Supporting communities, preventing social exclusion and tackling need
Supporting communities, preventing social exclusion and tackling need: a report to Hammersmith United Charities on four low income estates in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham by LSE Housing
Laura Lane and Anne Power, LSE Housing
June 2009
2. Background information on Hammersmith and Fulham and the targeted areas and wards
The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is an inner-city borough located in West London and is made up of the former Metropolitan Boroughs of Fulham and Hammersmith. It is the fourth smallest borough in London, both in geographical and population terms but it has a very high population density (Audit Commission, 2008).
As can be seen from the map below, the most deprived areas of London are concentrated in Inner London in the North and East of the city, including the boroughs of Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Islington and Haringey. Hammersmith and Fulham however has pockets of deprivation, mainly in wards and areas where the majority of the council housing stock is concentrated.
Map 1: Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007: Concentration of deprivation within London
Source: Government office for London, Corporate Information and Analysis Team, 2007
About the four estates
The four estates we studied represent the three main building types that make up the 5.5 million council homes the government built in England and Wales between the First World War and 1980, when major public building programmes stopped.
Old Oak, the oldest estate of around 900 houses was built just after World War I in the period known as “Homes Fit for Heroes”. The photographs show the estate in its very early days.
The White City estate, with over 2000 units, is a classic London County Council large estate built in the 1930s as part of the Slum Clearance programme in a style commonly known as “balcony block” or “walk-up” estate, owing to the balconies connecting flats to stairs above ground and the absence of lifts.
Edward Woods estate, with nearly 900 flats in high and medium rise concrete blocks, is the typical post-war “concrete complex” modernist estate built in the hope of elevating social conditions through building upwards rather than out.
William Church estate is a small concrete estate of just over 100 units built in a similar style to Edward Woods.
Indices of Deprivation
Our study covers estates located in the North of the borough but makes reference to areas within the South. In this report we use the 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation to provide a detailed picture of the levels of deprivation that exist in the areas and the estates we cover.
The 2007 Index of Deprivation is based on seven main indicators:
- Income
- Employment
- Health Deprivation and Disability
- Education, Skills and Training
- Barriers to Housing and Services
- Crime
- Living Environment
The seven domains are then combined to produce a single score for each small area and local authority. These domains cover the main themes that HUC asked us to explore.
Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA)
Each small area measured within the deprivation indices is known as a Lower Super Output Area (LSOA). LSOAs were introduced in the 2004 Index to enable the measurement of deprivation at a smaller spatial scale than ward level. There are 32,482 LSOAs in England and 354 local authorities. The most deprived LSOA for each Index is given a rank of 1 and the least deprived LSOA is given a rank of 32,482. The rank is also presented as a percentage, on a range of 1 to 100. The ranks show how a LSOA compares to all other LSOAs in the country (Communities and Local Government, 2007).
In order to understand estate level conditions, we use LSOAs which are the smallest, neighbourhood level areas for which evidence is collected. They are designed to contain around 1500 people each. We use a scale of 1 to 100 throughout the report to rank small areas.
We use the Index of Multiple Deprivation evidence at the most local level to show how the 4 estates rank on:
- Income
- Employment
- Health Deprivation and Disability
- Education, Skills and Training
- Barriers to Housing and Services
- Crime
- Living Environment
In the 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation, Hammersmith and Fulham overall ranked 59 out of 354 (with 1 being the most deprived) local authorities nationwide, putting it among the most deprived sixth of all local authorities. The borough ranked 14 of the 33 in London.
Table 1: IMD ranking of London Boroughs within country and London
| London Boroughs | IMD 2007 Rank (out of 354) | Rank in London (out of 33) |
|---|---|---|
| Hackney | 2 | 1 |
| Tower Hamlets | 3 | 2 |
| Newham | 6 | 3 |
| Islington | 8 | 4 |
| Haringey | 18 | 5 |
| Lambeth | 19 | 6 |
| Barking and Dagenham | 22 | 7 |
| Greenwich | 24 | 8 |
| Southwark | 26 | 9 |
| Waltham Forest | 27 | 10 |
| Lewisham | 39 | 11 |
| Brent | 53 | 12 |
| Camden | 57 | 13 |
| Hammersmith and Fulham | 59 | 14 |
| Westminster | 72 | 15 |
| Enfield | 74 | 16 |
| Ealing | 84 | 17 |
| Kensington and Chelsea | 101 | 18 |
| Hounslow | 105 | 19 |
| Croydon | 125 | 20 |
| Barnet | 128 | 21 |
| Redbridge | 143 | 22 |
| Wandsworth | 144 | 23 |
| Hillingdon | 157 | 24 |
| Bexley | 194 | 25 |
| Havering | 200 | 26 |
| Harrow | 205 | 27 |
| Merton | 222 | 28 |
| Bromley | 228 | 29 |
| Sutton | 234 | 30 |
| Kingston upon Thames | 245 | 31 |
| City of London | 252 | 32 |
| Richmond upon Thames | 309 | 33 |
The four estates in this research are located within three wards of Hammersmith and Fulham, all three of which are within the North sub-division of the borough. These wards are:
- College Park and Old Oak covering Old Oak estate
- Shepherds Bush Green covering William Church and Edward Woods estates
- Wormholt and White City covering White City estate
Each ward comprises several LSOAs; our study covers 4 estates in 3 wards and 8 LSOAs. Our three wards form the northernmost section of the borough and represent the most deprived areas, shown as 1, 2 and 3 on the map below.
Map 2: Ward boundaries in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Source: http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/Wards_tcm21-70850.pdf
The map below shows the area of benefit within which the charity operates. This is concentrated in the northern section of the borough.
Map 3: Hammersmith United Charities Area of Benefit
Source: Hammersmith United Charities
About the three wards covering the estates
The following information is taken from the 2001 Census and from the ward profiles prepared by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
The population of Hammersmith and Fulham totals 176,000 people and the population of our three wards make up around one sixth of the borough total. In all of our wards, as in the borough as a whole, in London and nationally, there is a slightly higher ration of women to men (51% versus 49%).
Table 2: Population and household count
| College Parkand Old Oak | Shepherds Bush Green | Wormholt and White City | London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham | London | England | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All population, count | 7,643 | 10,249 | 11,997 | 176,000 | 7,428,600 | 50,093,100 |
| All Households, count | 3,199 | 4,926 | 4,797 | 75,438 | 3,015,997 | 20,451,427 |
The age breakdown of people within our three wards is broadly in line with that of the borough as a whole, London and nationally. The proportion of children and young people (i.e. those aged between 5 and 19) is lower in Hammersmith and Fulham than in London and the country. However, in two of our three wards the number of children and young people is much higher than the borough as a whole. The proportion of people over 65 in Hammersmith and Fulham is lower than in London, and significantly lower than nationally. Shepherds Bush Green is notable for having an even lower percentage of people over 65 than the borough overall.
Table 3: Age groups – percentage of total population
| Age in years | College Park and Old Oak (%) | Shepherds Bush Green (%) | Wormholt and White City (%) | London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (%) | London (%) | England (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| 5-19 | 19 | 13 | 22 | 14 | 19 | 19 |
| 20-44 | 44 | 54 | 43 | 52 | 43 | 35 |
| 45-64 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 18 | 20 | 24 |
| 65+ | 13 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 12 | 16 |
Hammersmith has a higher than average proportion of ethnic minority residents, but it ranks 22nd among London boroughs as East London boroughs such as Newham and Tower Hamlets, alongside Brent, have a majority of their populations from ethnic minority groups. The following table shows that the wards within which our estates are located have a lower than average proportion of white residents and a much higher than average number of Black or Black British residents. The number of Asian or Asian British residents is also higher than the borough and the national rate though lower than London overall. The proportion of Chinese residents and people from a mixed background is about average for the borough and London as a whole, though much higher than national levels.
Table 4: Ethnic group – percentage of total population
| College Park and Old Oak (%) | Shepherds Bush Green (%) | Wormholt and White City (%) | London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (%) | London (%) | England (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 66 | 70 | 63 | 78 | 71 | 91 |
| Mixed | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| Asian or Asian British | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 12 | 5 |
| Black or Black British | 19 | 16 | 23 | 11 | 11 | 2 |
| Chinese or Other Ethnic Group | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
The composition of households tells us a lot about social need. Hammersmith and Fulham has above average single person households. The three wards have a much higher concentration of lone parent households, particularly Wormholt and White City. This group is particularly over-represented in poverty concentrations, in social housing and has generally much poorer outcomes for children (Hills et al, 2009).
Table 5: Household type – percentage of total population
| College Park and Old Oak (%) | Shepherds Bush Green (%) | Wormholt and White City (%) | London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (%) | London (%) | England (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Married couple household | 24 | 18 | 26 | 23 | 37 | 47 |
| Cohabiting couple household | 7 | 12 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 9 |
| Lone parent household | 19 | 12 | 23 | 12 | 13 | 10 |
| One person household | 42 | 45 | 34 | 40 | 35 | 30 |
| Multi person household | 8 | 12 | 10 | 13 | 6 | 3 |
Social need and deprivation are concentrated in areas with a high proportion of council and social housing estates. Hammersmith and Fulham has a lower number of owner-occupied housing than London and the nation, and the numbers living in “owned” property within our three wards are even lower than the borough as a whole. In contrast, levels of social renting are higher in Hammersmith and Fulham than London and England. Furthermore, levels of social renting in our three wards are higher than the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham overall, with social renting in College Park and Wormholt and White City significantly higher than the borough and more than double the London figure. These very high levels of social renting are clearly linked to levels of deprivation within our three wards.
The level of private renting in the borough is also higher than the London and national rate. Shepherds Bush Green has a similar proportion of private renting to the borough. In College Park and Old Oak the volume of private renting is about half that of Hammersmith and Fulham and lower than London overall.
Table 6: Tenure – percentage of people living in households
| College Park and Old Oak (%) | Shepherds Bush Green (%) | Wormholt and White City (%) | London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (%) | London (%) | England (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Owned | 32 | 35 | 32 | 42 | 58 | 71 |
| Social rented | 54 | 38 | 53 | 33 | 25 | 18 |
| Private rented | 12 | 24 | 12 | 23 | 14 | 9 |
| Living rent free | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
As the table above shows, owning your own home is highest nationally at 71% and lowest in the three wards we are studying at only 32%-35%. Social renting in contrast is far lower nationally at 18% than in our three wards of Hammersmith and Fulham where it reaches 54%.
Most individuals derive their income and social status through their employment (Hills et al, 2009). A clear objective of the Labour Government from 1998 was on building a fairer society and emphasised the role that employment can play in tackling poverty and exclusion.
Economic activity in the borough seems to fit closely with the wider London and national picture. However, two of our wards – Wormholt and White City and College Park and Old Oak – have much lower levels of employment than the borough as a whole. Levels of economic inactivity within these two wards are also significantly higher than the borough and the London level.
Table 7: Economic activity – percentage of persons aged 16-74
| College Park and Old Oak (%) | Shepherds Bush Green (%) | Wormholt and White City (%) | London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (%) | London (%) | England (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economically active: employed | 50 | 61 | 52 | 62 | 60 | 61 |
| Economically active: unemployed | 6 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Economically active: full time student | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Economically inactive: Retired | 11 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 14 |
| Economically inactive: Other | 31 | 23 | 29 | 23 | 23 | 20 |
NB. Economically active – covers all people who were working in the week before the Census. In addition the category includes people who were not working but were looking for work and were available to start work within 2 weeks and full time students (school pupil or person of any age who have indicated that they are in full time education). Economically inactive – includes retired people, students (excluding those who are working or otherwise economically active), looking after family / home, permanently sick / disabled. A person who is looking for work but is not available to start work within 2 weeks is described as economically inactive (Office for National Statistics, 2004).
Table 8: Wards within Hammersmith and Fulham showing rank of the most deprived LSOA within ward, and the number located in the 10% and 20% most deprived areas of the country
| Ward Name | Rank of most deprived LSOA in ward (%) | Number of LSOAs in most deprived 10% | Number of LSOAs in most deprived 20% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Addison | 7 | 1 | 2 |
| Askew | 11 | 0 | 4 |
| Avonmore and Brook Green | 10 | 0 | 1 |
| College Park and Old Oak Including Old Oak estate | 11 | 0 | 5 |
| Fulham Broadway | 9 | 1 | 2 |
| Fulham Reach | 21 | 0 | 0 |
| Hammersmith Broadway | 13 | 0 | 2 |
| Munster | 27 | 0 | 0 |
| North End | 10 | 0 | 2 |
| Palace Riverside | 41 | 0 | 0 |
| Parsons Green and Walham | 18 | 0 | 1 |
| Ravenscourt Park | 20 | 0 | 1 |
| Sands End | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| Shepherds Bush Green Including Edward Woods and William Church estates | 8 | 2 | 4 |
| Town | 14 | 0 | 1 |
| Wormholt and White City Including White City estate | 6 | 3 | 5 |
Source: Greater London Authority Data Management and Analysis Group, 2008. London Ward level summary measures for the Indices of Deprivation 2007. DMAG Briefing 2008-22.
The three wards that we are studying contain some of the most deprived small areas within the borough. Wormholt and White City and Shepherds Bush Green both contain areas which are within the most deprived 10% nationally. All of the small areas in College Park and Old Oak are within the most deprived 20% though none are in the bottom 10%. The most deprived LSOA in Hammersmith, in Wormholt and White City, is ranked at 6% nationally. Within Hammersmith and Fulham White City and Edward Woods estates are clearly very deprived, ranking between 1 and 12 of the most deprived LSOAs out of the 111 LSOAs within the borough (with 1 being the most deprived).
Over a quarter of small areas in London fall within the most deprived 20% nationally, compared with the North East and North West regions where a third are in the most deprived 20% (Communities and Local Government, 2007). Thus London is more deprived than the national average but less deprived than the poorest Northern regions.
Table 9: Table showing where the four estates rank within the nation and the borough
| Estate | Ward | Ranking within London Borough of Hammersmith (out of 111 LSOAs) | IMD Ranking of LSOA (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| White City | Wormholt and White City | 1 | 6 |
| White City | Wormholt and White City | 2 | 6 |
| White City | Wormholt and White City | 5 | 9 |
| White City | Wormholt and White City | 12 | 11 |
| Edward Woods | Shepherds Bush Green | 4 | 8 |
| Old Oak | College Park and Old Oak | 21 | 17 |
| Old Oak | College Park and Old Oak | 13 | 12 |
| William Church | Shepherds Bush Green | 37 | 23 |
Below we examine each main theme at the smallest spatial scale – LSOA level – including comparisons between wards, with Hammersmith and Fulham and the wider nation.
Income
The income deprivation domain provides information on the proportion of people living in a certain area who are living on low incomes and therefore often dependent on means-tested benefits.
The table below shows the ranking of household income in all four estates. White City is among the most deprived areas of the whole country and apart from William Church estate all estates are within the bottom 6%. All of our estates are within the most deprived 20% nationally.
Table 10: Income rank of estate LSOAs within England
| LSOA | Rank of income score (%) |
|---|---|
| White City- E01001958 | 2 |
| White City – E01001961 | 3 |
| White City – E01001957 | 4 |
| White City – E01001955 | 5 |
| Edward Woods- E01001944 | 5 |
| Old Oak- E01001878 | 6 |
| Old Oak – E01001875 | 6 |
| William Church- E01001940 | 19 |
The average household income in the borough is £30,266, which is higher than the London and England average. However, income levels within the borough are polarised with the average income for council households being just £10,470 (Audit Commission, 2008).
The following table shows at ward level the proportion of people claiming Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) benefits within each ward (as well as within the borough and the nation).
The proportion of residents claiming DWP benefits in the three wards is higher than both the borough and the national level. In College Park and Old Oak the percentage of people claiming lone parent benefits is twice the borough level and three times the national level; this is even higher in Wormholt and White City. The proportion of incapacity claimants in each ward is consistently higher than Hammersmith and Fulham as a whole. Benefit dependency for families is closely related to income poverty.
Table 11: Proportion of people within the three wards, the borough, and nationally claiming DWP benefits
| College Park and Old Oak (%) | Wormholt and White City (%) | Shepherds Bush Green (%) | Hammersmith and Fulham (%) | Great Britain (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total claimants | 22 | 24 | 18 | 14 | 14 |
| Job seekers | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| Incapacity benefits | 10 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 7 |
| Lone parents | 6 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| Carers | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Others on income related benefits | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Source: NOMIS Ward labour market profiles for College Park and Old Oak, Wormholt and White City and Shepherds Bush Green. Benefits claimants – working age clients for small areas.
NB. The latest figures for Wormholt and White City were available from November 2007. The other figures apply to August 2008
Employment
The employment deprivation measure covers involuntary exclusion from the labour market. The table below shows the majority of our estates are in the 20% most deprived nationally with half ranking within the most deprived 10%.
Table 12: Employment rank of estate LSOAs within England
| LSOA | Rank of employment score (%) |
|---|---|
| Edward Woods – E01001944 | 4 |
| White City – E01001955 | 9 |
| White City – E01001958 | 9 |
| White City – E01001957 | 10 |
| White City – E01001961 | 19 |
| Old Oak – E01001875 | 19 |
| Old Oak – E01001878 | 24 |
| William Church – E01001940 | 35 |
The wards within which the estates are located have a much lower proportion of people in work and much higher levels of unemployment. The table below shows that College Park and Old Oak, and Wormholt and White City wards have levels of economic activity that are significantly lower than that of the borough, and of the nation as a whole.
Table 13: Proportion of people within the three wards, the borough, and nationally who are economically active
| College Park and Old Oak (%) | Wormholt and White City (%) | Shepherds Bush Green (%) | Hammersmith and Fulham (%) | Great Britain (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All people | |||||
| Economically active | 65 | 68 | 75 | 75 | 76 |
| In employment | 58 | 59 | 68 | 69 | 72 |
| Unemployed | 11 | 13 | 9 | 8 | 6 |
Source: NOMIS Ward labour market profiles for College Park and Old Oak, Wormholt and White City and Shepherds Bush Green. Employment and unemployment figures for 2001.
The proportion of unemployed people is highest in Wormholt and White City, followed closely by College Park and Old Oak. Shepherds Bush Green however is more closely aligned with Hammersmith and Fulham and closer to the national level.
Health Deprivation and Disability
The health domain measures rates of poor health, early mortality and disability across all age ranges. In general, the health of people in Hammersmith and Fulham is comparable to the England average. Nevertheless, drug misuse, alcohol related hospital admissions and violent crime are significantly higher than the England average.
Table 14: Health deprivation and disability rank of estate LSOAs within England
| LSOA | Rank of health deprivation and disability score (%) |
|---|---|
| White City – E01001955 | 11 |
| White City – E01001957 | 18 |
| White City – E01001958 | 18 |
| Old Oak – E01001878 | 19 |
| William Church – E01001940 | 20 |
| Edward Woods – E01001944 | 21 |
| Old Oak – E01001875 | 23 |
| White City – E01001961 | 25 |
The borough record for physically active children and adults, healthy diets, and breast feeding is significantly better than the England average. In Hammersmith and Fulham, rates of adult obesity and people diagnosed with diabetes are lower than the England average (APHO and Department of Health, 2008). The female life expectancy in Hammersmith & Fulham is slightly higher than that in England and London (82 compared to 81.1 in London and 80.9 in England). The male life expectancy in Hammersmith & Fulham is similar to that in England and London (76.3 in Hammersmith, 76.5 in London and 76.6 in England).
There are health inequalities within Hammersmith and Fulham by location, gender, level of deprivation and ethnicity. Life expectancy within the borough varies by over six years by ward, ranging from 77 in Askew to 83 in Addison. The three wards we are focusing on have life expectancy rates towards the lower end of the scale: 77 years in Shepherds Bush Green, 78 in College Park and Old Oak, and 79 in Wormholt and White City. The following table shows Shepherds Bush Green, College Park and Old Oak, and Wormholt and White City to be within the five worst performing wards in the borough.
Chart 1: Life Expectancy at birth in years by ward, 2003-05
Source: ONS deaths & GLA 2005 round population projections. Taken from http://www.maps.lbhf.gov.uk/bprofile/profile.asp?THEME=8&INDICATOR=6
Education, Skills and Training
The education domain measures the level of deprivation in terms of education, skills and training in a local area. Indicators cover both educational deprivation for children and young people, and skills and qualifications for some sections of the working age population (working age adults with no or low qualifications).
The table below shows that Old Oak is the most deprived of our estates on education and is located around the bottom quarter of all areas in the country. White City is in the bottom third. Edward Woods and William Church perform close to average.
Table 15: Education, skills and training rank of estate LSOAs within England
| LSOA | Rank of education, skills and training score (%) |
|---|---|
| Old Oak – E01001875 | 24 |
| Old Oak – E01001878 | 26 |
| White City – E01001961 | 32 |
| White City – E01001958 | 36 |
| White City – E01001955 | 36 |
| White City – E01001957 | 37 |
| Edward Woods – E01001944 | 48 |
| William Church – E01001940 | 59 |
Eligibility for free school meals is an indicator of deprivation and actual poverty often related to lower educational attainment (APHO and Department of Health, 2008). Hammersmith and Fulham has a much higher than average proportion of children who are eligible for free school meals at 43%, compared to 37% in Inner London, 26% in London overall and 16% in England (Department for Schools, Children and Families, 2006). Hammersmith and Fulham has the second highest proportion of children eligible for free school meals in London, behind Tower Hamlets. The following table shows the relatively poor educational levels of residents in our three wards compared to the borough as a whole, and to Great Britain.
Table 16: Proportion of people within the three wards, the borough, and nationally with no qualifications, lower level qualifications and higher level qualifications
| College Park and Old Oak (%) | Wormholt and White City (%) | Shepherds Bush Green (%) | Hammersmith and Fulham (%) | Great Britain (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All people | |||||
| No qualifications or level unknown | 39 | 33 | 24 | 22 | 36 |
| Lower level qualifications | 35 | 36 | 33 | 33 | 44 |
| Higher level qualifications | 26 | 31 | 43 | 45 | 20 |
| In employment | |||||
| No qualifications or level unknown | 27 | 20 | 13 | 13 | 26 |
| Lower level qualifications | 38 | 35 | 31 | 30 | 49 |
| Higher level qualifications | 35 | 45 | 56 | 57 | 26 |
| Unemployed | |||||
| No qualifications or level unknown | 42 | 35 | 30 | 28 | 38 |
| Lower level qualifications | 35 | 42 | 42 | 38 | 47 |
| Higher level qualifications | 23 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 15 |
Source: NOMIS Ward labour market profiles for College Park and Old Oak, Wormholt and White City and Shepherds Bush Green. Qualifications figures for 2001.
In Table 16, no qualifications means people without any academic, vocational or professional qualifications; lower level qualifications describes qualifications equivalent to levels 1-3 of the National Key Learning Targets (GCSEs, A-levels, NVQ levels 1-3); higher level qualifications refer to levels 4 and above (first degrees, higher degrees, NVQ levels 4-5, HND, HNC and certain professional qualifications). From this table we can see that College Park has the highest proportion of residents with no qualifications among the three wards. This figure is also higher than both the borough and the national level. The percentage of unemployed people with no qualifications is higher in all three wards than the borough and national level. Hammersmith and Fulham has a high percentage of residents with high level qualifications who are unemployed – more than double the national figure.
Hammersmith and Fulham overall has a higher level of qualifications than Great Britain. The areas we have studied have lower educational levels than average but are not in the most deprived 20%. The Phoenix High School is located close to the White City estate and has recently been acknowledged for its achievements, particularly for its contribution to helping deprived children gain educationally, generally known as the “value added” measure. Ofsted visited the school in early 2008 and graded all aspects of the school’s performance as either good or outstanding.
“The Phoenix is a remarkable school; it continues to transform the life chances of both students and their families. It can do this because the school operates from a deeply rooted understanding, and heartfelt appreciation of, the challenging circumstances that many of the students come from. This enables the school to make sophisticated provision for their personal development that develops articulate, confident young people.” (Ofsted, 2008)
Housing
The housing domain is designed to measure barriers to housing and key local services. The council rented housing stock in Hammersmith and Fulham is around 18,000 homes and has been managed by the ALMO – Hammersmith and Fulham Homes – since 2004. In June 2008 the Audit Commission inspected Hammersmith and Fulham Homes and described it as “a fair one-star service that has promising prospects for improvement” (Audit Commission, 2008). One star is the lowest grading that a social landlord can receive. There are a number of other registered social landlords operating in the borough and the areas we have studied including: Notting Hill Housing Group, Shepherds Bush Housing Association, Old Oak Housing Association, Family Mosaic, Ducane, Action Housing Association and others.
The estates are concentrated within the most deprived 20% on the housing measure, and White City is mostly in the 10% most deprived, closely followed by Edward Woods and one part of Old Oak. This is influenced by the very high concentration of social renting in White City, and the dominance of council built estates in the areas.
Table 17: Barriers to housing and services rank of estate LSOAs within England
| LSOA | Rank of barriers to housing and services score (%) |
|---|---|
| White City – E01001961 | 9 |
| White City – E01001958 | 9 |
| White City – E01001957 | 10 |
| Edward Woods – E01001944 | 11 |
| Old Oak – E01001875 | 11 |
| William Church – E01001940 | 16 |
| Old Oak – E01001878 | 21 |
| White City – E01001955 | 22 |
Homes in the borough are expensive to buy with an average house costing £405,000 (2006 Land Registry). As a result, the proportion of people owning their own home is lower than the national average (42% compared to 67%). The right-to-buy legislation established in 1979 has changed the landscape of some estates in the borough with over 6,000 council properties having been sold since then. According to the Audit Commission in 2008, there are 4,344 council leaseholders (owner occupiers) in the borough. 88% of the remaining council stock in the borough is flats or maisonettes (Audit Commission, 2008).
Old Oak, a large estate of “cottage style” homes, is located within College Park and Old Oak ward. Large numbers of people on the estate have exercised the right-to-buy. This ward has far fewer local authority owned properties than the other wards covering our estates (Wormholt and White City, and Shepherds Bush Green) where the percentage of social renting remains high.
Chart 2: Local authority owned properties by ward, 2005
Source: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, HMS. Taken from http://www.maps.lbhf.gov.uk/bprofile/profile.asp?THEME=5&INDICATOR=4
Crime
This domain measures the rate of recorded crime for four major types – burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence. The crime measurement shows a wide range of crime scores from low to extremely high within White City. One LSOA within White City scores within the most deprived 1% nationally. According to Metropolitan Police figures in May 2009, the crime rate in Shepherds Bush Green is above average whilst in College Park and Old Oak, and Wormholt and White City wards it is average.
Table 18: Crime / disorder rank of estate LSOAs within England
| LSOA | Rank of crime / disorder score (%) |
|---|---|
| White City – E01001955 | 1 |
| White City – E01001961 | 2 |
| Old Oak – E01001875 | 12 |
| White City – E01001958 | 18 |
| William Church – E01001940 | 41 |
| Old Oak – E01001878 | 54 |
| Edward Woods – E01001944 | 60 |
| White City – E01001957 | 71 |
There are Safer Neighbourhoods Teams in each ward, with locally agreed priorities.
In Shepherds Bush Green these priorities are:
- anti-social behaviour related to alcohol;
- drug dealing and using; and
- robbery – personal property.
In College Park and Old Oak the locally agreed priorities are:
- anti-social behaviour in general;
- drug dealing and using; and
- theft from motor vehicles.
In Wormholt and White City these priorities are:
- anti-social behaviour by youths, causing noise and nuisance;
- drug dealing and using; and
- youth engagement.
Most of these problems relate to young people. This list underlines the twin priorities of security and youth diversion from crime.
Living Environment
The living environment domain measures deprivation in the “indoors” living environment which is based on the quality of housing, and the “outdoors” living environment which is based on air quality and road traffic accidents. Poor housing condition is modelled using the English House Condition Survey to provide a complete profile for all stock.
Edward Woods and William Church estates are within the most deprived 10% in the country, most of White City and some of Old Oak are within the most deprived 20%. Seven out of eight of the LSOAs are within the most deprived 20% nationally.
Table 19: Living environment rank of estate LSOAs within England
| LSOA | Rank of living environment score (%) |
|---|---|
| Edward Woods – E01001944 | 5 |
| William Church – E01001940 | 6 |
| White City – E01001958 | 12 |
| Old Oak – E01001875 | 17 |
| White City – E01001955 | 17 |
| White City – E01001957 | 18 |
| White City – E01001961 | 23 |
| Old Oak – E01001878 | 35 |
Inequality within the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
There are large disparities of wealth and deprivation within the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham with poverty and deprivation more concentrated within the north of the borough, in simplistic terms in Hammersmith rather than Fulham.
- The most deprived small area in Hammersmith and Fulham is in White City and ranks at 6%, putting it within the most deprived 10% of all areas in England.
- The least deprived small area in Hammersmith and Fulham is in the Palace Riverside ward and ranks at 66%, therefore placing it within the least deprived third nationally.
These contrasts underline the social difficulties people in the most deprived areas face.
The chart below shows the average rank of LSOAs within wards in Hammersmith and Fulham. The three wards we are studying are all located at the lowest end of this scale. It is important to remember that ward averages can conceal the small pockets of deprivation that exist within even the least deprived wards.
Chart 3: Average LSOA rank within wards, ranked out of 32,482, 2007
Source: Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2007. Taken from http://www.maps.lbhf.gov.uk/bprofile/profile.asp?THEME=6&INDICATOR=3
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Background information on Hammersmith and Fulham and the targeted areas and wards
- 3. Contrasts between East and West London
- 4. Conditions and facilities on the four Hammersmith and Fulham estates
- 5. Talking to residents
- 6. Reporting from the estates
- 7. Actions to help
- 8. Vignettes
- 9. Overview of the groups and actions identified by residents needing more support
- 10. Models for HUC to consider
- 11. Our recommendations and conclusion
- References
- Annex 1: Additional Tables
- Annex 2: Basic demographic information on interviewees
- Summary
