Outdoor air pollution has a significant impact on wellbeing, and poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK. The term air pollution is used to refer to a complex mix of particles and gases (contaminant or pollutant substances of both natural and human origin) at concentrations that have harmful effects and interferes with human health or welfare, refer to table below. It can also contribute to other environmental effects such as Climate Change. Air pollution can be emitted from a range of sources in different localities, regions and continents. The figure below the table outlines this in context of the UK. Certain harmful air pollutants are emitted directly and locally from vehicles, such as ‘primary’ Particulate Matter (PM) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). Others, such as Ozone and ‘secondary’ PM, form in the atmosphere after the emissions of precursor pollutants including Nitrogen Oxide gases (NOX) and Hydrocarbon and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Different sources of pollution, including transport and non-transport sources, emit different types and ratios of pollutants. The extent to which the population and environment are exposed to harmful levels of air pollution is a complex issue, dependent on how pollutants travel in the atmosphere, their mixing, how they react under different meteorological conditions.
Source: LAQN: Londonair
Source: Public Health England
Source: European Environment Agency
Local concentration of air pollutants can occur where pollutants build up in significant quantities for example near busy roads. Exposure to high concentrations of pollutants is most likely to result in adverse health impacts. These impacts are cumulative, so it is important to reduce exposure to such pollutants at all stages of life. According to King’s College London (the body responsible for the London Air Quality Network - LAQN) the two pollutants of most concern in London are PM and NO2. Both have negative health impacts; they are also a major contributor to urban air pollution in major urban settings such as London. The World Health Organisation (WHO) states that there is no safe level of exposure to PM concentrations however they recommend guideline targets.
Poor air quality can contribute to health problems based on vulnerability and level of exposure. Short term exposure to pollution can aggravate existing health conditions including heart, circulatory and lung conditions. Long-term exposure can cause chronic conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory disease as well as lung cancer, leading to reduced life expectancy. These short and long-term impacts have consequences in terms of hospital admissions and reduced life expectancy (the figure below). Evidence is emerging that greater exposure to airborne pollutants is associated with increased risk of cognitive decline (Peters et al, 2019). There is also evidence linking air pollution with early life health effects such as low birth weight (Guo et al, 2019).
The importance of tackling air pollution was recently highlighted this year in context of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, a nine year old girl in South London who, in 2013 experienced a series of severe asthma attacks, and later died. She lived near some of London’s busiest roads. In a landmark decision the Coroner’s Court listed air pollution as her contributing cause of death for the first time in the UK. The ruling highlighted the need for continued prioritisation of air quality and tougher control measures.
The health impacts of air pollution are significant; long-term effects last for years or for an entire lifetime (Figure 4). The report ‘Every Breath You Take’ (2016) produced by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health uses the term ‘vulnerability’ to express the broad range of determinants whereby the health impacts of pollution are unequal. It includes a person’s biological susceptibility as well as environmental, social, and behavioural factors that may make a person susceptible to adverse effects of air pollution. The impacts on health cross all age ranges from children to the elderly.
The long-term impacts on health are often represented by a pyramid structure. The frequency of occurrence of a health effect associated with exposure to air pollution is inversely related to its severity. The proportion of the population affected by less severe outcomes is much larger than that affected by the more severe outcomes, according to the WHO. For most of the population the effects of air pollution are not usually immediately obvious. Some individuals may notice symptoms such as irritation to the eyes and throat when pollution levels are elevated, or they are near proximity to a pollution source. However, a small number of the population are more vulnerable to the effects than others. Exposure to pollution, for example, can exacerbate existing health conditions including cardiovascular and respiratory disease. This can lead to restricted activity, hospital admissions and even premature mortality.
Sensitive populations include pregnant women, children, older adults, people with heart or lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma as well as people working near to pollution sources such as bus drivers and traffic wardens. Environmental risk factors include proximity and exposure to busy roads (there is a strong association between long-term exposure to PM and effects on mortality), as well as deprivation (studies suggest areas with high levels of deprivation bear a disproportionate share of poor air quality). The evidence base for health impacts for exposure from varying types of activity and characteristics of an urban environment is not well developed. Part of the reason for this is the difficulty in modelling population health risks from the measurement of individual exposures. However, those who spend more time in highly polluted locations are more likely to be at risk due to high exposure. In addition, because air pollution levels within motor vehicles are typically higher than outside the vehicle, this will include those who drive for a living, as well as those who live and work near busy roads.
For most people, for most of the time, pollution does not interfere with their usual activities. The health benefits of being active will usually be much greater than the harms of air pollution. It is possible, however, that very sensitive individuals may experience health effects even on low pollution days. NICE Guidance NG70 on outdoor air quality and health (2017) advises that vulnerable people should reduce strenuous physical activity outside on highly polluted days or in particularly congested locations, and keep windows and doors closed if they face highly congested streets. The Daily Air Quality Index in the table below gives advice from Public Health England and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on how to stay healthy on days with different levels of air pollution. The index is numbered 1-10 and divided into four bands, low (1) to very high (10), to provide detail about pollution levels in a simple way, like the sun or pollen index.
Source: DEFRA
Climate Change and air pollution are closely aligned, any sources of air pollution also emit Greenhouse Gases, notably Carbon Dioxide (CO2), including energy generation from fossil fuels and the use of petrol and diesel vehicles. Ground-level Ozone and black carbon (a component of particulate matter produced by the incomplete combustion of biomass and fossil fuels including diesel and wood), also contribute to global warming. The second most important greenhouse gas (GHC) after CO2 is Methane (CH4). It is emitted from a number of sources including energy (natural gas, petroleum and coal production), agriculture (including livestock waste), and waste management activities (including landfills and food waste). Methane also leads to the formation of another GHG – Ozone. The latter has harmful effects for people, ecosystems and agricultural productivity. It is a so-called “short-lived climate force. This term refers to pollutants that remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter period than CO2 but have a much greater potential to warm the atmosphere and cause Climate Change. The sources of air pollutants, illustrated in the figure below, all emit Greenhouse Gases. Actions that lead to improvements in air quality can therefore have positive impacts for the climate in the immediate and long-term, as measures that reduce the short-lived climate pollutants (such as Ozone and Black Carbon) can significantly decrease the chances of triggering irreversible Climate Change.
The role of human activity has a significant impact on air pollution and Climate Change. This is illustrated by the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and the lockdown measures introduced, leading to emissions from road and air traffic plummeting, reduced energy demand and a drop-in output from fossil fuel power stations. For instance, Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) emissions fell by 9-17% across London whilst in certain air pollution hot spot areas, it reduced by half when data from air quality monitoring stations is compared to the year before. Analysis also shows that levels were significantly lower than the levels normally seen during the year in most of the UK’s largest cities for both nitrogen dioxide and small particle pollution (PM2.5).
Analysis in 2018 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) of air pollution trends (based on National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory data) covering levels in emission of six air pollutants show that there has been a long-term decrease related to all of the major pollutants. These include PM2.5, PM10, Nitrogen Oxides, Ammonia, Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds, and Sulphur Dioxide covering 1970 to 2018 (Ammonia from 1980 to 2018). The report states that the UK has met most of the current international ceilings for emissions of air pollutants since they were introduced in 2010 apart from limit values for NO2 (40ug/m3). The report outlines some of the factors responsible for the long-term decrease:
In context of other air pollutants, the London Air Quality Network (2018) makes references to:
Source: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
London was able to meet the PM10 limit for first time in 2011. The London Atmospheric Emission Inventory data shows that between 2013 and 2016, total NO2 emissions fell by 9 per cent across London. Although overall trends for air pollution have been going down due to a combination of legislative efforts and technological advances since 1970, it remains a problem in terms of health. There is still much work to be done, NO2 levels are still exceeded in many Town Centres and along main roads, and there are no safe levels for some pollutants including PM even though there are levels specified by current legal limits. In London, there continues to be breaches in air quality limits. For instance, in 2018, London reached its legal air pollution limit for hourly NO2 for the whole year within a one-month period (NO2 levels exceeded average hourly limits 18 times – the maximum allowed under air quality rules). In March 2019 London exceeded limits for the whole year for PM10 with nine months remaining. Carbon emissions in the Power Sector have reduced substantially in recent years, carbon emissions from road transport have been stubbornly high, with only minor reductions over three decades (the figure below). Road-transport is the largest source of carbon emission/air pollution across the UK as a whole, and a substantial source in London 1 and Richmond, almost half of the Borough emissions according to the Borough’s Air Quality Action Plan.
Source: Tables 3 and 19, Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics 1990-2018 Excel data tables
The figures below show the latest data on fine particulate matter pollution.
Air pollution: fine particulate matter (new method - concentrations of total PM2.5): In 2021, Richmond’s rate was 8.3 µg/m3, which was the 8th lowest in London, 13.3% higher than the England average and 4.2% lower than the London average. The latest Borough figure for 2021 was also 28.1% lower than in 2018, in comparison with 22.8% decrease in England’s rate in the equivalent time period.
Source: OHID: Public Health Profiles
Air Quality Standards Regulations (2010) outlines limits on key air pollutants. These were originally based on the European Union’s Air Quality Directive which set targets and mandatory limits. Key pollutants include Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5), Lead (Pb), Benzene (C6H6), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Benzo(a)pyrene and Ozone (O3). The UK intends to set out future air pollution targets through new primary legislation following the exit of the UK from the European Union via a new Environment Bill.
The current overarching framework for UK policy on air pollution is the Clean Air Strategy (2019). The strategy sets out to reduce emissions of five key pollutants including Fine Particulate Matter, Ammonia, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Dioxide and Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds by 2020 and 2030. For instance, a cut of 30 per cent by 2020, and by 46 per cent by 2030, of PM emissions, is envisaged. Additional key objectives include:
The UK Strategy aspires to meet WHO guidelines for PM2.5, PM10 and NO2 in terms of ambient (outdoor) air quality and health. The WHO limits are lower than current UK limits for some pollutants including PM. Note that pollution from vehicle emissions (tailpipe) have so far been regulated under a series of European Directives for all types of vehicles. The standards currently extend from Euro 1 to Euro 6 for cars and vans, and from Euro I to Euro VI for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), buses and coaches, The table below shows this in the context of cars.
Source: The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
In the UK, the current state of knowledge on the health impacts of air pollution is complemented by London specific studies such as those undertaken by King’s College London. In 2018 a report by Kings College London and published by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP), estimated that between 28,000 and 36,000 people die as a result of air pollution every year in the UK, an increase on their 2015 figure of 29,000).
They looked primarily at Nitrogen Dioxide and PM pollution which are produced when petrol or other fuels are burnt. They estimated that the number of deaths would inevitably include the effects of other pollutants that occur simultaneously (e.g., Ultrafine Particles, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Volatile Organic Compounds) and where prolonged exposure to these chemicals could exacerbate respiratory conditions. To find out what the level of impact would be in terms of reducing levels of air pollution on the population Public Health England commissioned the UK Health Forum and Imperial College London to develop a modelling framework. This model estimated that a 1 µg/m3 reduction in fine particulate air pollution in England could prevent around 50,900 cases of coronary heart disease, 16,500 strokes, 9,300 cases of asthma, and 4,200 lung cancers over an 18-year period (the figure below). The model suggests that even a small reduction in air pollution can generate significant benefits for health and wellbeing.
London is affected by a high level of air pollution compared to the rest of the country, graphically demonstrated by two key air pollutants in (the figure below). Traffic related pollution is similar to most other UK cities, however the significant size of London along with dense road networks and built up environments means that London tends to be one of the most polluted places in the UK, especially during still weather conditions. Parts of London have often failed to comply with legally binding limits especially in relation to NO2 and PM.
Source: Defra (2017) background mapping for Local Authorities
The maps above demonstrate that NO2 has a clear local pattern and is mostly concentrated where it is emitted in urban areas such as London and by busy roads. PM2.5 which includes soot and dust generated by the burning of fuels and from brake pads being applied to tyres, is more widely spread. As a London Borough, Richmond falls under the jurisdiction of the Greater London Authority (GLA) in context of regional policies, including those linked to air pollution. The key strategies produced by the Mayor of London that impact on air pollution include the Transport Strategy (2018), the Environment Strategy (2018)45, the London Plan (2019) and to a certain degree the Health Inequalities Strategy (2018).
Some of the key objectives are summarised below:
Collective action at a regional level is required and this is explicitly highlighted in ‘Our Vision for London’ (2019), a report produced by the GLA, PHE, London Councils and NHS England. It advances a need for collective action by various organisation such as Local Authorities and the NHs. It sets (as above) a key aim to reach legal concentration limits of NO2, and work towards World Health Organisation (WHO) limits for PM2.5 by the year 2030. In terms of Climate Change, the Mayor of London has set a target for the capital to become a zero-carbon city by 2050 in the Environment Strategy (2018). In London, buildings, businesses, workers, and residents are all likely to be affected by Climate Change. Health impact includes heat-related deaths which are likely to increase.
Existing legislation requires local authorities to monitor local air quality levels. This is largely carried out through the Local Air Quality Management System via real-time air quality monitoring stations and other measures including diffusion tubes used for indicative monitoring of ambient nitrogen dioxide. If an area is identified as breaching legal levels, the Local Authority is obliged to declare such localities as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) i.e. an area requiring improvement in air quality. They must also produce an Air Quality Action Plan, which outlines and describes actions or measures to tackle the problem including implementation plans. The whole Borough of Richmond has been designated an AQMA for both Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and PM10 since 2000 and remains so.
The major emission sources of climate and air pollution emissions in Richmond are outlined in the table below. The refreshed Air Quality Action Plan (2020–2025) for Richmond was approved in March 2020 and will provide the mechanism by which the Local Authority, in collaboration with others will work towards tackling local air pollution sources using the powers they have available.
Source: GLA - LAEI
In July 2019, Richmond Council declared a Climate Emergency, setting a target to be a Carbon Neutral organisation by 2030. At the same time, it published it’s draft Richmond Climate Change and Sustainability Strategy which went to consultation in September 2019. In January 2020 the Council approved its revised Richmond Climate Emergency Strategy (RCES), which sets out a roadmap for achieving this ambitious target, alongside a detailed climate action plan for 2020/21, with further plans to be developed and published annually, together with progress reports. As air quality is a core component of climate policies, the RCES expands the Air Quality Action Plan measures, providing a roadmap for transitioning to cleaner buildings, transport, homes, and lifestyles within the Borough.
Clean air is considered a basic human requirement. The Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF), produced by Public Health England (PHE), provides an indication of differences in life expectancy between communities. PHE has estimated that the fraction of annual all-cause adult mortality attributable to anthropogenic (human-made) particulate matter (PM2.5), expressed as the percentage of annual deaths from all causes in those aged 30 years plus (Health Protection, Indicator D01, 2018 data) is 6.3% for Richmond, which is lower than London (6.6%), but higher than England (5.2%) averages. This crudely translates into 15.1 attributable deaths per 100,000 population per year. Age mortality rates (under 75 years of age) for all causes stood at 240 per 100,000 population per year (2016 to 2018 data) in context of PM2.5.
The figures below outline mortality attributable to particulate air pollution. It is important to note that unlike other indicators that are based on recorded mortality data for specific causes of death, the figures for air pollution are estimates of mortality attributable to a risk factor. Deaths are not individually attributed to air pollution, rather, air pollution could be a contributory factor in many deaths, including other causes, such as respiratory disease or cardiovascular disease. Climate Change adds an additional challenge, acting as a risk-multiplier to exacerbate by the health and economic impacts of air pollution. Further due to the small datasets at local level, there are year on year variations in the local annual numbers of deaths therefore caution is needed when considering apparent trend over time.
Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution (new method): In 2022, Richmond’s rate was 6.8%, which was the 7th lowest in London, 16.2% higher than the England average and 5.2% lower than the London average. The latest Borough figure for 2022 was also 20.8% lower than in 2018, in comparison with 17.7% decrease in England’s rate in the equivalent time period.
Exceedances of annual mean concentrations level objectives from the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (LAEI) provides an estimate of proportion of the total population of Richmond residents that are subject to PM2.5, which was at 3 per cent, the second highest level in South London, Westminster was the highest across London at 15 per cent. The LAEI also provide an estimate of the proportion of the total population of Richmond that are subject to NO2 concentrations more than the annual mean UK AQ objective of 40µg/m3. Based on modelled data for 2016 this was slightly more than 3 per cent. The worst in London (leaving aside the City of London) is Westminster which is at 93.7 per cent. The table below provides a comparison of this statistic against other Boroughs in the South London Sub-Region and indicates that Richmond has the second highest population exposed to NO2 and PM2.5 more than the legal objectives.
Source: GLA – LAEI
1.10 Areas of Deprivation and Pollution Links between deprivation and air pollution are acknowledged by NICE NG70 (2017) and others in terms of inequalities and disproportionate impacts from pollution on people living in such areas. NICE states that the way pollution is distributed is not straightforward, pollutant concentrations vary:
In comparison with the other London Boroughs, Richmond is lower on deprivation scores, however within the Borough there are pockets of deprivation. The most deprived wards according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD, 2019) include Ham, Hampton North, Heathfield, Mortlake and Barnes Common, and Whitton. The survey shows that there are 33 areas of the Borough graded level 10 (least deprived) and no areas graded level 1. However, there is one area graded level 2 (the western part of Hampton North ward) and two areas graded 3 (parts of Twickenham) on the sliding scale (Figure 11). Cumulatively, the wards mentioned above have around an estimated population of 54,128 people (GLA, 2020 estimates) some of whom will be affected by pollution more than other residents due to their level of exposure.
In general, there is little correlation between areas of deprivation and areas with higher levels of air pollution in Richmond according to the pollution data for instance in context of NOx (the figure below). Pollution is highest where traffic queues the longest so most Town Centres and main roads across the Borough. Where pavements tend to be narrow and/or buildings higher, dispersion is more difficult, so levels of pollution tend to be higher. Residents living in properties close to main roads and in Town Centres will be exposed to higher levels of pollution. The Surrey side of the Borough tends to record higher levels than the Middlesex side due to its proximity to London. Certainly, Richmond Town Centre records the highest levels and has done so for at least the last 18 years. Ham and the Hamptons record the lowest levels. Areas of deprivation in Ham tend to be well set back from the main road, hence better air quality. Petersham Road, except where traffic queues into Richmond, complies with EU limit values. The same is true for Barnes.
Many of the deprived areas are better set back from main roads than less deprived areas especially near Castlenau and Rocks Lane. An area of deprivation is likely to front Mortlake High Street. This is a main road route to the South Circular and A316, so levels will be relatively higher than roads in the area which are better set back from the main road. Hampton North ward has exceedances along Hampton Hill High Street and parts of Uxbridge Road but again most areas of deprivation are set back from the main roads where levels of pollution are lower. Some main roads will have a mixture of housing, which will include areas of deprivation. For many residents, their main exposure to higher levels of pollution will be when travelling to places or shopping. Lower pollution backroads are always preferable to minimise exposure.
Source: MHCLG – Richmond Council – Datarich
At a regional level London has one of the world’s biggest air pollution monitoring networks – the London Air Quality Network (LAQN) which includes real time monitoring of air quality via nearly 100 monitors across the capital. There are four continuous monitoring stations in Richmond, located at Castlenau Library (Barnes), Wetlands Centre (Barnes), Mobile Air Quality Unit (Chertsey Road, TW2) and the National Physical Laboratory (Bushy Park, Teddington, TD5). These stations are highly accurate and measure air quality pollutants in real-time. But they are also expensive so using them for a large coverage of Richmond is cost prohibitive. The Borough also uses diffusion tubes for monitoring levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The tubes are a relatively cheap way of monitoring, which therefore allows samples to be taken across the whole of Richmond and gives a Borough-wide view. The results provide monthly averages and so provide an indication of ambient NO2 pollution levels. The accuracy of the diffusion tube readings can be increased when their results are compared, and then bias adjusted, with data from the more accurate continuous monitors. The Council has a network of 64 diffusion tube sites across the Borough. Three of the diffusion tubes sites are triplicate and collocated with all three Council automatic monitoring sites. All sites are kept under constant review. This provides a robust monitoring system for NO2.
Limitations in terms of monitoring in Richmond include the following:
Further limitations on health-related data compound understanding:
Compared to other parts of the country the availability of air pollution data is more extensive in Richmond, PM data is limited here as well as elsewhere. This is partly due to the lack of the existence of accurate low-cost PM monitors; this may change in the future. More air quality stations would require significant levels of investment and may not be able to be sited in certain locations due to space constraints and would not provide further economic or health advantages. From a health perspective, greater granular research is required around exposure levels for different population groups as well as health inequalities. Due to London being so integrated and significant in scale, greater impact and understanding can be achieved through regional bodies such as the GLA, TfL and PHE London through local collaboration.
There is also evidence that indoor air pollution significantly effects health and contributes to the development of respiratory conditions. e.g., asthma 2. The Government’s Clean Air Strategy 2019 considers both outdoor and indoor air pollution and how reducing emissions, pollutant concentrations and exposure, both outside and inside buildings and homes, can protect and improve health. The interactions between indoor and outdoor air pollution on people remains an issue that needs further investigation. However, the kind of interventions for indoor pollution is different to outdoor air pollution including point sources. NICE (2020) has produced guidance (NG149) for improving indoor air quality focused on advice for action for local authorities, healthcare professionals, as well as architects, designers, builders, and developers.
As the whole Borough is designated an Air Quality Management Area, a refreshed Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) was produced and adopted in March 2020. This details all the measures that the Borough and partners are undertaking to reduce the levels of NO2, PM2.5 and PM10 and other air pollutants. The Borough is required to annually ‘review and assess’ the air quality within its locality and work towards achieving compliance with Air Quality Standards. This is done through the submission of an annual report to the GLA outlining the progress made with each of the measures in the Action Plan. These reports are available to view on the air pollution pages of the Council’s website (www.richmond.gov.uk/air_pollution). As outlined, the key emissions by source type that contribute to pollution and Climate Change are linked to road transport, domestic heating/power, construction, and aviation.
In drawing up the Borough’s refreshed Air Quality Action Plan, the Environmental Health and Pollution Team has engaged with Local Authority officers across different departments, including land-use and transport planners, to ensure the actions are supported by all parts of the Authority. In addition, engagement with a wider range of stakeholders, including community groups and organisations, has taken place to ensure that the Plan is appropriate and addresses local air quality issues of concern to all. The consultation process highlighted the need for more work to improve air quality around schools, more encouragement of sustainable transport, and more investment into infrastructure.
Many of the Council’s initiatives to address air quality are closely linked to other initiatives including:
There are links to green infrastructure including:
The above strategies have common themes around modal shift and getting people to walk, cycle and use public transport, while green infrastructure such as trees can act as pollution barriers and facilitate low pollution cycle and walking pathways, in addition to improving air quality. Note that due to the Covid-19 pandemic the Council initially discouraged the use of public transport. The risk of this is that there may be a car-based recovery in terms of travel within the Borough, the focus of the Council will continue to be on active travel.
In addition to and building on the strategies outlined, the Richmond Climate Emergency Strategy (RCES) and Action Plan set out the specific actions that the Council will take in 2020/2021 on its trajectory to net-zero 2030, as well as actions delivered to support and encourage the Borough as a whole to reduce its carbon emissions. The Action Plan is separated into two sections: the first on becoming carbon neutral as an organisation, and the second around Borough-wide actions. The Action Plan highlights where decarbonisation policies have co-benefits for air quality and implementation of the current Air Quality Action Plan from 2019-2024 reflects the strategy outlined in the RCES.
It underscores the need to reduce emissions in the Council’s own fleets and buildings as a large contributor to the Borough’s overall emissions, and provides the overarching framework for targeted, integrated actions to improve environmental and human health. Some of the most relevant measures that appear in the RCES Action Plan are outlined below in the table below
The Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) sets out a series of measures to try to improve air quality and reduce localised pollution sources, it covers various elements of intervention linked to identified pollution sources as well as the monitoring process. In looking at unmet need, this is principally focused on population groups and localities allied to point sources and exposure. The AQAP takes a wide approach to tackling air pollution and is focused on: Firstly, the sources of pollution, secondly awareness raising and thirdly behaviour change. Significant engagement takes place in the context of school children, schools, and the public in terms of rising awareness and behaviour change through events such as Clean Air Day and Car free Day, publicity around Active Travel and behaviour change e.g., anti-idling.
Some areas of gap include the need to do more work and engage with vulnerable groups including the over 60 year olds, pregnant women, nurseries, those with health conditions as well as those living in more deprived communities. These require more targeted and joint work with others within the Council, partner organisations such as the NHS and private entities. Key focus should continue to be on localities with high levels of NO2 and PM, including those near busy roads within the Borough where most of the pollution originates via vehicle traffic which go through these areas.
Increasingly it is known that health impacts occur at pollutant concentrations below the National Air Quality Objective Targets (which are below WHO objective levels). While Richmond’s Air Pollution monitoring is good compared to areas outside London, there continues to be a lack of effective health impact analysis especially in context of local schemes to reduce emissions. In order to address this, efforts at a pan-London level are needed. At individual Borough levels there are issues with limited resources and expertise.
This JSNA focuses on outdoor air pollution. However, there is evidence that indoor air pollution also significantly effects health and contributes to the development of respiratory conditions. e.g., asthma. The government’s Clean Air Strategy 2019 considers both outdoor and indoor Air Pollution and how reducing emissions, pollutant concentrations and exposure, both outside and inside buildings and homes, can protect and improve health. The interactions between indoor and outdoor air pollution on people remains an issue that needs further investigation. However, the kind of interventions for indoor pollution is different including point sources. NICE (2020) has produced guidance (NG149) for improving indoor air quality focused on advice for action for local authorities, healthcare professionals, as well as architects, designers, builders, and developers.
PHE (2019) produced a review of interventions that local government and others can take to improve air quality and health. The review identified five key areas for potential action, as shown in the table below. These included vehicles and fuels, spatial planning, industry, agriculture, and behavioural change (note agriculture is left out as the Borough does not have commercial agricultural activities). In terms of evidence, the report acknowledges the fact that few existing studies directly examine the effects of interventions on environmental concentrations or the resulting health outcomes. The benefits of intervention must therefore be inferred from the reductions in emissions. They were also unable to stratify interventions by costs and health benefits. Evaluation of effectiveness focussed on whether there was evidence that the intervention worked (such as reducing local or national emissions, concentrations, or exposures), and not the relative level of effect, which according to PHE was typically uncertain.
The review by PHE did not identify any papers that contained information on the impact of behavioural interventions on health inequalities. It also found little direct evidence of public health benefits from any individual intervention or group of interventions. To achieve significant changes in behaviour (and associated reductions in emissions), a wide range of soft and hard measures need to be combined to maximise the effectiveness of the overall package of interventions. For example, within the transport context the evidence suggests that the greatest impact on reducing emissions from road transport and improvement in public health outcomes, is from the co-implementation of a package of policy measures (transport and non-transport related interventions) designed according to the local area’s requirements.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in their guidance (NG70) published in 2017, also refer to the need to take number of actions in combination, because multiple interventions, each producing a small benefit, are likely to act cumulatively to produce significant changes. The areas for potential intervention are outlined in the table below. NICE also advises that special consideration should be given to those at particular risk, including children, older people, and people with chronic health problems. It refers to the need for healthcare professionals to be aware of vulnerable groups particularly affected by poor outdoor air quality. This includes giving general advice to these groups on how to minimise exposure including the provision of informational resources.
In terms of Climate Change and air pollution, national policy remains critical to supporting local measures, driving electrification across the transport and energy sectors, and stimulating green solutions across the market and the built environment. Reflecting many of these actions, (the figure below), produced by the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change (UKHACC), illustrates the core interventions that produce co-benefits for both human and environmental health. The UKHACC) report “Moving Beyond the Air Quality Crisis” focuses on realising the health benefits of acting on air pollution and mitigating Climate Change. The Lancet Countdown Report also justifies the requirement for health to be considered as a major theme of the UK’s climate policy, placing health at the centre of the transition to net-zero, yielding dividends for the public and the economy, with cleaner air, safer cities, and healthier diets.
Source: UK Health Alliance on Climate Change
Air Pollution is a significant challenge for public health and the community, a multisector approach is needed to develop and effectively implement long-term policies that reduce and mitigate impact. Due to the transboundary nature of air pollution, it is important to acknowledge that action at a Borough level context is not enough alone, a joined-up international, national, and regional programme of action is needed. Local authorities and other organisations have a role to play in empowering residents, organisations, and others to contribute to improving air quality while maximising the health benefits gained. There is also alignment of the overarching framework provided by the RCES and its Action Plans, updated on an annual basis, and its progress reports that will track carbon reductions and highlight improvements in air quality
Robust evidence in terms of specific local interventions remains an issue. Further reducing the impact of air quality on health outcomes requires a combination of efforts to decrease the amount of pollution generated, and to mitigate its effects on human health with attention paid to vulnerable groups.
Reducing or eliminating point sources of air pollution at local levels continues to be an important contributor towards the overall impact on health and wellbeing. This is referenced by PHE via three key principles (the figure below), these include: 1) emission; 2) concentration; and 3) exposure (including susceptibility and vulnerability). It is critical that primary efforts are prioritised with regards to prevention or if that is not possible reduction of polluting activities including emission reduction. Where pollution is already present or occurring, efforts should focus on mitigation through various steps to reduce levels of concentration. Thirdly, efforts should assist individuals (especially those who are vulnerable) to reduce their levels of exposure through initiatives such as low pollution walking routes, stay indoor notices during high pollution episodes.
There are ongoing initiatives in place to support the promotion of vehicles with zero emissions, progression of driving restriction initiatives, information on eco-driving, and the promotion of events such as Clean Air Day to raise awareness. Informative elements include school-based programmes as well as advice guidance through the air quality alert system. Interventions to improve air quality have ‘co-benefits’ for people’s wider health and wellbeing. Such initiatives include the integration of walking and cycling activities into daily life as well as for leisure, promotion of cycle hire and cycle lanes, access to green spaces, and tree planting. All the practical measures available to tackle air quality as a health issue at a Borough level will only have a notable impact on population health outcomes if delivered at scale incorporating soft and hard measures.
The overwhelming scientific and political consensus is that human-driven climate change is real, its impacts are already being felt and unless action is taken immediately to address the drivers of climate change then there will be huge impacts on the environment and on society globally.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has, since 1988, spelled out the climate science, highlighting that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically reduced in order to avoid a global increase in temperature above 2 °C. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in Rio in 1992, set limits on greenhouse emissions. This was followed with the 1997 Kyoto Protocols and 2015 Paris Agreement, setting further binding targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Katowice Climate Change Conference in December 2018 and the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C highlighted that the lack of sufficient action over the past 30 years means that immediate action must be taken to prevent a global temperature increase of 1.5 °C. The UK Government amended its Climate Change Act in June 2019 to introduce a legally binding zero carbon target by 2050.
Climate Change is also a public health priority and should be a consideration for all health partners of the Council. The possible adverse impacts of Climate Change on the health and well-being of the population is well known and becoming ever clearer (see the Health Protection Agency’s report, “Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK 2012”). At a national level, Public Health England (PHE) evaluate the effects of climate change through their research programmes, feeding into national plans and policies such as the Cold Weather Plan and Heatwave Plan. People’s health and well-being can be impacted a web of interconnected factors, including increases in air pollution (which causes chronic conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and lung cancer), aeroallergens, water shortage and flooding, heatwaves and other adverse weather conditions (extreme cold spells), as well as increases in food and vector/ water-borne diseases. Worsening indoor environments (overheating buildings, including homes, care homes and hospitals) and heightened UV risks can also impact negatively on our health.
There is a global consensus that we must take urgent action to tackle climate change before irreparable damage is done to our environment, which would have huge knock-on impacts for society and for the other species with which we share our planet. Successive reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the United Nations body charged with looking at climate change) as well as EU level reports, national reports and overwhelming scientific consensus, have all highlighted the need for immediate and decisive action to address the causes of climate change and to plan for the impacts it will likely have on the planet and society.
On the 1st of May 2019 the House of Commons passed a motion declaring a national climate change emergency, following on from climate change emergency declarations by both the Welsh and Scottish governments. On 28th November 2019 the European Parliament declared a global “climate and environmental emergency”, urged all EU countries to commit to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and asked the European Commission to ensure that all relevant legislative and budgetary proposals are fully aligned with the objective of limiting global warming to under 1.5 °C.
While there is an undeniable need to reduce energy consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases, there are also a number of associated issues that need urgent action. Addressing climate change is not simply about reducing CO2 emissions but is about looking at the needs of future generations as well as residents today and seeking to mitigate problems in the future by acting responsibly now. This includes looking at our capacity to support human activity and taking decisions that respect environmental limits as well making sure that there is a balance in decision-making between immediate financial needs for the Borough and long-term sustainability. It is generally recognised that economic, social and environmental issues are interlinked and that tackling them in an integrated way will achieve the best solutions. Climate change increases health inequalities due to rising fuel and food prices and a reduction in access to cooling or heating, leading to cold related deaths in winter and heat related deaths in summer, as well as costlier insurance. These factors will have a greater impact on those who may already be disadvantaged or vulnerable in our communities
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most common greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, in terms of the quantity released and the total impact on global warming, accounting for about 81 per cent of the UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2017. As a result, the term “CO2” or “carbon” is sometimes used as a shorthand expression for all greenhouse gases.
The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) produces a breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions by Local Authority area as a subset of its annual inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. This publication combines data from the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory with data from a number of other sources, including local energy consumption statistics, to produce a nationally consistent set of carbon dioxide emissions estimates at local authority level from 2005 to 2017.
The BEIS data shows that carbon emissions from the Borough as a whole have reduced from 1035.7 kilotons of CO2 (ktCO2) in 2005 to 617.3 ktCO2 in 2018, a reduction of 40.4%. When looking at per capita emissions (the amount of CO2 per person in the Borough) we have gone from 5.7 tons per person in 2005 to 3.1 tons per person in 2018, a reduction of 45%. In the last 5 years, from 2014 to 2018, total emissions have reduced by 18.6% and per capita emissions have reduced by 20%. The majority of these emission reductions have come from electricity usage (65% of total reductions since 2005), which is linked to the decarbonisation of the electricity grid and the shift to renewable energy generation nationally.
Half of the total Borough emissions (50%) come from domestic sources, which means the electricity and gas use in homes, with 22.6% coming from industry and commerce and 27.4% coming from transport. Of domestic carbon emissions, nearly three quarters (73.7%) comes from gas use for heating and cooking, which highlights the importance in improving the energy efficiency of homes in the Borough and moving from using gas to heat our homes and towards much wider use of heat pumps as a source of heating.
A detailed breakdown analysis of carbon emissions can be found here.
On 9 July 2019, Richmond Council declared a climate emergency. While many solutions to climate change will need to be tackled at a national or international level, all levels of government, communities, businesses and individuals have a role to play in addressing climate change. In declaring a climate emergency, Richmond Council rejects the idea that such a declaration is a symbolic gesture and will give substance to its commitment. Richmond Council therefore resolved to become recognised as the Greenest London Borough.
Richmond Climate Emergency Strategy sets out six main areas of focus around climate change and sustainability. As set out in the Richmond Climate Emergency Strategy these are:
Key target is to become carbon neutral as an organisation by 2030.
Key target is to create an environment where Richmond is able to be sustainable and low carbon by default.
Key target is to reduce the amount of waste generated in the Borough.
Key target is to improve the air quality in the Borough.
Key target is to plant more trees.
Key target is to be fully prepared for flooding.
In order to deliver the Strategy, an Annual Action Plan has been produced, which looks to reduce the Council’s emissions, support the reduction of the Borough’s emissions and deliver the strategic aims set out above. This plan sets out the co-benefits of actions including their impact on air quality. The 2021 action plan can be found here. The Strategy and the Action Plan are delivered by all Officers across the Council who are supported by a dedicated Climate Change Policy Team.
In order to maintain the rapid pace needed to deliver climate change an annual update is published. The update on the 2020 action plan can be found here.
The work planned and delivered through the Richmond Climate Emergency Strategy is linked very strongly with action to improve air quality, active travel and parks.
There are strong links between reducing energy usage and tackling fuel poverty. In order to support residents to make their homes more energy efficient the Council successfully bid for Green Homes Grant funding in 2020 and 2021.
The Council uses the term culture administratively, to collectively describe local arts, library, parks and sport & fitness services. Key local information related to the cultural infrastructure and services are listed below.
Cultural infrastructure:
Cultural services:
Cultural fixtures, arts, religious and leisure facilities have a positive impact on health and wellbeing of local communities.
Landmarks: There are also many landmarks in the Borough which can be enjoyed, including Kew Garden, Syon House, Hampton Court Palace, Richmond Park, Richmond Riverside and Bushy Park. Art galleries in Richmond in Orleans House Gallery and Riverside Gallery.
Libraries: There are 12 libraries in the Borough offering local residents various local services, with further electronic library services (e.g., e-books, audiobooks) available across the Borough.
Places of worship: There are 74 places of worship in Richmond. Beyond their religious role, many of these places act as gathering places for community events. This may be as underestimate as other places of informal gatherings may not be listed. The detailed breakdown by group can be found on the Councils website 5 .
Theatres: There are 4 theatres in Richmond Upon Thames; The Exchange in Twickenham, Normansfield Theatre, Orange Tree theatre and Richmond Theatre.
Vibrant town centres: Vibrant town centres offer easy access to services, foster social interactions and support local economy. Having easy to reach and diverse services also encourages residents to walk to run errands and meet-up with friends and family. These offer an alternative to cars, increasing physical activity and help keep our air clean. The Borough has 5 town centres, Richmond; Twickenham; East Sheen; Teddington and Whitton with Richmond town centre being the largest centre in the Borough 6.
Sports and Leisure Venues: Locally there are 6 sports centres, five leisure centres. There are 2 main swimming pools, Pools on the Park (outdoor pool that is open in the summer months only) and Teddington Pools. The Borough has 44 public tennis courts across 11 sites and a large amount of equestrian activity, including Horse Rangers Association and Ham Polo club 7.
Richmond has a unique cultural infrastructure and a reputation for quality and leadership particularly in parks, sports and heritage. Local parks were rated 5th out of 32 London Boroughs in the 2020 Good Parks for London annual report and received a 97% satisfaction rate from residents in the 2019 Parks Satisfaction Survey. The Borough is home to internationally renowned sports venues and heritage sites which contribute to the cultural life of the residents and visitors to London and the UK ^[ [London Plan 2021 (7.5.12)], and to St Mary’s University, Twickenham which is a prominent centre for sporting excellence. Richmond is also where parkrun originated, with the very first event taking place in Bushy Park in 2004.
The arts are well served by award-winning venues including the Orange Tree Theatre and Orleans House Gallery and local 12 libraries continue to be vibrant and engaging community venues that provide high quality services to residents across the whole Borough, including the fastest reservation service in London and the 3rd fastest in Britain .
When asked to describe Richmond’s cultural offer, safe and limited were two of the most popular words used, with many residents travelling into central London or elsewhere for more diverse and innovative cultural experiences, particularly the younger generation. Only 2% of people described culture in Richmond as exciting 8.
Public programmes and events such as the Rugby World Cup, Dance in Libraries, Richmond Lit Fest & The Streets have brought distinctive cultural experiences to Richmond in recent years. The evidence of the positive impact arts, libraries, parks and sports and fitness have on health and wellbeing, the economy and local communities is far reaching, and the restrictions related to COVID-19 pandemic has led to a greater overall appreciation of the role of parks and open space for our health and wellbeing. Programmes and facilities including Chat & Draw, Health Walks, Heathfield Recreation Ground’s Fresh Air Fitness Centre, community reading groups and our home library service have aimed to improve health & wellbeing in the Borough, with a specific focus on supporting residents 70+ years who are less physically active and at risk of loneliness and isolation.
The Council has worked with Borough schools, colleges and other partners to inspire young people with the cultural curriculum. Creative schools workshops at Orleans House Gallery; the Teacher’s Art Forum; Cover Story & Battle of the Books; curriculum- time swimming lessons; after school coached sporting activities; Richmond Music Trust’s high quality music tuition and the London Youth Games have all focused on developing skills in young people whilst fostering an interest in culture.
The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted opportunities for young people. 1 in 3 Londoners aged 18 – 24 years have been furloughed or made redundant with youth unemployment in Richmond has increased by 215% 9. This is reflected in the culture and creative industries which saw more than a quarter of people aged 25 and under leaving creative occupations during 2020 10.
More information on local cultural infrastructure and plans for culture in Richmond can be found in Culture Richmond 2021 – 2031 document 11.
The Community Safety Service in support of the statutory requirement on the Community Safety Partnership around substance misuse will support key partners in further developing a substance misuse strategy. In addition, the Community Safety Service will be looking at mapping the provisions for substance misuse across the Borough - this will include the pharmacies who are available to administer scripts to individuals. There will need to be further work with Public Health and other substance misuse colleagues through the Partnership Forum once all the data has been obtained so support is available for those who need it.
The Community Safety Service currently supports the Housing Service within Richmond around problematic rough sleepers. Housing has the responsibility for homelessness and rough sleeping and currently provide a Partner’s Forum. This forum will then refer the most problematic individuals to Community Safety to be part of a specific problem-solving plan. Further details on the subject can be found under Housing.
The Community Safety Service with the local police oversee the Community Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (CMARAC) which looks at high risk and complex residents who are at greatest risk of harm to put together a multi- agency plan to provide support and intervention. Referrals can be received from professionals where an individual is causing harm to themselves or others in the community.
The agencies present also have the option for enforcement in the using a Community Protection Notice Warning (CPNW), Community Protection Notice (CPN), Injunction, Possession proceedings, Closure Notices, Closure Orders and Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO). Although we would always consider alternative options of support first to tackle the behaviour, enforcement action usually involves positive requirements for an individual to engage with services such as substance misuse or mental health for a wrap-around service.
The Community Trigger (also known as the ASB Case Review), gives victims of persistent anti-social behaviour reported to any of the main responsible agencies (such as the council, police, housing provider) the right to request a multi-agency case review of their case where the local threshold is met under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
If a case meets the threshold, then an Independent Panel Hearing will be convened by the Community Safety Team on behalf of the relevant partners. This is to put recommendations forward to those agencies involved with the case to ensure that a solution is met effectively. This does not replace the usual Complaints Process.
This Crime and Anti-social Behaviour (ASB) section has been included within this document as it has a direct impact on people’s health, well-being and lifestyle.
Becoming a victim of crime can affect people differently. The recovery following a crime can be challenging especially if the criminal justice process is lengthy. Also, if the person already live with an existing mental health need then this could impact their recovery time and the impact of the crime could feel even worse.
Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG) is both a form of discrimination and a violation of human rights and was defined by the United Nations Declaration as: ‘Any act of gender based violence that results in or is likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women [or girls], including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty’ (1993, Article 1).
This includes:
There is a considerable gap in the local understanding of the current VAWG situation, across the breadth of this subject. The police report instances of sexual violence at their fortnightly tasking meeting, and the local authority is only able to conduct limited analysis from data that is available.
Examination of data for locally reported volumes for rapes and sexual offences shows that there were circa 230 sexual offences reported in Richmond during the last year that includes c80 rapes. However, these totals include offences that had occurred historically and those that related to crimes in the domestic environment.
It is not possible to provide data in respect of wider VAWG such as FGM.
The demand and call upon services has risen across the system, when comparing financial years of 2019/20 with 2020/21. The table below summarises reported crime, advocacy and MARAC demand for Richmond for the financial years 19/20 and 20/21. The percentage increases in crime reported are in excess of the London average at 5.9%. The reported crime levels for the previous three years had been relatively static in Richmond. There is no currently available data that describes the increases in demand in respect of advocacy or MARAC demands across London, England, or Wales.
Source: MARAC
Domestic abuse is a gender biased crime with around 70% of victims being women. Examination of individual data shows that there is an over-representation of Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority communities as victims of crime (23% in Richmond) when compared with overall population/census data. Conversely, Richmond showed significant under-representation for the elderly when compared to the overall population levels.
The rate of domestic abuse rises to over 25 per 1,000 residents in deprived areas, as opposed to around 7 per 1,000 residents in least deprived areas of Richmond.
The proportion of MARAC cases where at least one child is present, has decreased from 62% to 32% in Richmond. Notwithstanding the reduction in Richmond, the numbers of children exposed to high risk domestic abuse has increased. It is further reported that the escalation in risk of cases being heard has been swifter, and this is typified by an uptick in ‘Emergency MARAC’ meetings that cannot wait until the monthly cycle.
The proportion of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups and MARAC cases heard has also increased from 25% to 27% of all cases in Richmond.
The majority of repeat alerts in Richmond relate to domestic abuse. The volume of domestic abuse factors as a proportion of overall demand has remained fairly static over the financial year. It is noted that Safelives reported that nearly 2 in 3 children (62%) exposed to domestic violence were also directly harmed. In 90% of cases of domestic abuse, children or young people are in the same or next room. In 40% to 66% of domestic abuse cases, the same perpetrator is also directly abusing the children 12.
There has been an increase in referrals where domestic abuse is flagged in Richmond, from 59 to 71 (+20%). Of the 72 enquiries, 36 of these enquires related to people with mental health and substance misuse issues and 5 enquiries were related to historic abuse. Adult services report that the level of enquiries where domestic abuse was flagged underwent a gradual increase, that may be explained by the cumulative effect of lockdown and/or the level of training given to council officers and other professionals, alerting them to domestic abuse.
There have been modest increases in housing admissions owing to domestic abuse, from 1.3% to 1.4% (8%). There have been significant increases in homelessness admissions where the reason is domestic abuse.
Richmond provides 15 units of accommodation that run at capacity throughout the financial year. These units are base budget funded.
In Richmond, the Community Safety Service have supported the implementation of projects to support the crime against the elderly work as one of our priorities for the service. This has involved working closely with both Richmond and Kingston Accessible Transport (RaKAT) and Dial-a-ride Christmas Bus Project which was to provide a safer ride and transport system for potential victims of crime. Community safety also worked with Bluebird Carers to provide scam advice, prevention and training to staff to ensure that the clients they work with across Borough are given the best possible advice and support on never becoming a victim of crime.
A minority of individuals are responsible for a disproportionate number of offences committed in the Borough therefore reduction of reoffending is of major importance. Ministry of Justice data shows that the re-offending rate for adult offenders in Richmond was 23%, which was lower than last year (26%). The current year proportion was also below that of London (27%) and England and Wales (28%).
In November 2018, the CRC caseload for Kingston and Richmond was 379 cases, a reduction of 8.5% on the previous year. The latest data (January 2019) from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) shows that 23% of adult offenders in Richmond went on to reoffend, this was a lower proportion than both London and England, and a reduction compared to the previous year’s cohort (the table below). The rate of reoffences per reoffender in Richmond fell between cohorts and remained below the London and England rates which increased between the same cohorts.
Source: MoJ, Proven Reoffending Statistics, 31/01/2019
Limitations:
The Integrated Offender Management, IOM programme continues to manage some of the most persistent and problematic local offenders in the Borough, though a joint agency approach aimed at reducing offending and its impact. IOM is an evidence-based approach which provides a framework for partner organisations to manage and support violent offenders at highest risk of reoffending. The members of IOM partnership are statutory agencies involved in Offender Management include Police, National Probation Service, Community Rehabilitation Company, together with some departments of the Borough Council including Community Safety Services, Housing Department and Social Services. Third Sector organisations include Battersea Art Centre and the Ace of Clubs. IOM aims to reduce reoffending and increase social inclusion of offenders by working with identified offenders to challenge their behaviour and address the underlying issues that lead to reoffending. This is achieved by assessing individual need and supporting access and engagement with services across the seven pathways to prevent reoffending, as recommended by MOPAC.
The seven pathways are:
Additional issues that affect women on IOM scheme are domestic violence and sexual abuse.
The IOM Scheme works with a target group of offenders. This includes offenders classified as causing repeated high harm to others and communities. They are domestic violence perpetrators, robbers, burglars, knife carriers. In the financial year 2018/19 Richmond the IOM cohort was comprised of 30 offenders.
The high-risk prolific offenders who are on IOM cohort often have complex needs such as dual diagnosis, combination of drugs misuse and mental health problems, or personality disorders. It is still not clear what is the provision of coordinated services for this client group. We need to understand the provisions across the Borough to meet the needs of dual diagnosis clients or those with complex needs. This is going to require better joint working between all the IOM partners. There is also lack of behavioural change programmes for violent perpetrators. Without this provision the effectiveness of reducing re-offending will be limited.
The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) refers to serious violence as a Public Health issue that causes ill-health through fear, injury and loss, affecting individuals and whole communities. In order to tackle serious violence and the devastating impact it has on families, victims and communities in the Borough, Richmond Council Community Safety has successfully received Violence Reduction Unit funding to support multiple key projects to address the root causes of serious violence.
Serious violence is defined by the South West Basic Command Unit (BCU) and the Community Safety Partnership as the crime types of violence with injury and knife crime, with some overlap between the two:
Crossover between the two strands e.g., knife violence will feature within serious wounding or assault with injury. Serious Violence Performance and Trend Data. This overview provides a brief analysis of Police Crime Data and London Ambulance Service callout data, both correct to December 2019 (the table below).
Source: Metropolitan Police Service. Crime Data Dashboard Note: Rank O. London shows Richmond rank compared to the 19 other Outer London Boroughs. 1 = lowest rank
Source: Metropolitan Police Service. Crime Data Dashboard
Over the past three years, 21% of recorded violence with injury has taken place in the wards of South Richmond and Twickenham Riverside, as shown the table below.
Over 3 years, knife crime classified as robbery has been most common in South Richmond, Mortlake & Barnes Common, and Twickenham Riverside wards. Knife crime classified as violent was most common in Mortlake & Barnes Common, Heathfield and Hampton North. Over 3 years, ambulance callouts for assault are most common in South Richmond, Heathfield and Hampton Wards.
Overview of serious violence crime reports (Police data extract): • Approximately 35% of violence with injury crime reports are domestic in nature. • In the past year, 69% of knife crime was classified as robbery and 31% as violence. This has gradually shifted over the past 5 years (2015 saw 40% robbery, 56% violence).
Source: Metropolitan Police Service, CRIS (Crime Recording Information System)
In the past year, assault with Injury offences have been slightly more common between 1400 and 1959 hours. For the past three years, Saturday has generally been the most frequent day for offences (the figures below).
Analysis of suspect demographics should be interpreted with caution due to:
The analysis below has been conducted on a per crime report basis i.e., percentage number of crimes with a victim or suspect in a demographic group (age, ethnicity or gender). Therefore, percentages can tally to more than 100 due to the potential for multiple victims and suspects.
Over five years, approximately 43% of violence with injury crime reports had one or more victims aged 25-44 years (the table below). 17% of reports had one or more victims aged 18-24 years (6% of population).
Source: Metropolitan Police Service, CRIS (Crime Recording Information System) Note: Does not include those victims where demographic details were not captured
Approximately 18% of violence with injury crime reports had one or more non-white victims.
Approximately 67% of serious wounding had a male victim (27% female, 6% both), in contrast to assault with injury which was more evenly split (45% male, 51% female, 4% both).
Over five years, approximately 47% of violence with injury crime reports had one or more suspects aged 25-44 19% of reports had one or more victims aged 18-24 (vs. 6% of population), the table below.
Source: Metropolitan Police Service, CRIS (Crime Recording Information System) Note: Does not include those suspects where demographic details were not captured
Approximately 21% of violence with injury crime reports had one or more non-white suspects. Over the past 12 months, 30% of serious wounding crime reports had a non-white suspect, compared to 21% the previous year. 80% of serious wounding and 70% of assault with injury offences had one or more male suspects.
Over five years, victims of knife robbery are most likely to be under the age of 25 years, 48% of reports with at least one victim aged less than 18 years, and 28% of reports with at least one victim aged 18-24 years. Victims of knife violence are older, 41% aged 25-44 years and 30% 18-24 years. The 18-24 year old age group is disproportionality represented, (only 6% of population).
There is a disproportionality within ethnicity, particularly knife violence, where 27% of crime reports have a non-white victim.
Male victims are most common, particularly within knife robbery (87% vs. 61% knife violence). Similar trends exist within suspects of knife crime, with a younger cohort of suspects and over-representation of the 18-24 years age group and males. However, within ethnicity, while the same disproportionality is seen, it is greater within knife robbery (54% reports with a Black, Asian minority Ethnic suspect) than knife violence (28%).
Over the past 3 years, the 15-29 age cohort accounted for 47% of ambulance callouts for assault (compared to 14% of the population).
Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) affects lots of people and can have an impact on a person, their home and their community. People may think that an incident is small to start with, but anti-social behaviour can go on for a long time and become very serious.
Richmond Council produce an Annual Community Safety Strategic Needs Assessment which is a statutory annual analysis of crime and disorder that informs the Community Safety Partnership Plan. The following priorities were taken from the 2019 needs assessment with data covering a 5 year period Jan 2015 – Dec 2019:
Not all anti-social behaviour is classed as crime but some of it can lead to it becoming a crime. The Annual Strategic Needs Assessment concludes Richmond was the lowest crime rate in London during 2019. Crime was relatively stable during 2019 (+1.2% vs. London +8.7%).
Reports of Anti-Social Behaviour received by the Police in Richmond increased by 14% in 2019, total of 3,874. In comparison, London increased by 12%. The wards that had the highest reports were North Richmond and South Richmond Wards (the figure below).
Source: Metropolitan Police Service, DARIS (Demand And Resource Information System)
The Community Safety Service commissioned two digital products to tackle crime and disorder across the Borough, a new Online Watch Link (OWL) system which residents can sign up to and receive alerts messages straight from their local police and council officers on issues happening in their area, and a new CCTV Watch through this system which has supported the police in their investigations.
The Borough has an ECINS, a case management system that allows agencies to share information on both locations such as crime hot spots and also high-risk individuals.
The high-risk cases that are often referred to the Community Safety Team, to be presented at a forum such as the Community MARAC, often have complex needs such as dual diagnosis.
The council works closely with its partner organisations to share information in order to keep residents safe. A part of this work is planning for upcoming events or seasonal crime trends known to impact those living in Richmond. In the past year this has involved developing an Autumn and Winter Nights Plan which looks at targeted patrols in hot spot locations, test purchases, licensing visits, and communication with residents and businesses.
The partnership also prepares for the next seasonal trends during the summer period using multi-agency problem solving plans, led by Community Safety Officers to prepare for the potential and anticipated issues
The partnership works with the Park Guard Team who manage the Richmond Public Spaces Protection Orders PSPO, on ASB issues at locations across Richmond. Since 2017, all parks and open spaces have been controlled by Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs). These orders impose various restrictions to dog control and antisocial activities in Richmond parks and open spaces to ensure that public spaces are safe and enjoyable for everyone to use. The Orders were renewed on Thursday 15 October 2020 for a further three years.
Tackling Serious Violence is a Community Safety Partnership Plan commitment. Community Safety is coordinating a number of projects through Violence Reduction Unit (VRU) funding to provide a holistic approach to addressing serious violence through a number of youth and young adult mentoring and engagement programmes.
Tackling Crime and anti-social behaviour within our communities requires a problem-solving approach, and joint working of agencies across different sectors. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires the Local Authority to form a statutory partnership which is known as the Richmond Community Safety Partnership Board. The Board has developed a strategy to deal with the prevention of crime, reducing reoffending, serious violence, substance misuse and anti-social behaviour. This will be refreshed for the following three years in line with the next Mayor’s Policing and Crime Plan.
Health care system plays an important role in our health but the largest contribution to our health of illness is made by social and economic factors and the environment. Some factors that determine our health, such as age, gender and hereditary, cannon be modified. Other factors, such as health behaviours or impact of social or economic factors, can be modified or mitigated through individual and collected action and effective programs and policies.
The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019 provide a set of relative measures of deprivation for small areas (LSOAs) across England. An LSOA of rank 1 is the most deprived in England and an LSOA of rank 32,844 is the least deprived. Using these rankings, we can group LSOAs into quintiles of deprivation (1 being the most deprived and 5 the least). More information on deprivation in Richmond, including heatmaps and area reports can be found on the DataRich website.
The Borough ranks within the least deprived third of Local Authorities nationally for five of the seven deprivation domains (Barriers to Housing & Services; Education, Skills & Training; Employment; Health Deprivation & Disability; Income). Amongst these, Richmond has become relatively less deprived in the Barriers to Housing & Services domain, ranking 242/317 in 2019 compared to 190/326 in 2015. Like 2015, Richmond is the least deprived LA in England in terms of Education, Skills & Training, securing the highest rank of 317 in 2019.
Richmond ranks as relatively more deprived against other Local Authorities in England for the Living Environment and Crime domains (the figure below). Despite a slightly higher ranking compared to 2015 (48/326), the Borough ranks amongst the 20% most deprived Local Authorities nationally (55/317) within the Living Environment domain. For the Crime domain, Richmond ranks amongst the 50% most deprived LAs nationally (146/317) again, despite a slightly higher ranking compared to 2015 (146/326).
Source: Index of Multiple Deprivation via Gov.uk, 2015-2019
The table below compares Richmond deprivation to the rest of England, where the quintiles represent the most to least deprived groups across England. The figures show that less than 1% (0.8%) (n=1,468) of the Richmond population are living in areas that are ranked in the 20% most deprived in England 13. This makes up only one small area (LSOA) in Richmond, which is placed within the Hampton North ward. There are no areas in Richmond ranked in the top 10% most deprived in England.
Source: Index of Multiple Deprivation via Gov.uk, ONS population estimates (mid-2018)
Using the same IMD rankings, we can also group the LSOAs in Richmond into quintiles of deprivation for Richmond only. This means comparing deprivation scores within Richmond, rather than to the whole of England. The table below displays that there are 39,404 people living in the most deprived areas of Richmond. These are small areas that fall into the top 20% of deprivation compared to the rest of Richmond. Of these people 8,593 are children and 7,529 are adults over 60 years.
Health conditions are poorer in the top quintile for deprivation in Richmond. 5.2% of people living in the most deprived areas of the Borough have bad or very bad health (the figure below). This is compared to 3.3% in all other areas of Richmond. In addition, 50% living in these areas consider themselves to have very good health. This is lower than the remaining population in Richmond 57.3% 14.
Source: Custom area report via DataRich
The Social Mobility Index provides local level estimates for 533 parliamentary constituencies in England. It provides an indication of how likely a person from a disadvantaged background in each constituency is to progress to a higher social status later in life. It compares constituencies in England using 14 variables which represent the four life stages: early years, school age, youth and adulthood. Standardised scores for each life stage were added together to give an overall Social Mobility Index (SMI) score.
In 2017, London Boroughs generally scored well on the SMI. Richmond ranked 31 of 324 (within the top 10% best performing) local authorities in England 15. In 2018, of 533 constituencies in England, Twickenham’s SMI score was 44.70, ranking it 72nd and Richmond Park’s SMI score was 43.26, ranking it 74 16.
Richmond Park ranked considerably lower in the youth stage index (359) than Twickenham (100), falling amongst the bottom 20% constituencies for those reaching a positive destination after KS4. Twickenham ranked notably lower in the school stage index (209) compared to Richmond Park (41), largely attributed to Richmond Park ranking amongst the top 20% of constituencies for school quality and secondary school attainment. Both constituencies came amongst the bottom 20% nationally for the Housing Affordability ratio.
London Output Areas Classifications (LOAC) 17 are based on 60 variables from the 2011 census and help to summarise the sociodemographic characteristics of an area. CDRC visualises the LOACs in an interactive map.
Table 20 demonstrates the differences between Richmond, Outer London and London with respect to the major classification categories. The London Life-Style classification dominates in Richmond, accounting for 63% (385) of the Borough’s 615 Output Areas (OAs), the only London Borough where this group dominates so strongly. The second largest classification is the Ageing City Fringe, and the third largest is Intermediate Lifestyles. The descriptions below explain the key attributes of these classifications. Please note that these are area-based classifications that provide a broad overview, they will not apply to every individual. Compared to London, Richmond has a notably lower proportion of areas classified as High Density & High Rise Flats, Urban Elites, and City Vibe. The Borough also has notably lower proportions of Settled Asians and Multi-Ethnic Suburbs compared to Outer London. Across these groups, there are several similarities that are disparate to Richmond’s key characteristics including a younger age structure (including more school-age children and students), a large representation of BME groups and a higher population density. Where City Vibe and Urban Elites do exist, these tend to be in the east of the Borough, in the Richmond wards, Kew and Barnes. There is also a cluster of Settled Asians and Multi-Ethnic Suburbs in Heathfield and Whitton.
London Life-Cycle: Predominantly White ethnic composition with households covering the full family life-cycle, fewer households with students or dependent children compared to London. Residents are highly qualified, employment rates are high and employment is concentrated in technical, scientific, finance, insurance and real-estate industries. 69% (267) of London Life-Cycle OAs (or 43% of the total 615 OAs) fall within the ‘City Enclaves’ subcategory, defined as having a younger age structure and evidence of residents from pre-2001 EU states. London Life-Cycle defines much of the Borough, particularly the internal areas (less prominent in outer wards).
Ageing City Fringe: Many residents aged over 45 years and many above the state pension age. High levels of marriage and established white residents very much in evidence. Relative to London, representation of ethnic minorities and EU migrants is low. Levels of qualifications are low, as might be expected for these age cohort. Levels of unemployment are very low. The Ageing City Fringe is most prominent in the outskirts of Richmond, namely in East Sheen, Whitton, Heathfield, Hampton North and Hampton.
Intermediate Lifestyles: Predominantly those in later stages of Life-Cycle, White and born in the UK with few dependent children. Employment is average for London and tends to be in intermediate occupations. Levels of highest qualifications are below the average. Intermediate Lifestyles are scattered throughout the Borough with no clear geographical pattern.
Source: London Data Store, London output area classifications
The place we live in influences our health. Built environment is the human-made environment that provides a setting for human activities i.e. work, live and play. These range in scale from park, houses, factories to highways. Healthy built environments are walkable and bikeable, access to diversity of essential and desired services, include green spaces and places for people to meet and mingle. Such environments support physical and mental health of local population by providing a desirable and safe place to live, and allow making healthy life choices easier (e.g. exercise, walking, healthier food options, cycling).
Richmond upon Thames is an Outer London Borough composed of eighteen wards that cover an area of 22.2 square miles - 57% of this area is made up by over 100 parks and open spaces. A number of these are synonymous with the plentiful heritage sites and attractions that the Borough offers such as Kew Gardens, Hampton Court Palace, Richmond Park, and Bushy Park. Richmond also has 21 miles of river front and is the only Borough where residents live on both sides of the river.
The Borough has five larger town centres: Richmond, Twickenham, East Sheen, Teddington and Whitton, as well as several local centres including Barnes, Kew, St Margarets and Hampton Village. These centres host between 10 and 15km of high street offering a variety of retail outlets and eateries 18.
As an Outer London Borough, Richmond residents tend to use personal vehicles more than the London average. Despite this, fewer kilometres are being travelled by cars on Richmond roads, and the Borough has more active commuters than elsewhere in Outer London. This has had the effect of on air quality/emissions and over time improving physical health.
Air quality is a London wide issue with 6.2% of Richmond’s mortality being attributed to air pollution; this is higher than England but lower than London. Since 2010, the Borough has seen a decrease in emission of CO2, NOx and other pollutants. The largest sources of pollution locally were road transport, construction, and industrial and domestic health and power.
Richmond is one of the safest London Boroughs. London has seen four consecutive years of crime increase and this is also the case in Richmond. This increase has been driven by rises in violent and vehicle crime. However, within the last year the Borough saw a decrease in the number of offences apart from robbery which saw an increase of 35%. Personal robbery increased by 25% in 2017/18 from the previous year and victimisation of the elderly increased with Richmond town centre being a prominent location.
Hate crime was lower than London with those existing offences being racist or religious in nature.
The majority of Richmond’s residents own their property with a mortgage and 1 in 3 own their property outright. Median house prices are the highest in outer London, and the Borough ranked 6th highest across London with the median house price being £650,000- higher than the London and England.
The rate of homelessness in the Borough was lower than the London rate but similar to England. Rough sleeping numbers in the Borough increased from the previous year to 128 rough sleepers, with three-fifths being of UK nationals.
The Access to Health Assets and Hazards (AHAH) 19 index from the Geographic Data Science Lab is designed to measure how “healthy” neighbourhoods are. The index is multi-dimensional with data being drawn from several sources and used to create an overall AHAH index, as well as four constituent domains:
The AHAH is produced for Lower Super Output Areas but when these measures are averaged across Local Authorities (LAs), Richmond ranks within the bottom third (219/326) of all Local Authorities in England. Although the Borough has good access to healthy lifestyle choices, ranking within the top 2% of LAs in the Physical Environment domain (4/326) and the top 10% of LAs in the Health Services domain (25/326), unhealthy environments are also accessible to residents, ranking within the bottom 10% of LAs for Retail Environment (295/326) and Air Quality (296/316).
The London Boroughs Healthy Streets Scorecard 20 is designed to measure progress towards meeting the Mayor’s Transport Strategy ‘healthy streets’ targets. The scorecard considers sustainable travel, road safety, road characteristics and traffic. Amongst other areas in Outer London, Richmond ranks within the bottom third of London Boroughs (24/32) on the Healthy Streets Scorecard. Relative to other areas, the Borough could improve most by increasing its proportion of 20mph speed limit roads, increasing its proportion of protected cycle tracks, and reducing the number of cars per household.
Richmond’s transportation assets include the SWR Mainline into London Waterloo, the London Underground District Line and London Overground services from Richmond station. Major roads running through the Borough include the A316 (between Hampton and Mortlake) and the A205 (between Kew and Barnes), which amongst other routes, support major bus services. There are also several bridges that allow easy access between the north and south side of the river and various bike hire schemes.
The majority of the Borough’s residents use public transport to commute to work (44.2%). Although this is a smaller proportion than in Outer London and London (the table below), Richmond has the highest rate of active travel (walking and cycling) in Outer London. In combination, the proportion of local residents using either public transport or active travel for work (59.9%) is greater than the Outer London average (55.5%). Still, a third of residents commute by car and van (35.7%), proportionately this is less than Outer London (39.8%) but more than London (29.5%). This could be attributed to variable access to frequent public transport services across the Borough.
Source: Census 2011 via Nomis
Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) are a TfL measure that rates locations by distance from frequent public transport services. Richmond is amongst the six Boroughs with the worst average PTAL score across London . Although residents in Richmond and Twickenham benefit from a variety of regular services, large areas of the Borough (e.g., across Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside, Hampton and Heathfield) are less well served (the figure below).
Source: TfL WebCAT Tool 21
According to the 2011 Census, a quarter of households in Richmond do not have access to a car or van. Half of the Borough’s households have a single car, a larger proportion than both London (41%) and England (42%), whereas multi-vehicle households are more common in Richmond (25%) than in London (18%) but less common than England (32%) .
There were 553 (1%) more Private or Light Goods vehicles registered in Richmond in 2018 (79,062) compared to 2008 (78,509). The majority of these were private cars, for which registrations increased by 2% over the 10-year period 22. Although this is not the reduction that some Boroughs have seen (e.g., 21% reduction in Wandsworth), it is also not the increase that other Boroughs have experienced (e.g., 16% increase in Barking and Dagenham) and is likely to be fewer cars per household given the increase in housing stock over the period (see housing section below).
Additionally, 83 million fewer kilometres were travelled by cars on local roads in 2018 (590 million km) compared to 2008 (673 million km), a decrease of 12%. This was amongst the top half of London Boroughs for reductions in car flows 23.
Tenure: In Richmond, the majority of residents own their own property (the table below) 24. In 2019, 34% of dwellings were owned outright, which is higher than the London proportion for the same year. This rate has risen from 2012 where 31% of dwellings were owned outright. Those owning with a mortgage followed a similar pattern, with 30% of Richmond dwellings being owned with a mortgage in 2019, compared to 25% in the London region.
Locally, the proportion who rent from the council or housing associations (11.7%) is almost half as much as the London region (22%). Equally, those renting from a private landlord (23%) is less than the London average (27%).
Source: ONS
House prices: The median house price in Richmond in 2020 was £675,000, which is the highest median price compared to Outer London Boroughs. Richmond ranked 6th highest in London for median house price, the highest being Kensington and Chelsea with £1,265,000. Richmond was also higher than the London and England median house price of £483,000 and £249,000 respectively. The latest data from December 2020 shows that the highest house prices were seen within Barnes where the median price was £1,500,000. The lowest was seen in Hampton North where the median house price was £430,000 25.
Affordability (Buying): In 2020, the median ratio of house prices to resident earnings in Richmond was 18.66. This is higher than the value for London at 11.78. This data is collected by the Office for National Statistics where the median property price/income is determined by ranking all property prices/incomes in ascending order. The point at which one half of the values are above and one half are below is the median 26.
Affordability (Private Renting): The Office for National Statistics provides a summary of the annual monthly rents recorded per a 12 month rolling period per Borough. This report found that between 2020-2021, the average price for private rented properties was £1,837 per month, which is higher than the average for London at £1,623 per month and higher than England £864 per month 27.
Home building: In 2019, there were 85,564 dwellings in Richmond, a 3% increase since 2012 28. The latest data as of 2020 shows that the number of dwellings per hector in Richmond is 14.96, lower than both Outer London 16.62, and London 23.12.
Council Housing: As of 2021 there were no council properties in the Borough as all housing stock was transferred to the Richmond Housing Partnership, a private registered provider of social housing. This has been consistent since 2011, prior to that in 2010 there were 46 of these property types 29. The number for households waiting for local authority housing in Richmond on the 1st April 2021 was 4,893 30.
Good quality and stable housing is vital to the health and wellbeing of the Borough’s population. Homelessness remains a significant challenge in Richmond and across London as a result of several factors, including difficulty accessing and maintaining private sector accommodation. Whilst renting costs in Richmond are lower than they were in 2016, housing in the Borough remains less affordable than across London. The Council is undertaking a range of work to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, as set out in its Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2018-2023, with a focus on preventative measures.
London Councils are seeing an increased demand from households approaching homelessness. In April 2018, the Homelessness Reduction Act significantly changed homelessness legislation by placing new duties on Councils and an increased emphasis on prevention. The act brought challenges for Richmond Council, but also provided an opportunity to tackle homelessness proactively at the earliest possible stage.
Rough sleeping is also a significant challenge in the Borough and across London. In 2018, the Government published a National Rough Sleeping Strategy which aims to end rough sleeping by 2027, accompanied by £100 million funding. The COVID-19 pandemic has put additional pressures in tackling homelessness in the Borough, and ensuring rough sleepers are protected. This has presented the Council and local partner agencies with a unique opportunity to properly assess the needs of individuals, and tailor the support and housing offer to meet those needs. Following the outbreak of COVID-19, new legislation was put into the place to accommodate all rough sleepers as part of the Government’s “Everyone In” campaign. The protocol has seen entrenched rough sleepers, who have previously not engaged with rough sleeping services, taking up offers of temporary housing, and people new to rough sleeping, not becoming entrenched.
In 2020/21 the biggest cause of homelessness, measured by temporary accommodation TA admissions was eviction by friend or relative (31%, the figure below). This figure highlights the number of residents reliant on friends or family for a place to live.
Due to emergency legislation suspending any evictions by social or private rented accommodation during the pandemic, there have been a very small number of TA admissions due to loss of privately rented accommodation. The impact of this suspension is especially evident when comparing the figures to previous years, with 34% of admissions in 2018/19 due to private evictions next to only 5% in 2020.
Source: Housing Services statistics, 2020/21
Under homelessness legislation, a household must be assessed as being in priority need to be assisted under the main housing duty by a Local Authority. For cases considered under this main housing duty in 2020/21, dependent children or pregnancy was the most common way households met this criterion (45%, the figure below). Significantly, almost a quarter of households were considered in priority need due to mental health issues or learning disabilities, increasing the risk of losing their accommodation.
The Council has statutory duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act to undertake work to prevent or relieve homelessness. This includes working with applicants to develop a personalised housing plan, helping to maintain current accommodation where appropriate, and identifying other housing options available. Further to this, the Council has a statutory duty to provide accommodation to those deemed to be eligible due to immigration status, homeless, and in priority need, under the Housing Act 1996.
The Council successfully bid for Government funding to further develop the rough sleeping pathway in the Borough. Local rough sleeping charity SPEAR has operated in Richmond for over 30 years and the Borough boasts a well-established rough sleeping service. Additional funding has been used to build on these existing local provisions including the expansion the outreach service and greater assistance with accessing health and substance misuse services. The new ‘navigator’ roles and in-house interventions such as the local lettings service also help rough sleepers access and maintain private accommodation. The Council continues to bid for Government funding streams to maintain and enhance this model.
Since April 2019, the Borough’s rough sleeping provision has increased exponentially as the Council maximised resources made available through Government initiatives such as the Rough Sleeping Initiative (RSI) and Rapid Rehousing Pathway (RRP). In response to Government guidance, the Council has ensured rough sleepers have been protected from the effects of COVID-19. In particular, the Council has ensured levels of rough sleeping have remained low during the three lockdown periods (23rd March to 1st June 2020, 1st November to 2nd December 2020 and 19th December 2020 onwards) by offering emergency accommodation to individuals verified as bedded down, regardless of clinical vulnerabilities or immigration status.
The introduction of a Rough Sleeper Team in January 2021 has proven invaluable, and as of 1st April 2021, the Council had successfully rehoused 55 rough sleepers into settled accommodation. Furthermore, the introduction of the Rough Sleeper Team has enabled a rapid housing and support needs assessment in house and forms the basis of the new rough sleeping pathway.
There has been an increase in the use of temporary accommodation with 311 households in temporary accommodation at the end of 2020/21, compared with 283 in 2018/19 (the figure below). However, it remains a challenge for the Council to place homeless applicants within the Borough, with 43% located in other south-west London Boroughs, and 5% elsewhere. This is often problematic for families with children attending school, and single people accessing specialist services.
Source: Housing and Regeneration Department Data and Government Statistics (MHCLG)
In 2018, Richmond was home to 15,115 local business units; of which 93.1% were micro (employing less than 10 employees) and 0.3% are large companies (employing over 250 employees). Of those enterprises that formed in 2012, 44% survived up to 5 years.
Additional information on local business and employers can be found on DataRich.
Gross value added (GVA) is a measure of the increase in the value of the economy due to the production of goods and services. The Borough’s total GVA in 2017 was £6,123 million. The largest industry group was real estate which contributed £2,048 million to the total GVA. Apprenticeships are paid jobs that incorporate on-and off-the-job training, leading to nationally recognised qualifications. They can earn as they learn and gain practical skills in the workplace. In 2017-18, 32% of Richmond’s apprenticeships were achieved in Business, Administration and Law, 20% were achieved in Health, Public Services and Care, and 20% in Retail and Commercial Enterprise.
The following analysis is extracted from the 2011 Census based on the workplace population. The workplace population in a Local Authority is defined as the population were individuals who live and work in the Local Authority, and individuals who work in the Local Authority but live outside the Borough.
Compared to London, Richmond had a higher proportion of residential services, almost 2.5 times more than London. Which include occupations such as classroom assistants, domestic assistants and self-employed cleaners. The Borough had a lower proportion of integrating and independent service providers (these are characterized by high levels of self-employment and a significant number working part-time), and city focus compared to London, as shown in the table below. GLA Data Store hosts an interactive visualization tool.
Data Source: London Data Store, https://data.london.gov.uk/census/lwzc/visualisation-tool/
Notes:
The Borough has a range of health care assets:
Richmond upon Thames has a thriving and vibrant voluntary sector with over 800 local voluntary organisations providing services and activities.
In Richmond, the percentage of people reporting volunteering in the past 12 months dropped to 28% (2013/14–2015/16) compared to 49% (2010/11–2012/13). In London the percentage has stayed steady around 25% 31.
Mayor of London. Cleaner Vehicles. 2019.↩︎
Achakulwisut P, Brauer M, Hystad P, Anenberg SC. Global, national, and urban burdens of paediatric asthma incidence attributable to ambient NO2 pollution: estimates from global datasets. Lancet Planet Health 2019 Apr 10.↩︎
GiGL. URL: https://www.gigl.org.uk/ ↩︎
Mayor of London. Cultural Infrastructure Map.↩︎
Richmond Government website. Licensed religious buildings.↩︎
London Borough of Richmond: Town Centre Health Checks 2013 Full report↩︎
Wikipedia London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames.↩︎
Reservations supplied within 7 days. CIPFA↩︎
Those in the Borough aged 18 – 24 years claiming benefits as of March 2020 - 2021. Nomis Labour Market Profile↩︎
Centre of Cultural Value: Impact of Covid-19↩︎
URL: https://www.richmond.gov.uk/council/how_we_work/policies_and_plans/culture_richmond ↩︎
Source: Safe Lives↩︎
Gov.uk. File 1: index of multiple deprivation. 2019. Data used: 2019.↩︎
Data Rich. Custom Area Reporter – Custom Health Report. 2011. Data used: 2011↩︎
Social Mobility Commission Social mobility index: 2017 data↩︎
House of Commons Library Constituency data: Social Mobility Index by constituency (SMIC), 2018↩︎
London Data Store, London Output Area Classification, 2014.↩︎
Ordinance Survey. OS Maps Britain’s High Streets. 2019.↩︎
CDRC Maps Indicators: Access to Healthy Assets & Hazards Index 2 (Geographic Data Science Lab), 2017 ↩︎
CPRE London Boroughs Healthy Street Scorecard, July 2019↩︎
Transport for London WebCAT Tool, PTALs.↩︎
London Datastore. Licensed Vehicles - Numbers, Borough. 1997-2018. Data used: 2018.↩︎
London Datastore. Traffic Flows of all vehicles and cars only. 1993-2018. Data used: 2018↩︎
London Data Store. Housing Tenure by Borough (ONS Annual Population Survey). 2019.↩︎
Office for National Statistics. Average House prices by Borough and Ward, 1995-2020. Data used: 2020.↩︎
Office for National Statistics. Ratio of house prices to earnings, Borough. 1997-2020. Data used: 2020↩︎
Office for National Statistics. Average private rents, Borough. 2020-2021. Data used: 2021↩︎
MHCLG. Live tables on dwelling stock (including vacants). 2020.↩︎
London DataStore. Local Authority Housing Stock (MHCLG). 2019↩︎
Housing Services Statistics, Richmond Council. Households on Local Authority Waiting List. 2021.↩︎
London Data Store. Volunteering Work Among Adults, 2008-2016. Data used: 2016)↩︎
Up to: Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA)
Updated: 25 September 2024
Stay up to date! Make sure you subscribe to our email updates.
