HUC HUC
Subscribe to our Facebook pageFind us on Twitter

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

Annex 1: Additional Tables

Table 1: Population and household count

College Park and 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

Source: Census, 2001; the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Table 2: Gender

College Park and Old Oak Shepherds Bush Green Wormholt and White City London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham London England
All males, count 3,702 5.035 5,677 87,900 3,673,400 24,553,900
All males, percentage 48.4 49.1 47.3 49.7 49.4 49.0
All females, count 3,941 5,214 6,320 88,900 3,755,800 25,539,200
All females, percentage 51.6 50.9 52.6 50.3 50.6 51.0

Source: Census, 2001; the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

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 5.55 6.78 6.17 6.67 5.96
5-15 13.55 15.95 10.31 13.53 14.2
16-19 4.81 5.78 3.53 4.66 4.9
20-44 43.77 43.42 51.66 42.72 35.31
45-64 19.38 17.49 17.84 20 23.75
65+ 12.94 10.68 10.49 12.43 15.89

Source: Census, 2001; the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

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 65.64 70.46 63.02 77.83 71.15 90.92
White: British 49.5 50.26 47.13 58.04 59.79 86.99
White: Irish 6.28 6.14 5.33 4.83 3.07 1.27
White: Other White 9.87 14.06 10.55 14.95 8.29 2.66
Mixed 4.49 4.93 5.01 3.81 3.15 1.31
Mixed: White and Black Caribbean 1.6 1.63 1.93 1.22 0.99 0.47
Mixed: White and Black African 0.98 0.92 0.87 0.63 0.48 0.16
Mixed: White and Asian 0.72 1.11 1.08 0.97 0.84 0.37
Mixed: Other Mixed 1.19 1.25 1.14 1.00 0.85 0.31
Asian or Asian British 6.07 6.28 5.94 4.44 12.08 4.58
Asian or Asian British: Indian 2.42 2.05 1.68 1.65 6.09 2.09
Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 1.57 2.29 1.29 1.04 1.99 1.44
Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 0.39 0.63 1.77 0.61 2.15 0.56
Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 1.69 1.31 1.21 1.14 1.86 0.48
Black or Black British 19.35 15.82 22.91 11.13 10.92 2.30
Black or Black British: Caribbean 10.7 7.75 9.06 5.16 4.79 1.14
Black or Black British: African 6.95 6.19 11.94 4.88 5.28 0.97
Black of Black British: Other Black 1.7 1.88 1.9 1.08 0.84 0.19
Chinese or Other Ethnic Group 4.45 2.52 3.13 2.79 2.69 0.89
Chinese or Other Ethnic Group: Chinese 0.85 0.65 0.63 0.79 1.12 0.45
Chinese or Other Ethnic Group: Other Ethnic Group 3.6 1.86 2.49 2.00 1.58 0.44

Source: Census, 2001; the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

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 with dependent child(ren) 11.50 8.32 13.05 10.77 16.83 18.55
Married couple household with no dependent child(ren) 12.69 9.97 12.57 12.66 19.97 28.76
Cohabiting couple household with dependent child(ren) 2.69 1.75 2.90 2.01 2.72 3.39
Cohabiting couple household with no dependent child(ren) 4.75 10.07 5.55 9.46 6.67 5.75
Lone parent household with dependent child(ren) 12.29 8.99 16.45 8.36 8.86 7.13
Lone parent household with no dependent child(ren) 6.41 3.49 6.13 3.84 3.96 3.34
One person household 41.70 45.49 33.50 40.28 34.71 30.07
Multi person household: All student 0.53 0.30 0.58 0.57 0.43 0.37
Multi person household: All other 7.44 11.51 9.28 12.05 5.83 2.65

Source: Census, 2001; the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

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: Owns outright 11.05 14.42 12.18 17.24 19.21 24.45
Owned: Owns with a mortgage or loan 19.80 18.92 18.88 23.99 38.22 46.13
Owned: Shared ownership 0.89 1.56 0.73 0.92 0.94 0.64
Social rented: Rented from Council (LA) 19.89 21.23 40.27 19.28 16.65 12.38
Social rented: other social rented 34.11 17.11 12.92 13.44 8.80 5.55
Private rented: Private landlord or letting agency 10.82 23.01 11.25 21.05 13.36 8.01
Private rented: Employer of household member 0.17 0.08 0.00 0.19 0.21 0.30
Private rented: Relative or friend of a household member 0.73 0.73 0.48 1.17 0.60 0.55
Private rented: Other 0.43 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.26 0.31
Living rent free 2.12 2.75 3.21 2.52 1.75 1.69

Source: Census, 2001; the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

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: Employees Part-time 8.12 5.57 7.29 6.02 8.62 11.81
Economically active: Employees Full-time 35.22 45.60 37.06 45.89 42.64 40.81
Economically active: Self-employed 6.44 10.00 7.61 10.31 8.97 8.32
Economically active: unemployed 5.69 5.79 6.77 4.97 4.36 3.35
Economically active: Full time student 3.16 2.38 3.33 2.25 2.96 2.58
Economically inactive: Retired 10.61 7.21 8.79 7.73 9.81 13.54
Economically inactive: Student 9.17 6.61 8.89 7.19 6.57 4.67
Economically inactive: Looking after home / family 7.05 5.26 7.84 6.30 7.17 6.52
Economically inactive: Permanently sick / disabled 6.04 6.40 6.6 4.73 4.57 5.30
Economically inactive: Other 8.51 5.19 5.81 4.62 4.34 3.10

Source: Census, 2001; the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Table 8: Wards within Hammersmith and Fulham showing rank of the most deprived LSOA within ward; the number of LSOAs in each 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 ward In most deprived 10% In most deprived 20%
Addison 7.4 7 1 2
Askew 10.7 8 0 4
Avonmore and Brook Green 10.0 8 0 1
College Park and Old Oak Including Old Oak estate 10.8 5 0 5
Fulham Broadway 9.2 7 1 2
Fulham Reach 20.9 7 0 0
Hammersmith Broadway 13.1 8 0 2
Munster 27.0 7 0 0
North End 10.1 7 0 2
Palace Riverside 41.4 5 0 0
Parsons Green and Walham 17.7 7 0 1
Ravenscourt Park 19.9 7 0 1
Sands End 24.9 6 0 0
Shepherds Bush Green Including Edward Woods and William Church estates 7.9 7 2 4
Town 14.4 7 0 1
Wormholt and White City Including White City estate 5.9 8 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.

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 (%) IMD Ranking of LSOA (out of 32,482)
White City Wormholt and White City 1 5.9 1,906
White City Wormholt and White City 2 6.3 2,033
White City Wormholt and White City 5 8.7 2,835
White City Wormholt and White City 12 11 3,568
Edward Woods Shepherds Bush Green 4 7.9 2,553
Old Oak College Park and Old Oak 21 17.3 5,602
Old Oak College Park and Old Oak 13 11.8 3,817
William Church Estate Shepherds Bush Green 37 22.6 7,667

Table 10: Income score and rank within England of estate LSOAs

LSOA Income score Rank of income score (out of 32,482) Rank of income score (%)
E01001958 (White City) 0.51 496 1.5%
E01001961 (White City) 0.44 1118 3.4%
E01001957 (White City) 0.44 1219 3.8%
E01001955 (White City) 0.42 1507 4.6%
E01001944 (Edward Woods) 0.41 1561 4.8%
E01001878 (Old Oak) 0.40 1848 5.7%
E01001875 (Old Oak) 0.39 1927 5.9%
E01001940 (William Church) 0.26 6072 18.7%

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 22.4 23.5 18.3 13.9 14.2
Job seekers 4.0 4.1 3.6 2.7 2.4
Incapacity benefits 9.5 9.5 8.8 6.5 7.0
Lone parents 5.8 6.7 3.5 2.9 2.0
Carers 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.6 1.1
Others on income related benefits 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.5
Disabled 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.0
Bereaved 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
Key out of work benefits (job seekers, incapacity benefits, lone parents and others on income related benefits) 20.0 N/A 17 12.7 11.9

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 and did not include the key out of work benefits category. The other figures apply to August 2008.

Table 12: Employment score and rank within England of estate LSOAs

LSOA Employment score Rank of employment score (out of 32,482 with 1 being the most deprived) Rank of employment score (%)
E01001944 (Edward Woods) 0.25 1172 3.6
E01001955 (White City) 0.20 2816 8.7
E01001958 (White City) 0.20 2907 9.0
E01001957 (White City) 0.19 3245 10.0
E01001961 (White City) 0.15 6004 18.5
E01001875 (Old Oak) 0.15 6212 19.1
E01001878 (Old Oak) 0.14 7705 23.7
E01001940 (William Church) 0.11 11,418 35.2

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 65.3 67.9 74.5 74.9 76.0
In employment 58.1 59.3 67.7 69.0 71.6
Employees 51.1 51.1 57.0 58.1 62.6
Self employed 7.1 8.2 10.7 10.9 9.0
Unemployed 10.9 12.7 9.1 7.9 5.8
Males
Economically active 67.7 73.3 78.3 79.6 81.4
In employment 58.8 62.6 69.6 72.3 76.0
Employees 48.3 51.3 55.6 58.2 63.1
Self employed 10.5 11.3 14.0 14.2 12.9
Unemployed 13.2 14.6 11.1 9.2 6.5
Females
Economically active 62.7 62.9 70.6 70.3 70.3
In employment 57.5 56.2 65.7 65.6 66.9
Employees 53.9 50.9 58.5 58.0 62.1
Self employed 3.5 5.3 7.3 7.7 4.8
Unemployed 8.3 10.7 6.9 6.6 4.8

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.

Table 14: Health deprivation and disability score and rank within England of estate LSOAs

LSOA Health deprivation and disability score Rank of health deprivation and disability score (out of 32,482 with 1 being the most deprived) Rank of health deprivation and disability score (%)
E01001955 (White City) 1.13 3478 10.7
E01001957 (White City) 0.84 5779 17.8
E01001958 (White City) 0.84 5799 17.9
E01001878 (Old Oak) 0.81 6155 19.0
E01001940 (William Church) 0.78 6449 19.9
E01001944 (Edward Woods) 0.73 6912 21.3
E01001875 (Old Oak) 0.67 7577 23.3
E01001961 (White City) 0.61 8194 25.2

Table 15: Education, skills and training score and rank within England of estate LSOAs

LSOA Education, skills and training score Rank of education, skills and training score (out of 32,482 with 1 being the most deprived) Rank of education, skills and training score (%)
E01001875 (Old Oak) 31.63 7741 23.8
E01001878 (Old Oak) 29.43 8548 26.3
E01001961 (White City) 25.24 10,414 32.1
E01001958 (White City) 23.08 11,552 35.6
E01001955 (White City) 23.02 11,585 35.7
E01001957 (White City) 22.47 11,866 36.5
E01001944 (Edward Woods) 16.68 15,697 48.3
E01001940 (William Church) 12.40 19,303 59.4

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 38.8 32.6 23.8 22.0 35.8
Lower level qualifications 35.4 36.3 33.1 32.9 43.9
Higher level qualifications 25.8 31.1 43.1 45.1 20.4
In employment
No qualifications or level unknown 27.3 20.4 13.2 12.5 25.6
Lower level qualifications 38.1 35.2 30.6 30.1 48.9
Higher level qualifications 34.6 44.5 56.1 57.4 25.5
Unemployed
No qualifications or level unknown 41.9 35.0 30.0 28.4 38.4
Lower level qualifications 35.3 41.9 42,1 37.6 47.2
Higher level qualifications 22.8 23.1 27.9 34.0 14.5

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 this table, 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).

Table 17: Barriers to housing and services score and rank within England of estate LSOAs

LSOA Barriers to housing and services score Rank of barriers to housing and services score (out of 32,482 with 1 being the most deprived) Rank of barriers to housing and services score (%)
E01001961 (White City) 37.93 2951 9.1
E01001958 (White City) 37.75 3026 9.3
E01001957 (White City) 37.39 3149 9.7
E01001944 (Edward Woods) 36.36 3531 10.9
E01001875 (Old Oak) 36.15 3619 11.1
E01001940 (William Church) 32.81 5327 16.4
E01001878 (Old Oak) 30.72 6674 20.6
E01001955 (White City) 30.06 7130 22.0

Table 18: Crime / disorder score and rank within England of estate LSOAs

LSOA Crime / disorder score Rank of crime / disorder score (out of 32,482 with 1 being the most deprived) Rank of crime / disorder score (%)
E01001955 (White City) 2.31 67 0.2
E01001961 (White City) 1.69 637 2.0
E01001875 (Old Oak) 1.00 3859 11.9
E01001958 (White City) 0.79 5775 17.8
E01001940 (William Church) 0.20 13,279 40.9
E01001878 (Old Oak) -0.09 17,564 54.1
E01001944 (Edward Woods) -0.22 19,414 59.8
E01001957 (White City) -0.48 23,001 70.8

Table 19: Living environment score and rank within England of estate LSOAs

LSOA Living environment score Rank of living environment score (out of 32,482 with 1 being the most deprived) Rank of living environment score (%)
E01001944 (Edward Woods) 56.06 1597 4.9
E01001940 (William Church) 53.18 2023 6.2
E01001958 (White City) 44.84 3766 11.6
E01001875 (Old Oak) 38.62 5522 17.0
E01001955 (White City) 38.46 5580 17.2
E01001957 (White City) 37.44 5913 18.2
E01001961 (White City) 33.15 7387 22.7
E01001878 (Old Oak) 24.33 11,277 34.7

Table 20: Indices of Deprivation ranking for Islington and Hammersmith and Fulham overall and for extent, local concentration, income and employment

Indices of Deprivation 2007 Islington Hammersmith and Fulham
Average deprivation score (Areas) Rank 8 59
Average deprivation rank (Areas) Rank 6 38
Extent of deprivation (Areas) Rank 6 72
Local concentration of deprivation (Areas) Rank 56 113
Area position on income scale (Areas) Rank 36 65
Area position on employment scale (Areas) Rank 39 72
Index of Multiple Deprivation; LA population (Persons) Count 183,930 170,760
Most deprived LSOA Rank 1.7% 5.9%
Least deprived LSOA Rank 48.4% 66.4%

Source: Office for National Statistics, Neighbourhood Statistics. http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadHome.do

Table 21: Crime statistics for Islington and Hammersmith and Fulham (12 months up to April 2009)

Islington Hammersmith and Fulham Metropolitan Police Total
Total crimes 29,358 22,997 843,396
Homicide 8 1 151
Violence against the person (total) 5,800 4,972 175,168
Rape 63 62 2,191
Other sexual 206 171 6,617
Robbery (total) 1,094 694 32,518
Robbery (person) 988 653 29,288
Robbery (business) 106 41 3,230
Burglary (total) 3,014 2,239 94,014
Burglary Residential 1,683 1,684 59,472
Burglary Non-residential 1,331 555 34,542
Gun enabled crime 76 56 3,022
Motor vehicle crime 3,279 2,737 106,912
Domestic crime 1,544 1,204 53,305
Racist crime 358 279 9,519
Homophobic crime 89 38 1,147

Source: http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/index.php

Table 22: Age groups, 2001 – % of total population

Age in years St Peters Bunhill Islington London England
0-4 years 7 6 6.3 6.67 5.96
5-14 years 11 10 11.1 13.53 14.2
15-19 years 5 5 5.2 4.66 4.9
20-44 years 48 50 49.3 42.72 35.31
45-64 years 18 16 17.8 20 23.75
65 years & over 12 13 10.2 12.43 15.89

Data source: Census, 2001

Table 23: Ethnic group, 2001 – % total population

St Peters Bunhill Islington London England
White 81.1 76.1 75.3 71.15 90.92
White: British 64.1 59.6 56.8 59.79 86.99
White: Irish 4.7 4.2 5.7 3.07 1.27
White: Other White 12.3 12.3 12.9 8.29 2.66
Mixed 3.2 3.8 4.1 3.15 1.31
Mixed: White & Black Caribbean 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.99 0.47
Mixed: White & Black African 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.48 0.16
Mixed: White & Asian 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.84 0.37
Mixed: Other Mixed 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.85 0.31
Asian or Asian British 4.0 6.3 5.4 12.08 4.58
Asian or Asian British: Indian 1.6 1.9 1.6 6.09 2.09
Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 0.3 0.6 0.5 1.99 1.44
Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 1.7 2.9 2.4 2.15 0.56
Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 0.4 0.9 0.8 1.86 0.48
Black or Black British 8.8 10.1 11.9 10.92 2.30
Black or Black British: Caribbean 3.4 2.4 4.9 4.79 1.14
Black or Black British: African 4.7 7.0 6.0 5.28 0.97
Black or Black British: Other Black 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.84 0.19
Chinese or Other Ethnic Group 3.0 3.7 3.3 2.69 0.89
Chinese or Other Ethnic Group: Chinese 1.4 1.9 >1.7 1.12 0.45
Chinese or Other Ethnic Group: Other Ethnic Group 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.58 0.44

Note: columns do not total 100% due to sub-grouping of data

Table 24: Tenure, 2001 – % of people living in households

St Peters Bunhill Islington London England
Owned: Owns outright 11.1 5.7 10.5 19.21 24.45
Owned: Owns with a mortgae or laon 23.4 14.9 22.7 38.22 46.13
Owned: Shared ownership 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.94 0.64
Social rented: Rented from Council (LA) 37.2 43.7 32.1 16.65 12.38
Social rented: other social rented 7.0 14.4 12.2 8.80 5.55
Private rented: Private landlord or letting agency 17.8 17.1 18.6 13.36 8.01
Private rented: Employer of household member 0 0.1 0.2 0.21 0.30
Private rented: Relative or friend of a household member 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.60 0.55
Private rented: Other 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.26 0.31
Living rent free 1.7 2.6 1.8 1.75 1.69

Data source: Census, 2001

Table of Contents

Cookies in Use