Centres and out-of-school clubs in the children are getting the best start in life. Borough.
The majority of childcare in Redbridge is organised by individuals or There has been an expansion in childcare over the past five years, companies as private businesses, including childminders. Some childcare reflecting increased demand as more parents go out to work. This includes an increase in places for children under two. Between March
50 2001 and March 2006 there was a 63% increase in the number of 5.3.1 Total Number of School Pupils childcare places in Redbridge. A significant number of the new places created have been funded through the Government’s Sure Start Grant, Table 5.2 shows the number of pupils in the various school types within Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative or Children’s Centre Programme. the Borough over the period 2002 to 2006. Figure 5.1 shows how the total number of pupils in primary, secondary and all schools has changed Over the next few years childcare will continue to expand and develop. during this period. The Children’s Centres will be a central part of Local Authority provision for young children and their families, offering childcare integrated with Table 5.2 Number of Pupils in Redbridge Schools early learning; parenting and family support; health advice, including Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Change Change % Change % health visiting and midwifery; preventative services to support children Jan 05 - Jan 02 - Jan 05 - Change Jan 06 Jan 06 Jan 06 Jan 02 - with additional needs; and support and help for parents to move into Jan 06 training or work. Primary* 24,009 23,827 23,677 23,888 24,114 226 105 0.9% 0.4% Extended schools will aim to provide ‘joined-up’ care for children by developing childcare on site or creating links with other local childcare Secondary 19,2169 19,712 20,022 20,313 20,649 336 1,433 1.7% 7.5% providers. Sub Total 43,225 43,539 43,699 44,201 44,763 562 1,538 1.3% 3.4%
5.3 Primary and Secondary School Census Special12 452 462 446 429 436 7 (16) 1.6% 3.5%
Pupil Redbridge has eight infant schools, seven junior schools and thirty-six Referral primary schools. All infant and primary schools have a nursery class. Unit13 41 36 74 88 94 6 53 6.8% 129.3% Following the opening of a new secondary school in September 2001, the Total 43,718 44,037 44,219 44,718 45,293 575 1,575 1.3% 3.5% Borough now has seventeen secondary schools. The Borough also has Source: Redbridge School Census (2006) four special schools and three pupil referral units. *This includes full and part-time pupils in nursery classes, reception pupils and pupils in years 1–6. Over the next five years the number of children of primary school age is expected to increase by about 2,000 and the number of secondary school pupils is expected to increase by over 800. The number of children and 12 Special schools cater for children with special needs. their age impacts on the volume and type of services that the education 13 The remit of pupil referral units (PRUs) is to provide a suitable and appropriate education for services provide. There will be additional demand for services among the children of compulsory school age who, because of illness, exclusion or other circumstances, are younger age group. Two new schools are being built and will be opened unable to attend a maintained (i.e. mainstream or special) school. As well as pupils who have been excluded and children with medical problems, PRUs may provide education for school-aged in 2007. mothers and pregnant schoolgirls, school-phobics, and pupils awaiting placement in a maintained school.
51 Fig 5.1Number of Pupils in Redbridge Schools (2002-2006) 1.8% in the north and south of the Borough respectively between 2005 and 2006. Total number of pupils in primary, secondary and all
schools Fig 5.2 illustrates that, although overall school rolls increased between 50 2005 and 2006 in schools in both the north and the south, rolls have not 45 always moved in the same direction over the past five years. During this 40 period, rolls in the north have decreased by 1.5% whilst rolls in the south have increased by 3.2%. 35 Primary 30 Secondary Since 2002, the number of pupils in Redbridge secondary schools has 25 Total increased each year. This is partly due to the opening of a new school in 2001/02. In 2006, the total roll increased from 2005 by 1.7% to 20,649, 20 comprising 10,290 boys and 10,359 girls.
Number (in 000s) Number (in 15 Fig 5.2 Number of Primary School Pupils in North & South of the Borough 10 (2002- 2006) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Pupil numbers in primary schools north and south of the Source: Redbridge School Census (2006) Borough 15 In total, there were 45,293 pupils in Redbridge schools in January 2006. 14 This represents an increase of 3.5% since 2002. 13
12 In January 2006, there were 24,114 pupils in mainstream primary schools North 11 in Redbridge. This includes full- and part-time pupils in nursery classes, South reception pupils and pupils in years 1–6. 10
Number (in 000s) 9 Owing to a decrease in the number of four-year-olds, the number of 8 pupils of primary school age fell in 2003 and 2004 (from 24,009 in 2002 to 7 23,677 in 2004). However, rolls increased in 2005 and again in 2006. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Overall, primary school rolls rose in 2006 by 0.9% from 2005. Year
Over half of the primary schools in the north of the Borough (53%) and Source: Redbridge School Census (2006) nearly three-fifths of the schools in the south of the Borough (58%) have rolls which have increased since 2005. School rolls increased by 0.4% and
52 5.3.2 Pupil Mobility in Primary Schools Table 5.3 Pupil Mobility Total Number of Number of Number of Total % Average Ofsted14 define pupil mobility as “the total movement in and out of schools roll joiners leavers joiners and mobility mobility number of January 2004/05 2004/05 leavers 2004/05 2004/05 days on roll by pupils other than at the usual times of joining and leaving”. Research by 2005 2004/05 15 the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) has found that mobile pupils are significantly more likely to achieve lower test results Total North 12529 945 559 201 1906 15.2% 570 Total South than the rest of the school population. 8914 947 539 165 1816 20.4% 526 Total in Primary The relatively low attainment of mobile pupils was found to be strongly Schools 21443 1892 1098 366 3722 17.4% 549 associated with other disadvantaging factors in their background and Source: Redbridge Schools Mobility Report (2004/05) environment. Mobile pupils were significantly more likely than stable pupils to be entitled to free school meals; have a higher incidence of 5.3.3 Staff, Class Sizes and Information Communication Technology special educational needs; have English as an additional language; (ICT) require higher levels of support in learning English; and be frequently absent from school. Table 5.4 shows that in Redbridge primary schools, the average number of pupils to a class was 28.6 in 2006. The pupil-teacher ratio decreased A survey of pupil mobility was carried out in Redbridge primary schools from 21.8 in 2004 to 20.9 in 2006, and the pupil-computer ratio was 8.3. to determine the number of pupils from reception to Year 6 joining and In 2006, the average number of students in Redbridge secondary school leaving schools outside the normal transfer period between September classes was 21 and the pupil-computer ratio was 3.7. The pupil-teacher 2004 and July 2005. (Mobility is less significant in secondary schools). ratio decreased from 15.8 in 2004 to 15.4 in 2006.
Table 5.3 shows that mobility in schools in the south of the Borough in Table 5.4 Pupil-Teacher Ratio 2004-05 was 20.4%, compared with 15.2% in schools in the north. The Average Pupil- Pupil-teacher Pupil-teacher Pupil-teacher average number of days on roll for those pupils who left during the 2004- number of Computer ratio 2004 ratio 2005 ratio pupils in a class ratio 2006 2006 05 school year was also lower in schools in the south (524 versus 570 days in 2006 for those in the north). Primary schools 28.6 8.3 21.8 21.4 20.9 Finally, it is worth noting that the number of pupils who move from Secondary school to school within the Borough (internal mobility) is greater than the schools 21 3.7 15.8 15.5 15.4 number of pupils who enter Redbridge schools from outside the Borough All schools 21.1 5.1 17.7 17.4 17.2 (external pupil mobility). Source: Redbridge School Census (2006)
14 Office for Standards in Education (England) 15 Source: Strand, S., NFER Nelson London, Publisher: British Educational Research Journal (2002) Vol. 28, No. 1, pp 63-78 Pupil mobility, attainment and progress during key stage 1
53 5.4 Pupil characteristics 5.4.1 Free School Meals
ACORN is a geo-demographic database that enables analysis of various Entitlement to Free School Meals (FSM) is often used as an index of social trends. Fig 5.3 is based on 2006 information from the ACORN relative poverty (most noticeably by Ofsted) and, when combined with database and pupil postcode data and shows the proportion of school other factors, has been found to be an indicator of educational pupils falling within various categories of prosperity. achievement. Pupils whose families are in receipt of income support or income-based Job Seekers’ Allowance are entitled to receive FSM. 37% of pupils in Redbridge schools lived in postcodes classified as Parents must indicate to the school that they wish their child to receive ‘Comfortably Off’, which is the middle category in terms of deprivation. FSM. 7% were classified in the most affluent ‘Wealthy Achievers’ category, 22% in ‘Urban Prosperity’, 27% as of ‘Moderate Means’ and 6% in the least Of the 45,293 pupils on roll in all Redbridge-maintained schools in affluent ‘Hard Pressed’ category. However, there were huge variations in January 2006, 16.9% were entitled to FSM. Entitlement has fluctuated levels of prosperity between schools. since 2002 from between 15% in 2003 and 16.9% in 2006. Fig 5.4 shows that, in 2006, 17.7% of primary and nursery pupils in Redbridge were Schools in the north of the Borough generally had a higher proportion of entitled to FSM. This figure compares to 15.5% of pupils in Redbridge pupils in the more affluent postcodes than schools in the south. secondary schools entitled to FSM. The proportion of pupils entitled to FSM in Redbridge schools has risen above the national average at both Fig 5.3 ACORN categories – All Schools (2006) primary and secondary levels in recent years. ACORN Categories - All Schools - 2006 Fig 5.4 Pupils Entitled to Free School Meals in Primary and Secondary Schools (2002- 2006) 27% 37% Moderate means Pupils entitled to free school meals in primary and secondary schools, 2002-2006 Hard Pressed 18 Missing 6% Redbridge 1% Wealthy Achievers 17 nursery and 22% Urban prosperity primary 7% 16 Redbridge Comfortably off secondary 15 England nursery and primary
Proportion of pupils 14 England 13 secondary Source: Redbridge School Census (2006) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year
Source: Redbridge School Census (2006)
54
Fig 5.5 shows that take-up rates of FSM in primary schools in Redbridge Table 5.5 Comparison of Eligibility for Free School Meals (2005) decreased from 82% in 2005 to 77% in 2006. Rates in secondary schools Nursery and Primary Secondary increased from 73% in 2005 to 75% in 2006. Overall, take-up rates in Redbridge schools decreased from 78% to 76%. Table 5.5 shows that the Croydon 21.9% 19.0% 17.7% of primary school pupils in Redbridge entitled to FSM was slightly Harrow 16.5% 19.3% above that of the average of its statistical16 neighbours (17.4%) and the Enfield 25.0% 21.4% national average (16.9%). Hillingdon 18.0% 17.3% Hounslow 22.5% 19.6% Bexley 12.4% 8.9% Fig 5.5 Percentage Take- up of Free School Meals (2005 & 2006) Trafford 11.8% 10.8% Percentage take up of Free School Meals in 2005 and 2006 Southend 18.0% 12.1% Bury 13.7% 13.5% Merton 13.8% 16.1% 85% 82% Statistical Neighbours 78% 80% 77% 75% 76% average 17.4% 15.8% 75% 73% 2005 Redbridge 17.7% 15.5% 70% 2006 National average 16.9% 14.0% 65% Sources: Redbridge School Census (2006)- Free School Meal Eligibility - Redbridge, All primary schools All Secondary All schools National (2005) and Statistical Neighbours (2005) Source: DfES Statistical First Release Schools 'Schools and Pupils in England: January 2005 (Final)’. N.B. 2006 Statistical Neighbour & National figures are not yet available. School Type 5.5 Ethnicity Source: Redbridge School Census (2006)
Table 5.5 also shows that the proportion of secondary school pupils in The population of Redbridge pupils is more ethnically diverse than Redbridge entitled to FSM (15.5%) was below that of the average of its that of the Borough population as a whole. In 2006, 38% of school statistical neighbours (15.8%) but above that of the national average pupils in Redbridge were of Asian ethnicity, just 1% lower than the (14%). 39% of White ethnicity (Table 5.6).
16 “Statistical neighbours” is the term for Local Education Authorities (LEAs) designated most similar to Redbridge by Ofsted in terms of population statistics and two school factors (the number of pupils in maintained schools and the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals). This allows LEAs to compare their performance with similar LEAs, as well as with the national average. Redbridge has ten statistical neighbours: Croydon, Harrow, Enfield, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Bexley, Trafford, Southend, Bury and Merton.
55 Fig 5.6 The Ten Most Common Languages Spoken by Pupils with English as an Table 5.6 Ethnicity of Pupils in Redbridge Schools (2006) Additional Language (2006) Ethnicity Number of pupils in Percentage of total 10 most common languages spoken by pupils with English as an Urdu Redbridge (2006) pupils (2006) additional language (2006) White 15,533 39% Punjabi Mixed 2,458 6% Gujarati Asian or Asian British 24.9% 15,257 38% 18.8% 1.4% Bengali Black or Black British 5,238 13% Chinese or other ethnic Tamil group 671 2% Somali Total 39,676 100% 1.6% 18.2% Source: Redbridge Schools Language Report (2006) French N.B. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 2.0% 8.7% 12.1% Turkish
A total of 79 languages other than English were spoken by pupils in 2.1% Hindi 7.3% primary, secondary and special schools in Redbridge in 2006. Urdu was 3.0% Yoruba the most common language after English spoken by pupils, with 3,535 Any other speakers (18.8% of pupils with English as an additional language). language Other commonly spoken languages included Punjabi (3,406 pupils or 18.2% pupils with English as an additional language), Gujarati (2,272 pupils or 12.1%), Bengali (1,632 or 8.7%) and Tamil (1,374 or 7.3%). The Source: Redbridge Schools Language Report (2006) ten most commonly spoken languages are shown in Figure 5.6. Figure 5.7 provides a breakdown of religion amongst pupils in Redbridge.
Data on religion is not collected as part of the School Census return and Overall, 8.1% of pupils had unknown religion17 - 4.4% in primaries and schools are not obliged to record this information. The data is therefore 12.2% in secondary schools. As shown in Fig 5.7, the largest religious 18 not complete. This should be taken into account when considering Figure group in Redbridge schools was Christian (27.8%), followed by Muslim 5.7. (24.5%) and Roman Catholic (10.9%).
17 ‘Unknown religion’ includes those classified as unknown by the schools as well as those with a blank field. 18 All Christian denominations, other than Roman Catholic, have been included as ‘Christian’, including those classified as Anglican, Baptist, Church of England, Christian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Methodist, Non-Conformist, Pentecostal, Quaker, Seventh Day Adventist and United Reform Church.
56 Fig 5.7 Religion amongst Redbridge Pupils (2006) Table 5.7 Proportion of Pupils Achieving Level 4 and 5 at Key Stage 2
Religion 2006 2005 Unknown English Mathematics Science Buddhist % of pupils % of pupils % of pupils % of pupils % of pupils % of Average achieving achieving achieving achieving achieving pupils Point 1.9% Roman Catholic Level 4 Level 5 Level 4 Level 5 Level 4 achieving Score 6.1% 6.3% 8.1% 0.2% 10.9% Christian Level 5 24.5% Hindu Trafford 87 32 83 41 92 55 28.6 Bury 84 31 81 34 90 51 28.2 Jewish Redbridge 83 28 79 35 88 48 28 Muslim Harrow 82 28 78 36 87 49 28 Sikh Hillingdon 80 27 77 32 88 49 27.8 4.8% 9.6% 27.8% No religion Southend 77 28 76 33 87 48 27.7 Other England average 79 27 75 31 86 47 27.6 Hounslow 79 26 75 32 87 47 27.6 Source: Redbridge Schools Language Report (2006) Bexley 80 28 74 30 85 42 27.6 Merton 78 28 74 32 85 44 27.5 5.6 Test results Enfield 77 26 73 30 85 45 27.4 Croydon 78 24 72 29 82 41 27.1 A useful indicator of Borough pupil performance is the level of Source: Department for Education and Skills (2005) attainment they achieve at each Key Stage. Pupils are assessed from Key Stage 1 through to Key Stage 4. The APS is a useful indicator of the Borough’s Key Stage performance. Points are awarded according to the level of attainment achieved by Assessment at Key Stage 2 (the 7 to 11 age group) involves school years pupils19. 3, 4, 5 and 6. The proportion of pupils achieving Level 3 and above at Key Stage 2 in Table 5.7 shows the proportion of pupils achieving Level 4 and 5 at Key 2005 placed Redbridge’s APS score below that of Bury and Trafford but Stage 2 (KS2) and ranks Redbridge and its statistical neighbours above that of the England average. according to their Average Point Score (APS).
19 The APS for a school provides a fuller picture of the KS2 achievements of pupils of all abilities. Two schools with similar percentages of pupils achieving Level 4 and above may have different APSs. The APS values the achievements of pupils below the Level 4 threshold, by taking account of whether pupils attain level 3 or not.
57 34 34.5 34.8 33.9 33.9 36.1 35.8 35.3 34.7 33.9 33.4 36.6 Score Average Points
70 69 66 66 74 76 73 73 66 64 62 78 Science 5 or above % of pupils nts above that of the English achieving Level ge of pupils in London achieving and. The size of the gap has been was considerably higher than the of Southend pupils achieving Level 4 than those the proportion of its pupils achieving 05. The 68.1% of pupils that obtained 74 74 73 71 77 80 79 78 71 72 71 81 above 2005 2005 1% Greater London average. % of pupils Mathematics Mathematics
achieving Level 5 or 74 76 82 82 76 76 72 75 English or above % of pupils achieving Level 5 shows that schools within Redbridge Local Education shows that schools within Redbridge . The APS of Redbridge is 1.3 poi 20 shows that between 2002 and 2005 the improvement measure of improvement measure of shows that between 2002 and 2005 the This could be explained by a higher proportion Authority (LEA) had the highest percenta 20 in grades GCSE A*-C more or five these grades in Redbridge schools 57.1% national average and 55. Redbridge has been above that of Engl roughly consistent. In both 2002 and 2005 the difference was 21 percentage points. average. Table 5.8 Proportion of Pupils Achieving Level 5 and Above at Key Stage 3 Source: Department for Education and Skills (2005) Although Redbridge is ranked third, Fig 5.9 Appendix 5A 20 Level 5 or above in English, Mathem atics and Science is that of Southend in Redbridge. Trafford 81 Southend Redbridge Harrow Bexley 76 Bury England average Hounslow Croydon 75 Enfield Hillingdon 74 Merton 58
Redbridge England ds) is for school years 7, 8 and 9. ts of pupils below the Level 5 and in 2005 this had increased to and in 2005 this had increased to s statistical neighbours according s statistical neighbours diverged. In 2004 the difference diverged. In 2004 the her pupils attain Level 4 or not.
Year Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 shows the proportion of pupils achieving Level 5 and above at Redbridge and England improvement measures at Key Stage 2 (2005) illustrates how the achievements of pupils in Redbridge
255 250 245 240 235 230 225 Percentage total Percentage Fig 5.8 Redbridge and England Improvement Measures at Key Stage 2 (2005) Source: Department for Education and Skills (2005) ol Assessment at Key Stage 3 (11–14 year
Key Stage 3 and ranks Redbridge it to their Average Point Score (APS). Here, the APS values the achievemen threshold, by taking account of whet Fig 5.8 mainstream schools have changed over the past four years. The percentages of pupils improvement measure is the sum of three achieving Level 4 or above in English, Mathematics Key and Science at Stage 2 from 2002 to 2005. Over the period, national improvement measure has consistently gap between been below that of Redbridge. Between 2004 and 2005 the Redbridge and the national rate between them was 6 percentage points 13. Table 5.8
Fig 5.9 Redbridge and England Improvement Measure for Key Stage 3 (2005) Fig 5.10 Percentage of 15 year olds Achieving 5 or more A*-C grades or Equivalent
Redbridge and England improvement measure for Key Stage The percentage of 15 year olds achieving 5 or more A*-C grades or 3 (2005) equivalent 80% 250 240 70% 230 220 Redbridge 60% Average Redbridge 210 50% 200 England England 190 Average 40% 180 Average 2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year Year
Source: Department for Education and Skills (2005) Source: Department for Education and Skills (2005)
Fig 5.10 shows that the proportion of 15 year olds21 achieving 5 or more Table 5.9 shows the average point score per examination entry for 16, 17 A*-C GCSE grades in Redbridge between 2002 and 2005 was consistently and 18 year olds studying towards General (GCE) and/or Vocational (VCE) higher than the national average. A-levels, Advanced Subsidiary (AS) qualifications and Key Skills at Level 3.
The APS per examination of 80.6 places Redbridge below that of Southend (83.5) and Trafford (83.4) but places it above the national average of 79.9.
Fig 5.11 shows that the APS per examination entry in Redbridge has improved between 2002 and 2005, increasing from 76.1 in 2002 to 80.6 in 2005. During this time Redbridge’s APS has consistently been above the national APS per examination entry.
21 If the pupils took their GCSEs in, for example, June 2005 then at the start of that academic year they would have been 15.
59
Table 5.9 Average Point Score per Examination Entry Post 16 (2005) Average point score per examination entry for General and Vocational A level and AS results and Key Skills at Level 3 in 2005 Southend 83.5 Trafford 83.4 Redbridge 80.6 England average 79.9 Bexley 78.8 Merton 77.3 Enfield 77.2 Bury 76.3 Hounslow 76.2 Harrow 75.7 Hilingdon 74.7 Croydon 71.7 Source: Department for Education and Skills (2005)
Fig 5.11 Average Point Score per Examination Entry Post 16 (2002–2005) Average point score per examination entry for for General and Vocational A level and AS results and Key Skills for Level 3 (excluding 2002)
81 80 79 78 Redbridge 77 England 76 75 74 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year
Source: Department for Education and Skills (2005)
60 6.0 Housing
Corporate Aim:
A better place to live together
Key Features
• Redbridge has one of the highest levels of private sector housing in London. 75.3% of housing in Redbridge is owner occupied.
• The Redbridge Housing Needs Survey indicates a requirement of 4,995 affordable houses over the next five years.
• The Council’s affordable housing planning policy, sets out that, in developments of 25 units or more or on sites of 1 hectare or more, the Council will seek to ensure that a proportion of the housing will be affordable.
• Between 2000 and 2006, the Council was able to secure 900 affordable housing units in major residential developments and it aims to make available up to 40 homes for key workers per annum.
• In response to the Mayor’s commitment to housing provision over the next 10 years, the London Borough of Redbridge will provide at least 8,000 new homes over this period to 2017.
• Redbridge will benefit from the significant resources that are being targeted at major housing developments along the Thames Gateway and M11 Corridor.
61 6.1 Introduction Fig 6.1 Tenure in Redbridge Tenure of Borough Housing Stock Owner occupied: owns The increasing population of London requires residential development to (Census 2001) outright Owner occupied: Owns with a meet the growing demand for new housing and offer a range of choices 12% 3% Mortgage for new households. Given London’s projected population increase by 3% 30% Owner Occupied: Shared Ownership 2016, the London Plan forecasts a need for 22,400 additional homes per 7% Rented from Council year (assuming constant household size) to meet demand for housing. 1% Rented from Registered Social Landlords (RSL) With the existing shortage of housing, the total forecast demand for new Rented from Private landlord/agency homes will actually be 33,600 per annum. Based on these projections, 44% Rented from others the Mayor’s target is to achieve an output of 30,000 additional homes per year from all sources. Appendix 6A shows the target set out for each Source: ONS 2001 Census Borough in the London Plan. Table 6.1 Tenure of Borough Housing Stock (Census 2001) 6.2 Redbridge Housing Stock and Tenure England & England London Inner Outer Redbridge Wales (%) (%) London London (%) No. (%) (%) (%) Redbridge is widely regarded as having one of London’s best living Owner occupied: 29.46 29.19 22.05 14.55 27.15 30.27 27940 owns outright environments, given its 1,200 hectares of forest and 600 hectares of high Owner occupied: owns 38.76 38.88 33.51 24.02 39.95 44.50 41068 quality green space and parklands. Redbridge has one of the highest with a Mortgage Owner Occupied: 0.64 0.65 0.96 1.12 0.86 0.52 480 levels of private sector housing in London. Shared Ownership Rented from Council 13.24 13.21 17.12 25.28 11.57 6.74 6218 Rented from 5.95 6.05 9.02 12.74 6.61 3.40 3136 As shown in Fig 6.1, 75.3% of housing in Redbridge is owner occupied, Registered Social the rest being rented from various sources. In addition to the 6.7% of Landlords (RSL) Rented from Private 8.72 8.8 14.34 18.77 11.33 12.06 11126 Council properties rented to residents, the Council also manages around landlord/agency 3,000 leasehold properties across the Borough. Rented from others 3.22 3.22 2.93 3.52 2.53 2.51 2320 All households (No.) 21660475 20451427 3015997 1219859 1796138 - 92288 Source: ONS 2001 Census
Table 6.1 shows that the percentage of home ownership in Redbridge is
comparatively very high. Housing rented from the Council comprises a
small fraction of the Borough’s housing stock. This figure is also very low
when compared to the national and London figures.
62
6.3 Redbridge Wards Household Tenure 6.4 House Prices and Affordability
Owner occupied households make up nearly 90% of the total stock of House prices in the UK have recorded very strong growth between 1996 housing in Clayhall and Monkhams (Table 6.2). Privately rented tenure is and 2003; a boom which is stronger than any other major world more prominent in the south of the Borough, with many wards showing economy. House prices have stabilised over the past couple of years, large increases between the 1991 and 2001 Census. The percentage of albeit at high levels. Table 6.3 illustrates the change in average house privately rented homes in Loxford increased from 13.6% in 1991 to 21.1% prices in London between 2002 and 2006. in 2001, whilst Clementswood and Valentines increased to 22.7% and 30.4% respectively in 2001. The high house prices have compounded the difficulties local people and key workers face in accessing affordable housing. The London Plan and Table 6.2 Redbridge Wards Household Tenure housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) set out criteria for Percentage of households: affordable housing for the purposes of targets in the Plan and assessing Ward Owner Rented Rented from Rented from Rented Occupied Privately RSL Local Authority from Other planning applications. The London Plan SPG states that, in order for 1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001 2001 housing to be considered affordable: Aldborough 70.7 79.6 7.9 8.2 2.3 1.3 20.1 7.7 2.3 Barkingside 89.2 84.3 5.9 7.9 1.4 0.3 4.6 3.9 2.5 Bridge 66.1 77.0 5.6 6.6 2.7 2.1 26.3 11.3 2.5 • the purchase price must be no greater than 3.5 times the Chadwell 91.1 84.2 5.9 8.8 2.1 0.5 2.5 3.3 1.7 household income limit (reviewed annually: £49,000 as of Church End 77.2 75.6 12.8 13.2 4.2 2.7 7.3 4.5 2.5 September 2005), or, Clayhall 89.1 87.4 6.1 6.4 0.5 0.2 4.6 4.2 1.6 Clementswood 78.5 64.5 16.2 22.7 3.3 0.9 4.4 6.0 3.6 • in rented housing the annual housing costs, including rent Cranbrook 82.8 77.4 13.0 14.4 3.3 2.2 2.1 2.7 2.3 and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net Fairlop 80.3 78.2 6.4 9.5 1.7 0.8 12.4 8.1 2.6 household income. Fullwell 77.6 76.6 5.4 6.2 3.8 0.7 16.4 10.8 2.7 Goodmayes 64.6 74.4 8.5 16.7 3.0 0.7 26.3 3.9 2.1 Hainault 62.6 67.2 2.5 4.3 2.2 0.5 34.5 22.5 3.7 The average house price to income ratio is one of the key measures of Loxford 71.8 60.2 13.6 21.1 9.0 1.7 12.9 6.4 3.3 affordable housing. The ratio shows how many times the cost of an Mayfield 87.4 83.4 9.1 8.2 2.7 0.5 3.0 4.0 1.6 Monkhams 87.3 85.7 7.7 7.6 2.2 0.7 4.4 2.7 1.9 average priced property is above a household’s average earnings. A Newbury 85.7 77.1 12.1 13.1 4.0 0.6 1.6 2.7 3.1 study by Steve Wilcox of the University of York has found that issues Roding 83.2 69.7 10.8 10.8 3.8 2.6 3.4 13.8 1.9 relating to housing affordability are not restricted only to London. In Seven Kings 77.9 75.1 17.4 18.1 2.5 1.6 3.0 1.5 2.8 Snaresbrook 71.6 70.9 12.9 13.5 6.6 1.9 13.5 6.3 2.8 2004 the average house price to household earning ratio in London was Valentines 67.0 59.5 27.9 30.4 4.0 2.7 2.4 2.9 3.2 4.89 and in the UK was 4.13. The house price to income ratio for Wanstead 77.8 77.5 7.0 7.4 5.0 4.3 10.9 8.2 2.0 Redbridge was 4.58 (Table 6.4), lower than the London average. In East Redbridge 79.1 75.29 9.04 14.5 1.36 3.40 10.50 6.74 - London 57.0 58.0 13.0 16.0 5.0 9.0 24.0 17.0 - London, Redbridge was ranked the sixth highest of ten Boroughs in terms England 67.2 69.8 10.1 10.2 3.3 6.7 19.4 13.3 - of the house price to income ratio. Source: ONS 1991 & 2001 Census
63 Table 6.3 Property Prices (April -June 2006) To ensure local people in Redbridge are able to access affordable Semi Flats/ %Change housing, the Redbridge Affordable Housing Strategy sets out plans that Borough Detached Detached Terraced Maisonette Overall 2002-06 are being implemented to address this problem. The Redbridge Housing Kensington & Chelsea - 2709909 1728290 589014 808585 45.2% Needs and Requirements Study 2005 estimated a need for 4,995 City Of Westminster 1979777 1426925 1311939 525108 605549 45.3% Camden 2005000 1325689 792646 380015 476622 42.3% additional affordable homes over the next five years (to December 2010). Hammersmith & Fulham - 1008209 665536 335052 457440 51.9% This figure does not include homeless households living in temporary Richmond Upon Thames 836305 560508 447738 269531 420952 44.2% accommodation leased from the private sector. As of 18th July 2006 Wandsworth 1475429 753649 499461 284358 395760 63.8% there were 2,850 such households in Redbridge. Islington - 658745 617601 278443 377835 42.7% Barnet 826412 404436 298028 215015 341280 50.2% City Of London - - - 328477 328477 18.2% Fig 6.2 Source of Demands for Additional Affordable Housing in the Borough Merton 1014000 424625 304684 218969 308774 53.1% Harrow 665939 312552 269892 210924 302279 59.5% Haringey 973461 503762 347587 214486 299691 49.8% Lambeth 676444 502987 401456 232209 292976 36.7% Ealing New and Transfer 873799 363562 307296 208573 291181 52.1% Reduce the number of Applicants on Housing Kingston Upon Thames Olympics (transfers to 558141 321546 264847 207350 290833 41.1% homeless households in waiting list Southwark Redbridge to facilitate 903833 446797 339851 247000 288732 37.6% temporary Hounslow accommodation by 2010 development of 612566 332887 310789 225169 287289 54.1% Olympics sites) Tower Hamlets - 343125 322397 274895 282156 35.6% Brent 557788 363586 311737 205757 280804 55.6% Sub-regional Care Leavers Hackney Housing - 558511 387662 232121 278780 50.8% nominations Bromley 519157 292707 233834 186001 276601 46.2% Inward Special needs Redbridge 455851 306741 257386 185455 253165 57.4% Enfield migration 655972 325161 234002 170843 247699 55.8% Hillingdon Move-on accommodation 469832 255422 220623 167315 245654 50.1% e.g. for people completing Sutton 474094 275949 225712 165945 235170 50.3% their course at the Greenwich 458628 266289 220605 207426 230240 52.6% Redbridge Foyer and for Croydon 462639 272799 214281 153153 228058 52.9% Drug Intervention Havering Programme Clients 398381 237238 203342 148527 222075 55.5% Lewisham 461510 310309 248315 176157 221929 58.1% Waltham Forest 375961 292625 231699 157017 213988 60.1% Newham - 222947 216186 205765 212531 61.6% Bexley 384005 238125 193290 134588 211053 62.2% Barking & Dagenham - 224953 178050 134406 173941 70.6%
64 The Local Development Framework provides a basis to meet identified Table 6.4 House Price to Income Ratio London Boroughs housing needs. The Council’s Affordable Housing Planning Policy Number of Annual (Unitary Development Plan), sets out that, in developments of 25 units or working household Average House House price to Local Authority households earnings (£) Prices (£) income ratios more or on sites of one hectare or more, the Council will seek to ensure Kensington & Chelsea 20,660 88,625 646,856 7.30 that a proportion of all dwellings will be available for rent to those on low Westminster 24,537 70,415 476,560 6.77 to middle incomes who cannot compete successfully in the private or Camden 26,399 65,879 395,495 6.00 rented residential property market. Hammersmith & Fulham 23,533 63,332 354,249 5.59 Brent 21,613 44,951 247,453 5.50 Haringey 21,207 45,650 235,248 5.15 The Council is committed to ensuring that its affordable housing policy Southwark 32,993 45,181 230,276 5.10 will contribute towards delivering this identified capacity. Between 2000 Barnet 29,785 53,487 271,361 5.07 and 2006, the Council was able to secure 900 affordable housing units in City of London 1,357 78,080 393,759 5.04 Hackney 26,564 42,805 215,645 5.04 residential developments and it aims to make available up to 40 homes Hounslow 22,661 47,826 239,733 5.01 for key workers per annum. Completed affordable dwellings accounted Waltham Forest 25,804 39,783 197,539 4.97 for 16% of all new housing in Redbridge during 2005-06. Tower Hamlets 29,594 48,927 242,208 4.95 Harrow 20,442 49,750 242,689 4.88 The regeneration of Ilford Town Centre provides an opportunity for the Newham 27,737 37,253 181,505 4.87 Richmond 21,814 65,431 312,916 4.78 development and provision of a wide range of affordable housing types Enfield 28,037 45,605 214,705 4.71 to meet growing housing needs. Ealing 27,001 53,785 250,005 4.65 Lewisham 32,466 42,916 199,453 4.65 Islington 26,426 67,981 313,669 4.61 Kingston 18,864 55,218 253,280 4.59 Redbridge 24,798 47,405 217,148 4.58 Hillingdon 22,279 48,561 221,893 4.57 Lambeth 39,278 50,128 222,852 4.45 Croydon 38,300 45,511 200,875 4.41 Bromley 29,850 51,986 227,757 4.38 Merton 22,974 56,797 242,999 4.28 Barking & Dagenham 17,284 38,388 162,664 4.24 Wandsworth 42,925 71,706 302,102 4.21 Greenwich 23,804 48,152 198,231 4.12 Sutton 21,001 49,153 202,224 4.11 Havering 19,461 50,815 189,727 3.73 Bexley 18,855 49,385 181,100 3.67 London total 830,123 52,656 257,687 4.89 Source: Affordability and the intermediate housing market, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Steve Wilcox, 2005. N.B. Based on average household incomes of working households aged 20–39 and average house prices for two- and three-bedroom dwellings.
65 6.5 Household Size and Occupancy 29% of Redbridge households are single person households, slightly lower than the figures for England, London and Outer London. 21.31% of Table 6.5 Household Size and Composition in Redbridge households are all-pensioner households and 13.42% are lone pensioner Number of Number of % of all Number of Number of % of all households. These figures are higher than those for London and Outer Habitable Rooms Households Households People Households Households London, but lower than for England as a whole. 1 Room 1,058 1.15 1 person 26,852 29.10 2 Rooms 3,084 3.34 2 people 26,787 29.02 6.55% of households are single parent households with dependent 3 Rooms 10,402 11.27 3 people 14,185 15.37 children, while 3.84% are single parent households with non-dependent 4 Rooms 17,405 18.86 4 people 14,304 15.50 children. These figures are lower than those for London and Outer 5 Rooms 23,217 25.16 5 people 6,882 7.46 London. 5.72% of households have no employed adult and dependent 6 Rooms 20,849 22.59 6 people 2,232 2.42 children, higher than the England figure of 4.83%. In total, a third of 7 Rooms 8,586 9.30 7 people 623 0.68 households have dependent children, which is higher than the England 8 or more figure of 29.5%. 32.96% of households have one or more persons with a 8 or more Rooms 7,689 8.33 people 425 0.46 limiting long-term illness. This is higher than the figures for London (29.65%) and Outer London (30.07%). Appendix 6B shows the household Total 92,290 100 92,290 100 composition of Redbridge in 2001. Source: 2001 Census Table SO51 6.6 Homelessness Table 6.5 shows that within Redbridge there is a high percentage of large properties in terms of the number of habitable rooms, yet there is also a Since 2001, homelessness has risen overall in Redbridge. However, in high percentage of small households in terms of the number of people 2003/04 and 2004/05 the number of households accepted as homeless living in a property. Whereas 1.15% of all households in Redbridge and in priority need decreased by 15%. In 2004/05, a total of 693 contain one habitable room, 29.1% of all households are made up of one households were accepted as homeless and in priority need. Redbridge person. The average number of habitable rooms for a dwelling in aims to prevent 480 homelessness cases per year. Between April 2005 Redbridge is 5.2, yet one- and two-person households make up nearly and March 2006, of 607 homelessness cases, 264 cases were prevented. 60% of the total. The number of one-person households in London is The focus of the Borough’s Homelessness Strategy is to prevent projected to increase by 28% between 2003 and 2021 (ODPM). homelessness and reduce the number of residents in temporary accommodation by 1,145 (50% of the January 2005 figure) by 2010. There are 92,288 occupied households in Redbridge. The average household size is 2.6, which is above average for England, London and 6.7 Housing-Led Development and Regeneration Outer London as a whole. This figure is the sixth highest in England and the fourth highest in London. The majority of dwellings are terraced The London Plan provides the policy basis for the property-led houses or bungalows. The average of 5.2 rooms per household is higher regeneration of Ilford Town Centre, and is one of the drivers behind the than the London average but slightly lower than the England average. desire to increase the number of new homes in the Borough. The Plan sets a target of 50% of all new homes to be affordable.
66 In response to the Mayor’s commitment to housing provision over the 6.8 Sub-Regional Housing Developments next ten years, the London Borough of Redbridge will provide at least 8,000 new homes over this period, to 2017. The Metropolitan Centre of In view of the high levels of net migration flow into Redbridge, there is a Ilford is set to receive 5,500 new homes over the next ten years and will need to provide additional housing, as stipulated in The London Plan (the benefit from considerable transport and public amenities investment. London Plan housing target for Redbridge is 10,860 between 1997-2016). Redbridge is part of the East London Housing Partnership (ELHP) and will The London Plan’s Sub-Regional Development Framework (2005) benefit from the significant resources being targeted at major housing designates Ilford as one of two Metropolitan Centres in East London. The developments along the Thames Gateway and M11 Corridor. It is Framework supports strengthening Ilford’s position by realising its projected that there is the potential to build between 91,000 and 150,000 potential as an Opportunity Area. This designation is likely to result in a new homes in the Thames Gateway area by 2030. significant funding focus and strategic consideration for the town centre within the future London planning agenda. Table 6.6 shows new The ELHP provides a valuable network, allowing East London Boroughs housing completions since 2002/03 and the proportion of these classed to work towards maximising regeneration opportunities within the sub- as affordable. The majority of housing developments in the Borough will region. The Thames Gateway represents a huge opportunity for London take place in the town centres. and south-east England in terms of regeneration and new housing provision. It is anticipated that through the regeneration of one of the Table 6.6 Residential Completion country’s largest concentrations of brownfield sites, there is potential to Period New housing Affordable dwellings as a percentage of all new create around 42,000 new jobs. Completions houses completed 2005/06 794 16% 2004/05 1351 20 % 2003/04 247 17 % 2002/03 686 19 % Source: London Borough of Redbridge, Planning Services
To increase housing stock, the Council aims to identify empty properties across all tenures and bring them back into effective use as shown in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7 Empty Homes to be Brought Back to Use Year 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Number of empty properties that will be put back into effective use 145 150 150 Source: London Borough of Redbridge, Housing & Health Strategy 2006/2010
67
7.0 Culture, Sport and Community
Learning
Corporate Aim:
A better place to live together
Key features
• There has been a dramatic rise in residents’ satisfaction with library services, with 73% satisfied with these, and only 7% dissatisfied.
• Residents’ satisfaction scores for other cultural facilities such as museums, galleries and concert halls were very low in the 2006/07 BVPI survey.
• The Council is currently upgrading its leisure facilities and planning a Major Leisure Development, which will see a new flagship leisure facility built in Ilford.
• The Parks Police Service, aimed at improving community safety in the Borough’s parks and open spaces, has been fully operational since mid-2006.
68 7.1 Introduction The Culture, Sport and Community Learning Service of the Council (which includes leisure, recreation and tourism-related matters) uses the Redbridge has many green spaces, park amenities and urban centres. Cultural Strategy themes to guide its strategic direction and objectives Though only seven miles from central London, the area is close to open which include to: countryside and contains parts of the ancient woodland of Epping Forest • Provide and promote access to cultural facilities; within its boundaries. • Improve health and wellbeing through increasing participation in cultural activities; Cultural, leisure and recreational activities are an important influence on • Promote learning throughout life through ensuring access to how people feel about where they live. Residents in Redbridge have cultural opportunities; identified access to Council-provided leisure and sport services as a • Protect and enhance the environment, including open spaces, determining factor in making Redbridge a ‘better place to live’. This wildlife and heritage sites, buildings and public art; section sets out available information on: • Overcome physical and social barriers to participation and enjoyment of cultural activities and to celebrate Redbridge’s • Leisure Services diversity; • Parks and Open Spaces • Ensure that young people of all ages and backgrounds have • Community Learning and Libraries opportunities to engage in cultural activities; • Youth and Community Involvement. • Improve communication and promotion and raise awareness of cultural opportunities. 7.2 Cultural Strategy
The Cultural Strategy for Redbridge (2003-2008) sets out how the Council aims to enhance the quality of life for residents of the Borough by providing, encouraging and enabling cultural activities and opportunities. The themes of the Cultural Strategy were developed following extensive consultation and a series of workshops with community residents, designed to hear the opinions of those sections of the community that are hard to reach. The resulting themes are: • Better spaces/Better places • Learning for life • Where we live • Something for everyone • Feel good, feel better • Young people • Communication.
69 7.3 Leisure Services • Providing opportunities for sponsorship or working with the private and voluntary sectors. Redbridge’s leisure facilities include two public swimming pools (Barkingside and High Road, Ilford); two athletics grounds (at As well as developing its leisure facilities, Redbridge is focusing on Cricklefields, Ilford and Ashtons Playing Fields, Woodford); a dual use ensuring that the Borough maximises these opportunities for its residents, sports centre (at Wanstead High School); and a golf course at Hainault, including developing training and skills programmes to ensure that leased to Essex Golf. New services, such as Community Centres, may also Redbridge residents can take advantage of the employment opportunities be integrated into the Council’s portfolio in the future. that will arise as a result of the Olympic Games.
The Council is currently upgrading leisure facilities at Wanstead, Whilst overall costs of cultural services to the Council have remained static, Cricklefields and Ashtons Playing Fields and is proposing a Major Leisure usage of leisure facilities has increased. Growth areas are largely related to Development Project involving a new flagship leisure facility in Ilford. major long-term developments for which several million pounds of external funding has been sourced, including the restoration of Valentines Projects such as these will provide useful community resources and Mansion, the development of Ray House and Park, the Major Leisure enable residents to benefit from state-of-the-art facilities. In addition, Development Project Feasibility Study and the development of public and such facilities, combined with Redbridge’s proximity to the Olympic community art. Redbridge has developed a public art policy to maximise Boroughs, will enhance the possibilities of attracting visiting teams to opportunities for public art in the Borough. Redbridge Museum is situtated Redbridge for training and preparation prior to the 2012 London Games. within the Central Library in Ilford. Its displays of objects, interactive The Borough will also host the ‘Eastway Cycle Facility’ at Hog Hill, which is multimedia activities, Children’s Trails and real-life stories attract 20,000 being relocated from East London to make way for Olympic visits each year. In the 2006/07 BVPI survey, Redbridge Council achieved a development. This will provide Redbridge with a national standard 23% satisfaction rating for its museums and galleries. mountain biking and BMX facility in the Hainault area. Facilities in Ilford Town Centre are also set to be improved in advance of 2012 with the In the last year Redbridge Museum service has accessed partnership development of a Cultural Quarter as part of ‘Unity Square’, which will funding through the London Museums Hub to improve access for refugee include a new Theatre and Arts Centre. communities, specifically the local Afghani community. The project has enabled the Borough actively to support the preservation of the cultural A recent publication from the Local Government Association identified heritage of this community and thereby increase equity without using ways in which all Councils can use the 2012 London Olympics to benefit additional Council funds. their communities. These include: A number of cultural and leisure services have adopted standard systems • Tourism; to improve effectiveness. For example, the museum service has been • Getting communities active, healthier and safer; assessed through the national accreditation scheme. Cultural Services are • Increasing community cohesion; using the TAES (Towards an Excellent Service) self-assessment tool to • Creating a significant cultural and sporting legacy; develop an improvement plan for the future.
70 The satisfaction scores for cultural and recreational facilities in the users. The mobile libraries are available to the public for a total of Borough as per the 2006/07 BVPI survey are as follows: 46 hours per week at various locations throughout the Borough; • There are 116 PCs in the libraries allowing public access to the • Residents’ satisfaction with sport and leisure facilities rose from Internet. This includes 20 PCs specifically for children and 96 PCs 38% in 2003/04 to 39% in 2006/07; in adult areas, including 40 PCs in the Reference Library. During • Residents’ satisfaction with theatres and concert halls declined July 2006, the children’s computers were in use an average of 48% from 35% in 2003/04 to 33% in 2006/07. of the available time and the adult computers were in use an average of 65% of the available time. The most used PCs were 7.4 Community Learning and Libraries those in the Reference Library where the computers were used 82% of the available time. Redbridge has a large Central Library, nine branch libraries and two mobile libraries. The libraries provide a range of services including books, The recent 2006/07 BVPI Survey showed a 73% satisfaction rate for CDs and DVDs for loan, free internet access and workstations for public libraries, compared with 69% in the last BVPI survey undertaken in use. They also provide a service for those that are housebound, and host 2003/04. a wide range of events, including the Redbridge Book and Media Festival. The libraries also organise reading groups, computer classes, basic skills 7.5 Adult Education classes, story time class visits, children’s events, homework clubs and reference services. The Schools’ Resource Service offers loans and advice Redbridge Institute of Adult Education operates under a scheme of to all schools. delegation to govern, manage and deliver the adult and community learning service. The Institute has over 7,500 individual users, with 14,000 Libraries continue to provide an effective service with high satisfaction course enrolments annually. Course satisfaction rates are high, at 95%. levels. Value for money has been improved through the supply and The Institute has permanent headquarters at the Gearies Centre and maintenance of the library management system. As part of the London delivers courses at over sixty different venues, including schools, libraries, Libraries Consortium (LLC), Redbridge Libraries negotiate discounts for social services facilities, community and neighbourhood centres. The the supply of adult and children’s library stock. The consortium service offers both Personal and Community Development Learning arrangement has recently been extended to two more London (PCDL) and accredited courses. The Institute works with the Community authorities (Barking and Dagenham and Waltham Forest). Learning Officer and other service providers to develop initiatives to meet local learning needs and to complete the Provider Three-Year High library usage levels reflect the popularity of the Council’s library Development Plan for the Learning and Skills Council. Section 4.4 of this services: publication provides further information on adult qualification levels in Redbridge. • In September 2006 there were 113,274 registered library users, representing approximately 46% of the Borough’s population; • The mobile libraries had 3,778 registered users in September 2006; approximately 3% of the total number of registered library
71 Other adult education facilities available in Redbridge include: 7.6 Youth and Community Involvement
• Mildmay, which was opened in September 2004 as a new adult The Council aims to ensure that young people of all ages and and community learning centre. The range of courses run at backgrounds have opportunities to engage in cultural activities, to Mildmay includes Care, Health, English for speakers of other overcome any physical or social barriers to participation in and languages, Maths and English; enjoyment of cultural activities and to celebrate Redbridge’s diversity.
The Council held a ‘Young People’s Commission’ on the cost and • Fairlop Sailing Centre, is situated in Fairlop Waters Country Park availability of leisure services as part of the consultation process for the and has the use of a forty-acre lake with two islands. Burnham development of the Cultural Strategy. A Youth Council was established to Yacht Harbour on the River Crouch is the coastal base; give young people the opportunity to influence issues relevant to them.
To date, the Youth Council has achieved a number of goals. For example, • Glasbury House Outdoor Education Centre is set in seven acres of their views concerning leisure services in Redbridge for young people grounds in mid-Wales. It consists of a Georgian Manor House were included in the Cultural Strategy. The Youth Council also assisted in which caters for up to 36, including staff, and the Coach House the decision-making process determining the locations of Connexions which caters for up to 20. The Centre provides residential kiosks around Redbridge. The Youth Council presents young people’s experiences for adults and young people from the Borough. It views to a range of organisations including The Council, the Connexions aims to develop participants intellectually, physically and socially Service, the Metropolitan Police and the voluntary sector. within a unique and challenging environment;
The Youth Council is looking to expand and is working to raise its profile Community Learning is a frontline service engaging users in a wide and bid for more funding. The Council has also adopted a Youth range of services on a daily basis. As well as direct contact with Involvement Strategy and Action Plan and appointed a part-time Youth frontline staff, service users are encouraged to shape services through Worker to support Redbridge Youth Council. direct involvement, surveys, focus groups and suggestion boxes, as well as using the Council’s established corporate procedures. An As services for young people cut across a range of service areas, the annual consultation programme ensures that users and non-users are Children’s Fund Partnership Group has also established Children’s consulted on important issues and initiatives. Redbridge Institute of Advisory Panels. Adult Education conducts an annual large-scale marketing survey on important issues relating to widening participation strategies and The Council’s Sports Development Team (SDT) aims to create and quality of provision. provide opportunities for participation in sport and physical activity. This includes managing events such as the East London mini-marathon and the Adidas London mini-marathon. The Sports Development Team also co-ordinates ‘healthy lifestyle’ and physical activity programmes, including the ‘Walk to Health’ initiative, and organises holiday activities,
including active camps for young people. The team organises Redbridge
72 teams to compete in the London Heathrow Youth Games; an event won work. This will ensure continued community satisfaction with these by Redbridge in 2005. facilities.
A physical activity service is currently being established in partnership with the Primary Care Trust, which aims to improve the health of Borough residents through increased physical activity, particularly amongst those at risk from coronary heart disease and related conditions. The Sports Development Team also works closely with schools to ensure access to quality physical education for children.
A Play Strategy for the Borough is currently being developed and extensive consultation has been carried out with children and relevant agencies. £600,000 has been awarded to the Borough to make improvements to play facilities.
7.7 Parks and Open Spaces
Redbridge has a wide range of parks, open spaces and countryside areas, including nine formal parks, two country parks and a designated nature reserve. In addition, Foxburrows Farm is licensed as a zoo. Important sites include the Roding Valley Linear Park, Hainault Forest Country Park, Valentines Park, Claybury Park and Fairlop Waters Country Park. Facilities in parks include tennis and basketball courts, multi-play areas, bowling greens and over one hundred sports pitches. There are also four Re-Cycle circuits, twenty-five play areas and two skate parks. The Borough has 25 allotment sites amounting to around 47 hectares.
The 2006/07 BVPI Survey showed that 69% of residents were satisfied with the parks and open spaces provided by the Council.
A new Parks Police Service has been fully operational since mid-2006, and aims to improve community safety in the Borough’s parks and open spaces. The Council has recently committed over £6 million to upgrading and updating the substantial site infrastructure within its parks, a significant proportion of which is ageing and requires frequent remedial
73
8.0 Health and Social Care
Corporate Aim:
A better place for care
Key Features
• Life expectancy in Redbridge is high for both males (77.0) and females (81.4) compared to London East.
• There is a strong correlation between life expectancy and deprivation in Redbridge. Most of the wards with the lowest life expectancy are also amongst the most deprived wards in Redbridge.
• Redbridge Primary Care Trust (PCT) is focused on improving health in Redbridge by reducing the number of people who smoke, preventing and treating obesity and improving the sexual health of residents.
• Analysis of health in Redbridge over the last couple of years indicates health inequalities between the north and south of the Borough.
• The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) announced that Redbridge Adult Social Services is a 3-star performing authority.
• The Redbridge Concordat was developed to bring together the PCT and the Council’s Community Care Service in order that the public could be provided with seamless services tailored to meet individual needs.
74
8.1 Introduction Table 8.1 London East Boroughs, Life Expectancy at Birth (2000-2004) One of the key priorities of the Redbridge Community Strategy is to Borough Male Borough Female Rank improve the health, care and well-being of people living in the Borough. London City 80.0 London City 87.6 1 The Redbridge Community Strategy provides a platform for the Council, Bexley 77.4 Redbridge 81.4 2 working with its partners, to improve service quality in order to have a Redbridge 77.0 Bexley 81.3 3 positive impact on residents’ lives. Havering 76.8 Havering 80.9 4 Barking and Dagenham 74.9 Hackney 80.6 5 The Redbridge Primary Care Trust (PCT) and the Council’s Community Greenwich 74.5 Greenwich 80.2 6 Care Service have established a strong partnership to tackle health and Barking and social issues affecting Redbridge. This section profiles health and social Hackney 74.4 Dagenham 79.5 7 care in Redbridge and describes strategies that have been implemented Lewisham 74.3 Lewisham 79.2 8 to make Redbridge a better place for care. Newham 73.8 Tower Hamlets 79.1 9
Tower Hamlets 73.4 Newham 78.9 10 “Health is a basic human right and essential for social and economic Source: London Health Observatory development” World Health Organisation, Jakarta Declaration, 1997 In Redbridge, life expectancy has increased over time and, amongst the 8.2 Life Expectancy London East Boroughs, Redbridge ranks highly for both males (77.0) and females (81.4) as shown in Table 8.1. Life expectancy at birth is an estimate of the average number of years a newborn infant is expected to live. This indicator allows comparison of At ward level, there are significant differences in life expectancy for both death rates within and between geographical areas. males and females. Loxford has the worst life expectancy for both males and females in Redbridge. The difference between the life expectancy Improving life expectancy at birth is one of the health targets introduced of females in Barkingside and Loxford is seven years and there is a 6.1 by the Government, which aims to increase the life expectancy at birth in year difference between life expectancy for males in Clayhall and Loxford England to 78.6 years for males and 82.5 years for females by 2010. Life (Table 8.2). expectancy has been improving in the United Kingdom as a result of improvements in infant and childhood morbidity.
75
Table 8.2 Redbridge Wards, Life Expectancy at Birth (2000-2004) 8.3 Infant Mortality Male: Life Female: Life Rank Ward Expectancy Ward Expectancy Despite the fact that infant mortality constitutes a small fraction of total deaths, it serves as an important measure of health in a community. Clayhall 80.4 Barkingside 85.6 1 Since infant mortality rates are low, rates are compiled over a three-year
Monkhams 78.7 Bridge 83.7 2 period. The 2000-2002 infant mortality rate for Redbridge was high, at
Newbury 78.7 Clayhall 83.5 3 6.3 per 1,000 live births. However, infant mortality declined to 5.6 per
Church End 78.4 Newbury 83.4 4 1,000 live births between 2002 and 2004. The position of Redbridge
Barkingside 78.3 Church End 83.2 5 compared to the other London East boroughs is shown in Fig 8.1.
Mayfield 77.9 Fairlop 83.2 6 Fairlop 77.9 Fullwell 82.1 7 Fig 8.1 Infant Mortality Rate, London East (2000-2004) Wanstead 77.7 Roding 82.0 8 Infant Mortality Rate: London East 2000 - 2004 Cranbrook 77.5 Snaresbrook 81.8 9
Chadwell 77.3 Monkhams 81.8 10 2000-02
Roding 76.7 Wanstead 81.7 11 8.0 2002-04 Bridge 76.6 Goodmayes 81.6 12 7.0 Aldborough 76.5 Cranbrook 81.4 13 6.0 Fullwell 76.4 Mayfield 80.7 14 5.0 Goodmayes 76.2 Seven Kings 80.3 15 4.0 Clementswood 76.1 Valentines 80.2 16 3.0 2.0 Hainault 76.0 Chadwell 79.7 17 1.0 Snaresbrook 76.0 Aldborough 79.6 18 0.0 Seven Kings 75.6 Hainault 79.5 19 Redbridge Barking & Dag. Bexley Greenwich Hackney Havering Lewisham Newham Tower Hamlets
Valentines 74.5 Clementswood 79.5 20 Source: London Health Observatory Loxford 74.2 Loxford 78.5 21 Source: Office of National Statistics 8.4 Standard Mortality Ratio For All Causes For Persons Under 75
There appears to be a strong correlation between life expectancy and Redbridge had the third lowest Standard Mortality Rate (SMR)22 for deprivation in Redbridge, since most of the wards with low life premature deaths among London East Boroughs and the tenth lowest in expectancy are also amongst the most deprived wards in Redbridge.
22 SMR is a measure of premature and preventable mortality. It can be defined as, "the ratio of the observed number of deaths in a ward to the number expected if the ward had the same age-specific rates as England and Wales". 76 London between 2000 and 2004. Only five wards in Redbridge had an Table 8.3 Death Rate by Cause for Persons under 75 Years, London East (2002-2004) SMR greater than 100, meaning that the number of observed or actual All Cancers All circulatory Suicides Accidents deaths was greater than expected. The highest ward SMRs were 2002-04 2002-04 2002-04 2002-04 recorded in Valentines and Loxford, both located in the south of the Tower Hamlets 153.33 160.92 12.2 12.0 Barking and 129.75 11.1 Borough. Wards with the lowest mortality rates for people under 75 Dagenham 142.66 6.3 years are ranked highly in terms of household income and other Hackney 137.51 140.63 *9.5 *11.9 indicators of well-being. Lewisham 137.06 118.75 8.2 11.1 Greenwich 136.02 120.15 6.9 9.9 The five most deprived wards in Redbridge have the highest levels of all Newham 132.92 152.43 7.6 11.7 Havering 116.05 95.72 5.4 9.7 causes of mortality amongst persons under 75 years. Redbridge 114.53 92.86 6.6 8.4 Bexley 112.01 85.25 6.8 8.4 Fig 8.2 SMR All Causes Under 75 Years (2000-2004) City of London 94.73 99.42 - - England 121.60 96.70 8.6 11.6 SMR All Causes under 75 years, 2000 -04 London 120.07 103.31 8.3 9.8 *Includes City of London 140.0 Source: ONS, London Health Observatory Health and Social Care Information Centre. © Crown Copyright 120.0
1
1
2 100.0 1
4 1 4 1 1 8.6 Redbridge PCT Annual Public Health Report 2005/06
. 0 9 . 9 0 0 9
9 9
7
5 9 9
6 9 7 7 8 7 80.0 9
8 . . 1 8
. . 2 . . 8 . 3 1 2 8
8 8 6 5 2 9 . 8
7 . 7
. 2 9
5 7
. 2 .
8
. 7 7 5 . 6
5 4 60.0 6 5
.
1 3
7 . The 2005/06 Annual Report published by Redbridge PCT focused on 9
5 . .
4 4 . 40.0 4 addressing the challenges and opportunities of improving health in 20.0 Redbridge by reducing the number of people who smoke, preventing Clementswood Seven Kings Goodmayes Aldborough Snaresbrook End Church Barkingside Monkhams 0.0 Valentines Loxford Hainault Fullwell Roding Bridge Newbury Wanstead Chadwell Cranbrook Fairlop Mayfield Clayhall and treating obesity and improving the sexual health of residents.
According to the report, in 2001 smoking was responsible for 17% of all
Source: London Health Observatory deaths in Redbridge and on average is responsible for one death per day. Using national data on smoking prevalence, it is estimated that between 8.5 The Death Rate by Cause for Persons Under 75 45,000 and 50,000 people smoke in Redbridge. The PCT and the Council are working together to increase smoking cessation rates, tackle teenage The four PCT indicators in Table 8.3 show that death rates in Redbridge smoking and raise awareness of the ill effects of smoking amongst are amongst the lowest in London East. All indicators are below the children and families. London and England averages. The United Kingdom has the most rapidly increasing rates of obesity in Europe and its prevalence is increasing across all age groups. The 77 National Audit Office estimates that the direct cost of treating obesity bridge this gap, the PCT has opened a Walk-in Centre in South Ilford, and its consequences in 1998 was £480 million and indirect costs employed a number of new GPs in the south of the Borough and is amounted to £2.1 billion. The cost drivers of obesity are hypertension, committed to building a modern and fit-for-purpose building in South coronary disease and Type 2 diabetes. The PCT and the Council have Ilford to serve the primary health care needs of residents. The Children’s initiated plans to increase physical activity amongst all age groups, Trust, in collaboration with the PCT, has agreed to host antenatal care at through partnership with schools, leisure and health services and the Children’s Resource Centre to provide midwives with appropriate community and voluntary organisations. The PCT report suggests that facilities and the opportunity to liaise better with health visitors and the challenge lies in achieving sustainable behaviour change amongst social workers. communities and individuals. The Children’s Trust has responsibility for ensuring the success of its Health School Programme and Extended 8.7 Community Care Schools Programmes in the Borough. The aim of Redbridge Council Community Care Service is to provide The annual PCT report states that Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI), services of the best quality and value to the residents of Redbridge. HIV and unwanted pregnancy rates are on the increase both nationally Community Care provides care, support and assistance to a wide range and locally. Teenage pregnancy rates within Redbridge are lower than of people: for London and England. The teenage pregnancy rate in Redbridge • Adults; declined from 32.5 conceptions per 1,000 women aged 15-17 in 2002 to • The elderly; 32.2 in 2003. • People with physical and/or learning disabilities;
• People with mental health problems. The annual report notes that sexual health services, particularly genito- urinary medicine (GUM) clinics, have become overstretched as In November 2006, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) attendance has increased. Young people aged 16-24 were the largest announced that Redbridge Adult Social Services had retained the 3-star group (34%) attending services in 2002-04. Genital warts and chlamydia status that was awarded in 2005. This is the highest rating possible. were the most commonly-diagnosed conditions of Redbridge residents attending GUM clinics. 8.8 Demand for Adult Social Care
In Redbridge, the PCT works through four agencies (Positive East, East The main aim of Adult Social Care is to provide quality services which London Out Project (ELOP), Faith Health Project and African Forum) to promote and encourage independence, reduce preventable tackle STI in the Borough. The PCT also operates a small grant scheme to hospitalisation and avoid a move to residential or nursing care by support HIV prevention work. The PCT has collaborated with the Council minimising the physical, psychological and emotional causes of to promote relationship education in schools. dependency through the provision of care services, active aging and
health and well-being promotion. Analysis of health in Redbridge over the last couple of years indicates health inequalities between the north and south of the Borough. To
78 To improve joined-up working among partners, the Redbridge Table 8.4 Limiting Long-Term Illness, Census 2001 Concordat was developed to bring together NHS and the Council’s Social Ward % of % of % of % of People % of People People Working Age People who who who Services in order to provide the public with seamless services tailored to with Population described described described meet individual needs. The Concordat will take forward the proposals in Limiting with Limiting their health their health their health the Government Green Paper, ‘Independence, Well-being and Choice’ Long-Term Long-Term as ‘Good’ as ‘Fairly as ‘Not Good’ Illness Illness Good’ published in March 2005. The Green Paper sets out the Government’s Aldborough 17.25 12.75 67.75 23.33 8.91 vision for integrating health and social care services and advocates a Barkingside 16.22 11.50 69.06 22.55 8.39 strong working relationship between the local authority and the Bridge 15.69 11.78 70.90 21.43 7.66 Chadwell 15.49 10.20 70.95 21.66 7.39 independent, voluntary and community sectors. Church End 13.24 7.81 74.09 19.68 6.23 Clayhall 15.26 11.28 69.65 22.71 7.64 Around 10% of the population of Redbridge provides unpaid care to Clementswood 16.40 14.41 69.04 21.75 9.21 Cranbrook 17.06 13.10 68.75 22.66 8.59 someone who is ill or elderly. The majority (68.4%) of unpaid carers Fairlop 16.70 12.44 69.95 21.35 8.69 provide up to nineteen hours of help per week, which is similar to the Fullwell 18.64 13.70 67.05 23.64 9.31 national average. Goodmayes 14.86 12.45 69.91 22.10 7.99 Hainault 23.00 17.43 62.00 25.64 12.37 Loxford 16.25 14.42 68.72 22.30 8.99 8.9 People in Redbridge with a Limiting Long-Term Illness Mayfield 16.67 12.24 69.35 22.35 8.30 Monkhams 15.17 8.86 74.12 18.41 7.47 Newbury 15.37 12.75 70.96 21.32 7.72 The 2001 Census defines limiting long-term illness as a long-term illness, Roding 13.77 10.92 72.98 19.75 7.27 or health problem/disability that limits daily activities and/or work. In Seven Kings 16.26 13.69 69.30 21.33 9.37 England, 16.3% of the population were said to be suffering from some Snaresbrook 17.71 9.65 69.85 21.28 8.86 Valentines 15.87 13.50 70.09 21.59 8.32 form of limiting long-term illness. In Redbridge, 18.2% of residents have Wanstead 15.06 10.10 71.84 21.16 7.00 some form of limiting long-term illness (Table 8.4). Hainault has the Redbridge 18.23 13.56 68.55 22.23 9.22 largest percentage of residents suffering from a limiting long-term illness London 15.49 11.87 70.82 20.90 8.28 (23%). Hainault also has the highest figure within Redbridge for residents England 16.30 12.20 69.76 21.85 8.39 Table KS08P 2001 Census of working age with a limiting long-term illness. Source: ONS Neighbourhood Statistics http://www.neighbourhood.stastics.gov.uk/ Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO Hainault also has the lowest percentage of people (62%) describing their health as ‘good’, and the highest percentage of residents (12.4%) stating 8.10 Demand for Adult Social Services by Ethnicity that their health was ‘not good’. In contrast, over 74% of residents in the Monkhams and Church End wards described their health as ‘good’. Government performance indicators show that the ratio of people from BME groups receiving assessments and services from Social Services compared to those of White ethnic origin improved during 2004/05, reflecting improved access to social services. Table 8.5 shows that the preferred choice of services are those which are community based,
79 enabling people to remain in their own home. This is a cheaper way of employment opportunities and other care facilities. Redbridge currently providing care and enables people to live independently. has insufficient care services available for older people with functional mental health problems. Table 8.5 Service Users by Ethnicity Ethnicity Total of all Type of Service 8.12 Children’s Trust Service Users Community Local Authority Independent sector Nursing In 2003, Redbridge implemented a pathfinder Children’s Trust, which based service in residential care residential care Home No. % own home Care brought together Education, Social Care and Health professionals in White 5581 72 4912 26 444 199 integrated teams to enable the development and creation of seamless Mixed 50 1 45 0 3 2 Asian/British Asian 1188 15 1058 5 83 42 services for children and their families. The integration of service Black/Black British 225 3 199 1 17 8 delivery will extend Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services into the Chinese/other 77 1 68 0 7 2 ethnic group three Children’s Resource Centres. The Children’s Trust’s aim for every Not stated 649 8 572 3 51 23 child is to have the support they need to: Total 7770 6854 35 605 276 Source: Redbridge Adult Social Services • Be healthy; 8.11 Mental Health • Stay safe; • Enjoy and achieve; A Mental Health Needs Assessment carried out by the Director of Public • Make a positive contribution; Health indicates that the need for mental health services in Redbridge is • Achieve economic well-being. likely to increase over time. The ONS Psychiatric Mobility Survey, 2000 predicted that the prevalence, over a one-year period, of the number of 8.12.1 Children’s Trust – Neglect and Abuse people with mental health problems is likely to be as follows: The Children’s Trust has demonstrated extremely positive outcomes in • 760 adults with psychotic illness; the area of child protection. While the number of child referrals (4,209) to • 24,000 adults with any form of neurosis; social services in 2005/06 marginally increased by 5% from the previous • 12,000 with alcohol dependence; year (4,026), the number of referrals was well below the national average • 6,380 with drug dependence; and those of comparable local authorities. This reflects an historical commitment by universal services such as schools and health centres to • 220 adults with dementia. provide effective tier 1 support to families. Redbridge has standard
processes in place for Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks and other The Public Health report identified that amongst older people, 2,619 vetting procedures for those working with children. people suffered from dementia and 1,894 people suffered from
depression or anxiety. The Primary Care Trust is leading on the redesign of specialist mental health services by improving access to training and
80 The success of preventative and interagency work is reflected in the only safeguarding children with the North-East London Mental Health Care very small increase in the percentage of repeat child referrals to social Trust and other local authorities. services within twelve months: 5.5% in 2004/05 to 6.9% in 2005/06. These figures are much lower than the 2004/05 London and England The LCSB, in contrast to its ACPC predecessor, has developed a wide- averages of 16% and 20% respectively. The effectiveness of interagency ranging approach to the safety of children, committing itself to the issue work is also demonstrated by a 4% fall in the number of referrals that led of children’s well being on the roads and in the home as well as to more to initial assessments in the past two years. This proportion is also low traditional child protection concerns. when compared to other Boroughs. 8.12.3 Preventative Measures – Looked After Children The percentage of Initial Assessments completed within seven working days of referral increased from 78.6% in 2004/5 to 84.8% in 2005/06, As a result of effective preventative support services for families, the which is significantly and consistently above other outer London local number of Looked After Children (LAC) per 10,000 aged under 18 is very authorities and the national average and also above the Redbridge low (28.2) compared to the national average (60.1 in 2003/04) and target of 80%. As a result of detailed Initial Assessments, the proportion comparable authorities (58.1). Numbers are declining slowly but are of Core Assessments completed within 35 working days of their below the forecast of 29. Families at risk receive advice and support commencement was slightly down from the previous year. Redbridge is from Family Support Service outreach and group work. The currently reviewing its processes for Initial and Core Assessments to development of the Children’s Centre programme is providing a range of ensure that outputs are in line with DfES expectations. further support services for vulnerable children and their families. The Council has at present four designated Children’s Centres with plans for 8.12.2 Local Safeguarding Children Board ten more.
The former Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC) was highly 8.12.4 Looked After Children in a Safe Environment successful in achieving a number of identifiable outcomes. A Joint Investigation Protocol was put in place, a second consultant community The Children’s Trust ensures the safety of Looked After Children through pediatrician was employed and a doctor is being recruited to join the the careful vetting of prospective carers, residential and family centre existing safeguarding team within health. This has provided an staff and staff in general. Redbridge demonstrates continued excellent foundation upon which to build the Borough’s Local improvement in providing stability for Looked After Children. The Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB). number of LAC with three or more placements during one year has decreased from 18.9% in 2003/04 to 11.4% in 2005/06. Redbridge’s The Redbridge LSCB was launched on 8th December 2005, ahead of performance is well within the Government target of less than 16%. national requirements, and first met on 24th January 2006. The Council has developed specific protocols, including the responsibilities of The annual Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) inspections of partner organisations for children and families placed in temporary Redbridge children’s home, which included unannounced inspections, accommodation, and a joint protocol of roles and responsibilities in
81 reported continuing improvements and generally high standards of care 8.12.6 Children and Young People With Learning Difficulties and/or and services. Disabilities Making a Positive Contribution
The percentage of children who had been looked after continuously for A comprehensive range of support is provided for children and young at least four years and in their foster placement for at least two years people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities to enable them to increased from 46.6% in 2004/05 to 61.7% in 2005/06, indicating the make a positive contribution. A well-established network of clubs, such general long-term stability of LACs in Redbridge. Recent London as the Indigo Project, and groups centred on special schools are available benchmarking information showed that Redbridge’s position for to children and young people. Mentoring schemes are run for those 2005/06 was the second highest of thirteen local authorities, with the having particular difficulties in developing and maintaining positive lowest being 42% and the highest 62%. relationships.
8.12.5 Looked After Children Making a Positive Contribution Table 8.6 provides a breakdown of the ethnic profile of Looked After Children in Redbridge. The advent of the Children’s Trust has led to a In Redbridge Looked After Children are encouraged to attend and strengthening of multi-agency support for children and young people participate in their case reviews. Of 493 reviews held in 2005/06, 417 and their parents and carers at key transition points in their lives. concerned children aged four and above, of which 72% were attended Improvements include better information sharing between Health, by the child. 91.8% of children and young people communicated their Education and Social Services and closer working with Connexions staff. views to the review, including those who used age-appropriate consultation forms.
In 2005/06, 147 responses were received from children and their families evaluating their experiences of care planning and review. These were very positive. 91% of respondents understood why the review was taking place and 93% were happy with the timing and venue. 80% met the Chairperson before the review, and this was universally found to be useful. The Review Team is also looking at Hear by Right materials as a means of further enhancing the participation of young people in decision-making.
82 Table 8.6 Ethnicity of Looked After Children in Redbridge (March 2006)
Ethnicity Total Foster Residential- in Other % in % Ethnic Mar Placements & house, agency, placements Ethnic breakdown in 2006 placed for voluntary homes, Group Redbridge adoption independent schools
White 81 60 14 7 48.80 49.50 Mixed 25 16 5 4 15.06 5.97 Asian/ British Asian 21 19 1 1 12.65 32.40 Black/ British Black 33 30 3 0 19.88 10.71 Chinese/ other ethnic group 6 4 2 0 3.61 1.42
Total 166 129 25 12 100.00 100.00
Source: Children’s Services 2006
83
9.0 Community Safety
Corporate Aim:
A safer place to live
Key features
• The Crime, Disorder and Substance Misuse Strategy for 2005- 2008 reports that the Safer Communities Partnership has set an objective of reducing reported crime in Redbridge by 19.4% by March 2008.
• Reported crimes were down 13.2% in 2005/06 compared to 2003/04.
• Of the fifteen similar Boroughs in the Community Safety family group, Redbridge has the tenth lowest rate of crime per 1,000 residents.
84 9.1 Introduction After publicising the audit, the Partnership carried out a consultation exercise between October 2004 and January 2005, to gather the views Crime is the main concern of Redbridge residents of all ages and and experiences of people living and working in the Borough. ethnicities. Crime can range from damage or theft of property to acts of violence against a person. Even if residents have not suffered directly In April 2005, the Redbridge Safer Communities Partnership published its from a crime, the fear of crime in an area can add to local anxieties. third Crime and Disorder Strategy, covering the period 2005 to 2008, with an increased emphasis on drugs and alcohol, which underpin a In the 2006/07 BVPI survey, 68% of respondents stated that a level of wide variety of criminal activity. crime was the most important issue to them in making Redbridge a good place to live. The findings of the local crime audit, and the community consultation identified five key priority areas to be targeted in 2005-2008: However, tackling crime is a complex problem, requiring co-operation between independent and voluntary agencies, local communities, • To reduce violent crime; families and individuals. As well as dealing with victims and perpetrators, • To reduce anti-social behaviour; the root causes of crime also need to be tackled – social deprivation, lack • To reduce the harm caused by drugs and alcohol to communities, of education and employment opportunities and income inequality. individuals and families and to reduce alcohol- and drug-related crime and disorder; 9.2 Redbridge Safer Communities Partnership • To reduce acquisitive crime;
• To reduce hate crime. The Redbridge Safer Communities Partnership (RSCP) is the statutory multi-agency strategic body responsible for identifying and addressing It is well recognised that prevention is one of the most effective crime, disorder and drug and alcohol misuse in Redbridge. It comprises a strategies in tackling crime, whether through physical changes to number of agencies, including the Council, the Metropolitan Police property and the environment or through targeting vulnerable Service, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire Brigade, the individuals and groups. However, effective solutions to crime reduction Primary Care Trust, the London Area Probation Service, the Magistrates are also informed by and involve local communities. Court, the Chamber of Commerce, the Council for Voluntary Services, the
Racial Equality Council and Victim Support.
In accordance with the statutory duties placed on the RSCP, the
Redbridge Crime and Disorder and Substance Misuse Audit was published in September 2004. The audit illustrated the issues and problems that the Borough was facing and showed the progress made in tackling these between 2002 and 2004.
85 9.3 Overall Levels of Offending Fig 9.1 Crimes Comparison (June 2005 - Aug 2005) Family group comparison of all crimes reported Jun 05 to Aug 05 A key measure of the effectiveness of crime reduction work is local reported statistics. The number of reported crimes in 2005/06 fell by Harrow 20.0 13.2% from the baseline 2003/04 figure, exceeding the target reduction Sutton 22.5 Bexley 22.7 23 of 19.4% for 31st March 2008. Merton 23.5 Enfield 23.9 The Borough saw significant reductions in violent crime and motor Redbridge 24.4 vehicle crime in 2006, but increases in domestic burglary and robbery. Croydon 26.1 Barnet 26.5 Other results include: reducing the number of motor vehicle thefts by Average 27.6 Hillingdon 28.7 18% in 2005/06, exceeding the 2007/08 target of 16%; reducing the Family group Ealing 31.0 number of calls relating to noise nuisance by 7.8% during 2005/06, Hounslow 32.7 which already exceeds the target reduction of 3% set for 2005-2008; Waltham Forest 35.3 reducing assault levels in 2005/06 to 13% below the 2003/04 baseline; Watford 35.4 and, increasing the percentage of individuals who stay in structured Slough 36.8 drugs treatment programmes for twelve weeks or more from 20% to Crawley 40.1 43%, showing a strong improvement although just short of the 45% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Crimes per 1000 Residents target.
Source: Metropolitan Police - Redbridge - June 2005 - Aug 2005 Fig 9.1 shows the number of crimes per 1,000 of the population for 24 similar strategic partnerships or family groups . Of the fifteen areas in the family group, Redbridge has the sixth lowest rate of crime per 1,000 residents, at 24.4. This places Redbridge lower than the average of 27.6 for the family group.
23 This equates to a fall of 3,500 offences. 24 Family group comparisons is the term for Community Safety Partnerships of other boroughs that are designated most similar to Redbridge by the Home Office in terms of characteristics such as population and demographics. 86
Table 9.1 Total Incidence of Crime (Sep 2004 - Aug 2005) 9.4 Analysis by Crime Type
Ward Total Incidence of Crime (Sept 2004 - Aug 2005) 9.4.1 Violent Crime Clementswood 2841 Valentines 1863 Violent crime includes all types of assault, including that associated with Loxford 1737 domestic violence. Robbery is also included in this category as it involves Seven Kings 1679 the use of threat or force to take something from another person. Newbury 1252 Aldborough 1077 Table 9.2 uses data on violent crime offences from both the Metropolitan Goodmayes 1050 Police and the London Ambulance Service (LAS) to show the position of Church End 986 Redbridge wards in relation to violent crime. Cranbrook 983 Snaresbrook 979 In line with other Boroughs, Redbridge has identified areas with a higher Hainault 977 prevalence of domestic violence in the more deprived wards. Wards Wanstead 938 with the highest percentage of incidents of domestic violence in 2004/05 Roding 899 were Loxford (9%), Seven Kings (9%), Hainault (7%) and Valentines (7%). Fullwell 867 By comparison, Barkingside, Monkhams and Wanstead, all with 2% of the Fairlop 865 overall number of reports, are the most affluent areas. However, the Clayhall 841 percentage differences are relatively small, showing that domestic Barkingside 828 violence impacts on all areas and all communities. Mayfield 818 Bridge 738 By 2008, targets are to reduce robbery by 14%, reduce assaults Chadwell 731 occasioning actual or grievous bodily harm by 8%, and to reduce Monkhams 642 common assaults by 11%. Source: Metropolitan Police - Redbridge - Sep 2004 - Aug 2005
Table 9.1 shows that the four wards in Redbridge with a disproportionately high level of total crime are Clementswood, Valentines, Loxford and Seven Kings. Other than Seven Kings, these wards cover much of Ilford town centre.
87 Table 9.2 Incidents of Violent Crime (2004/05) Fig 9.2 Violent Crimes Comparison (June 2005 - Aug 2005) Data for 2004/05 Family group comparison of violent crimes reported June20 05 - Aug Ward name MET % of total Rank Ambulance % of total Rank 2005 violent violent (MET) (LAS) violent violent (LAS) crime crime crime call outs crime Waltham Forest 11.9 (MET) (LAS) Hounslow 10.2 Crawley 9.0 Clementswood 298 15% 1 21 16% 1 Ealing 8.9 Valentines 210 11% 2 9 7% 5 Slough 7.9 Loxford 170 9% 3 11 9% 4 Hillingdon 7.8 Seven Kings 155 8% 4 13 10% 2 Croydon 7.6 Hainault 110 6% 5 6 5% 8 Watford 7.6 Goodmayes 89 5% 6 6 5% 7 Merton 6.5
Family group Enfield 6.3 Fullwell 80 4% 7 5 4% 11 Barnet 6.2 Cranbrook 76 4% 8 13 10% 2 Bexley 6.0 Newbury 71 4% 9 6 5% 10 Redbridge 5.6 Church End 71 4% 10 1 1% 19 Sutton 5.4 Fairlop 68 3% 11 4 3% 13 Harrow 5.0
Roding 62 3% 12 3 2% 16 02468101214 Bridge 62 3% 13 2 2% 18 Crime per 1,000 residents Aldborough 61 3% 14 2 2% 17
Mayfield 57 3% 15 6 5% 9 Source: Metropolitan Police - Redbridge (Jun 05 to Aug 05) Snaresbrook 57 3% 16 4 3% 14 Barkingside 54 3% 17 7 5% 6 One method the Borough will use to combat violent crime will be to use Wanstead 53 3% 18 1 1% 21 both static and mobile CCTV in street crime hotspots to identify Chadwell 52 3% 19 4 3% 12 perpetrators and deter crime. Another method will be to increase the Clayhall 49 3% 20 3 2% 15 visible presence of a range of uniformed officers on the streets, through Monkhams 39 2% 21 1 1% 20 the use of high visibility days and supporting the expansion of the Safer TOTAL 1,944 100% - 128 100% - Neighbourhoods Policing programme25, the increase in Police Source: Communications Action Plan 2005 - 2008 Community Support Officers and the Council’s new uniformed Street Fig 9.2 shows that Redbridge has the third lowest number of violent Scene Service. crimes per 1,000 in its family group, considerably less than the average and less than half the number of violent crimes committed in Waltham
Forest. 25 This includes a dedicated team of police officers for each neighbourhood, including new Police Community Support Officers, and will give Redbridge residents a greater say in how Redbridge is policed. 88 9.4.2 Anti-Social Behaviour One method of reducing anti-social behaviour by young people is through increasing the availability of programmes for parents of young Anti-social behaviour and disorder encompasses a wide range of people on Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs), Anti-Social Behaviour behaviour which damages people’s quality of life. It is the sort of Orders (ASBOs), criminal court orders and others at risk of offending, behaviour that often makes people feel unsafe and contributes to fear of including those on the caseload of Mpower (now called the Youth Crime crime. It can include aggressive, unruly or intimidating behaviour by Prevention Service comprising staff from the Police, the Council and groups or individuals. It can involve street drinking and drunkenness, Connexions, as well as five posts financed by the Children’s Fund). These abandonment of vehicles, harassment of neighbours, vandalism, programmes aim to enable parents to improve their skills in managing littering, excessive noise, graffiti, fire setting and other such anti-social their children and also to promote increased parental responsibility. acts. There are often links between anti-social behaviour and drugs and alcohol. The Redbridge Mentoring Project recruits volunteers from the local community and trains them to work with young people at risk of or Local studies show that the main problems of anti-social behaviour in involved in anti-social behaviour or offending. The mentors act as Redbridge include youth nuisance and disorder, vandalism, drunken positive role models who can empower and support young people to behaviour, fly tipping and litter dropping. The latter two are not included achieve agreed goals. in the crime statistics, and are generally reported by non-Police partners. Another of the Council’s methods of tackling anti-social behaviour is The map in Appendix 9A shows that anti-social behaviour incidents through its support of the extension of the Safer Neighbourhood recorded on FLARE26 in the evening are largely confined to the Policing programme to more wards in the Borough and the use of Police Broadmead Estate in Roding. The map in Appendix 9B shows that during Community Support Officers to increase police visibility in anti-social the day, anti-social behaviour incidents are more widespread with behaviour hotspots. In April 2004, Loxford was the first ward to receive a hotspot areas in south Loxford. Safer Neighbourhoods Team. Safer Neighbourhoods is now being rolled out in the Borough. By 2008, targets are to: reduce by 10% the proportion of those surveyed who believe that anti-social behaviour is a big or very big problem; reduce the number of disorder calls to licensed premises by 5%; reduce the number of disorder calls to public places by 15%; and to reduce the number of reported incidents of noise nuisance and excessive noise by 3%.
26 FLARE is a database that the London Borough of Redbridge uses to register the number of disorder calls.
89 9.4.3 Drugs And Alcohol Homelessness has been identified as a problem for those with drug problems in Redbridge. In 2003/04, approximately 8% of the users of the Drug and alcohol related crime refers to the range of negative Redbridge Drug and Alcohol Service were of No Fixed Abode. 12% of consequences to individuals and communities resulting from illegal drug Drug Treatment and Testing Order Clients attending the Redbridge use and harmful and/or hazardous drinking and includes physical, Nightshelter in 2002 had a drug or alcohol problem. psychological, social and criminal consequences. A study of the drugs market in Redbridge in 2002 by the consultant In 2003/04, drug offences accounted for only 2% of overall crime in Russell Webster concluded that the market was growing. It reported that Redbridge. However, the use by offenders of heroin, crack and cocaine, the number of people involved in the sale of drugs had increased since in particular, is a causal factor underpinning a high number of acquisitive 2000, with many more transactions taking place than previously. The crimes, most commonly, theft, shoplifting and burglary. market mainly served local people, although some buyers came from neighbouring areas, particularly south Essex. Alcohol is often a major contributing factor to disturbances in public places and disturbances at licensed premises. Reports of these types of The study found that at the time there were no crack houses in incidents are used to measure the extent of anti-social behaviour. Redbridge. It is known that occasionally premises do open in the Between 2002/03 and 2003/04, there was a 5% reduction in reports of Borough for the selling and use of a variety of drugs, but, once identified, disturbances at licensed premises. There was an increase of 14% of these are rapidly closed through joint action by the Police and other disturbances in public places during the same period. There was also an relevant partners. increase of 13% in reports of drunkenness. Heroin and crack were found to be easily obtainable. Users interviewed Alcohol is reported as the most popular drug and the one that young in the Webster study estimated that 8 out of 10 dealers were involved in people use most harmfully. Typically, young people aged 11-14 years the joint sale of heroin and crack. start drinking ‘alcopops’, before moving onto vodka and mixers, stronger lager or cider at the ages of 15 and 16 and then a full range of adult The study found that almost 75% of those in treatment were recorded as drinks by the age of 17-18. Furthermore, those aged 16-24, are more using opiates (e.g. heroin, methadone) as their main drug; a further 19% likely to binge drink than any other age group. were using stimulants (e.g. crack, cocaine, amphetamines); and 6% had attended treatment because of their cannabis use. By 2008, targets are to: reduce by 5% the number of alcohol-related injuries; increase to 55% the proportion of drug and alcohol users Recent studies found cannabis to be the most common illicit drug used successfully sustained in treatment programmes for at least 12 weeks; by young people in Redbridge. It is reported that many start smoking it and to reduce by 10% the proportion of those surveyed who believe that around the age of 13-14. This is equally true of both boys and girls and drug use and drug dealing is a big or very big problem. spans all ethnic backgrounds. 60% of those screened by the Youth Offending Team disclosed cannabis use.
90 Crack is reported to be an increasingly common drug locally and its use Residents are encouraged to improve security through preventative is a growing problem amongst young people. The same is true of measures. These include methods such as alarm systems, window locks cocaine powder. and multiple door locks. However, many burglaries, particularly in the summer months, take place in homes where doors and windows are left Of the young people referred to Redbridge Drug and Alcohol Service, the open, and rooms unattended. It is also known that Asian families have primary drugs of choice were cannabis and alcohol, followed by cocaine, been specifically targeted, commonly for jewellery, at times of major crack and heroin. religious festivals27.
In order to reduce drug and alcohol misuse and related offending by young people, the Council aims to ensure that, each year, 95% of individuals in specific groups identified as being at higher risk of developing drug and alcohol problems receive prevention and early intervention work. These groups include Looked After Children and those on the caseload of the Youth Offending Team or at Pupil Referral Units.
Another Council initiative for young people is the creation of Fusion. Fusion is the Young People’s Substance Misuse Team for Redbridge. This team consists of practitioners from a variety of agencies, such as Connexions, the Youth Offending Team and Healthy Schools. Their role is to provide young people with a range of interventions from basic advice and information to looking at ways to stop or reduce their drug and alcohol use.
Another method used to reduce drug and alcohol misuse is to implement Controlled Drinking Zones and Dispersal Orders in identified hotspots for alcohol and drug related disorder.
9.4.4 Domestic Burglary
Fig 9.3 shows that, within its family group, Redbridge is the fourth highest for crimes of domestic burglary per 1,000 households. Although this is less than that of the neighbouring Borough of Waltham Forest, it is above the average for the family group. 27 Asian Gold Burglaries 91 Figure 9.3 Domestic Burglary Comparisons (June 2005 - Aug 2005) The map in Appendix 9C shows that between April 2003 and March 2005 Family comparisons of domestic burglary (June 2005 - Aug 2005) the areas most frequently targeted by burglars were around Snaresbrook and Newbury. By 2008, the target is to reduce domestic burglary in the Sutton Borough by 21%.
Merton The Youth Offending Team data shows that both the level of offending Bexley and the number of young offenders convicted for domestic burglary Crawley remained approximately the same between 2001/02 and 2003/04. Watford
Harrow However, historically, 10-17 year olds resident in Redbridge do not feature highly in this offence category, usually amounting to no more Croydon than 9 young people per year. Hillingdon Enfield 9.4.5 Motor Vehicle Crime Family group Barnet By 2008, the target is to reduce theft of motor vehicles by 16% and to Hounslow reduce theft from motor vehicles by 17%. Vehicle crime is highest in Redbridge Clementswood and Newbury, as shown in Table 9.3. Ealing Waltham Forest The Youth Offending Team data showed a 38% reduction in motor vehicle crime committed by young people resident in the Borough Slough between 2001/02 and 2003/04. Of the 86 young people who were 012345678 convicted of a motor vehicle offence in 2002/03 and participated in an Burglary per 1,000 residents intervention programme with the Youth Offending Team, only 7 went on to re-offend in this way in 2003/04. Source: Metropolitan Police – Redbridge (June 2005 - Aug 2005)
Table 9.3 shows that, between September 2004 and August 2005, Snaresbrook and Cranbrook had the highest number of domestic burglaries in Redbridge. However, when analysed over a longer period of time the results differ slightly.
92 Table 9.3 Domestic Burglaries and Incidents of Motor Vehicle Crime (Sep 2004 - Aug 9.4.6 Street Crime 2005) Ward Domestic Ward Motor Vehicle Table 9.4 shows that, between September 2004 and August 2005, 30% of burglaries Crime between between Sep 2004 Sep 2004 and Aug street crime took place in Ilford (the wards of Clementswood, Valentines and Aug 2005 2005 and Loxford). There is a strong correlation between increases in this offence type and periods when local Police Officers were taken away Snaresbrook 173 Clementswood 357 from Redbridge to provide an additional resource in Central London at Cranbrook 135 Newbury 318 times of increased terrorist threats and other demands. Roding 127 Goodmayes 291 Newbury 120 Valentines 289 The map in Appendix 9D uses robbery on the streets between 19:00 and Fullwell 112 Seven Kings 287 06:59 as an indication of levels of street crime at night. It shows that Seven Kings 106 Clayhall 270 street robbery is largely being committed in Ilford town centre and, to a Wanstead 96 Loxford 265 certain extent, in Loxford, Wanstead High Street/Snaresbrook, South Clayhall 95 Church End 241 Woodford and Seven Kings High Road. The map in Appendix 9E uses Barkingside 92 Mayfield 228 robbery on the streets between 07:00 and 18:59 as an indication of levels Valentines 90 Cranbrook 228 of street crime during the day. In the daytime, street robbery is again Hainault 87 Roding 217 largely confined to Ilford town centre, Cranbrook Road and the Seven Loxford 84 Barkingside 197 Kings station area and therefore does not differ significantly from those Bridge 71 Wanstead 197 hotspots identified during evening hours. However, South Woodford is Church End 67 Aldborough 196 not a hotspot during the day, whilst levels of street robbery in Monkhams 67 Monkhams 191 Barkingside High Street are high during the day. Mayfield 64 Hainault 183 Aldborough 64 Snaresbrook 175 The Youth Offending Team data shows a significant decrease in street Fairlop 62 Fairlop 161 crime offences committed by young people. In 2002/03, local 10-17 year Goodmayes 61 Bridge 153 olds were convicted of 39 robberies, compared to 15 in 2003/04. 92% of Clementswood 59 Fullwell 132 those who received targeted intervention from the Youth Offending Chadwell 52 Chadwell 131 Team for street crime offences in 2002/03 did not re-offend in a similar Total 1884 Total 4707 way in 2003/04. Young women are becoming increasingly involved in Source: Resources and Customer Service Scrutiny Committee Report street crime offences. The majority of young offenders convicted for robbery have no previous convictions, with persistent offenders representing approximately 20% of the total.
93 9.4.7 Retail Crime One way the Council aims to reduce retail crime amongst young people is through the Retail Theft Initiative. This is a programme run by Police Table 9.4 shows that, between September 2004 and August 2005, Ilford and Mpower staff at the Police Station. Young people who have been (the wards of Clementswood, Valentines and Loxford) suffered 59% of reprimanded for a first shoplifting offence meet local store managers for the Borough’s retail crime. a restorative conference. They hear, directly from the Store Manager, the impact of shoplifting on local stores and at the end of the meeting agree Table 9.4 Incidents of Street and Retail Crime (Sep 2004 - Aug 2005) to a piece of unpaid community work. Ward Percentage of street Ward Percentage of crime Retail crime Clementswood 12% Clementswood 39% Another method by which the Council aims to target acquisitive crime is Valentines 10% Valentines 17% by informing victims about preventative measures. The Crime, Disorder Loxford 8% Aldborough 8% and Substance Misuse Strategy aims to reduce retail theft by 4% by 2008. Seven Kings 7% Church End 6% One method of increasing voluntary and community engagement in Snaresbrook 6% Seven Kings 6% reducing acquisitive crime is to support the extension of the number of Cranbrook 5% Fairlop 3% Neighbourhood Watch Schemes year on year during the period of the Newbury 5% Loxford 3% strategy, ensuring that those involved receive basic training to gather Goodmayes 5% Hainault 3% and pass on intelligence information. Wanstead 5% Wanstead 2% Mayfield 4% Bridge 2% 9.4.8 Hate Crime Monkhams 4% Fullwell 2% Clayhall 4% Cranbrook 1% Hate crime refers to any crime or incident where the prejudices or Church End 4% Newbury 1% attitudes and beliefs of the perpetrator, against any identifiable group of Bridge 3% Monkhams 1% people, or person, either is or is believed to be a motive or factor in Chadwell 3% Chadwell 1% targeting whoever is victimised. Crimes of this type often go Roding 3% Clayhall 1% unreported. Therefore, an increase in reported incidents should not Barkingside 3% Goodmayes 1% necessarily be viewed as negative as this may indicate victims’ increased Fullwell 3% Barkingside 1% confidence in available support services. Fairlop 3% Roding 0% Aldborough 2% Snaresbrook 0% One method of reducing hate crime by young people is through the Hainault 2% Mayfield 0% Police and Mpower working with schools to encourage young people to Total 100% Total 100% report hate-related incidents and by assisting schools in effective ways of Source: Resources and Customer Service Scrutiny Committee Report dealing with such reports, including the use of restorative conferencing.
The Youth Offending Team reported a reduction of 32% in retail crime To reduce hate crime by young and old alike, the Council aims to offences committed by young people between 2001/02 and 2003/04. increase the visible presence of a range of uniformed officers in hate
94 crime hotspots at identified vulnerable periods through the Council’s Table 9.5 Racial Incidents (2002/03 - 2004/05) Ward % change Uniformed Street Scene Service. All Agencies 2002/03 to Fear of hate crime can be reduced, for example, by using the mobile 2004/05 CCTV unit in identified hotspots for hate crime. 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 Aldborough 50 44 19 -62% 9.4.9 Racist Incidents Barkingside 15 62 56 273% Bridge 28 17 12 -57% The Council’s Community Safety Team collects and analyses reports of Chadwell 39 42 29 -26% racist incidents from a wide range of partners, including racist crimes Church End 14 43 16 14% reported to the Police. Clayhall 45 17 18 -60% Clementswood 68 57 33 -51% Table 9.5 combines all racist incident reports from all agencies within the Cranbrook 19 13 19 0% Partnership between 2002/03 and 2004/05 and shows the ward in which Fairlop 36 43 18 -50% each racial incident was committed. Fullwell 114 109 56 -51% Goodmayes 140 101 54 -61% Between 2002 and 2004, Fullwell and Goodmayes appear to have been Hainault 123 97 94 -24% hotspots for racial incidents, but in 2004/05 the number of incidents in Loxford 71 69 27 -62% both wards halved. Indeed many wards are seeing fewer racial incidents Mayfield 10 9 9 -10% reported. This could be due to the resolving of many repeat incidents in Monkhams 31 27 11 -65% these wards. Another influential factor in the reduction in reports of Newbury 20 24 14 -30% racial incidents may be the creation of the Anti-Social Behaviour team. Roding 51 22 18 -65% Many reports may be recorded as Anti-Social Behaviour now because the Seven Kings 47 34 34 -28% Snaresbrook 8 4 21 163% team is well-resourced and operational and has recently been highly publicised. Valentines 54 33 27 -50% Wanstead 36 110 106 194% Snaresbrook, Wanstead and Barkingside are the three wards within Out of Borough 21 32 18 -14% Redbridge where racial incidents appear to be increasing. All three areas Other 47 271 336 615% have seen an increase of over 150% in reported racial incidents in the TOTAL 1087 1280 1045 -4% past three years. Source: Communication Action Plan 2005-2008
95 9.4.10 Homophobic crime throughout the Borough as the most prevalent reason for participants feeling unsafe in Redbridge. The exception was Seven Kings where this There are, on average, eight homophobic crimes reported per year in was the second most commonly given reason as to why residents felt Redbridge. A London-wide survey showed that only 16% of Lesbian, Gay, unsafe. Bisexual and Transgender Londoners reported homophobic incidents to The physical appearance of an area also contributed to a fear of crime the police. There is therefore very little data and all that can be done is and was the third most commonly given reason for feeling unsafe in to encourage the reporting of homophobic crime. Redbridge. This was again a widespread problem, particularly in Ilford (32%), Hainault (10%) and Seven Kings (15%) where this was the most 9.4.11 Crime Against People with a Learning Disability commonly given reason for feeling unsafe in the area.
In May 2002, a local survey identified that 88% of people with a learning The reputation of an area and bad media attention rated as the fourth disability have experienced significant harassment, encompassing a most prominent reason for feeling unsafe in Redbridge. Many women broad range of incidents and crimes, most of which have gone (38%) said that they felt unsafe in Ilford due to the reputation and media unreported. It is recognised that people with other types of disabilities focus there compared to just 18% of men. This was mirrored for other can be similarly targeted. areas with men generally not feeling as unsafe due to media reports and reputations of areas as women. 9.5 Feeling Safe in Redbridge and Fear of Crime Consultation Results Participants also felt unsafe in Redbridge as a result of guns, knives and Of those people who responded to the October 2004 - January 2005 other weapons. 23% of participants felt unsafe in Ilford and 9% in Seven consultation exercise, 49% were surprised that there had been a Kings for this reason, whilst 7% felt unsafe in the entire Borough. Male decrease in overall crime during the period of the last Crime Disorder and female responses to this question did not differ substantially. and Substance Misuse Strategy. Of the respondents, 24% did not agree that the statistics reflected the real picture, largely because of the Participants were most likely to feel unsafe in Ilford due to previously difficulties they had experienced in reporting crime to the Police and a having witnessed a crime than anywhere else in Redbridge. 14% of belief that, if all crimes had been reported, the figures would have been participants felt unsafe in Ilford for this reason, compared to 5% or under higher. Others felt that a decrease was inconsistent with what they had for every other area in the Borough. seen or heard in national and local news. Across the whole of Redbridge 5% of participants felt vulnerable because Table 9.6 provides a breakdown of the reasons given as to why people of race, colour or religion. The main areas for feeling vulnerable for this felt unsafe. People were free to choose more than one option. Appendix reason were Ilford (11%), and Seven Kings (6%). 9F shows in which wards these fears were most prevalent.
The most commonly given reason (35%) for people feeling unsafe in What has made Redbridge feel safer? Ilford was unorganised gatherings of people. This was mirrored
96 In the 2004 Consultation Report, 70% of participants said that increased policing was the reason they felt safer. 64% and 54% of respondents respectively cited CCTV and Community Support Officers and Neighbourhood Wardens as reasons why they felt safer.
Only 30% of participants felt that a cleaner environment made them feel safer, while just under half felt that they were safer due to better information, media reports and ‘other reasons’.
Table 9.6 Redbridge Crime, Disorder & Substance Misuse Consultation Report Number of participants Q: Please tell us why you feel unsafe Unorganised gatherings of people 425 Street Drinking / Drug Use 312 Physical Appearance of the area 309 Media Reports / reputation of the area 273 Drug Dealing 255 Guns, knives and other weapons 249 Quality of Street Lighting 220 Feel vulnerable because of your age 204 Begging / ticket touting / rough sleepers 200 Feel concerned for your children’s safety 183 Feel vulnerable because of your gender 177 Previously witnessed a crime 150
Feel vulnerable because of your colour, race or religion 150
Specific individuals or families in the area 121
Previously experienced a crime or been a victim of crime 104
Prostitution 94
Feel vulnerable because of your sexuality 88 Source: LBR Crime, Disorder and Substance Misuse Consultation Report 2004
97
10.0 Environment
Corporate Aim: A cleaner, greener place to live
Key features
• In the 2006/07 BVPI survey 71% of residents in the Borough were satisfied with household waste collection services.
• In 2005/06, 98% of new housing was built on previously developed land in Redbridge.
• In 2001, 6.9% of the Borough’s population had to travel over
20 kilometres to get to work each day.
• The Environmental Partnership will support strategic transport
improvements, including Crossrail, East London Transit, DLR
and a major transport interchange at Ilford.
• Climate change and biodiversity are emerging as important issues amongst the community in terms of environmental
sustainability.
98 10.1 Introduction • Provide easily-accessible recycling facilities and promote waste minimisation and recycling; The Redbridge Community Strategy identifies five objectives to be met • Increase community participation through raising awareness and in order to make Redbridge a ‘better place to live’. The Environmental promoting practical action and work supporting Local Agenda 21; Partnership was set up to deliver against the objective, ‘to promote a • Minimise the Council’s impact on the environment. positive attitude to the environment and have a cleaner, greener Redbridge’. The Partnership was established to protect and improve the The Council’s Environment Management Team (EMT) (a cross-service local environment, working with the local community. Indeed, officer group) meets regularly to discuss how the Council can achieve its protecting the environment cuts across all objectives of the Community environmental objectives. Strategy. This section considers pollution (including litter and recycling), air quality The development and monitoring of the Local Agenda 21 Action Plan and transportation (including the impact of climate change) and has been integral to the development of the Environmental Partnership’s biodiversity. Action Plan. Developed after the United Nations ‘Earth Summit’ in 1992, the Action Plan concentrates on sustainable development in the local This section also highlights relevant environmental statistics and key community. The Environmental Partnership leads on the Local Agenda Council initiatives. 21 process in the Borough, to ensure that residents, community groups and organisations are engaged in local environmental improvements. 10.2 Pollution
The Council’s Environment Strategy also guides the actions of the Pollution is usually caused by the production of waste material (for Council in its work to protect and improve the environment in example, carbon dioxide emissions from exhaust fumes, the generation Redbridge. It is a framework for other more detailed and specific plans of power to heat and provide power to homes, waste materials ending and strategies. up in the wrong place). The effects of pollution can range from mild annoyance to severe health risks and an impact on climate change. In The aims of the Environment Strategy are to: almost all cases the best solution is to find the source of the pollution • Protect and enhance open spaces and encourage a variety of and to halt it at that source. wildlife in them; • Use land and buildings in a way that will benefit the people who 10.2.1 Litter will live, work or visit Redbridge in the future, develop eco- friendly local transport and keep streets clean and litter free; In the 2006/07 BVPI survey, 59% of residents surveyed were satisfied that • Reduce fuel use and the environmental impact of energy use in Redbridge Council keeps their local area clear of litter and refuse, Redbridge homes; although 1 in 5 (22%) were dissatisfied. This recent survey compares • Reduce pollution and contribute to a healthier environment;
99 favourably with satisfaction levels in a similar survey conducted in Key Council initiatives: 2003/04 (where 44% were satisfied and 37% dissatisfied). In July 2006 Redbridge Council launched its year-long Streets Ahead More than 3 in 5 residents (71%) said they were satisfied with overall campaign, at the opening of the new state-of-the-art Redbridge Control satisfaction with household waste collection and 51% were satisfied with Centre, incorporating a new CCTV suite. The campaign sends a clear the service to collect bulky household waste. message to the local community that the Council is serious about cleaning up Redbridge. About 64% of residents were satisfied with the cleanliness of the streets following waste collection and 56% of residents were satisfied with the The campaign focuses upon the issues of crime and grime that matter bin provided for household waste. most to local people, as identified by responses to the recent residents’ survey. It brings together initiatives being developed by the Council and Clean streets (along with crime) were cited as a top priority amongst others, to ensure a joined-up approach to improving the look and feel of surveyed residents. The Council offers a positive approach to clearing the Borough. abandoned vehicles, with its free disposal service, which has made a big difference to street cleanliness. 10.2.2 Recycling
Further environmental information: The majority of residents surveyed (64%) in 2006/07 were satisfied with the local recycling facilities overall, and around 1 in 10 (14%) were • In 2005/06, 98% of new housing was developed on previously dissatisfied. Most residents (69%) were satisfied with the location of the developed land in Redbridge; local recycling facilities and 70% were satisfied with the items you can deposit for recycling. • 14.5% of land and highways assessed in 2004/2005 in Redbridge had combined deposits of litter and detritus; With regards to waste disposal facilities 76% of residents said they were satisfied with the facilities. The results of some elements of the recycling • In 2005 in Redbridge: services provided by Redbridge were fairly rated by residents:
- 2,300 streets were cleaned at least every week; • Residents were particularly positive (75%) about the help they - 2,000 litter bins were cleaned at least weekly; received from the recycling staff - 4,500 tonnes of litter were removed from roads; - 21,000 drains were cleaned; • The ability to deposit waste easily at the site was highly rated at - Dog foul was cleared by a dedicated team; 73%. - 90,000 homes had their rubbish collected weekly; - 1,350 fridges, freezers and TVs were removed from housing estates. Source: www.audit-commission.gov.uk and Planning and Regeneration, Redbridge Council 100
Table 10.1 Percentage of Household Waste Recycled in Redbridge Percentage of household waste recycled in Redbridge The Council disposed of a total of 103.1 thousand tonnes of waste in Period % 2005-06. Table 10.1 shows that residents are increasing the percentage of 1997-98 5.8% household waste that they recycle. The Council will continue to make 1998-99 6.8% recycling easier, but all residents can make an important contribution by 1999-00 8.8% reducing their waste and reusing, recycling and composting more. 2000-01 7.0% 2001-02 8.2% Approximately 4.6% of household waste collected in the Borough in 2002-03 7.4% 2003-04 9.6% 2005-06 was composted. 2004-05 11.5% In order to encourage more recycling and composting and minimize 2005-06 12.8% Source: Mirror to the Future 2002, Cleansing Redbridge Council, & www.audit-commission.gov.uk waste produced by the community, the Council aims to promote the efficient use of resources in a number of ways. One element of this will be to encourage the reduction, re-use and recycling of waste. Waste is a contentious issue nationally, much of what is classed as waste to be Table 10.2 Household Waste Collection disposed of can actually be reused or recycled. The more waste that goes Household waste collected per person in Redbridge into land fill or is incinerated, the more raw materials are needed to make new products. PERIOD KG 1997-98 367 Using raw materials instead of recycled materials depletes natural resources, uses up more energy and ultimately adds to climate change. 1998-99 360 Financially, it costs money both to purchase products and to throw them 1999-00 406 away. As a Council, if less waste were collected then more money could 2000-01 422 be saved for the taxpayer.
2001-02 436 There are recycling banks in all state schools and most private schools in 2002-03 465 the Borough for pupils and teachers to use. Recycling officers also visit 2003-04 437 schools and play schemes to encourage recycling and waste awareness by talking at assemblies, providing activities such as paper making, and 2004-05 436.7 working with young people. 2005-06 417 Source: www.audit-commission.gov.uk & Mirror to the future 2002 Redbridge
101 Give or Take is a free community waste exchange event, giving residents Table 10.3 Air Pollutants for Redbridge (2003-2006) the chance to dispose of items they no longer need and to pick up Air Pollutant Averages for Redbridge (2003-2006) something they do need. Monitoring site Year Nitrogen Dioxide Particles (Pm10) (NO2 ug/m3) (PM10/ug/m3) The Council works closely with the waste disposal authority (East London Annual mean Mean Waste Authority) and their contractors (Shanks East London) to improve Fulwell Cross 2003 63 N/A recycling initiatives in Redbridge. As a result, the Chigwell Road Reuse (roadside) 2004 67 N/A 2005 63 N/A and Recycling Centre can now accept many more items for recycling and 2006* 64 N/A reuse. Grove 2003 N/A N/A Road/Southend 2004 53 N/A 10.3 Air Quality Road (roadside) 2005 54 27 2006* 57 30 In line with national strategy, Redbridge Council has been closely Gardner Close 2003 55 34 (roadside) 2004 49 29 monitoring local air quality over the past few years and has completed a 2005 47 32 three-stage review and assessment of air quality. The information 2006* 43 30 obtained from the review has been used to develop a Local Air Quality Perth Terrace 2003 41 29 Strategy which informs the associated draft Air Quality Action Plan. (background) 2004 37 24 2005 37 N/A 2006* 31 25 The Council aims to cut harmful emissions from vehicles by taking National Objective 2006 40 ug/m3 50ug/m3 measures to reduce travel and by promoting and improving public *2006 figures are those recorded to 31/8/06 transport, walking and cycling. Source:http://www.londonair.org.uk
Some indicators suggest that air quality is improving (i.e. the low levels of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) emissions and Particles (PM10) emissions (amongst other pollutants) are monitored at four sites in Redbridge. Particles) whilst others suggest it is worsening. For instance, the levels of Three of these sites are roadside, and the other is a ‘background’ Nitrogen Dioxide from 2003 to 2006 are consistently above the National monitoring site (i.e. away from the road). Objective levels. Much of this pollution (particularly Nitrogen Dioxide) is due to road traffic. The Council has declared the whole Borough an Air Table 10.3 shows that Nitrogen Dioxide levels in the Borough are Quality Management Area and is in the process of preparing an Action continuing to exceed the national air quality objectives at all four Plan to improve air quality. monitoring sites. However, the Borough’s PM10 emissions remain low.
102 10.4 Energy • Only 26.2% of the population did not have access to a car, and, today, car ownership continues to rise. Over one-fifth of the Saving energy makes sense for everyone in terms of saving money, residents in Redbridge owned two cars/vans in 2001 (21.8%); having warmer homes and workplaces and in making a valuable • Many of the Borough’s residents (6.9%) had to travel over 20 contribution to cutting carbon dioxide emissions - the main cause of kilometres to get to work. This compares to 5.2% of residents in global climate change. the Borough of Newham during this period, 4.8% of those in the Borough of Waltham Forest, and 8.7% of residents in the Borough Table 10.4 Energy Consumption of Barking and Dagenham. Average domestic energy consumption per household in Redbridge 2005-06 In 2003, Redbridge supported its second “In Town Without My Car” Dwelling Combined Electricity and gas average KWh/£cost per year event, by closing a 400-metre section of Wanstead High Street. The All dwellings* 33,175 kwh/£693 event was paid for by Transport for London and Area 1 Committee. An Council Dwellings 19,167kwh/£439 estimated 10,000 people attended the event which included street * The information for non-Council dwellings is based on the sample of dwellings where the Council has entertainment, skate parks and a French Market. recorded data. It is inherently less accurate than figures given for the Council dwellings. The figures are an assessment based on characteristics of the dwellings; they are not based on any actual energy bill information. Table 10.5 Means of Travel to Work How do Redbridge residents travel to work? 2001
10.5 Transportation Method % Of Population Public Transport 38.8 For those able to afford it, car ownership provides a degree of freedom. Bicycle or on Foot 6.7 However, increasing congestion is becoming a burden on the whole Private Motor Vehicle (car, taxi and motorbike) 45.7 community. The Council aims to reduce the need to travel through a Source: http://www.areaprofiles.auditcommission.gov.uk combination of development and provision of local facilities. Where travel is necessary, suitable alternatives to the car are being made In the 2006/07 BVPI survey, the majority of surveyed residents (60%) available to be as cheap, quick, safe and reliable as the private car (or were satisfied with the local bus service overall in the Borough. 4 in 5 more so than). (80%) residents were satisfied with the number of bus stops and 75% were satisfied with the ease of getting on and off buses. The same The 2001 Census showed: cannot be said on the issue of traffic congestion however, with residents identifying this as one of the areas in need of most improvement. Good transport systems were an increasing priority among residents when • Car/van ownership amongst Redbridge residents was 99,404, asked to identify ways to make the Borough a ‘better place to live’. equating to approximately 1.08 cars per household. This compared to Inner London where half of all households did not own a car; In 2003, the estimated traffic flow in Redbridge for all vehicle types per million vehicle kilometers (mvk) was 1038 mvk. This compares to 1464
103 mvk for the London Borough of Havering in 2003, and 901 mvk for the good road sense and are encouraged to get into the habit of London Borough of Newham during the same period. walking.
The Council’s traffic-related policy aims to direct traffic away from • Electricity from renewable sources is now being purchased residential streets to the principal roads in the Borough. These roads can through green tariffs for seven Council buildings and represents become very congested particularly during peak hours. Employers can about 17% of electricity consumption in all Council buildings. The also contribute to reducing peak hour congestion by promoting more street lighting energy contract now uses electricity from a flexible working hours and by encouraging home working. renewable source. These initiatives are helping to stimulate the market for renewable energy and contribute to the Government’s 10.6 Climate Change aim to achieve 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010 as part of the UK Climate Change Programme. The Environmental Partnership has identified climate change as a major cross-cutting issue, which will have a significant effect on each of the 10.7 Biodiversity other clusters of the Redbridge Strategic Partnership. The Environmental Partnership ran a Climate Change Conference in November 2003, which Biodiversity is a relatively new term for many people and refers to the sought to identify the causes and effects of climate change, and the variety of plants, animals and other living things in a particular area or steps that need to be taken to halt the problem and mitigate its effects. region. Ultimately, biodiversity provides us with the raw essentials of life From this conference, the Environmental Partnership developed and - oxygen, water, food, clothing and shelter. consulted on a draft Climate Change Action Plan. Biodiversity is increasingly of interest to the community. Redbridge has a Key Council Initiatives include: wide range of parks, open spaces and countryside areas, as outlined in section 7.7. Much is being done to improve biodiversity in Redbridge for • The Road Safety Team has a rolling programme under the banner the future. A key to this has been the establishment of the Biodiversity of 'Safe Routes to School' to promote road safety, walking to Partnership. The initial stage in the development of the Partnership was school and reduced car use. to set up a steering group. The steering group oversees and co- ordinates the implementation of the Borough's Biodiversity Action Plan • Churchfields Infants School has several 'Walking Bus Schemes' (BAP) by the wider partnership. The group has been evaluating the operating, in which a group of children, accompanied by adults, Borough's habitat and species priorities, and ‘Biodiversity in Redbridge' walk on their journey to and from school. The groups are formed was launched in March 2002. by people who take the same route to and from school. The parents have a rota so that they do not necessarily have to make The London Biodiversity Action Plan is a regional plan, towards which the school journey themselves every day. The benefits of the the Redbridge BAP will contribute. The plan aims to protect and enhance schemes are that they provide a safe and environmentally the capital's habitats and species for future generations to benefit from friendly way for children to travel to school. Children also learn and enjoy. There are now thirty-one Action Plans under this scheme
104 covering eleven habitats, twelve species, and eight generic action plans, importance within London or at the Borough or local level. There has covering cross-cutting issues. been no net loss of SINCs since they were designated in 2000.
10.8 Important Sites for Biodiversity Conservation The Local Agenda 21 ‘Food Futures’ project helped in the setting-up and development of one of England’s largest Community Gardens, Forest There are over 4,000 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in England, Farm in Hainault, which includes a waste composter and a large meadow covering around 7% of the country's land area. Over half of these sites, area. The area was an underused allotment, which suffered from by area, are internationally important for their wildlife, and designated as vandalism, but is now an oasis for wildlife. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or Ramsar sites. Many SSSIs are also National Nature Reserves (NNRs) or Local Nature Reserves (LNRs). It is essential to preserve remaining natural heritage for future generations. Wildlife and geological features are under pressure from development, pollution, climate change and unsustainable land management. SSSIs are important as they support plants and animals that find it more difficult to survive in the wider countryside. Protecting and managing SSSIs is a shared responsibility, and an investment for the benefit of future generations.
There is one SSSI with land in the Borough of Redbridge - Epping Forest. The total area of land that has been designated as an SSSI within Epping Forrest is 1,728 hectares.
Only 3.5% of the SSSI-designated land in Epping Forest lies within Redbridge, and this is all in unfavourable declining condition as assessed in 2006. This is compared with 38% of designated land for SSSIs found to be in a favourable condition in the Borough of Newham and 18% of SSSI’s found to be in favourable condition in the Borough of Havering in 2005. As part of a London-wide network, Redbridge has also designated many of its parks and open spaces as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). In total there are 35 SINCs in Redbridge, covering 1,214 hectares. There are four levels of designation reflecting a site’s
105
11. Way Forward These changes will have a fundamental impact on the Borough. The “Redbridge Today” provides an overview of the Borough at a particular Council with its partners will need to understand the implications of this point in time and provides information outlining the trends and dynamic change, particularly with regard to community cohesion and corporate initiatives targeted at making Redbridge a better place to live. the changing needs of its residents. The challenge is to ensure that This profile is a synthesis of demographic and social analysis and a practical initiatives to help maintain a well-integrated and cohesive comparative study of various Redbridge indicators with that of its Borough continue. neighbours in London East and London. This allows benchmarking of performance with that of other Boroughs with a view to strengthening The older population (60+) is the fastest growing segment of the overall strategic initiatives. population in Redbridge and this group is projected to increase by 18% from 2001 levels by 2011. “Redbridge Today” highlights issues to be scrutinized or addressed by Service Areas and partners. This profile will therefore serve as a vital Although Redbridge is a relatively affluent Borough, inequalities are resource for all partner agencies, Council officers and residents. evident when northern and southern wards are compared. There is a Although this is the first comprehensive profile of Redbridge, the aim is real need to reduce inequalities between the least advantaged groups to update the profile on an annual basis with later editions providing a and communities and the rest of the Borough by closing the opportunity critical analysis of the impact of our corporate initiatives. gap and ensuring that support reaches those who need it most. Research has shown that there is a strong correlation between The main points that have emerged from “Redbridge Today” are deprivation and social problems such as crime, poor health and presented below. unemployment. The Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2004, ranked Redbridge as the 163rd most deprived local authority area in England and The population of Redbridge is growing faster than those of London there are six Super Output Areas (SOAs) among the 20% most deprived and Outer London and migration is a dominant factor underlying SOAs in England. Bridging this opportunity gap is therefore a very critical population growth. Redbridge is becoming more diverse, with around issue for Redbridge. The numerous regeneration activities in the 60% of school children in Redbridge from BME groups. The Simpson’s Borough will contribute to achieving this. Diversity Index shows that diversity has increased since the 1991 census. The BME population was 36.1% in 2001, and was estimated to be 44.1% The educational achievement of young people in Redbridge is in 2006. By 2012 the BME population will be greater than the White improving and will continue to do so given the investments and population. This trend is expected to continue and by 2026 it is initiatives to make Redbridge a better place to learn. The Borough has estimated that the BME population will rise to 58% of the Borough total. the highest proportion of pupils of all the London Boroughs achieving at least 5 GCSE grades A*-C.
106 We are keen to improve customer satisfaction with cultural and recreational facilities. The new Major Leisure Development in Ilford is an example where the Council is making progress in this area. However, the Council can be proud of its strong sports development service, and must ensure its effectiveness continues. Robust quality improvement in current and future leisure and cultural facilities will ensure community needs continue to be met.
Assessing Redbridge in terms of the three main dimensions of sustainable development (Economic Development, Social Profile and Environment), the Local Futures Group produced a scorecard for Redbridge (see Appendix 11A). The scorecard shows that Redbridge needs to focus its attention on strengthening its economy, improving the environment and reducing crime; the same themes that permeate through this profile.
Further research on the implications of projected population change and Service Area responses to these changes is needed. Additionally, research on the impact of corporate initiatives and strategies needs to be undertaken as a measure of the Council’s effectiveness and efficiency in tackling issues in communities.
Redbridge Council is committed to understanding the implications of all changes that are taking place to ensure that its corporate strategies and policies are underpinned by research evidence to ensure their effectiveness.
107
Glossary of Terms
Owner Occupied Where the property is either bought outright or Air Quality A designation made by a local authority where an Property with a mortgage and then lived in by the owner. Management Area assessment of air quality results in the need to devise an action plan to improve the quality of air. Private Rental Renting from a private landlord, rather than from a Housing Association or Council. Biodiversity The total variety of lifeforms (including animal and plant life) in a particular area. Redbridge Strategic A partnership that brings together agencies across Partnership the Borough to work together to improve the well- Biodiversity Action A framework for achieving the conservation of being of everyone who lives and works in Plan (BAP) biodiversity based on the targeting of resources Redbridge through the Community Strategy. towards priority habitats and species. Registered Social Landlords of social housing that are registered with Density A measure of the amount of residential Landlord the Housing Corporation. Most are housing accommodation on any given site. Density can be associations but they also include trusts, co- measured by calculating the number of habitable operatives and companies. rooms per hectare, or by calculating the number of dwellings per hectare. In either case, the net site Renewable Energy Energy derived from a source that is continually area is the appropriate unit of measurement. replenished, such as wind, wave, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and energy from plant Greater London The Greater London Authority (GLA) is the body material. Authority responsible for strategic citywide government for London, and consists of the Mayor of London and Site of Special An area which English Nature has designated as the London Assembly. Scientific Interest being of outstanding value for its flora, fauna or (SSSI) geology under the Wildlife and Countryside Act Indicator A variable selected to measure progress towards 1981. achieving an objective over time. Social Rented Housing which is provided to rent at below market Objective A statement of what is intended, specifying the Housing rates for households in need by Local Authorities or desired direction of change. Registered Social Landlords (RSLs).
ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Tenure Describes the type of ownership of a property, e.g. privately rented, social rented, freehold etc. Opportunity Area Areas identified in the London Plan as capable of providing substantial numbers of new jobs and homes. 108 Sources and References Culture, Sport and Community Learning Demographic Analysis and Implications MORI Survey: 2002-2006 Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates: 2001 Redbridge Cultural Strategy: 2003-2008 Population Census, Office for National Statistics: 2001 Population Census, Office for National Statistics: 1991 Health and Social Care Local Knowledge; London Health Observatory: 2000-2004 Office for National Statistics: Mid-Year Estimates: 2004-05 Office for National Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics 2001 Population Census, Greater London Authority: 2001 Community Safety Indices of Multiple Deprivation Metropolitan Police Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Indices of Deprivation: 2004 Communications Action Plan: 2005 – 2008 Greater London Authority: 2004 and 2005 London Borough of Redbridge- Crime Reduction Team: September 2004 - Local Knowledge; Index of Multiple Deprivation: 2004 August 2005 London Borough of Redbridge - Crime, Disorder and Substance Misuse Economy and Labour Market Consultation Report: 2004 Local Knowledge: Annual Business Inquiry: 1995-2005 Annual Population Survey: October 2004 - September 2005 Environment Annual Population Survey: January 2005-December 2005 Redbridge - Mirror to the Future: 2002 Census of Population, Office for National Statistics: 2001 Redbridge Council – Cleansing: 2006 Interdepartmental Business Register, Office for National Statistics: October 2004 http://www.londonair.org.uk http://www.areaprofiles.audit-commission.gov.uk Education, Skills and Training www.english-nature.org.uk Children’s Services: 2006 Census Report: 2006 Redbridge School Census: 2006 Mobility Report: 2004-2005 Department for Education and Schools: 2005 Language Report: 2006
Housing Office for National Statistics Census: 2001
Office for National Statistics Census: 1991 Land Registry: 2002-2006 Affordability and the intermediate housing market; Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Steve Wilcox: 2005. London Borough of Redbridge, Housing & Health Strategy: 2006/2010 109 Acknowledgements
This work has been made possible through the contribution of members of the Pascoe Craig Research Network Group and other officers with diverse skills and knowledge Community Engagement Officer of the activities of our Service Areas. We are particularly grateful to Frederick Nuer for initiating and managing this first Borough Profile of Redbridge. Our John Richards special thanks go to Nigel Burt and Tade Adepoyibi for their immense hard Research Analyst work. Special thanks to all the officers listed below for their excellent contribution to this work. Fay Sanderson Finance and Monitoring Officer Alan Sizer Policy Manager Pam Shaw CIS Project Manager Steve Johnson Director of Customer Services & Performance Alexandra Foreman Assistant Recycling Officer Judith Paterson Policy Officer Emily Reynolds Nature Conservation Team Leader Sarah Graham Senior Policy Officer Mark Lenihan Development Officer Sukwinder Bassi Health Intelligence Manager Redbridge PCT
Ian Rae For further information on Redbridge Today please contact: Research Officer Alan Sizer: Policy Manager Sally Button [email protected] Research Manager, Children’s Services Tel: 020 8708 2112
Keith Hurst Frederick Nuer: Policy Officer (Research) Children’s Services [email protected] Tel: 020 8708 2196 Abida Ruhma Housing Officer
110 Appendices
2.0 Demographic Analysis and Implications
Appendix 2A Table KS06P Ethnic Group 2001 Census
Area Percentage of Total Population who described themselves as: White: White: White: Mixed: Mixed: Mixed: Mixed: Asian/ Asian/ Asian/ Asian Asian/ Black/ Black Black/ Black/ Chinese/ Chinese/ British Irish Other White & White White Other Asian Asian British: Asian British: Black Black other other White Black & Black & Asian Mixed British: British: Bangladeshi British: Caribbean British: British: ethnic ethnic Caribbean African Indian Pakistani Other African Other group: group: Chinese Other Aldborough 62.29 1.83 3.88 0.86 0.38 0.8 0.38 12.07 2.76 1.27 5.41 3.01 3.34 0.47 0.54 0.71 Barkingside 57.35 1.38 4.56 0.52 0.32 0.82 0.78 16.18 3.88 2.96 4.17 2.7 2.09 0.38 1.49 0.43 Bridge 79.61 2.52 3.43 0.91 0.34 0.39 0.56 2.53 1.38 0.47 0.99 2.56 1.85 0.25 1.61 0.59 Chadwell 73.33 2.84 1.86 0.92 0.16 0.71 0.53 6.64 1.69 0.71 1.31 4.39 3.53 0.63 0.37 0.4 Church End 77.14 2.42 5.53 0.59 0.25 0.77 0.54 4.44 1.64 0.61 1.28 1.51 1.25 0.07 1.25 0.7 Clayhall 54.97 0.99 3.02 0.36 0.3 0.58 0.5 19.99 6.17 2.65 5.04 2.45 1.29 0.17 1.18 0.35 Clementswood 22.67 2.06 3.79 0.9 0.58 0.97 0.53 25.62 18.98 3.99 5.48 5.57 6.96 0.61 0.41 0.88 Cranbrook 37.33 2.28 4.22 0.71 0.22 0.8 0.62 24.95 13.54 1.91 3.33 5.51 2.9 0.6 0.44 0.66 Fairlop 79.75 1.45 2.87 0.74 0.18 0.72 0.55 4.88 1.3 0.47 1.38 1.84 1.93 0.35 1.06 0.55 Fullwell 73.55 1.32 3.56 0.75 0.13 0.52 0.55 7.48 2.47 0.89 2.31 2.58 1.95 0.48 1.07 0.39 Goodmayes 38.91 3.41 3.15 0.72 0.37 0.77 0.5 26.19 8.21 2.09 2.84 6.39 4.02 0.79 0.64 0.99 Hainault 84.9 1.5 2.21 0.93 0.19 0.64 0.46 2.23 1.13 0.12 0.72 1.69 2.35 0.4 0.36 0.18 Loxford 23.69 1.94 3.55 1.23 0.37 0.63 0.9 18.2 18.56 4.83 6.56 8.24 8.35 1.11 0.98 0.87 Mayfield 48.77 3.02 3.25 0.48 0.45 0.72 0.65 20.46 7.64 1.78 2.98 5.05 3.03 0.59 0.59 0.53 Monkhams 82.81 2.06 4.21 0.39 0.08 0.77 0.35 4.04 0.64 0.49 0.82 1.06 0.8 0.06 1.02 0.4 Newbury 37.99 2.23 3.81 1.04 0.44 0.96 0.63 23.25 7.66 2.01 6.55 5.95 5.14 0.7 0.56 1.09 Roding 71.74 2.68 5.02 1.09 0.27 0.7 0.51 3.83 2.51 1.47 1.09 2.75 4.03 0.5 1.21 0.61 Seven Kings 39.24 3.51 2.74 0.97 0.49 1.07 0.46 26.2 8.46 1.64 3.15 6.4 3.8 0.52 0.42 0.92 Snaresbrook 73.78 3.22 5.21 0.64 0.22 0.75 0.51 6.15 2.92 1.04 1.01 1.43 1.35 0.32 0.88 0.56 Valentines 33.68 2.72 4.61 0.86 0.46 1.21 0.75 24.59 11.61 3.62 3.74 4.59 5.36 0.57 0.67 0.97 Wanstead 73.61 3.62 4.43 0.78 0.24 0.96 0.54 5.53 2.7 0.98 1 2.46 1.63 0.38 0.67 0.44 Redbridge 57.45 2.33 3.74 0.79 0.31 0.78 0.57 13.96 6.24 1.77 3.02 3.82 3.28 0.49 0.82 0.64 London 59.79 3.07 8.29 0.99 0.48 0.84 0.85 6.09 1.99 2.15 1.86 4.79 5.28 0.84 1.12 1.58 England 86.99 1.27 2.66 0.47 0.16 0.37 0.31 2.09 1.44 0.56 0.48 1.14 0.97 0.19 0.45 0.44 Source: ONS Neighbourhood Statistics http://www.neighbourhood.stastics.gov.uk/ Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO.
111 Appendix 2B GLA 2006 Round Ethnic Group Projections
Ethnic Group 2001 2006 2012 2020 2026 White 63.5% 55.3% 48.7% 43.5% 40.8% Black Caribbean 3.8% 4.3% 4.7% 5.0% 5.1% Black African 3.3% 4.5% 5.1% 5.5% 5.5% Black Other 1.6% 1.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% Indian 14.0% 16.2% 18.1% 19.8% 20.9% Pakistani 6.3% 8.1% 9.7% 11.0% 11.8% Bangladeshi 1.8% 2.5% 3.2% 3.9% 4.2% Chinese 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% Other Asian 3.8% 4.7% 5.5% 6.1% 6.3% Other 1.2% 1.7% 2.1% 2.4% 2.4% Source: GLA 2006 Round Ethnic Group Projections
112
Appendix 2C Table S104 Ethnic Group By Religion
Any Christian Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh other No Religion religion religion not stated
All People 121,067 1,055 18,661 14,798 28,487 13,022 1,036 22,952 17,560 White 100,981 208 116 14,579 2,789 133 340 19,751 12,690 British 91,158 188 90 14,108 991 112 302 18,608 11,540 Irish 4,832 12 - 25 13 3 7 228 439 Other White 4,991 8 26 446 1,785 18 31 915 711 Mixed 3,048 27 109 79 802 60 48 992 667 White and Black Caribbean 1,218 3 - 16 11 - 8 402 227 White and Black African 418 3 - 5 167 - - 81 68 White and Asian 783 6 73 22 374 51 26 305 213 Other Mixed 629 15 36 36 250 9 14 204 159 Asian 2,209 350 18,284 70 22,443 12,791 563 424 2,490 Indian 1,048 46 14,844 30 3,093 12,180 533 256 1,274 Pakistani 149 3 13 22 13,932 6 3 40 722 Bangladeshi 5 - 74 - 3,971 - - 20 153 Other Asian 1,007 301 3,353 18 1,447 605 27 108 341 Black 13,749 30 65 10 1,918 15 39 827 1,459 Black Caribbean 7,584 22 28 4 67 3 29 595 794 Black African 5,312 5 29 3 1,766 12 10 148 542 Other Black 853 3 8 3 85 - - 84 123 Chinese & Other 1,080 440 87 60 535 23 46 958 254 Chinese 587 318 3 4 13 - 14 867 157 Other Ethnic Group 493 122 84 56 522 23 32 91 97 Source: 2001 Census: Standard Tables, © Crown Copyright. Geographical level: England and Wales to Local Authority. N.B. Cells in these tables have been randomly adjusted by ONS to avoid the release of confidential data.
113 Appendix 2D Breakdown of Asylum Statistics in London Boroughs
ASYLUM SEEKERS FIGURES FOR WEEK ENDING: 28 April 2006
Interim Supported Adults and Families Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (supplied by NRUC) Total Borough Total no Single Total no No. of no. in Asylum Adults of adults in famili Young Young Seekers families families es people Young people people Total Young Previous (individuals) No. of children 0-15 years 16 - 17 years 18+ years people 0-18+ week’s data in families 0-18 used Barking & Dagenham 911 * 140 154 249 301 550 8 72 141 221 Barnet 144 * 4 18 22 32 54 12 24 50 86 * Bexley 73 * 2 2 4 5 9 1 15 46 62 Brent 157 2 2 3 2 5 13 34 103 150 Bromley 54 * 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 31 54 * Camden 128 0 1 1 2 3 10 51 64 125 Corporation of London 68 * 1 1 1 2 3 3 18 43 64 * Croydon 889 0 0 0 0 0 190 262 437 889 * Ealing 104 * 8 5 6 9 15 12 36 33 81 Enfield 424 * 65 62 90 117 207 3 38 111 152 * Greenwich 241 * 7 8 11 15 26 25 73 110 208 * Hackney 168 18 24 33 32 65 18 54 13 85 * Hammersmith & Fulham 418 * 47 47 69 77 146 28 66 131 225 Haringey 539 * 11 48 98 78 176 71 127 154 352 Harrow 124 1 1 1 2 3 9 28 83 120 Havering 54 1 0 0 0 0 1 17 35 53 * Hillingdon 1,340 0 5 10 10 20 150 291 879 1320 * Hounslow 230 6 8 20 16 36 9 51 128 188 Islington 562 * 49 54 85 118 203 37 84 189 310 * Kensington & Chelsea 501 * 66 62 121 116 237 12 47 139 198 * Kingston-upon-Thames 114 * 4 0 0 0 0 4 36 70 110 * Lambeth 588 * 97 97 111 183 294 33 100 64 197 Lewisham 387 * 19 52 86 90 176 14 56 122 192 * Merton 119 * 3 18 22 31 53 10 18 35 63 Newham 404 24 24 38 59 97 26 79 178 283 Redbridge 119 11 9 13 20 33 7 28 40 75 Richmond-upon-Thames 108 * 20 12 22 30 52 3 26 7 36 * Southwark 287 * 10 28 52 49 101 25 82 69 176 * Sutton 129 * 12 25 34 40 74 0 24 19 43 * Tower Hamlets 200 * 16 40 64 80 144 9 31 NS 40 * Waltham Forest 253 11 17 27 31 58 18 52 114 184 * Wandsworth 69 * 0 14 21 29 50 11 6 2 19 * Westminster 261 * 28 21 33 46 79 19 56 79 154 *
TOTAL 10,167 0 683 859 1,347 1,622 2,969 792 2,004 3,719 6,515 0
114 3.0 Indices of Deprivation 2004
Appendix 3A Explanation of Seven Domains of Indices of Deprivation
(1) Income (2) Employment
The income domain measures people who are on a low income. ‘Employment deprived’ are defined as those who want to work but Income deprivation is considered to be one of the most important are unable to do so through unemployment, sickness or disability. aspects of deprivation. The indicators in this domain are in the form The domain measures forced exclusion from the world of work. This of non-overlapping counts of people in families in receipt of means is seen as a separate deprivation from the income deprivation to tested benefits. which lack of employment may lead. The indicators in this domain constitute non-overlapping counts of those excluded from the The proportion of children under 16 living in means tested, benefit labour market through unemployment, ill health or disability. reliant families has been separately presented. This is presented as a supplementary Child Poverty Index at ward level but it is not included in the overall index of Multiple Deprivation as the children are already counted within the Income Domain.
(3) Health Deprivation and Disability (4) Education, Skills and Training
This domain identifies people whose quality of life is impaired by This domain measures education deprivation in as direct a way as either poor health or disability. While ill health is closely intertwined possible. This is predominantly measured by lack of qualifications with other aspects of deprivation, it is also an important aspect of amongst adults and children of different ages in a local area. deprivation in its own right. Premature death is the ultimate Indicators of children aged 16 and over who are not in full-time manifestation of this, but chronic ill health and disability will also education and the proportion of 17 year olds who have not greatly impair the quality of people’s lives. successfully applied for higher education have also been included. Both of these participation measures are important aspects of area deprivation.
115
(5) Housing (6) Geographical Access to Services
This domain identifies people living in unsatisfactory housing and, in Access to essential services is an important aspect of people’s the extreme case, homelessness. It was not possible to obtain everyday lives. While this is true for all people, this indicator focuses information on poor condition public sector housing during the solely on people with low incomes (on benefits) for the first three course of the review. It is important that a future version of the index indicators as they are more likely to be experiencing the will review how social housing conditions may be incorporated. disadvantage of lack of access to services more acutely than those on higher incomes, who are in principle more able to afford public or private transport. Access to primary schools was measured for all 5-8 year olds.
(7) Crime
This domain measures levels of four types of crime: burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence.
Source: IMD 2004, ODPM
116
Appendix 3B Demographic Profile of Most Deprived Super Output Areas in Redbridge (SOA’s falling within 20% most deprived areas in England)
Rank Of Rank Of Health Rank Of Barriers To Rank Of Deprivation Education Housing Crime Rank Of Rank Of Rank Of And Skills And And And Living Rank Of Income Employm Disability Training Services Disorder Environment Ward SOA IMD Score ent Score Score Score Score Score Score Roding E01003761 11.2% 3.5% 10.4% 22.8% 29.7% 11.3% 82.4% 17.8% Valentines E01003783 11.2% 10.9% 16.4% 20.2% 64.7% 37.8% 0.1% 4.5% Loxford E01003735 13.4% 4.6% 18.1% 17.4% 33.9% 13.7% 23.7% 39.9% Fullwell E01003712 18.8% 7.8% 16.4% 23.8% 32.0% 38.8% 36.9% 38.4% Valentines E01003785 19.2% 14.3% 20.4% 30.8% 79.7% 25.7% 5.7% 11.1% Loxford E01003729 19.5% 9.8% 20.2% 30.0% 56.7% 38.0% 15.0% 15.4% Scores show SOA falling within the percentage of most deprived SOAs.in England
Age Structure E01003712 E01003735 E01003729 E01003761 E01003783 E01003785 Fullwell Loxford Loxford Roding Valentine Valentine 0 -15 23.0% 31.7% 28.5% 33.7% 16.7% 19.2% 16 - 65 58.4% 55.5% 59.3% 57.7% 71.8% 71.1% 65+ 18.7% 12.9% 12.2% 8.6% 11.4% 9.6% All People 1,201 1,540 1,394 1,532 1,424 1,534
Ethnicity E01003712 E01003735 E01003729 E01003761 E01003783 E01003785 Fullwell Loxford Loxford Roding Valentine Valentine White and other Whites 73.4% 37.1% 22.3% 59.8% 41.1% 36.1% BME 26.6% 62.9% 77.7% 40.2% 58.9% 63.9%
117 Tenure E01003712 E01003735 E01003729 E01003761 E01003783 E01003785
Fullwell Loxford Loxford Roding Valentine Valentine All People 1,192 1,529 1,392 1,532 1,428 1,556 Owned 46% 24% 63% 14% 51% 52% Shared ownership 1% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% Rented from council 28% 14% 7% 65% 4% 7% Other social rented 13% 36% 1% 8% 8% 4% Private rented 10% 15% 30% 8% 33% 33% Living rent free 3% 6% 0% 4% 2% 3% Religion E01003712 E01003735 E01003729 E01003761 E01003783 E01003785
Fullwell Loxford Loxford Roding Valentine Valentine ALL PEOPLE 1,188 1,531 1,398 1,522 1,430 1,553 Christian 58% 43% 25% 56% 37% 33% Buddhist 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% Hindu 6% 8% 17% 2% 7% 13% Jewish 10% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% Muslim 8% 29% 34% 16% 31% 26% Sikh 1% 3% 11% 0% 4% 10% Any other religion 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% No religion 11% 9% 5% 14% 9% 8% Religion not stated 7% 7% 7% 9% 8% 5%
Economic Activity E01003712 E01003735 E01003729 E01003761 E01003783 E01003785 Fullwell Loxford Loxford Roding Valentine Valentine In employment 437 410 452 470 604 656 Unemployed 43 58 62 96 59 82 Economically inactive 330 488 404 413 467 467 Not aged 16 to 74 372 568 478 561 294 357
118 5.0 Education: Children and Young People
Appendix 5A 2005 GCSE Results For All Greater London Boroughs
Borough % of pupils achieving Level 2 (5 or more grades A*-C) in 2005 Redbridge 70.0% Sutton 68% Kingston-upon-Thames 67.6% Barnet 64.2% Bromley 64.0% Harrow 62.0% Kensington & Chelsea 61.9% Havering 61.2% Ealing 59.5% Hammersmith & Fulham 59.0% Hounslow 57.9% Brent 57.5% Bexley 57.5% Richmond 54.9% Croydon 54.5% Wandsworth 54.2% Lambeth 53.0% Camden 51.9% Enfield 51.7% Newham 51.0% Hillingdon 51.0% Tower Hamlets 50.9% Barking & Dagenham 50.8% Lewisham 49.4% Waltham Forest 49.3% Haringey 48.5% Southwark 47.3% Hackney 47.3% Merton 47.1% Westminster 46.8% Greenwich 45.6% Islington 44.2% Greater London average 55.0% England average 57.1%
Source: Department for Education and Skills
119 6.0 Housing
Appendix 6A Provision for Additional ‘Homes’ Targets, 1997-2016
Total target Annual monitoring Total Annual target target monitoring target Central sub-region West sub-region Camden 16,940 850 Brent 13,510 680 Islington 18,070 900 Ealing 12,930 650 Kensington and Chelsea 10,800 540 Hammersmith and Fulham 8,040 400 Lambeth 28,910 1,450 Harrow 6,620 330 Southwark 29,530 1,480 Hillingdon 8,890 440 Wandsworth 16,470 820 Hounslow 9,450 470 Westminster 19,480 970 Sub-total 59,440 2,970 Sub-total 140,200 7,010 North sub-region East sub-region Barnet 17,780 890 Barking and Dagenham 10,110 510 Enfield 13,180 660 Bexley 5,520 280 Haringey 19,370 970 City of London 2,100 110 Waltham Forest 9,140 460 Greenwich 16,090 800 Sub-total 59,470 2,980 Hackney 14,310 720 South sub-region Havering 6,900 350 Bromley 11,450 570 Lewisham 17,350 870 Croydon 17,020 850 Newham 17,770 890 Kingston 6,710 340 Redbridge 10,860 540 Merton 8,610 430 Tower Hamlets 41,280 2,070 Richmond 5,360 270 Sub-total 14,290 7,140 Sutton 7,400 370 Sub-total 56,550 2,830 Source: London’s Housing Capacity, GLA, 2000 London 457,950 23,000
120
Appendix 6B Household Composition [Table KS20P 2001 Census]
Area Percentage of households consisting of: One One One Family: Married Married: Married: All Cohabiting Cohabiting: Cohabiting: Person: Person: All Couple: With Non- Couple: No With All Non- Pensioner Other Pensioners No Dependent Dependent Children Dependent Dependent Children Children Children Children Children Aldborough 13.91 12.62 7.58 10.74 21.83 8.62 3.02 1.83 0.25 Barkingside 15.92 8.56 10.47 9.65 24 9.65 1.72 1.55 0.19 Bridge 12.96 15.75 7.04 10.71 18.61 7.13 5.17 3.35 0.41 Chadwell 12.3 17.28 8.63 9.62 20.37 6.24 5.21 3.18 0.27 Church End 14.82 19.31 6.86 10.2 19.6 5.69 6.52 2.66 0.2 Clayhall 12.23 7.25 11.19 10.64 26.18 12.14 1.6 1.18 0.39 Clementswood 10.55 14.12 4.41 6.76 24.68 6.66 2.11 1.76 0.19 Cranbrook 12.63 13.83 7.3 9.04 20.96 8.72 2.61 1.78 0.32 Fairlop 14.54 16.16 8.17 10.73 18.72 6.51 4.32 3.3 0.44 Fullwell 17 12.31 10.42 9.24 19.6 8.37 2.41 2.23 0.31 Goodmayes 8.64 21.55 4.16 8.94 20.94 5.87 4.85 1.73 0.34 Hainault 18.5 14.46 9.82 9.68 14.36 6.24 3.64 3.34 0.4 Loxford 9.3 16.92 3.48 7.19 23.12 4.11 2.68 2 0.17 Mayfield 13.99 10.81 8.63 10.25 22.38 10.3 1.91 1.35 0.22 Monkhams 16.47 14.28 11.7 12.62 19.58 7.39 4 1.42 0.26 Newbury 10.98 12.64 6.72 9.17 24.84 7.62 2.69 1.59 0.22 Roding 12.52 18.41 6.08 9.77 17.86 5.53 6.31 3.13 0.33 Seven Kings 10.3 15.48 5.09 8.37 23.04 7.25 3.28 1.76 0.29 Snaresbrook 19.99 22.69 7.85 8.77 12.64 4.31 7.58 1.42 0.23 Valentines 8.2 27.45 3.88 8.38 17.82 5.01 4.21 1.55 0.11 Wanstead 14.03 14.97 7.81 10.32 19.05 7.16 5.15 2.4 0.39 Redbridge 13.42 15.68 7.5 9.56 20.31 7.1 3.91 2.14 0.28 London 12.67 22.04 5.37 8.47 15.19 4.85 5.32 2.51 0.27 England 13.91 15.7 8.93 12.99 17.56 5.96 4.78 3.23 0.32 Source: ONS Neighbourhood Statistics http://www.neighbourhood.stastics.gov.uk/ Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO
121
9.0 Community Safety
Appendix 9A Hotspot Map Illustrating Night-time Data From FLARE
Source: Communication Action Plan 2005-2008
122
Appendix 9B Hotspot Map Illustrating Daytime Data From FLARE
Source: Communication Action Plan 2005-2008
123
Appendix 9C Domestic Burglaries (April 2003 – March 2005)
Source: Communication Action Plan 2005-2008
124
Appendix 9D Street Crime at Night (19:00 – 06:59)
South Woodford
Seven Kings High Road Wanstead High Street/ Snaresbrook
Ilford Town Centre
Source: Communication Action Plan 2005-2008
125
Appendix 9E Street Crime in the Daytime (07:00 – 18:59)
Barkingside High Street
South Woodford
Ilford Town Centre
Source: Communication Action Plan 2005-2008
126
Appendix 9F Wards Where Fear Of Crime Is Prevalent
Ilford Barkingside Hainault Wanstead Seven South Woodford Gants On public Whole Other Kings Woodford Green Hill transport borough
Physical Appearance of the 32% 6% 10% 2% 15% 3% 2% 7% 3% 7% 1% area Quality of Street Lighting 16% 6% 8% 2% 8% 3% 3% 5% 4% 6% 2%
Media Reports / reputation of 26% 5% 13% 3% 10% 2% 2% 3% 7% 7% 1% the area
Begging / ticket touting / 25% 2% 3% 1% 7% 1% 2% 4% 7% 5% 1% rough sleepers
Street Drinking / Drug Use 33% 6% 8% 3% 11% 3% 3% 6% 6% 8% 2%
Drug Dealing 24% 5% 7% 3% 10% 3% 3% 5% 4% 8% 2% Prostitution 9% 1% 2% 1% 5% 0% 0% 1% 1% 4% 1% Unorganised gatherings of 35% 11% 15% 6% 12% 5% 4% 10% 9% 13% 2% people Guns, knives and other 23% 5% 6% 3% 9% 2% 2% 5% 7% 7% 1% weapons
Specific individuals or 8% 3% 5% 2% 4% 1% 2% 3% 1% 4% 1% families in the area
Previously witnessed a crime 14% 4% 5% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 1%
Previously experienced a 11% 2% 3% 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 0% crime or been a victim of crime Feel vulnerable because of 16% 4% 5% 1% 6% 1% 1% 3% 5% 5% 1% your gender
Feel vulnerable because of 17% 5% 4% 3% 7% 1% 3% 5% 6% 7% 2% your age
Feel vulnerable because of 7% 2% 2% 0% 3% 0% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% your sexuality Feel vulnerable because of 11% 3% 4% 2% 6% 1% 1% 3% 4% 5% 2% your colour, race or religion
Feel concerned for your 14% 3% 5% 2% 5% 2% 3% 3% 5% 9% 2% children’s safety
Source: London Borough of Redbridge Crime, Disorder and Substance Misuse Consultation Report 2004 Questionnaire Response to question, “If you answered ‘very unsafe’ or ‘a bit unsafe’ in any part of Q11, please tell us why you feel unsafe”.
127
11.0 The Way Forward
Appendix 11A Sustainable Development Scorecard for Redbridge
Sub Region (London East) Region (London) National Economy Economic scale D E B Productivity D E C Economic change A A B Industrial structure B D B Business & enterprise D D C Skills & qualifications A C C Labour market C D E Society Knowledge workers A B A Prosperity B D B Deprivation B B C Inequality D D D Health A B C Crime B B E Environment Housing affordability D C D Floor space change E E E Connectivity D D A Services B C D Amenities D D A Natural environment D C E Source: Local Futures Group *Note that the scores for Deprivation, Inequality and Crime have been inversed to ensure that an A grade on any indicator is always a positive result. An ‘A’ grade indicates that Redbridge is within the top 20%, while an ‘E’ grade indicates that it is in the bottom 20%.
128