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% |
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.
Yes
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.”
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.