• Home
  • About
  • Comments policy
  • Contact
  • My fans

Trial by Jeory

Watching the world of east London politics

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Kosru Uddin cleared of threats to kill…then says politics is a “cut throat” business..
Tower Hamlets to get Portas Pilot cash: will Lutfur trump Boris? »

The Tower Hamlets population boom: is it all bad?

July 16, 2012 by trialbyjeory

The Office for National Statistics today released the first tranche of the 2011 census statistics and they confirmed what we already knew–that the numbers living in Tower Hamlets have gone up.

In fact, this borough had the largest rise in population of anywhere in England and Wales over the past decade (Newham was second).

No doubt there will be much froth about this and the borough’s Conservatives were first off the mark when it came to the party political press releases today, calling for a moratorium on housing development.

But let’s look at the numbers. The population went up by some 53,000, from 201,000 to 254,000, a rise of 26.4 per cent. That’s equivalent to 5,300 people moving here every year.

For a better context, that’s 14.5 people a day, or about one person a day for each of the borough’s 17 wards.

I don’t think the numbers in themselves are huge and in some ways it’s thumbs up that so many people want to live in Tower Hamlets (they clearly don’t follow the politics here). But the Tories are right to ask questions about infrastructure. In Bow, where I live, there has been a noticeable strain on public transport, schools and doctors’ surgeries over the past decade. I know it’s the same in other parts of Tower Hamlets.

As well as the rise in population numbers, there’s another interesting fact in the ONS report, which can be read in full here. Table 7, which I’ve copied below, shows the borough has also experienced the largest growth in the number of households, at 28.2 per cent. Others can help me out here, but doesn’t this indicate we’re coping with population boom on a housing front?

However, we do need more homes of a decent build quality…built with proper consultation with residents so their concerns about overcrowding and creaking services can be properly addressed (the latest being in Bromley-by-Bow last week, as reported by the East London Advertiser here).

Here’s the Tory press release,,,and I’ve copied the various ONS tables below that.

PRESS RELEASE

Tower Hamlets Population grows by 26.4% in ten years and the Borough is now the fourth most densely populated in the country.

The preliminary census results for 2011 show that Tower Hamlets, Britain’s poorest borough, is now the fourth most densely populated in the country with a population of 254,000 people living in just 19.78 square kilometres. Nationwide, the UK population has surged by 3.7 million people, an increase of 7.1%, whereas in Tower Hamlets it has increased by 26.4%, in an area that was already overcrowded and faces health and social issues relating to overcrowding.

Overall England is more densely populated than any of the G8 countries and parts of Tower Hamlets have a higher density than Hong Kong and Singapore.

Councillor David Snowdon, Conservative deputy leader and spokesman on resources said:

“Tower Hamlets is facing the problems of an ever expanding population without investments being made in transport infrastructure, schools or healthcare. As an Isle of Dogs councillor I regularly meet parents whose infant and primary age children are being sent to schools as far away as Aldgate. However, Mayor Rahman persists in wanting ever more housing development without considering the consequences.”

“This week more housing schemes were announced for the Isle of Dogs, but no additional school places.”

“One scheme by a company called Chalegrove, who are based in Jersey, is for yet another skyscraper and then some distance away, a family sized housing development. Amazingly this company are holding a consultation exhibition on one day, Thursday 19th July, between just 10am and 7pm. To make matters even worse, thousands of residents have yet to be notified about this consultation exercise.” 

“Tower Hamlets needs a development breathing space before the strain on health and education facilities becomes intolerable.”

Table 2
Local and unitary authorities with the highest growth in population, 2001 and 2011
England and Wales local and unitary authorities
Local or unitary authority England region or Wales 2001 population (000s) 2011 population (000s) Change since 2001 (%)
Tower Hamlets London 201 254 26.4
Newham London 249 308 23.5
Manchester North West 423 503 19.0
Hackney London 207 246 18.9
Hounslow London 216 254 17.6
Greenwich London 218 255 17.1
Milton Keynes South East 213 249 17.0
Leicester East Midlands 283 330 16.7
Peterborough East of England 157 184 16.6
Waltham Forest London 222 258 16.3
Slough South East 121 140 16.3
Swindon South West 180 209 16.2
South Derbyshire East Midlands 82 95 15.8
Boston East Midlands 56 65 15.8
Brent London 270 311 15.4
Redbridge London 242 279 15.3
Haringey London 221 255 15.2
South Holland East Midlands 77 88 15.1
Uttlesford East of England 69 79 15.1
Islington London 179 206 14.9
Table 5          
Highest population density, 2011
England and Wales local and unitary authorities
Local authority  Region Land (km2) Usual residents (000s) Population density 
  Per km2 Per hectare1
Islington London 14.86 206 13,875 139
Kensington and Chelsea London 12.12 159 13,087 131
Hackney London 19.05 246 12,930 129
Tower Hamlets London 19.78 254 12,845 128
Lambeth London 26.81 303 11,305 113
Hammersmith and Fulham London 16.40 182 11,129 111
Westminster London 21.49 219 10,211 102
Camden London 21.79 220 10,112 101
Southwark London 28.86 288 9,988 100
Wandsworth London 34.26 307 8,959 90
Haringey London 29.60 255 8,611 86
Newham London 36.20 308 8,508 85
Lewisham London 35.15 276 7,849 78
Brent London 43.23 311 7,199 72
Waltham Forest London 38.81 258 6,654 67
Ealing London 55.54 338 6,093 61
Greenwich London 47.33 255 5,378 54
Merton London 37.62 200 5,308 53
Barking and Dagenham London 36.11 186 5,148 51
Portsmouth South East 40.36 205 5,081 51
[1] One hectare is approximately the same size as an international standard rugby union pitch
Source: Office for National Statistics


Table 7    
Local and unitary authorities with the highest growth in the households, 2001 and 2011
England and Wales local and unitary authorities
Local Authority Region Percentage change
Tower Hamlets London 28.2
Hackney London 18.3
South Derbyshire East Midlands 18.2
North Kesteven East Midlands 17.9
Swindon South West 17.9
Kettering East Midlands 16.8
Rugby West Midlands 16.4
West Lindsey East Midlands 16.4
Fenland East of England 16.0
Milton Keynes South East 16.0
Shepway South East 15.6
South Cambridgeshire East of England 15.4
East Cambridgeshire East of England 15.3
East Northamptonshire East Midlands 15.2
North Dorset South West 14.8
Watford East of England 14.7
Ipswich East of England 14.6
Dartford South East 14.6
Corby East Midlands 14.5
Manchester North West 14.5
Source: Office for National Statistics

UPDATE – 6.25pm, Monday

I’ve just been looking at the Census statistics for population by each five-year age bracket and created a lovely little table for you. It shows the numbers for each age segment for both Tower Hamlets and Hackney, whose population is about 8,000 lower than ours. The table also shows the per centage of the total population for each age…and the difference between Tower Hamlets and Hackney in absolute terms.

Essentially, the boroughs have a very similar demographic until the age of 20. Between 20 and 34, Tower Hamlets has greater numbers, while Hackney has more over 35s.

Mayor Lutfur Rahman has also put out a statement, saying the increase is partly due to the Olympic effect…which is probably a load of hot air:

“The inclusion of Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Hackney and Newham in the top 10 areas for population growth is, I believe, a reflection of the positive impact of the Olympics in bringing about vibrant new growth in east London.

“Whilst I am of course concerned about the demands of supporting a growing population at a time of Government cuts, the council has had effective plans for growth in place, using tools such as population projections for our work on planning for pupil places, for example,” he said.

“I’m committed to continuing to support growth with my plans for 4000 additional new homes and our ongoing work to support our residents, especially the borough’s younger people, into work.”

 Age Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Hackney Hackney Diff (TH-H) % difference
             
Total 254,100 % of total 246,300 % of total 7,800 3.2%
             
0 ‒ 4 18,700 7.4% 19,200 7.8% -500 -2.6%
5 ‒ 9 15,500 6.1% 15,400 6.3% 100 0.6%
10 ‒ 14 13,200 5.2% 13,900 5.6% -700 -5.0%
15 ‒ 19 14,600 5.7% 13,400 5.4% 1,200 9.0%
20 ‒ 24 30,800 12.1% 21,700 8.8% 9,100 41.9%
25 ‒ 29 40,200 15.8% 33,800 13.7% 6,400 18.9%
30 ‒ 34 33,000 13.0% 30,100 12.2% 2,900 9.6%
35 ‒ 39 21,500 8.5% 21,300 8.6% 200 0.9%
40 ‒ 44 15,700 6.2% 17,400 7.1% -1,700 -9.8%
45 ‒ 49 11,800 4.6% 15,100 6.1% -3,300 -21.9%
50 ‒ 54 9,700 3.8% 11,500 4.7% -1,800 -15.7%
55 ‒ 59 7,800 3.1% 8,900 3.6% -1,100 -12.4%
60 ‒ 64 5,900 2.3% 7,300 3.0% -1,400 -19.2%
65 ‒ 69 4,100 1.6% 5,300 2.2% -1,200 -22.6%
70 ‒ 74 4,000 1.6% 4,400 1.8% -400 -9.1%
75 ‒ 79 3,200 1.3% 3,400 1.4% -200 -5.9%
80 ‒ 84 2,400 0.9% 2,300 0.9% 100 4.3%
85 ‒ 89 1,300 0.5% 1,300 0.5% 0 0.0%
90 and over 500 0.2% 600 0.2% -100 -16.7%

Share this: Facebook & Twitter

  • Share
  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

12 Responses

  1. on July 16, 2012 at 9:57 pm Cllr. Shahed Ali

    That’s rich coming from Cllr. Peter Golds.

    At the last Tower Hamlets’s council Strategic Development Committee meeting, Cllr. Golds spoke and voted in favour of another housing development in the borough, along with his New Found, New Labour kindle of a relation, which will only provide 24 social rented homes, 10 affordable rent homes, but at the expensive cost of another 126 private apartments for sale!

    So if Cllr. Golds is truly concerned about population growth vs housing need, he certainly did not give that impression where he could have made a difference – hippocrite.


  2. on July 16, 2012 at 10:17 pm Grenville Mills (@GrenvilleMills)

    Yes


  3. on July 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm Jonathan Cohen

    What a load of utter tosh from Lutfur Rahman, we all know the man doesn’t think for himself, but at least he could have could got one of his legion of paid apparent intellectual giants to write something a bit more credible than crediting the population growth to the Olympics.

    Everybody knows immigration is the main reason (both legal and ilkegal) and the related child bearing practices of these communities.

    I’m not making a judgment as to whether this is a good good or bad thing. Save to say that we need balance and control in all things. But the fact that the Mayor, Cllr Golds and Snowden all seek to ignore this speaks volumes as to their mendacious self serving politics. They are all bad as each other.

    And as for Cllr Golds and Snowdens


    • on July 17, 2012 at 8:18 am Eastendersscriptwriterscouldntmakeitup

      Sweeping statements indeed. What about the growth in development of old warehouses/factories/offices in Spitalfields and other areas which has brought in an increase in housing and residents with people moving from elsewhere in London to live? Buildings being brought back into use. God forbid that Tower Hamlets should be seen by other Londoners or UK residents as a desirable part of London to live instead of an insular ghetto of poverty.


  4. on July 17, 2012 at 8:28 am Tim

    One wonders how these figures should be regarded in the light of the Tower Hamlets magically elastic population figures; that a very significant number of people are bought into existence around election times.

    I note Cllr. Ali’s interesting comment, “… which will only provide 24 social rented homes, 10 affordable rent homes, but at the expensive cost of another 126 private apartments for sale!” The social rented and affordable rent homes are the ‘expense’ here; they are the ones that will cost taxpayers money to build and maintain, and will be filled with people costing more money in the form of benefits. The private apartments are the dwellings that will bring money into the area which will grow local businesses and help regereate Tower Hamlets. If I was the developer who built 160 homes but was only allowed to sell 124 of them I’d wonder whether I was wasting my time.

    I’d be interested to know how many of the ‘new’ people in the borough are destined to permamently live in these ‘social rent’ and ‘affordable rent’ homes?

    Tim.


  5. on July 17, 2012 at 11:11 am Eastendersscriptwriterscouldntmakeitup

    Re households: the census is taken from households and ‘communal establishments’ (student halls of residence, hostels and – whisper it carefully – hotels. Yes, people actually want to stay and visit Tower Hamlets – gasp!)

    Also anyone staying overnight with friends/family has to be listed.

    These are all stripped out in order to get the household statistics. So Jesus, Mary and Joseph (were they to try to get a room at the Britannia in Canary Wharf) would be counted in the population figures but not the household figures.


  6. on July 20, 2012 at 12:09 pm Graham Taylor

    Racist nonsense from Jonathan Cohen. I don’t really get how illegal immmigration is counted in the census (!), nor why the the ‘related child bearing practices of these communities’ should matter. If this was significant, there would be a variance with Hackney which has totally different demographics.

    The point is that the council need to have a planning policy that adresses whether we want more housing, what the mix of private and social is and make sure that we have schools, healthcare and transport as part of the deal. And that is down to the Executive Mayor.

    Public transport in my end of the borough (west Bethnal Green/Shoreditch) has massively improved with the opening of the Overground. Some schools are undersubscribed. When I changed GP recently it was an absolute doddle. There has been a huge amount of well planned development. But it is hit and miss as Ted points out. Look at Wapping, where parents have had to set up a free school, because the council haven’t met their needs.

    Shahed makes some valid points – but seems to forget that he is part of the executive that are in charge now. They set the planning policy. And it is down to Mayor Rahman to ensure the provision of healthcare, schools and public transport as part of his planning strategy.


    • on July 23, 2012 at 10:29 am Cllr. Shahed Ali

      Graham,
      You have been long enough in politics, and in Tower Hamlets Labour party, to be aware of the powers the planning committees have as a quasi-judicial body. Labour party councillors have a clear majority in this body so therefore hold the ability to decide which way these applications go, not the executive as you incorrectly point out.
      Yes I agree the executive can devise the planning policies you refer too. However upon this occassion, all the Labour and Tory members at this committee meeting (7) voted against these policies, designed as you rightly point out, to guide for example, the number of school places required. Only myself and the Lib-Dem member voted for these policies by agreeing with officer recomendations, based upon the planning policies of our council.
      So in summary Graham, you are wrong to point the finger at the Mayors Executive. The finger should clearly be pointed at your close friends who are Labour members of the planning Committees.


    • on July 23, 2012 at 4:47 pm Anon1

      Erm. People in Wapping are setting up a free school because they don’t want their children mixing with the local riff raff.

      But speaking of council meeting needs, which of the needs of BGTC were the Council failing to meet that led to you deciding to opt for Academy status given that the much needed investments and improvements were spear-headed (and provided) by the local authority just before you decided to opt-out of the local education authority?


  7. on July 23, 2012 at 11:05 am Graham Taylor

    Shahed.

    Thanks for recognising my longevity of service and loyalty to one party

    😉

    and please forgive my ignorance about planning matters.

    I may be showing even more ignorance now. If councillors are acting in a quasi-judicial role, how can they do anything but make sure that the policy adopted by the executive is correctly and legally implemented?

    Surely the officers that you employ are there to give them the corect and impartial advice?


  8. on July 25, 2012 at 2:51 pm Village of the Damned

    People getting called “racist” again by GT… he does this whenever someone dares speak against the project.

    Everybody knows this is all about the process of Bangladeshi colonisation – otherwise why are Tower Hamlets and Newham so far ahead of all the other parts of the UK? Anyone with two eyes can see the process of demographic change going on, particularly amongst the young, in east London. I wouldn’t mind if I was confident that the new arrivals were as committed to the supposed benefits of diversity as we are told we must be.

    Lutfur’s response by the way it so blatantly tries to divert attention is also very revealing. The people involved with “the project” are very keen to stop us lot from talking about it.

    And as well as that, this is probably only the tip of the ice-berg. I suspect the number of illegals and not quite legals and not sure if we’re legals who were left off census returns was highest in this borough too.

    Ben Kenobi was right, “Sand people always ride single file to hide their numbers.”


  9. on July 25, 2012 at 8:46 pm Tim

    Village of the Damned – that’s surely the most sensible post I have read on the topic of Tower Hamlets in a long, long time. Thank you for summing things up so much better than I could.

    Tim.



Comments are closed.

  • Ebuzzing - Top Blogs - London
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 6,448 other subscribers
  • Latest Tweets

    • I suppose they do both have a K in their surnames https://t.co/LMHjEr7EpF 1 day ago
    • Also attended.Thought film was interesting,poetry reading by @slhesketh excellent (as was contribution from the cou… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 week ago
    • This all seems great and does seem a beacon in theory but who in Newham actually knows about this?? Zero from our c… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2 weeks ago
    Follow @tedjeory
  • Recent Comments

    taj on Election Day: an open thread 
    Curious Cat on Election Day: an open thread 
    Jay Kay on Election Day: an open thread 
    Curious Cat on Election Day: an open thread 
    Cllr Andrew Wood, Ca… on Election Day: an open thread 
    Abdul Hai on Election Day: an open thread 
    Stewart Rayment on Election Day: an open thread 
    Stewart Rayment on Election Day: an open thread 
  • Archives

  • July 2012
    M T W T F S S
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
    « Jun   Aug »
  • Blogroll

    • Blood and Property
    • Dave Hill's Guardian blog
    • David Osler
    • Designed for Life
    • Diamond Geezer
    • Ealing Rose
    • Emdad Rahman's Blog
    • Hackney Wick Blog
    • Harry's Place
    • Mayor Lutfur Rahman
    • Mile End Residents' Association
    • Richard Osley's blog
    • Spitalfields Life
    • The Bow Bell
    • The Londonist
    • Tower Hamlets – it's your money
    • Tower Hamlets Watch

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


  • Follow Following
    • Trial by Jeory
    • Join 752 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Trial by Jeory
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: