estate regeneration –economic options appraisal reportdemocracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s20079/west...

Tool and Guidance updated for new PSED from 05.04.2011

Estate Regeneration –Economic Options Appraisal Report Equalities Impact Analysis November 2011


Overall Information Details of Full Equality Impact Analysis Financial Year and Quarter 2011/12, Q3 Name and details of policy, strategy, function, project, activity, or programme

Estate Regeneration – Economic Appraisal Report An Economic Appraisal report has been produced in relation to the proposed inclusion, by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF or the Council), of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates within a comprehensive regeneration scheme in the Earl’s Court and West Kensington area. The comprehensive regeneration site comprises 37.2 hectares of land split between LBHF and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC). In recognition of the potential benefits of this area and its capability to accommodate sustainable growth in housing and employment, the comprehensive site has been identified as an Opportunity Area within the draft replacement London Plan. LBHF, RBKC and the Greater London Authority (GLA) are in the process of developing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. This document will set out the framework against which any potential redevelopment of the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area would be assessed. Alongside the draft SPD sits a draft Equality Impact Analysis (EQIA). The Economic Appraisal report identifies the rationale for intervention in terms of the key public policy objectives for the area and compares the potential options that could be pursued by the Council in respect to the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. The report has been produced in line with HM Treasury’s Green Book, which indicates that all spending proposals should be accompanied by a proportionate and well structured appraisal. This EQIA assesses the impact of each of the identified options on those directly affected by the decision as to whether to enter into a Conditional Land Sale Agreement to grant an option to Capital and Counties (CapCo – the proposed developer) to include the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates in a comprehensive regeneration scheme – specifically, the residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates and the pupils at the Queens Mill School temporarily located at the former Gibbs Green school site.


Lead Officer Name: Sarah Lovell Position: Project Officer Email: [email protected] Telephone No: 020 8753 5571

Date of completion of final EIA

07/ 11 / 11

Section 02 Scoping of Full EIA Plan for completion Start date of EIA: October 2011

Completion date for EIA: 7th November 2011 Lead Officer: Philip Morris

What is the policy, strategy, function, project, activity, or programme looking to achieve?

The Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area is one of London’s most important development opportunities, which would contribute significantly to achieving housing and job growth targets over the next 20-30 years. The comprehensive regeneration of the Earl’s Court area is seen as offering an opportunity to bring about the redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, while the inclusion of the two estates is also considered to be an important part of achieving the wider regeneration objectives for the Opportunity Area. The Economic Appraisal report identified five potential options that could be pursued by the Council in relation to the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, which differ in terms of the nature and scale of public sector intervention and whether the estates are retained or redeveloped. The five options assessed were as follows: • Option 1: Do minimum intervention (reference case) – under this option, LBHF would continue to own,

manage and maintain the estates, as well as retain the West Kensington and Gibbs Green halls. • Option 2: Minimal intervention and infill development – under this option, LBHF would again continue to own,

manage and maintain the estates, as well as retain the West Kensington and Gibbs Green halls. However, opportunities for additional infill development and additional disposal of Council land within and adjacent to the estates would also be brought forward for development. Consideration was given to larger scale partial redevelopment of the estates. However, it was concluded that this was likely to be a less attractive proposition, since it would be less efficient, disruptive, only address a limited range of issues and fail to realise the full scope of benefits;

• Option 3(a): Comprehensive regeneration: standalone estate redevelopment – the estates would be


comprehensively redeveloped and, in accordance with planning requirements, the differentials in levels between the three land ownerships would be addressed. This would involve substantial engineering costs;

• Option 3(b): Comprehensive regeneration: standalone estate redevelopment – in order to test the costs and

benefits of the alternative options, a variation of Option 3(a) has also been developed, which assumes the existing levels are maintained. This option is based on a modest infrastructure budget; and

• Option 4: Comprehensive regeneration: wider Earl’s Court redevelopment – under this option, redevelopment

would be undertaken of the combined LBHF, CapCo and TfL land, as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Opportunity Area.

Under Options 1, 2, 3(a) and 3(b), the CapCo planning proposals for the separate development of the Earl’s Court and Seagrave Road sites are assumed to be implemented, although it is uncertain whether these schemes would go ahead as planned if the estates were either not to be redeveloped or not brought forward as part of a comprehensive redevelopment of the Opportunity Area.

Set out below is an analysis of the impact of each of the options on the protected characteristics, outlining whether the option will have a positive/neutral/negative impact and whether it is of low/medium/high relevance to equality. Age Option 1 No disruption to existing residents

Limited impacts through the provision of a small number of new homes Access to and integration with the wider area would not be improved, which would particularly affect older people and parents with young children.

L L H

/ + -

Option 2 No disruption to existing residents Limited impacts through the provision of a small number of new homes Access to and integration with the wider area would not be improved, which would particularly affect older people and parents with young children.

L L H

/ + -


Option 3(a) Disruption during development process, with older people requiring more help in this regard. For example, in terms of packing and re-housing in suitable accommodation. In addition, there would be the possible need for multiple moves due to the need for smaller phases of development because of the scale of the scheme. The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on older people with aged related mobility impairments, as well as parents with small children. Significant positive impact on employment opportunities, with jobs created which are potentially accessible to older and younger people who will benefit from the employment, recruitment, training and skills development programmes. Significant positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including primary school and nursery provision as well as additional children’s play space. Access to and integration with the wider area would be improved, which would benefit in particular older people and parents with young children.

H M M H H

- + + + +

Option3(b) Disruption during development process, with older people requiring more help in this regard. For example, in terms of packing and re-housing in suitable accommodation. In addition, there would be the possible need for multiple moves due to the need for smaller phases of development because of the scale of the scheme. The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on older people with aged related mobility impairments, as well as parents with small children. Significant positive impact on employment opportunities, with jobs created which are potentially accessible to older and younger people who will benefit

H M M

- + +


from the employment, recruitment, training and skills development programmes. Significant positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including primary school and nursery provision as well as additional children’s play space. Access to and integration with the wider area would not be improved, which would particularly affect older people and parents with young children.

H H

+ -

Option 4 Disruption during development process, with older people requiring more help in this regard. For example, in terms of packing and re-housing in suitable accommodation. However, residents could make ‘one move only’ as a result of larger phases and the use of Seagrave Road as a decant site. In addition, a number of assurances in the tenant offer have been put in place to protect the elderly. The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on older people with aged related mobility impairments, as well as parents with small children. Very substantial positive impact on employment opportunities, with jobs created which are potentially accessible to older and younger people who will benefit from the employment, recruitment, training and skills development programmes. Very substantial positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including primary school and nursery provision as well as additional children’s play space. The land sale agreement will include provision to provide a replacement educational facility for the Gibbs Green School. This will result in the creation of a new permanent purpose built facility for pupils. Access to and integration with the wider area would be improved, which would benefit in particular older people and parents with young children.

H M M H H

- + + + +


Disability Option 1 No disruption to existing residents

Limited impacts through the provision of a small number of new homes Access to and integration with the wider area would not be improved, which would particularly affect disabled people.

L L H

/ + -

Option 2 No disruption to existing residents Limited impacts through the provision of a small number of new homes Access to and integration with the wider area would not be improved, which would particularly affect disabled people.

L L H

/ + -

Option 3(a) Disruption during development process, with disabled people requiring more help in this regard. For example, in terms of packing and re-housing in suitable accommodation. In addition, there would be the possible need for multiple moves due to the need for smaller phases of development because of the scale of the scheme. The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on disabled people more than non-disabled people. Significant positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including new health provision. Access to and integration with the wider area would be improved, which would benefit in particular disabled people.

H M M H

- + + +

Option3(b) Disruption during development process, with disabled people requiring more help in this regard. For example, in terms of packing and re-housing in suitable accommodation. In addition, there would be the possible need for multiple

H

-


moves due to the need for smaller phases of development because of the scale of the scheme. The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on disabled people more than non-disabled people. Significant positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including new health provision. Access to and integration with the wider area would not be improved, which would particularly affect disabled people.

M M H

+ + -

Option 4 Disruption during development process, with disabled people requiring more help in this regard. For example, in terms of packing and re-housing in suitable accommodation. However, residents could make ‘one move only’ as a result of larger phases and the use of Seagrave Road as a decant site. In addition, the project proposals include provision for disabled people to be housed according to their need. The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on disabled people more than non-disabled people. Very substantial positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including new health provision. Access to and integration with the wider area would be improved, which would benefit in particular disabled people.

H M M H

- + + +

Gender reassignment Option 1 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately

on gender reassignment.

N/A N/A


Option 2 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on gender reassignment.

N/A N/A

Option 3(a) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on gender reassignment. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to gender reassignment.

N/A N/A

Option3(b) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on gender reassignment. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to gender reassignment.

N/A N/A

Option 4 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on gender reassignment. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to gender reassignment.

N/A N/A

Marriage and Civil Partnership Option 1 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately

on marriage and civil partnership.

N/A N/A

Option 2 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on marriage and civil partnership.

N/A N/A

Option 3(a) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on marriage and civil partnership. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to marriage and civil partnership.

N/A N/A

Option3(b) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on marriage and civil partnership. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to marriage and civil partnership.

N/A N/A


Option 4 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on marriage and civil partnership. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to marriage and civil partnership.

N/A N/A

Pregnancy and maternity Option 1 No disruption to existing residents

Limited impacts through the provision of a small number of new homes Access to and integration with the wider area would not be improved, which would particularly affect pregnant women.

L L H

/ + -

Option 2 No disruption to existing residents Limited impacts through the provision of a small number of new homes Access to and integration with the wider area would not be improved, which would particularly affect pregnant women.

L L H

/ + -

Option 3(a) Disruption during development process, with pregnant women requiring more help in this regard. For example, in terms of packing and re-housing in suitable accommodation. In addition, there would be the possible need for multiple moves due to the need for smaller phases of development because of the scale of the scheme. The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on pregnant women. Significant positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including new health provision.

H M M

- + +


Access to and integration with the wider area would be improved, which would benefit in particular pregnant women.

H

+

Option3(b) Disruption during development process, with pregnant women requiring more help in this regard. For example, in terms of packing and re-housing in suitable accommodation. In addition, there would be the possible need for multiple moves due to the need for smaller phases of development because of the scale of the scheme. The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on pregnant women. Significant positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including new health provision. Access to and integration with the wider area would not be improved, which would particularly affect pregnant women.

H M M H

- + + -

Option 4 Disruption during development process, with pregnant women requiring more help in this regard. For example, in terms of packing and re-housing in suitable accommodation. However, residents could make ‘one move only’ as a result of larger phases and the use of Seagrave Road as a decant site. In addition, the project proposals include provision for pregnant women to be housed according to their need. The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on pregnant women. Very substantial positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including new health provision. Access to and integration with the wider area would be improved, which would benefit in particular pregnant women.

H M M H

- + + +


Race Option 1 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately

on race.

N/A N/A

Option 2 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on race.

N/A N/A

Option 3(a) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on race. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to race.

N/A N/A

Option3(b) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on race. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to race.

N/A N/A

Option 4 Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to race. Since some race groups are more likely to over-occupy, a needs based allocation would benefit these tenants.

N/A L

N/A +

Religion/belief (including non-belief)

Option 1 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on religion/belief.

N/A N/A

Option 2 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on religion/belief.

N/A N/A


Option 3(a) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on religion/belief. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to religion/belief.

N/A N/A

Option3(b) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on religion/belief. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to religion/belief.

N/A N/A

Option 4 Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to religion/belief. Opportunities to locate people near a place of worship would be accommodated where possible.

N/A L

N/A +

Sex Option 1 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately

on sex.

N/A N/A

Option 2 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on sex.

N/A N/A

Option 3(a) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on sex. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to sex.

N/A N/A

Option3(b) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on sex. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to sex.

N/A N/A


Option 4 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on sex. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to sex.

N/A

N/A

Sexual Orientation Option 1 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately

on sexual orientation.

N/A N/A

Option 2 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on sexual orientation.

N/A N/A

Option 3(a) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on sexual orientation. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to sexual orientation.

N/A N/A

Option3(b) This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on sexual orientation. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to sexual orientation.

N/A N/A

Option 4 This option will have a neutral impact since it will not impact disproportionately on sexual orientation. Where new housing is provided, Council tenants will be re-housed on the basis of their need – there is nothing to indicate that this will directly relate to sexual orientation.

N/A N/A

Human Rights and Children’s Rights Will it affect Human Rights, as defined by the Human Rights Act 1998? Yes / No For Options 3 (a) and (b) and 4 The following Human Rights are relevant: • Article 6: Right to a fair trial


• Article 8: Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence • Article 1 of Protocol 1: Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property

In relation to Article 6 Leaseholders and tenants will have the opportunity to a fair hearing if it is necessary to obtain possession of their homes. It is accepted that Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol will be engaged if the homes of leaseholders and tenants homes are threatened. But, it is intended that all council tenants will be re housed in suitable accommodation in the development and leaseholders will be compensated and be assisted to purchase new homes in the development. Also it is intended that these will created new jobs and homes. In these circumstances any interference with the resident’s human rights would be proportionate to the legitimate aim of regenerating the area. Will it affect Children’s Rights, as defined by the UNCRC (1992)? Yes, dependent on the option chosen, as some will have more of an impact than others Option 1: this would have no impact in terms of disruption but it would also not deliver better outcomes for children as access to, and integration with, the wider area would not be improved. There would also be only a small number of new homes. Option 2: as with Option 1, this would have no impact in terms of disruption but it would also not deliver better outcomes for children as access to, and integration with, the wider area would not be improved. There would also be only a small number of new homes. Option 3(a): this would bring disruption during development phase. Other parts to this option would positively impact on Children's Rights, for example: The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on parents with small children, and contribute positively towards disabled children's rights This option would also have a significant positive impact on employment opportunities, with jobs created which are potentially accessible to older and younger people who will benefit from the employment, recruitment, training and skills development programmes. This will contribute positively towards children's rights to eduction, and would help to consider their best interests.


This option would also have a significant positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including primary school and nursery provision as well as additional children’s play space. This will contribute positively towards children's rights to health and welfare, including rights for disabled children, and the right to health and health care. This option would also improve access to and integration with the wider area which would benefit parents with young children. Option 3(b): this would bring disruption during development phase but it would also not deliver better outcomes for children as access to, and integration with, the wider area would not be improved. Other parts to this option would positively impact on Children's Rights, for example: The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on parents with small children, and contribute positively towards disabled children's rights This option would also have a significant positive impact on employment opportunities, with jobs created which are potentially accessible to older and younger people who will benefit from the employment, recruitment, training and skills development programmes. This will contribute positively towards children's rights to eduction, and would help to consider their best interests. This option would also have a significant positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including primary school and nursery provision as well as additional children’s play space. This will contribute positively towards children's rights to health and welfare, including rights for disabled children, and the right to health and health care. Option 4: this would bring disruption during development phase. Other parts to this option would positively impact on Children's Rights, for example: The provision of new homes would provide the opportunity for better access (such as, common areas, lifts, level access), which would positively impact on parents with small children, and contribute positively towards disabled children's rights This option would also have a very substantial positive impact on employment opportunities, with jobs created which are potentially accessible to older and younger people who will benefit from the employment, recruitment, training and skills development programmes. This will contribute positively towards children's rights to eduction, and would


help to consider their best interests. This option would also have a very substantial positive impact through the creation of new social and community facilities, including primary school and nursery provision as well as additional children’s play space. This will contribute positively towards children's rights to health and welfare, including rights for disabled children, and the right to health and health care. This option would also improve access to and integration with the wider area which would benefit parents with young children.

Section 03 Analysis of relevant data and/or undertake research Documents and data reviewed

The following documents and data have been used to help inform this Equality Impact Analysis: LBHF Community Strategy The Community Strategy was produced in 2007 and sets the framework of objectives used for both the Core Strategy and the Single Equality scheme. The Strategy was developed with our local partners from across the public, private, voluntary and community sectors and was subject to public consultation. As partners in delivering local services the aim of the Council through the Community Strategy is to combine opportunity, with social responsibility and social justice to assist the vast majority of people in the borough to help themselves while supporting the most vulnerable in the community. The Community Strategy is therefore considered to be consistent with the statutory codes in relation to race, gender, disability etc. LBHF Single Equality Scheme The Single Equality Scheme contains our statutory and non-statutory equality schemes and simplifies how we meet our requirements for all, including groups protected by discrimination law. Officers have given careful consideration to the statutory codes in relation to race, gender, and disability in preparing the scheme, as well as to the duties that were expected to arise from the Equality Act 2010, which received Royal Assent in April 2010, and most of the provisions of which came into force on 01 October 2010 (see below).


The Single Equality Scheme objectives are based on the same Community Strategy objectives as the Spatial vision of the Core Strategy in terms of creating a borough of opportunity for all, including promoting home ownership and regenerating the most deprived parts of the borough. The option pursued for the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates should work to those same objectives. The scheme aims to obtain the key outcomes for all groups as follows: • greater home ownership and housing of adequate standard; • high levels of participation in education and improved educational achievement; • better health and reduced inequalities in health; • more people of working age working, greater access to sustainable employment opportunities and reduced

unemployment; • regeneration of deprived areas and better physical environment to live, work and visit; • diverse cultural and ethnic identities are valued and celebrated; • greater community involvement, volunteering and cohesion, reduced social isolation; • positive parenting and reduced incidence of abuse and neglect; • reduced criminal victimisation and violence; and • higher overall living standards and reduced poverty. Equalities Duties Protected characteristics and PSED The public sector equality duty (PSED) states that in the exercise of our functions, we must have due regard to the need to: • eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct that is prohibited under the

Act; • advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not;

and • foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Having due regard for advancing equality involves: • removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; • taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of


other people; and • encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their

participation is disproportionately low The Act states that meeting different needs involves taking steps to take account of disabled people’s disabilities. It describes fostering good relations as tackling prejudice and promoting understanding between people from different groups. It states that compliance with the duty may involve treating some people more favourably than others. General Demographic Information A summary of general demographic information for the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates is set out below. It should be noted that the information within this sections has been taken from the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates Profile November 2009. Property Information The West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates occupy an area of 22 acres and are primarily owned by LBHF. There are currently 531 council owned social rented properties, 132 leasehold properties and 39 freehold properties. There is also a number of small Housing Association developments throughout the two estates. The table below shows the ownership and property types of all of the housing across the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates.

1 Bed Flat 1 Bed House 2 Bed Flat 2 Bed

House 3 Bed Flat 3 Bed House 4 Bed Flat 4 Bed

House TOTAL

Council 163 0 212 0 46 75 8 27 531 Leasehold/Freehold 21 0 85 0 24 28 2 11 171

RSL 4 3 6 13 0 25 0 7 58 Total 188 3 303 13 70 128 10 45 760

Age The age profile of West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates differs significantly from the Borough average, primarily on the basis of a lower concentration of adults aged between 25 and 34 years (22% of estate compared


to 27% throughout the Borough) and a much higher concentration of children aged less than 18 years, accounting for 24% of residents of the estates compared to 18% throughout the Borough, although figures for the estates are consistent with those recorded across both London and England (both 23%). The adult to child ratio on the estates is 3:1, which is consistent with the London and England averages (both 3:1) but differs from the Borough average (4:1). It is noted that the adult to child ratio in the Borough is artificially high, in terms of the number of adults, due to the prevalence of young, single professionals. Although difficult to quantify, anecdotal evidence suggests that the proportion of children on Gibbs Green estate has increased significantly in recent years, reflecting the types of leaseholders attracted to the estate. Within the 464 Council-owned properties on West Kensington estate that are currently occupied (11 properties are void as at November 2009), 107 main tenants are aged in excess of 65 years, representing 23%. Of these, 62 tenants are aged between 65 and 74 years, 37 are between 75 and 84 years, and 8 are aged in excess of 85 years. On Gibbs Green estate, there are 11 main tenants aged in excess of 65 years, of which 6 are aged between 65 and 74 years, 2 are between 75 and 84 years, and 3 are aged in excess of 85 years.


Disability It is estimated that there are more than 10 million disabled people in the UK (Source: LBHF Access for All 2006) and more than 800,000 disabled people in London (Source: London Plan SPD: Planning for Equality 2007). This presents a significant challenge to ensure that new development makes provision for people with disabilities. The proportion of working age residents of West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates who are permanently sick or disabled (6%) is similar to the Borough (5%) and London (5%) averages. On the estates, 17% of residents are reported as having a Limiting Long-Term Illness (LLTI), which is slightly higher than figures recorded throughout the Borough and across London (both 15%).1 Gender Reassignment Official statistics, such as census data are not collected on gender reassignment and so are not available with regards to gender reassignment within LBHF. Marriage and Civil partnership The majority of residents on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates are married (54%), which corresponds with the LBHF average (55%). Pregnancy and Maternity The teenage pregnancy rate within North End ward is the highest in Hammersmith and Fulham being twice the Borough average, with 74 conceptions per 1,000 teenagers compared to 37 conceptions per 1,000 teenagers throughout the Borough Race The predominant ethnicity of residents on West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates is White British, accounting for 42%, although this figure is considerably lower than the Borough (58%) and London (60%) averages, and particularly the national average (87%).

1 Census 2001


Residents from minority (non-white) backgrounds account for 43% of the resident population of the estates. This figure is considerably higher than the Borough (22%), London (29%) and national (9%) averages. Between 2001 and 2009, the proportion of residents from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds has remained relatively unchanged on the estates. The proportion on residents of West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates who are from Black /Black British backgrounds (27%) greatly exceeds the Borough (11%), London (11%) and national (2%) averages. The predominant ethnic minority groups identified on the estates are Black African (13% of residents), particularly Somalian and Eritrean communities, and Black Caribbean (10%). These figures are considerably higher than those recorded across the Borough (both 5%), London (both 5%) and England (both 1%). Only a small proportion of residents on the estates are from Chinese backgrounds (3%). Information about the ethnicity of current Council tenants on the estates, is not available for all tenants, but nevertheless indicates that 51% of tenants on Gibbs Green are from White Backgrounds, compared to 31% on West Kensington. Almost equal proportions of tenants on each estate are from Black / Black British backgrounds, accounting for 23% of tenants on Gibbs Green and 22% on West Kensington. Religion/belief (including non – belief) The predominant religion of residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates is Christianity (60%), which is consistent with the LBHF average (64%). The proportion of Muslim residents on the estates (13%) exceeds the LBHF (7%), London (8%) and national (2%) averages, while other religions appear in very small proportions. Persons stating they have no religion account for 16% of residents on the estates, which is similar to the LBHF (18%), London (16%) and national (15%) averages. Sex There are more women in the borough than men which is also the case in London and England. The Single Equalities Scheme (SES) indicates that there are more female headed households in the borough which represents a key equality gap for Hammersmith and Fulham. 90% of lone parent households are headed by women (2001 Census). Statistics for England and Wales show that women are less economically active than men. In Hammersmith and Fulham 65.0% of women and 81.4% of men are economically active. This is lower than the London wide figures of 66.6% for women and 82.8% for men (Source 2010 – Nomis official labour market statistics).


Hammersmith & Fulham has a higher proportion of male residents in employment (77.5%) than the London (75.6%) and national averages (75.5%), but has a lower proportion of females in employment (65.0%) than the London (66.6%) and national averages (69.9%). Sexual Orientation Official statistics, such as census data are not collected on sexual orientation within London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. However, the ONS’s most recent research indicates that 1.5% of the adult population identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB). This figure, taken proportionately across all equality protected characteristics is the basis for our assessment on LGB people. This figure differs immensely from the figure from the Department of Trade and Industry which published a figure of approximately 6% of LGBT (and transgender), which is thought to be a higher proportion in London, perhaps up to 10%.

New research No new research necessary.

Section 04 Undertake and analyse consultation Consultation Engagement strategy

Since 2008, the Council has undertaken extensive consultation with residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. Over the past three years, consultation has centred around the future of the estates and specifically the opportunity that the proposed comprehensive development of the Earl’s Court buildings, Lillie Road depot and the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates offers. The Council has attempted to engage with as many residents as possible, through its engagement strategy. Key aspects of the Council’s engagement strategy have included: • Officers – two officers have been available at all times to engage with residents. These officers have

completed numerous house visits, drop in sessions and surgeries with residents on the estate. The officers are directly involved in aiding the Council make a decision on whether to include the estates. This has allowed issues raised during the engagement process with residents to be fed directly into any eventual regeneration plans;


• Regular Newsletters – regular newsletters have been distributed to the estates to update each household with

any news with regards to the estates. These newsletters are distributed to every door through the Council’s delivery contractor;

• The West Kensington and Gibbs Green Steering Group – the potential inclusion of the estates within the

development proposals has been met, understandably by a mix of views from estate residents. Some estate residents are very supportive of the inclusion of the estates in the development proposals, some residents are opposed, whilst others want further information before determining their views;

In order to engage effectively with the Council and to counter rumour and misinformation a group of residents formed the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Steering Group. The Group has grown and has developed its role in negotiating and working with the Council and CapCo in looking at the potential redevelopment scheme. The Group has advised the Council on how best to engage and communicate with residents, have negotiated Tenant and Leaseholder Assurances for all estate residents and act as a point of contact for residents;

• Dedicated Website – the Council has a dedicated West Kensington and Gibbs Green website which is

updated with all recent information and documents relating to the potential redevelopment project; and • Surgeries and drop-in sessions – at key points in the engagement process, the Council has held drop in

sessions and surgeries at the Holiday Inn Express on North End Road and at the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Tenant Halls. At these events Officers have been available to engage with residents about regeneration, answer questions and determine residents concerns and aspirations for the future of the estates.

Key messages from residents There is a clear mix of views, opinions and aspirations amongst the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates residents about the future of their estates, with some residents being supportive of regeneration and the possible benefits it could bring, whilst others believe that regeneration of the estates is unnecessary. From the outset, residents made clear that what they wanted through any engagement process was a better understanding of how their concerns and aspirations would be addressed and more detail about how the inclusion of the estates in a comprehensive scheme would affect them. It is understood that common concerns and aspirations emerged that residents raised and wanted further detail on are as follows: • Security of tenure – from the outset, residents made it clear that they wanted to remain secure Council


tenants. Residents were nervous that any redevelopment on the estates would lead to a change in landlord, which was deemed to be unacceptable by the majority of residents the Council engaged with;

• Security of rental levels – residents were nervous that regeneration would lead to increased rental levels. Residents emphasised that they required comfort that any regeneration would not cause them to be financially worse off;

• Demolition – whilst some residents are extremely supportive of regeneration, specifically the potential inclusion

of the estates in the comprehensive regeneration scheme, other residents are clearly opposed to any regeneration that includes the demolition of the current properties on the estate;

• Re-housing – a key message that residents have iterated throughout the engagement process is their strong

connection with the West Kensington and North End Road area and the strength of their existing community.

Residents emphasised their anxiety that redevelopment would lead to them being forced to move from the area or outside the borough. Residents indicated that any development should allow them to remain within the area, allowing them to continue to use the same schools, services and facilities as are currently used.

Residents also wanted to ensure that any redevelopment would allow them to maintain their sense of community and that any re-housing would happen in a way that allowed support networks to be maintained;

• One move only – residents made clear that should they have to move due to any redevelopment, they would

only want to move once; • Affordability – Leaseholders and Freeholders on the estates wanted certainty that they would be fairly

compensated and be given the opportunity to purchase an affordable property within the same area as they are living;

• Process – residents expressed anxiety around any regeneration process. They wanted to understand how

regeneration would work in practice and how they would be supported throughout the process. Residents wanted a clear understanding about what was being proposed, how it would affect them and the likely timescales. Residents wanted reassurance that they would be adequately supported, specifically if any re-housing would be required;

• Jobs and employment – there is a strong desire amongst residents to increase employment and training

opportunities for local residents. However, residents made clear that they had been disappointed by previous


regeneration schemes, failing, in their opinion, to bring the employment benefits for local people that had been promised.

Residents emphasised that it should be local people who benefit from the employment opportunities that regeneration could bring. They wanted an understanding of how this will be achieved and how the necessary skills training would be put in place to allow residents to be trained to allow them to benefit from any employment opportunities;

• New Homes – residents were concerned over the size and type of new properties that regeneration may bring.

Residents emphasised that it was important that any new housing should have comparable room sizes to existing properties on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. Residents also raised concerns over the types of new homes to be provided, specifically residents living in houses, wanted to ensure that any regeneration would provide houses and not only flats;

• Parking – residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estate currently benefit from a high number of

parking spaces on the estate. Residents raised concerns that regeneration may reduce the number of parking spaces available to them and may increase the cost of parking within the area; and

• Layout of the estate – residents had mixed views about the estate. Some residents felt that the estate was

poorly laid out and lent itself to anti-social behaviour due to its closed nature and that the green space was poorly designed and under used. Other residents felt that the lay-out of the estate resulted in the estate being quiet and peaceful.

Section 05 Analysis of impact and outcomes Analysis See section 04 for analysis of consultation and see section 02 for analysis of the projected outcomes of each

option.

Section 06 Reducing any adverse impacts Outcome of Analysis Over the past two years, the Council has been working with residents to address the issues that had been raised

and that are outlined above. Subsequently, the Council and residents have jointly produced Tenant and Leaseholder/Freeholder offer documents which outline what would happen to residents should the estates be included in the comprehensive redevelopment scheme proposed by CapCo.


It is understood that the offers have been negotiated with residents of the estate, primarily with the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Steering Group. The Steering Group have had legal advice throughout the negotiation of these offers. It has been agreed that the assurances within the Tenant and Leaseholder/Freeholder offers are developed into Individual contracts, for each resident on the estate, setting out their individual position. In summary the main assurances to both groups of residents are as follows: Tenants • secure Council tenants will remain as such with rents set by the Council in line with other existing Council

rents; • all tenants will be made an offer to move into a new home on the new development which suits their housing

needs; • tenants will be entitled to a Homeloss payment to compensate them for the move. This is currently set by

legislation at £4,700 per household; • tenants will have a dedicated re-housing officer to help them through the process and access to free

independent housing advice; • the development will be phased to allow tenants to be re-housed with only one move with no compulsory use

of temporary accommodation. Existing groups who wish to remain together will be moved together; • tenants who are under-occupying will be offered a new home with one additional bedroom above their need;

and • tenants moving into the new development will be offered new household goods included a fridge/freezer,

washing machine/dryer, dishwasher, oven/hob and new carpets and curtains. They will also be compensated for any reasonable costs as a result of moving, such as removal expenses and re-routing of mail.

Leaseholders and Freeholders • resident homeowners will receive full market value plus compensation of 10% of its value;

• resident Homeowners who wish to move into the new development will receive a discount of 10% of the value


of their new property; • if after receiving a discount Resident Homeowners still cannot afford to purchase a home in the new

development the Council will hold any outstanding equity, at no rent, up to the value of the new home that should be an equivalent size to their existing home. Homeowners will not be expected to increase borrowing on their mortgage to afford a home in the new development;

• resident Homeowners who wish to be bought out and leave the area will be offered the value of their home

plus 10% Homeloss Compensation unless they move under the Early Purchase arrangement; • homeowners will be able to choose the time when they wish to be bought out and move away, up until the time

when their property is required for development; • homeowners will be entitled to free independent valuation and legal fees for the conveyance; and • reasonable costs of moving will be funded. The Council has made a commitment to the residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates that should a decision be made to include the estates in the comprehensive redevelopment proposals, the Tenant and Leaseholder and Freeholder Contracts will form part of any agreement with Capital and Counties.

Section 07 Action Plan Action Plan

Issue identified Action (s) to be taken

When Lead officers Expected outcome

A more detailed knowledge and understanding of individual needs and requirements of the residents is not yet available or known. This is required in order to develop a

In order to properly assess the individual needs of all residents on the estate a housing needs assessment should be

Spring 2012 Philip Morris/ Sarah Lovell

A clear knowledge of individual needs and requirements which will provide detail needed for the Local Lettings policy and development of the re-housing/move policies procedures.


Local Lettings Policy completed. A Local Lettings policy needs to be developed in order understand how homes will be allocated and to whom (for example, if special priority is needed for one or some protected characteristics)

Develop a Local Lettings policy.

Spring 2012 Philip Morris/ Sarah Lovell

A detailed policy outlining how and to whom properties will be allocated.

Policies and procedures linked to the Tenant and Leaseholder Contracts need to be developed. These include, policies outlining compensation, a policy for the allocation of parking spaces, policies for the meanwhile management of the estates and policies for phasing etc.

Best practice policies and procedures should be researched and policies and procedures for these areas should be developed, consulted with the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Steering Group.

Winter 2011/12 Philip Morris/ Sarah Lovell

Detailed re-housing and decant policy and procedure document.

Creation of a Benefit Realisation Plan. The scope of the Plan should be wide ranging, but will initially focus on those areas of activity that will have the greatest potential to deliver net benefits to local people.

Preparation of a detailed action plan incorporating economic, social and environmental interventions.

Summer 2012 Philip Morris/ Sarah Lovell

A detailed action plan with clear costed actions and implementation arrangements.


Development of a performance management system to collect monitoring information and key performance indicators for each of the main phases and projects.

Creation and implementation of a performance management, monitoring and evaluation framework for the project.

Summer 2012 Philip Morris/ Sarah Lovell

A bottom-up and top-down database of output and outcome indicators, reporting arrangements and KPIs.

Section 08 Agreement, publication and monitoring Chief Officer sign-off Name: Philip Morris

Position: Head of Area Regeneration Email: [email protected]

Key Decision Report Date of report to Cabinet Briefing/Cabinet Member: 7th November 2011 Confirmation that key equalities issues found here have been included: Yes

Opportunities Manager for advice and guidance only

Name: Carly Fry Position: Opportunities Manager Date advice / guidance given: 7th November 2011 Email: [email protected] Telephone No: 020 8753 3430