The release of the Place Survey results for England this week revealed some interesting patterns across the country that do more than confirm the conventional wisdom regarding modern living and citizenship in London. In short the results suggest that in London we are more divided and dissatisfied than the rest of the country, but somewhat strangely more empowered…Overall in England the headline figures included the following:
- Cohesion: 76 per cent felt that people from different backgrounds got on well together in their local area, which is a good measure of the level of cohesion in an area.
- Satisfaction and Belonging: 80% of the population were satisfied with their local area as a place to live and a much smaller number felt they belonged to their neighbourhood.Empowerment 29% felt they could influence decisions in their local area, which in effect means, according to CLG guidance, that around a third of the population feel empowered.
- Civic Participation: 23% had participated in formal volunteering at least once a month in the last twelve months, which means that around a quarter of the population are engaged as active citizens and a further 14 per cent of the population had been involved in local decision-making (for example, being a member of a committee or groups relating to local services, education or standing as a local councillor).
Looking at these results from a London perspective there are some interesting findings for local policy makers in London in how they approach not only cohesion, empowerment and the wider renewal of local democracy, but also how we start to reform local public services over the next few years of major budget cuts.
Community Cohesion
People “who feel that people from different backgrounds got on well together in their local area” is almost equal to the national average in London. However, there is a major split between wealthy and cohesive West London and divided East London. Boroughs in East London, including Barking and Dagenham, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Bexley and Greenwich, all perform below the national average. Interestingly some of the non-London Thames Gateway boroughs also perform badly, such Thurrock in Essex and Thanet in Kent. On the positive side, the City of London and Richmond-Upon Thames are in the top 4 boroughs in the country for this rating. It is somewhat ironic that the less vibrant ‘suburban metro-land’ boroughs, such as Harrow, perform much better than the more vibrant edgy places of East London.
Previous research has highlighted the strong link between the Index of Multiple Deprivation and cohesion. The results bear this out: the borough in the top of the list, which are mainly made up of local authorities from the north-west of England, have not only a history of tensions between different communities, but they are also some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country. What is perhaps disappointing is that despite all the community cohesion interventions, such as those in Oldham or Kirklees, that have gone in the since the Disturbances of 2001, these places still are performing poorly on the government’s key cohesion indicator. In London terms, equally the same is true, Barking and Dagenham, according to this indicator the least cohesive place in England.
Neighbourhoods: belonging and satisfaction
Local people’s sense of belonging to their neighbourhood is lower in London than it is across England. In London, 52% of people felt they belonged to their neighbourhood whereas in the north-east of England 62% of people did. 43% of Tower Hamlets’ residents felt they belong compared to 75% in rural Eden District Council. This pattern is repeated across most other boroughs with much lower ratings. However, there is less of a link between deprivation and belonging as there is for cohesion. For instance Reading has one of the 2nd lowest performance for this rating, but is in fact quite a wealthy and prosperous area with a much lower level of deprivation than some of the best performing rural areas that experience severe rural in some cases. London’s poor performance for this has been well documented in previous research i.e a high level of population turnover across most areas in London, even in Outer London, where families especially outwardly migrate further out in search of cheaper housing and, in some cases, a perceived better quality of life. Evidence on GP registrations indicates a number of migration routes such as families moving from inner south London, such as Brixton, to highly urbanized parts of outer London, such as Norbury or Thornton Heath and then onto a more suburban lifestyle in Surrey.
However, it is debatable how much control and power local authorities as the ‘lead place shaper’ have over people’s sense of belonging. A more immediate issue is people’s satisfaction with their local area. Again, London performs worse than the rest of the country- 75% in London compared to 80% in England and as high as 85% in the South West of England. More of a concern for London is that out the top 20 most dissatisfied local authority areas, 8 are in London including the Newham, which is the most dissatisfied. Another apparent pattern is that the most dissatisfied areas tend to be those in East and Outer London within or around major regeneration projects that are still in development and where deprivation remains. There is less of a link in this result between deprivation and satisfaction, because whilst some are clearly very deprived areas, borough, such as Enfield, do not experience anything like the deprivation experienced in Hackney and yet satisfaction in Hackney is significantly higher. The issue appears to be a broader concern with the quality of life in these places. This is also borne out by the high performance of Islington and Camden, which suffer higher levels of deprivation but are in terms of quality of life probably higher than some outer London boroughs.
Empowerment and Civic Participation
The most interesting finding of the Place Survey is that London is more empowered region than other regions across England. People in London have been more involved and believe they can influence local decisions than people across England. 35% of people in London think they can influence local decisions compared to 29% in England and as low as 27% in the north west of England. The top performers for this measure are mainly London boroughs and include a wide variety of places including Merton in the south, Brent in the west, Barnet in the north and Newham in the east. This is probably supported by the higher level of participation in decision-making in London compared to the rest of the country: 17% compared to 14% in England. Although there have been some issues with the collection of data for inner London boroughs, the released results indicates that London Boroughs occupy the 5 top spots for this performance indicator and include Hackney and Tower Hamlets. Maybe the underlying factors behind this higher level of empowerment is the greater concentration of talent, diversity, energy and vibrancy that communities in London have.
Implications for Local Policy
The Place Survey indicates that there are still major challenges ahead if we are to make the whole of London a world class city to live in. In terms of cohesion, London’s most deprived areas which are also the focus on major regeneration initiatives, in particular the Lower Lea Valley and Thames Gateway, remain more divided than the national average. The issue is not simply about ethnic diversity, but about the quality of public services, local employment opportunities, income levels and the general level of deprivation suffered by these areas. Looking more widely across the country, it is clear that despite the major investment in specialist cohesion interventions such as the Community Cohesion Pathfinder Programme, these places remain less cohesive than the national average. This clearly points to the need to develop and deliver long-term policies and programmes aimed at regenerating the places and communities, which results in a better quality of public services, accessible employment opportunities and an increased household income.
To some degree these issues are reflected in people’s views on their satisfaction with their local area. Whilst measures of belonging to a neighbourhood are not as appropriate to London as other places, satisfaction with one’s local area clearly is. Satisfaction is in London than it is across England, and is considerably lower in East London and Outer London than it is in London. The lower levels of satisfaction enjoyed by some areas may be contributing to their poorer performance on cohesion issues. Interestingly, there is less of a correlation between belonging and satisfaction, as boroughs such as Westminster which have a low level of belonging have a high level of satisfaction, which would suggest it is possible to be an urban and transient place with satisfied residents. Moreover, the link with deprivation is not as pronounced as one might expect, with boroughs, such as Ealing and Enfield in the top 20 despite suffering from less deprivation than the likes of Hackney, which is not.
For policy-makers the real direction these results give is the need to build on London strengths as a set of empowered places, whilst also accepting the reality of modern urban living. The undeniable fact of these results is that even in fairly wealthy boroughs, such as Barnet, people’s sense of belonging to their neighbourhood is lower. This characteristic of London will most probably persist as communities of interest, such as ethnic, cultural or faith ones, are strengthened.
Thinking slightly outside the box, I suggest an often repeated idea since the 1960s- genuinely put local people in London at the heart of place-making in London’s most deprived, dissatisfied and divided neighbourhoods. Instead of focusing on what a place does not have, we need to think about what places in London do have. Namely, London is the most empowered place in England and potentially one of the most in Europe. This is also underlined by being home to one of the strongest concentrations of talent, diversity and energies in Europe. What is also often forgotten is that London is home to some of the most impressive community-led regeneration success stories including Coin Street and the Westway over the past decades from virtual ‘dead areas’ to the most vibrant destinations. Furthermore, while I don’t dwell on what we don’t have we do need to recognise that in the medium-term at least we are going to see major cuts in public spending, probably including regeneration, and the end of the major physical regeneration and a flowering of smaller scale renewal projects focused on well being than profits and returns. Such an environment favours a shift in place-making from the ‘big strategic projects of King’s Cross, Stratford and the Olympic Park to a more community-driven focus capitalizing on using the talent and energies of local people to create long-term sustainable renewal of their neighbourhoods. Such long-term change, if achieved, would probably strengthen the resilience of neighbourhoods to population change and growth and improve the cohesion of London… and in fifteen years we may be able to talk about a united, satisfied and highly empowered London.
Renaisi has been commissioned to work on the St Paul’s Way Transformational Project. This innovative partnership of London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Poplar Harca, and Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust aims to transform both the physical and social environments for the residents and working population of this street in Tower Hamlets.
