id
stringlengths 40
40
| text
stringlengths 101
3.75M
| source
stringclasses 1
value | added
timestamp[s]date 2025-03-31 00:00:00
2025-03-31 00:00:00
| created
timestamp[s]date 2025-03-31 00:00:00
2025-03-31 00:00:00
| metadata
dict | attributes
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9264d6d9390bd79685bffab6ee8750145176952b | There is now widespread consensus that institutions matter crucially for development, but what are ‘institutions’? This first IPPG Briefing Paper discusses institutions in general with later Briefing Papers focusing on economic, social and political institutions, and illustrative cases and problems.
All human societies are characterised by more or less complex and overlapping networks of regular social interactions and practices. Whether economic, political or cultural, such repeated interactions require agreed and predictable rules – ways of doing things; such sets of rules constitute institutions. Language, for example, can be understood as an institution, constituted by the rules governing the use of sounds for meanings and communication, likewise, systems of marriage or burial are institutions which vary greatly over time and place, their specific forms being shaped by the rules which govern them. Unemployment insurance systems, relations between genders or age groups, educational practices and provision, and labour markets are also governed by rules, or institutional arrangements. Economic activity – whether silent barter, the operation of stock markets, the conditions for opening a new business or obtaining credit – is shaped by ‘the rules of the game’ (North, 1990) which forbid some forms of behaviour and encourage others, the form which such rules take may either hinder or promote growth. Politics is also profoundly influenced by rules which steer political behaviour in different directions, consider the contrasts between politics in federal and unitary systems, or between presidential and parliamentary systems, or between proportional representation and first-past-the-post electoral systems – all of which structure politics and distribute power in different ways.
Institutions can be formal or informal; formal institutions are normally established and constituted by binding laws, regulations and legal orders which prescribe what may or may not be done. Informal institutions, on the other hand, are constituted by conventions, norms, values and accepted ways of doing things, whether economic, political or social; these are embedded in traditional social practices and culture which can be equally binding. So, for example, laws which grant, recognise and protect individual land ownership establish formal institutions governing property rights in land, whereas communal systems of land tenure may be thought of as informal, embodying rules which have been established by custom and convention and do not permit private ownership, purchase or sale. Both institutional arrangements have different implications – institutions which ensure strong property rights in land (or anything else for that matter) may enhance productivity by enabling owners to use their property to obtain credit and inputs, but may also deepen inequality, (by giving rise to landlessness, for example). The institution of communal tenure, on the other hand, may guarantee access to land for subsistence, but may not promote growth through increased productivity. Likewise, formal political institutions – the rules expressed in constitutions and electoral laws, for instance, or in the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary – are supposed to set the rules about political behaviour, the use of legitimate power and authority, decision-taking and patterns of governance; but there are also informal political institutions – patron-client relations, old boy networks, guanxi in China, for instance – which embody private forms of power and influence, and which may operate behind, between and within the formal institutions, hence substantially influencing how public power is used to make or prevent decisions that benefit some and disadvantage others. Institutions are neither static nor neutral, they distribute advantage and disadvantage in different ways, and there will always be winners and losers in the course of establishing or changing them. Sudden and radical institutional change does occur, but generally, institutions change slowly through the politics of modification and reform as different interests and ideas compete to get the most out of the rules. Nonetheless, institutions are best thought of as durable social rules and procedures, formal or informal, which structure the social, economic and political relations and interactions of those affected by them. The great French scholar, Émile Durkheim (1895/1938:lvi), observed that social science is ‘the science of institutions, of their genesis and their functioning’.
The interesting and difficult questions to answer, therefore, concern 1) how institutions are established, maintained and changed; and 2) how the many and varied social, economic and political institutions, both formal and informal, interact with each other – within and between societies, in complementary or conflicting ways, to promote or hinder pro-poor growth and development.
REFERENCES
Durkheim, E. (1895/1938) The rules of sociological method. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3358-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4618,
"total-output-tokens": 1013,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3770,
1
],
[
3770,
5195,
2
]
]
} |
df052770ef0914b6b7332ffe945fa65922f9d07f | ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Economic institutions have re-emerged at the centre of attention in development economics after a long period when their existence and smooth functioning was assumed in the hypotheses of neo-classical economics. Recent analyses using cross-country regressions – see, for example, Rodrik, Subramanian & Trebbi 2002 – suggest that it is the quality of institutions that is the single most important difference between those economies in the developing world that have grown strongly and those that have not.
However, these insights have not necessarily produced useful guides for policy-makers. It is one thing to recognise the importance of institutional quality, but quite another to specify what makes for quality and to suggest how it may be improved. As a first step towards understanding more about institutions and their quality, three questions arise: how are economic institutions created, how do they function, and with what effects? To begin to answer these questions, we need a working definition of economic institutions and an associated set of concepts.
DEFINING INSTITUTIONS
Definitions of institutions vary – see Box A; most would accept the idea that institutions comprise norms, regulations and laws that establish the ‘rules of the game’ – that is, that they condition and modify the behaviour of individuals and groups so that their actions become more predictable to others. They do so through both formal rules that include laws and contracts and, as well as through informal means such as social norms and conventions that evolve over time. This use of ‘institution’ is quite different to that where it is taken as synonymous with ‘organisation’.
Box A: Definitions of economic institutions
‘Essentially, institutions are durable systems of established and embedded social rules and conventions that structure social interactions’ (Hodgson 2001 p.295)
‘A social institution is a regularity in social behaviour that is agreed to by all members of society, specifies behaviour in specific recurrent situations, and is either self-policied or policed by some external authority.’ (Schotter 1981, quoted in Langlois 1986 p.11)
‘Institutions are rules, enforcement characteristics of rules, and norms of behaviour that structure repeated human interaction.’ (North 1989)
‘Institutions are ‘repetitive patterns of interaction through which society undertakes certain functions.’ (King 1976)
‘Wide sense: persistent groups of norms of behaviour which serve collectively valued purposes; or in narrow sense of , a set of rules to facilitate co-ordination via allowing expectations to form.’ (Nabli & Nugent 1989) Institutions can also be seen as constitutional, they set the rules by which the game is played; it is this that distinguishes them from the wider set of economic policies – see Box B.
By narrowing the definition to economic institutions, those institutions that perform economic functions are covered; of these, three sets can be identified:
- establishing and protecting property rights;
- facilitating transactions; and,
- permitting economic co-operation and organisation.
Table 1 presents examples of the institutions that perform these functions, together with the agencies both formal and informal that regulate such functions. It will be noted that some of the institutions that have economic functions may not exist primarily for economic reasons – for example, councils of elders.
The definition of economic institutions can be expanded and discussed by asking three key questions about institutions, namely:
- How are institutions, which affect economic growth and its distribution established, sustained and changed?
- What determines their effective functioning? How is this related to the social, cultural and political matrix from which they arise and in which they operate? How much do they depend upon formal endorsement by the state?
- How do institutional interactions influence economic growth, the pattern of growth and, specifically, the possibilities for pro-poor growth?
**How are economic institutions formed?**
Institutions emerge in two ways: either informally through repeated interactions between individuals or organisations that establish expected norms of behaviour; or else formally through deliberate design. In the latter case, it may be government that establishes the institution, or it might be an initiative from private enterprise or civil society. In both cases, it can be argued that institutions are created and evolve in response to the uncertainty, risk and information costs associated with living and transacting in an imperfect world. Institutions are thus rational mechanisms designed to cope with the imperfections of markets, including the asymmetry of information held by different actors, the problems that principals have in ensuring that their agents pursue the same goals, etc. This explains why seemingly ‘irrational’ and inefficient institutions such as share-cropping have persisted as ways to solve such imperfections.
Whatever the origin of the institution, the more widely it is recognised the better it will function and such recognition reaches its maximum expression when the norm is endorsed by the state as legally binding. Not all institutions require the support of governments, but some do in order to remove ambiguity and to provide legal backing for the norms in question. Institutions may be seen as public goods in that their benefits (and costs) are shared by all in the economy, no matter who took the trouble to establish them. This suggests that many institutions will require action by governments to create and implement the norm.
Most institutions are not lightly changed, even when clearly imperfect or outdated. Institutions are valued for the predictability that they bring to the system; frequent change and experimentation to established norms is thus not usually encouraged. Moreover, particular institutions can confer rights and advantages to particular groups in society who will use their power to prevent changes that undermine their advantages. There is thus the possibility of path dependency in that once certain institutions are in place, then other norms and behaviours ensue, thus reinforcing patterns of development and restricting the range of options for policy.
Discussion of new institutions or changes to institutions is often intense, parties recognise the implications of creating new ‘rules’ for the game or of changing them and each will fight for their own interests. The political economy of institutional change is therefore important in that they may evolve to confer privileges on particular groups, whether or not the institutions are efficient and effective for society as a whole, and once in place may be difficult to change. An additional consideration is that those administrating the rules may also resist change simply owing to the thereof.
**How do economic institutions function?**
An important point is that the functioning of an institution is not necessarily to be inferred from its
______________________________________________________________________
2. Not all institutions, of course, necessarily confer benefits on all in society. Far from it. For example, formal limitations on the property rights or rights to carry out certain sorts of business, that may apply to specific ethnic groups, or women – not to mention institutions such as slavery – are all real-world examples of institutions that confer benefits for some, but impose high costs on others. form. For example, very similar institutions exist in many countries that govern the collection of bad debts, but how long it may take to recover such debts can vary greatly, depending on the details of administrative requirements and the efficacy of the legal system. Similarly, there are often significant differences in the extent to which property owners feel secure in their rights, even when the form of entitlement may be the same. The study of institutions thus requires detailed investigation of actual functioning, rather than merely recording the apparent form.
Functioning may be determined by deeper underlying norms in society on matters such as the extent of generalised trust, and individual freedom versus obligations to wider collectives. More generally, then, institutions are often embedded in social and cultural characteristics of the particular context.
**Table 1: A classification of economic institutions**
| Function | Examples | Typical formal regulating agency | Informal regulating agency | |----------|----------|----------------------------------|---------------------------| | Property rights | Establish rights; decide between competing claims; inform non-owners & police | Land tenure | Land registries | | | | Inheritance law | Probate registry | | | | Intellectual property rights: patents, copyright | Patent offices | | Reciprocity: facilitating transactions | Weights, measures, standards | Standards bureaux | Oral history, chiefs & other local political authorities | | | Establish rules of exchange, respect for contracts | Contract law; dispute arbitration | Custom | | | Provide information | Public information on markets | Civil courts; arbitration councils | | | Reduce or re-allocate risk | Physical provision & organisation of markets (e.g. auction rings, stock exchanges, futures markets) | Market information agencies | | | | Banking conventions, instruments (letters of credit, etc.) | Local authorities; stock exchanges/bourses | | | | Auditing & accounting conventions | Bank regulatory agencies | | | | Insurance companies | Professional associations | | Co-operation & Organisation: | Laws on limited liability & bankruptcy | Register of companies | Professional associations | | | Allow | Competition policy | Social norms of co-operation | | | • Interactions within organisations | Regulations on co-operatives, charities, civil associations | Custom | | | • Collective action & co-operation (in labour, price negotiation) | Auditing & accounting conventions | | | | • Realising economies of scale and managing diseconomies of scale | Employment regulations | |
**How do institutions affect economic growth and poverty reduction?**
The functioning of institutions potentially affects three factors that help determine economic growth, thus:
- **Investment:** when property rights are secure, owners of capital are more likely to invest, all other things being equal. If it is easy to trade, obtain credit, retain a reasonable share of the profits (that is, without excessive taxation) and to insure against risks, investment is again encouraged. Investment may also be stimulated when establishing companies or more informal economic groups, (and the organization of their
______________________________________________________________________
3. There is a fourth factor, widely recognised in the literature – human capital. It is not obvious that economic institutions affect this directly – although it might be argued that when economic institutions function well, and economic growth accelerates, there is greater incentive for governments and individuals to invest in human capital. functioning) is relatively straightforward.
- **Technical innovation**: again, secure intellectual property rights are likely to promote private investment in research and development of innovations.
- **Economic organisation**: is likely to be more effective and efficient, delivering the benefits of specialisation and economies of scale where they apply, when institutions facilitate transactions and co-operation between individuals, whether in formal companies or less formal co-operatives.
It is easy to imagine that there will be reinforcing interactions between the factors. For example, economies that generate technical innovations readily and where economic organization is efficient are likely to be seen as having a good business environment and consequently likely to attract investment, thus it may well be that sets of institutions function in synergy to generate growth.
Institutions are also likely to have a profound influence on the pattern of economic growth and the distribution of rewards within economies and societies – and thereby affect levels of poverty. Property rights will clearly be important, since they assign entitlements to factors of production and may also affect the bargaining power of different groups in society. More subtle are the ways in which institutions governing transactions and economic co-operation allow those without immediate access to factors of production to obtain credit, rent land, trade and to form small companies or co-operatives, and thereby earn their livelihoods.
**REFERENCES**
Langlois, Richard N., 1986, 'The New Institutional Economics: an introductory essay', in Richard N. Langlois (Ed.), *Economics as a process: essays in the New Institutional Economics*. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
North, D C., 1989, 'Institutions and economic growth: an historical introduction', *World Development*, 17 (9), 1319–32.
Nabli, M. K. & J. B. Nugent, 1989, 'The New Institutional Economics and its applicability to development', *World Development*, 17 (9), 1333–1347.
Rodrik, Dani, Arvind Subramanian & Francesco Trebbi, 2002, 'Institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over integration and geography in economic development', *IMF Working Paper*, WP/02/189. Washington DC, International Monetary Fund.
Hodgson, Geoffrey M., 2001, *How economics forgot history*. London, Routledge.
King, Roger, 1976, *Farmers co-operatives in northern Nigeria*, PhD thesis. Reading, University of Reading.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3359-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 11319,
"total-output-tokens": 2808,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2673,
1
],
[
2673,
7508,
2
],
[
7508,
11096,
3
],
[
11096,
13574,
4
]
]
} |
2e8b21ffacaa0def61ed86b31d8a0fd71b5a2ab9 | City of York Council
Follow-up data protection audit report The matters arising in this report are only those that came to our attention during the course of the audit and are not necessarily a comprehensive statement of all the areas requiring improvement.
The responsibility for ensuring that there are adequate risk management, governance and internal control arrangements in place rest with the management of City of York Council.
We take all reasonable care to ensure that our audit report is fair and accurate but cannot accept any liability to any person or organisation, including any third party, for any loss or damage suffered or costs incurred by it arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this report, however such loss or damage is caused. We cannot accept liability for loss occasioned to any person or organisation, including any third party, acting or refraining from acting as a result of any information contained in this report. Contents
1. Background (follow-up assessment) page 04
2. Follow-up audit conclusion page 05
3. Summary of follow-up audit findings page 06
4. Background
1.1 The Information Commissioner is responsible for enforcing and promoting compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). Section 51 (7) of the DPA contains a provision giving the Information Commissioner power to assess any organisation’s processing of personal data for the following of ‘good practice’, with the agreement of the data controller. This is done through a consensual audit.
1.2 The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) sees auditing as a constructive process with real benefits for data controllers and so aims to establish a participative approach.
1.3 The original audit took place at City of York Council’s (CYC) premises on 18-20 August 2015 and covered records management, subject access requests and data sharing. The ICO’s overall opinion was that there was limited assurance that processes and procedures were in place and being adhered to. The ICO identified considerable scope for improvement in existing arrangements in order to achieve the objective of compliance with the DPA.
1.4 90 recommendations were made in the original audit report. CYC responded to these recommendations positively, agreeing to formally document procedures and implement further compliance measures.
1.5 The objective of a follow-up audit assessment is to provide the ICO with a level of assurance that the agreed audit recommendations have been appropriately implemented to mitigate the identified risks and thereby support compliance with data protection legislation and implement good practice.
1.6 A desk based follow-up took place in June 2016 to provide the ICO and CYC with a measure of the extent to which CYC had implemented the agreed recommendations. This was based on management updates from CYC signed off at Board Level. 2. Follow-up audit conclusion
| Scope area | Number of recommendations in each scope area from the original audit report | Number of actions complete, partially complete and not implemented. | |--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Records Management | 41 | 13 Complete | | | | 27 Partially complete | | | | 1 Not implemented | | Subject Access Requests | 25 | 6 Complete | | | | 19 Partially complete | | | | 0 Not implemented | | Data Sharing | 24 | 12 Complete | | | | 12 Partially complete | | | | 0 Not implemented |
Section 3 below summarises the main findings of this review and highlights any residual high risk areas. 3. Summary of follow-up audit findings
3.1 CYC has partially completed the majority of recommendations made by the ICO. Whilst it is disappointing that CYC has not completed more recommendations within the agreed timescales, it would appear that many recommendations will be completed in the next 3 months.
3.2 Senior management have recently approved a new project management approach that incorporates privacy impact assessments.
3.3 CYC have introduced a tracing system to ensure that services actively manage the whereabouts of records retrieved from storage.
3.4 27 of the 41 records management recommendations are partially complete. In multiple cases the non-completion of the recommendation is partially or wholly attributed to the need to complete a review of the records management policy. Therefore, the review of the records management policy should be prioritized to allow other recommendations to be completed.
3.5 19 of the 25 subject access requests recommendations are partially complete. In multiple cases the non-completion of the recommendation is partially or wholly attributed to the need to complete a review of the subject access request process. Therefore, the review of the subject access request process should be prioritized to allow other recommendations to be completed.
3.6 Any queries regarding this report should be directed to, Michael Stephenson Lead Auditor.
3.7 Thanks are given to the Information Governance and Feedback Team Manager who was instrumental in providing the information to complete the follow-up audit.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3360-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 13816,
"total-output-tokens": 1276,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
61,
1
],
[
61,
962,
2
],
[
962,
1105,
3
],
[
1105,
2877,
4
],
[
2877,
4965,
5
],
[
4965,
6526,
6
]
]
} |
f456ca2e410f7015d35e86cd378bbfbd503a7a44 | Islington Pioneer Programme – Profile
1.1 What is your area like?
Although Islington has a reputation as a wealthy borough with some of the highest house prices in the country, it is a borough of contrasts, with rich and poor living side by side.
- It is the 5th most deprived borough in London and 14th most deprived in England
- 13% of the population live with one or more long-term condition
- More than 30,000 adults have a mental health problem, with the highest incidence of psychotic disorders in England
- A seven-year gap in life expectancy between men in the highest income group and those in the lowest
- A 10% gap in attainment between the most affluent and least affluent children by the time they leave primary school
- One of the highest levels of child poverty in the country
1.2 What are you aiming to achieve?
Islington’s vision, “Working together to deliver better care with the people of Islington”, reflects a desire to develop more co-ordinated and person-centred care for our residents and to use integrated care to improve the overall health of our population.
Key aspects of our vision for better care include:
- Greater prevention and early intervention to prevent people becoming acutely ill or losing their independence
- Planning within a life course approach
- Supporting people to manage their own health conditions
- Personalised services with care designed around the individual
- A locality offer that brings integrated care closer to communities
- Improving care pathways, eg for long-term conditions, children, mental health and last years of life
- Facilitating those aspects of our work that make the vision possible – workforce development, contract form and information technology
We will know we have succeeded when we have:
- Improved patient/user experience
- Improved health and care outcomes and reduced health inequalities
- A sustainable health and care system with an efficient locality-based model of care and a lean acute provider sector
- A system that can manage growing demand so that our residents receive the right care, in the right place at the right time The business case for integrated care focuses on 28,000 people or the intensive users of services with the following features:
- Over half are under 75 years old
- Saving £11m through reducing acute activity
- Investing £8.7m for the first three years to build community capacity
- Investment to develop new services for co-ordinated home and community care, earlier diagnosis and better management
- In years 2-5 evaluate impact, and where successful scale up across the system
1.3 What have been the highlights of your first year?
- **Understanding the local system** through risk stratification, systems resilience planning, collaborative work and a robust Better Care Fund (BCF) plan
- **Developing new ways of working** including proactive ambulatory care, an integrated community ageing team, proactive work with care homes across health and care, an integrated psychiatric liaison and assessment team, locality navigators and community paediatric nurses
- **Developing co-production and personal approaches** by linking personalised health and social care budgets, co-production, collaborative care planning and self-management
- **Developing a locality offer** learning from local pilots and eight ‘test and learn’ sites
- **Developing our enablers** including integrated information technology, a Community Education Provider Network (CEPN)
- **Developing new commissioning approaches**, for example value-based commissioning for diabetes and psychosis
1.4 Details of the year
Integrated care is one of four key strategies for Islington Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). We have a board that meets bi-monthly with representation from across the CCG, the council, providers, local Healthwatch and the co-chair of the Making it Real Board (overseeing personalisation of social care) who is a patient and user of local services.
The headings below describe progress over the past year in a number of key areas.
1.4.1 Understanding the local system
- We have used a tool to risk stratify our population and agreed the target cohort. This is the top 2% at risk of hospital admission or long-term care plus those where clinical judgement highlights benefits from co-ordination
- Through our systems resilience planning we have “walked through” patient journeys from A&E, to wards and discharge to understand how patient flow works in our local system. This has led us to understand bottlenecks and to manage flow • We have developed a collaborative approach across health and social care – bringing frontline staff together for learning as well as undertaking more detailed analysis when things go wrong • Our BCF plan was developed in line with our integrated care plans
1.4.2 New ways of working
A proactive model of ambulatory care with pathways into the community enables people to be cared for at home instead of hospital, for example by administering IV antibiotics at home, a virtual ward and rapid response function. This has increased system resilience, for example, A&E performance in 2014/15 has been maintained at 2013/14 levels within the Whittington health economy.
New services to support integrated working include:
• The Integrated Community Ageing Team (ICAT) delivering a community geriatrician service. This is now extending from care homes to supporting older people in their homes.
• Integrated Liaison and Assessment Team (ILAT) providing access to mental health assessment and treatment at A&E and on the wards, showing an excellent impact on length of stay and a downward trend in admissions and readmissions:
| Oct 2014 - Sep 2015 | Whittington Baseline (any MH diagnosis) | ILAT intervention | |---------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------| | AVLOS (days) | 5.56 | 2.59 | | Readmission rate | 10.22% | 2.27% |
• Locality navigators – beginning January 2014, providing low-level support, advice and signposting to community services.
Building capacity in primary care including:
• Paediatric nurses providing support and advice to practices. Special areas include asthma, gastro-oesophageal reflux, constipation • Community pharmacists employed to support medicines management for older people in the community – plans now in place to bring pharmacists into GP practices. 1.4.3 Developing co-production and personalised approaches
We have worked with social care colleagues to develop one point of contact across health and care for the personal health budget (PHB) offer. We now have 20 people using PHBs, the majority with continuing healthcare needs although mental health is now building. Eight GP champions have worked with us to develop our approach and to promote the offer to patients.
The joint Council/CCG Making it Real Board has operated for over a year and is co-chaired by a service user and the service director for Adult Social Care. An important part of this first year has been training up experts by experience. An action plan sets out key priorities for the group for 2015.
A new locally commissioned service covers all long-term conditions with the intention of expanding collaborative care planning and promoting supported self-management. This is using the principles of the House of Care framework that we believe has already made an impact (measured through the LTC6 questionnaire).
We have also rolled out of Patient Activation Measures (PAM) to help us to understand our population, people’s ability to manage their conditions and to consider how to target interventions most effectively.
1.4.4 Developing a locality offer
- In 2014 we evaluated our multi-disciplinary (MDT) teleconferences in operation, discussing around 500 patients since November 2012. Early findings included:
- 27% reduction in A&E attendances,
- 25% reduction in inpatient admissions
- 4% decrease in outpatient appointments
- Evidence of patients feeling heard
- Piloting new approaches, for example, bringing together social care and community therapists to deliver co-ordinated care in the N19 postcode area, leading to a reduction in the number of ‘handoffs’ in the system and improved patient/user and staff satisfaction. See case study: N19.
- Developing a model of integrated health and care teams based on in eight GP practice test and learn sites. See case study: Locality model of integrated health and care.
- Developing a home from hospital model for children with agreed pathways into hospital services when needed.
- Through a mixture of quantitative and qualitative assessment we are trying to use a process of continuous quality improvement to understand what is working well.
1.4.5 Developing our enablers
- We want to develop three local IT solutions namely:
- Integrated digital care record
- Integration engine that will enable IT inter-operability (we are now at the point of commissioning this facility)
- Person-held record • Public and patient participation with a focus on overcoming barriers to access, co-production of care plans, and feedback informing commissioning. • Launch of Community Education Provider Network in April. See case study: Developing the workforce. • New ways of commissioning for outcomes using value-based commissioning as a model – leading for North Central London to develop value-based commissioning approaches for diabetes and mental health.
1.4.6 Communicating with our partners and the public A communications strategy with a weekly bulletin, an animation and public facing posters: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-6d87ykhQ&feature=youtu.be)
1.5 What has been the most exciting aspect? Being chosen as an integration pioneer site has generated a huge amount of energy among our partners and clinical leads. Senior-level interest has been instrumental in developing system leadership and partnership, moving us from a small “community of interest” to what we hope will be a movement for change. It has been great to see GPs and hospitals around the table.
1.6 What has been the most challenging aspect? • Alignment of priorities across the system – financial challenge for some organisations has an impact on driving change • Good quality local data – for example we have not yet been able to bring social care data into our risk stratification tool and find it difficult to understand impact across the whole system • Governance – being clear what decisions can be made by the board, how financial and investment decisions are made and the extent to which the programme is driven equally by partners. • Commissioning arrangements and provider models – supporting the development of primary care so that we build capacity for delivery is an iterative process and one which requires commissioner as well as provider leadership. • Contract form – moving from traditional payment by results contracts to supporting integrated models • Scaling up our locality offer – moving from test and learn to universal coverage. • Cross border flows – work is beginning with other boroughs to understand the cross border flows, particularly in relation to our registered and non registered populations.
1.7 What are you planning to do next year? • We will continue to build on the work of 2014/15 in order to develop a full locality offer. This will include: o A clear focus on prevention o Services that are person centred and support self-management o Community health and care wrapped around primary care
- Proactive, rapid responses, with interface between hospitals and the community
- Developing a single point of access across health and care
- We have started the procurement for an integration digital care record
- We will develop workforce plans under the Community Education Provider Network
- We will be running a shadow year for our value based commissioning. We will build learning into the development of a commissioning framework for the locality
1.8 What is your advice for areas starting on their own integration journey?
Whole-system transformational change will only occur if we have the right leadership in place. We have found it invaluable to have mentoring/coaching support for the senior leadership team. Understanding financial issues is one area where the group will need to come together to explore implications in an open and honest way.
Through the pioneer programme we have had an experienced programme enabler who brings board members together to reflect, share and challenge – we know that if we want to shift the workforce to a new ethos and culture, we need to start at the top.
Clear communications – have a communications plan with different communication channels so that you are in constant touch with stakeholders and can keep up the energy for integration.
Co-produce with staff and patients/users – systems leaders have given the mandate for change, but change will only happen if it is co-produced with staff and users/patients.
Contact: Clare Henderson, Integrated Care Programme Director Islington CCG/Islington Council Email: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3361-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 14904,
"total-output-tokens": 2931,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2122,
1
],
[
2122,
4548,
2
],
[
4548,
6481,
3
],
[
6481,
9079,
4
],
[
9079,
11594,
5
],
[
11594,
13190,
6
]
]
} |
21a54e6f307b38a0f83001d141a139b9923fd387 | North York Moors National Park Authority Planning Committee
16 February 2017
Tree Preservation Order 2016/2 – Trees on land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold
1. Purpose of the Report
1.1 To seek Members’ approval to confirm Tree Preservation Order 2016/2.
2. Background
2.1 A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was made on the 19 August 2016 relating to trees on land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold. This order took provisional effect from the date it was made and requires to be confirmed within 6 months of this date. The protected trees are specified by reference to a group and therefore the Authority can take any of the following three actions;
- Not confirm;
- Confirm as served;
- Confirm with modifications to specify individual or groups of trees.
A plan showing the location and extent of the area is at Appendix 1.
2.2 The site is a garden area within the curtilage of the Old Post Office, to the east of the property and fronting the main street. The trees are readily viewed on passing the site and the roadside trees are prominent when approaching the site from the west along the village street.
2.3 The initial consideration of a TPO was in response to information received from a member of the public who was concerned that trees were about to be imminently removed. The site was also subject to an ongoing planning application (NYM/2016/0576/FL) that could have had a potential impact on the trees.
2.4 An external arboricultural consultant carried out a site assessment for the Authority on the 18 August 2016 with a recommendation that a provisional TPO be served to prevent trees being removed until the planning application is considered. The TPO was authorised by Andy Wilson CEO on the 19 August 2016.
3. Site Details
3.1 The group contains 16 trees which are plotted on the plan and listed in the schedule at Appendix 2. The species are a mix of conifer and broadleaves typical of garden planting with the exception of the ash and sycamore which have most likely established through natural regeneration. Many of the trees have been planted in close proximity to each other and this is reflected in the unbalanced crowns of a number. 3.2 The arboricultural consultant contracted by the Authority reported that the overall amenity value of the trees as a group was sufficient to consider a TPO. The Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) was followed and a survey data sheet completed. The score was 15 where a score of 12 to 15 indicates a TPO is defensible and a score of 16 or more definitely merits a TPO. The consultant also reported that not all the trees on the site were likely to be appropriate for a TPO and that the provisional order may need to be modified at confirmation.
4. Objections and Representations
4.1 The public have 28 days to comment on new Orders, which are publicised in accordance with Authority procedures and the TPO regulations. Objections and representations must be taken into account by planning authorities before they decide whether or not to confirm an order, or whether or not to modify it upon confirmation.
4.2 There have been three responses to the TPO and these are reproduced at Appendix 3. These are from the landowner, planning applicant and the land owner’s arboricultural consultant. Specific objections relevant to the order are described below along with a summary of officers’ responses.
1. The landowner states he had received requests from a member of the parish council to prune the vegetation that was causing issue to the use of the telephone box. He had also received a letter from a local business whose vehicles were impeded by overhanging vegetation. In response to these concerns he had informed his tenant that he was about to trim the shrubs and saplings to address the issues. This was just prior to the contact made to the Authority concerning tree removal. It is not possible for officers to determine the reason the concern was raised and therefore officers acted correctly on the available evidence. The Woodland Officer has explained the circumstances to the landowner and has informed him that he can still carry out works to trees to maintain clearances over the highway and footpath as exemptions under the TPO regulations.
2. Subsequent to the TPO being served the landowner employed A Whitehead Associates Limited to carry out a tree survey and make comments in respect of the TPO. In respect of the TPO Mr Whitehead challenges the TEMPO score produced by the Authority. Mr Whitehead has carried out the same process on a number of trees on the site and his findings are that only the beech tree individually merits a score appropriate for a TPO. The Woodland Officer does not dispute the scores provided and therefore has not responded.
3. Mr Whitehead has also provided the tree survey required for the planning application and made some recommendations in respect of the planning application. He has acknowledged the value of the trees at the east and west of the frontage and has provided a revised plan showing how these trees could be successfully retained within the development. The Woodland Officer has submitted comments in respect of the planning application that the revised details would be acceptable in respect of the impact on trees.
4. **Comment**
5.1 The main grounds for objection to the TPO are the suitability of the trees. Mr Whitehead is correct in his assertion that a number of the trees would not score sufficient points under the TEMPO individually. This is principally due to the fact that many of the trees have been planted quite close together and not thinned out leading to unbalanced crowns and other dysfunctions. However from an amenity point of view this aspect does not entirely detract from the contribution they make at the edge of the village at this time. The TEMPO score is only provided as an aid to decision making and it is the Authority's responsibility to make its own assessment of amenity value.
5.2 **Appendix 4** provides images of the site from both the east and west. There is a wooded backdrop to the area and there clearly is an issue with trees encroaching over the road and path. It also shows how close some trees are to each other. Particularly for the conifers, thinning out the trees at this late stage will significantly reduce the amenity value. In the medium to long term felling and replanting of these would likely be required. It should be made clear that many of the trees here cannot be retained long term and therefore the effect of the TPO would only be to ensure that replanting could be conditioned and the amenity value of these trees retained.
5.3 The expediency test was met at the time of serving the provisional TPO by the fact that a planning application to develop the site was under consideration and also an unconfirmed report that tree work was planned. Subsequently the planning application was revised to accommodate acceptable tree retention, which could have been enforced by a planning condition. The application was later refused on grounds unrelated to trees. The current level of threat is lower, but planning officers advise that this site could be subject to an appeal or future development proposals. The area falls outside the village Conservation Area, and therefore without a TPO the trees could be legally removed. The land owner has stated in his letter that he had only intended to “trim the shrubs and saplings and tidy the place up”.
5.4 Officers are recommending that the TPO is confirmed with modifications to restrict trees protected to the two groups of trees G1 and G2 that contribute the most to the amenity of the location and shown on the modified plan at **Appendix 5**. The excluded trees 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 are not on balance considered to provide sufficient benefit and were not considered worthy of protection in relation to the recent planning application. The images at **Appendix 4** illustrate the visibility of the groups. G1, the group nearest the building contains no trees suitable for long term retention and it would be our expectation that they would require replacement in the future. G2 the group to the east contains several trees that can be retained in the long term, but it would again be our expectation that some trees will justify removal and their replacement assessed at the time.
6. **Financial and Staffing Implications**
6.1 None.
7. **Contribution to National Park Management Plan**
7.1 The relevant Management Plan policies are:
- E40. Individual and groups of trees that are of amenity and conservation value will be protected and new tree planting will be encouraged, where appropriate.
8. **Legal Implications**
8.1 An authority cannot confirm an Order unless they have first considered any duly made objections or other representations.
8.2 The legislation provides no right of appeal to the Secretary of State against an authority either making or confirming an Order.
8.3 The validity of an Order cannot be challenged in any legal proceedings except by way of application to the High Court on a point of law.
9. **Recommendation**
9.1 That Tree Preservation Order 2016/2 - Trees on land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold is confirmed with modification to reduce the number of trees protected to the two groups G1 and G2 as shown on the modified plan at Appendix 5.
Contact Officers
David Renwick\
Director of Conservation
Mark Antcliff\
Woodland Officer
01439 772700
**Background papers to this Report**\
None. A. Wilson Chief Executive (National Park Officer) The Old Vicarage Bondgate Helmsley York YO62 5BP
North York Moors National Park Authority
TREE PRESERVATION ORDER. No. 2016/2
Chief Executive (National Park Officer) | Tree | Species | |------|-----------------| | 1 | Pear | | 2 | Lawson Cypress | | 3 | Lawson’s Cypress| | 4 | Golden Cypress | | 5 | Apple | | 6 | Beech | | 7 | Cherry | | 8 | Cherry | | 9 | Lawson Cypress | | 10 | Sycamore | | 11 | Lawson Cypress | | 12 | Lawson Cypress | | 13 | Ash | | 14 | Juniper | | 15 | Lawson Cypress | | 16 | Lawson Cypress | 6th September 2016
North York Moors National Park Authority The Old Vicarage Bondgate Helmsley York YO62 5BP
Dear Sir/Madam
Tree Preservation Order 2016/2
Land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold
I am writing to you to explain the situation regarding the land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold.
I have received a Notice from the National Park that they have put a tree preservation order on all the shrubs and trees in the garden which I feel very embarrassed about. This would not have happened if Mr Robson had not kindly offered me the plot to build myself and partner and two children a house on. I was born and brought up in Coxwold, with my parents and grandparents and it is beneficial to my job, working with livestock, that I live in the Coxwold area. I have worked for the Robson family since leaving school and I understand from my mother that Mr Robson has owned the property, firstly for Mr Robson’s parents to live in and latterly the property has been let to professional people who could afford to pay a gardener to keep the garden in good shape. Unfortunately, in the last few years the garden has been neglected, the shrubs and trees have not been pruned resulting in the problem there is today. If I had not applied for planning permission this issue would not have come to light. I hope I have made you fully aware of the situation as I feel very responsible for and I beg you to please remove this TPO.
As you may not know Mr Robson is a man of his word and he will not do anything to this garden that is not in the gardens best interest and that of the residents of Coxwold village.
Yours faithfully
N J Bulmer Mr M Antcliff\
North York Moors National Park Authority\
The Old Vicarage\
Bondgate\
Helmsley, YO62 5BP
New Manor Farm\
Carlton Husthwaite\
Thirsk\
YO7 2BP
12th September 2016
Dear Mr Antcliff
Whatever happened to common sense?
As you aware a TPO order has been placed on my property, The Old Post Office, Coxwold and anybody with an outside view would wonder why. A planning application has been made by one of my employees to build a house for him and his young family in the village where he was born and lived with his parents. I have agreed to sell him the land which would enable him to live in an area he knows and look after my livestock in the Coxwold area.
During the Spring of 2016 Mrs J Richardson of Coxwold, who is a member of the Parish Council contacted my wife and asked if some of the large saplings which were hanging over the public telephone box in the village, which is in use, could be removed as they were obstructing the doorway. I said at the time I would get someone to do it but simply forgot until several weeks later I received a letter from Ian Mosey Ltd stating that the overgrown saplings were damaging the sides of his lorries.
I have owned this property since the mid 1980’s, I have lived in it myself and then latterly my parents. During this time we paid somebody to keep the vegetation, bushes and shrubs tidy, in shape and not obstructing the telephone box, highway or blocking light to the house. Since my parents were no longer able to live there we have let the property to professional people who have also paid someone to maintain the grounds. Although all tenants are responsible for keeping the garden tidy this has not always been done allowing the vegetation, bushes and shrubs to get completely overgrown. After receiving the letter from Ian Mosey Ltd. it reminded me about Mrs Richardson’s concern, so my wife and I decided to visit the property and we met the current tenants on site, this was not by arrangement. I explained to them about the concerns with the garden and arranged that we would go, hopefully on 20th August 2016 to trim the shrubs and saplings and tidy the place up. The current tenant rang me the next day, was very offhand about the matter and 2 days later the TPO was placed on the property. As the tenants, my wife and myself were the only people who knew of my intentions this made me very suspicious as to who notified the National Park.
I think it is ridiculous that this TPO has been placed on my property which upon inspection is obviously in desperate need of cutting back of overgrown vegetation in the interest and safety of the villagers using the footpath and telephone box and people using the public highway. I feel common sense should prevail and I ask that this matter is given considerable thought.
I feel so disappointed and let down that I would consider contacting the local press so that the people of the village can voice their opinion.
Please find enclosed letter from Ian Mosey Ltd.
Yours sincerely
[Signature] Robson Tractors New Manor Farm Carlton Husthwaite Thirsk YO7 2BP
27th July 2016
Dear Mr Robson
We have been experiencing some issues where some of our Livestock vehicles have been damaged by trees overhanging the road on the approach to Coxwold village, between the old railway bridge and the telephone booth. Our drivers are having to move towards the middle of the road in order to avoid the branches which is obviously a safety concern when there are vehicles approaching from the opposite direction.
Having made some enquiries regarding the ownership of the trees and the property they are on, I believe they may belong to you. It would be much appreciated if you could address those branches that are overhanging the road in order to prevent any further damage to our vehicles.
Should you wish to discuss the matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours Sincerely
Tracy Robinson Group Transport Manager Our ref: 6382
Mr and Mrs T Robson New Manor Farm Carlton Hustwaite Thirsk YO7 2BP
14 September 2016
Dear Mr and Mrs Robson
Re: The Old Post Office, Coxwold
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Thank you for your instructions to survey the trees in the garden of The Old Post Office in relation to the proposed development and, following on from that, to respond to the proposal that the garden trees should be made the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.
1.2 I surveyed the garden trees on 13 September 2016 and enclose a tree survey carried out to BS 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction, a Tree Survey Plan showing the sizes of the trees and their species, a Tree Survey Plan to BS5837 showing the trees’ retention categories and their tree root protection areas, and two schemes, the first showing the minimum level of felling required and the second showing an intermediate level of tree removal.
1.3 Currently, you have a planning application with the National Park Authority to build a house in the garden of The Old Post Office. The scheme proposes removing the Lawson cypress group T26-T30, the Lawson cypresses T18 and T25 and the mixed group T19-T24.
1.4 The period of objection to the TPO is in advance of the consideration of the planning application by the National Park Authority. Therefore it is necessary to consider the trees’ worthiness for a Tree Preservation Order before assessing the development’s possible impact on the site trees.
1.5 The National Park Authority has reviewed the site trees using the TEMPO Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO). The TEMPO system was written by an arboricultural consultant, Julian Forbes-Laird, and is a stripped down version of the 'Visual Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands by D R Helliwell (Arboricultural Association 2003), known as the Helliwell System. I attach a copy of the TEMPO system guidance notes.
1.6 It should be noted that the TEMPO system achieves certain goals in that it is quick and easy to use and responds to the duty to apply a test as compared to simply giving an opinion on whether a tree merits a TPO. The score banding within the TEMPO system is, however, Mr Forbes-Laird's opinion and has not, to my knowledge, been subjected to peer review.
1.7 I have appended the full evaluation of two trees according to the Helliwell system. It is not necessary to argue over every tree at the front of the site. The trees at the front of the site constitute two groups of Lawson cypresses with other trees these being: group T26-T30, close to the eastern front corner of The Old Post Office, and group T19-T24, in the eastern corner of the roadside boundary. There is also a pair of individual cypresses that have close crowns and could also be described as a group, T18 and T25 in the middle of the roadside boundary.
1.8 For the purposes of evaluation of group T26-T30 and the pair of trees T18 and T25, I have taken Lawson cypress T18, because it is the larger specimen of the pair, and Lawson cypress T30 from the group close to the Old Post Office as it is the best formed and tallest tree from that group.
1.9 Mr Clayton (JC), on behalf of the National Park Authority, has scored all the trees under one TEMPO form. Therefore I have taken his scoring and compared it with my scoring for these two trees.
2.0 Golden Lawson cypress T18
a) Condition – good (JC). Score 5
AW
2.1 In order to be scored 'good', the trees must be 'generally free of defects, showing good health and likely to reach normal longevity and size for species, or they may already have done so' (TEMPO guidance notes, p. 2). T18 and T25 are close together. Whether they will achieve their full lifespan is questionable because they will become more distorted with time and this species is susceptible to storm and snow failure.
2.2 The guidance notes also state: 'For trees in good or poor condition that have poor form deduct one point' (p. 2). This squat cypress could not be described as being of good form. It is a poor specimen of its species.
2.3 Therefore the score for T18 should be 4.
b) Retention span in years – 20-40 (JC). Score 2
AW 2.4 Agreed.
c) Relative public visibility – large trees or medium trees clearly visible to the public (JC). Score 4
AW 2.5 Please note that the TEMPO guidance notes (p. 4) advise:
I have not attempted to be too prescriptive here, as TEMPO is supposed to function as a guide and not as a substitute for the surveyor’s judgement. However, I have found that reference to the square metre crown size guide within the Helliwell System can be helpful in reaching a decision.
2.6 Using the Helliwell system, the tree would be described as ‘small’; however the tree is clearly visible from the road. Therefore I have compromised between the scores of 2 and 4 because 4 is for ‘large trees clearly visible to the public’ and, though 2 is for ‘small to medium/large trees’, this is qualified with ‘visible only with difficulty’.
2.7 Therefore the score for T18 should be 3.
d) Other factors – the tree does not have any additional factors (JC). Score 1
AW 2.8 The tree is of poor form and how suitable it is for the location is a matter of debate. Please see my notes for this tree in my assessment of it under the Helliwell system.
2.9 Therefore a fair score for T18 would be 0 which would accommodate the quantum jump to -1 for the debate over suitability.
2.10 Overall score for Part 1 JC 12, AW 9
2.11 Please note that the expediency factor is an ambiguous factor. The legislation makes no allowance for enhancing the suitability of a tree for a TPO due to the risk of its being removed. However, guidance from The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to Local Planning Authorities has been, since the 1990s, that LPAs should not serve TPOs unless there are some grounds for considering that the tree/trees are at risk. Consequently, the expediency factor does not enhance the tree’s worthiness for a TPO but it does indicate whether the Tree Officer should recommend the tree/trees for a TPO.
2.12 Therefore it is not agreed that T18 justifies a TPO.
3.0 Golden Lawson cypress T30 a) Condition – good (JC). Score 5
AW
3.1 In order to be scored ‘good’, the trees must be ‘generally free of defects, showing good health and likely to reach normal longevity and size for species, or they may already have done so’ (TEMPO guidance notes, p. 2). The condition of T30 is ‘satisfactory’ not ‘good’. It is only 1m from T29 and, if T29 was removed, would be a tree with a very mothly crown.
3.2 The guidance notes also state: ‘For trees in good or fair condition that have poor form deduct one point’ (p. 3). This cypress could not be described as being of good form. It is a poor specimen of its species.
3.3 Therefore a score of 3 for T30 is generous.
b) Retention span in years – 20-40 (JC). Score 2
AW
3.4 Agreed.
c) Relative public visibility – large trees or medium trees clearly visible to the public (JC). Score 4
AW
3.5 Please note that the TEMPO guidance notes (p. 4) advise:
I have not attempted to be too prescriptive here, as TEMPO is supposed to function as a guide and not as a substitute for the surveyor’s judgement. However, I have found that reference to the square metre crown size guide within the Helliwell System can be helpful in reaching a decision.
3.6 Using the Helliwell system, the tree would be described as ‘small’; however the tree is clearly visible from the road. Therefore I have compromised between the scores of 2 and 4 because 4 is for ‘large trees clearly visible to the public’ and though 2 is for ‘small to medium/large trees’ this is qualified with ‘visible only with difficulty’.
3.7 Therefore the score for T30 should be 3.
d) Other factors – the tree does not have any additional factors (JC). Score 1
AW
3.8 The tree is of poor form and how suitable it is for the location is a matter of debate. Please see my notes for this tree in my assessment of it under the Helliwell system. 3.9 Therefore a fair score for T30 would be 0 which would accommodate the quantum jump to -1 for the debate over suitability.
3.10 Overall score for Part 1 JC 12, AW 8
3.11 Please note that the expediency factor is an ambiguous factor. The legislation makes no allowance for enhancing the suitability of a tree for a TPO due to the risk of its being removed. However, guidance from The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to Local Planning Authorities has been since the 1990s that LPAs should not serve TPOs unless there is some grounds for considering that the tree/trees are at risk. Consequently, the expediency factor does not enhance the tree’s worthiness for a TPO but it does indicate whether the Tree Officer should recommend the tree/trees for a TPO.
3.12 Therefore it is not agreed that T30 justifies a TPO.
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 In my opinion, neither T18 nor T30 achieves the score of 10 in Part 1 of the TEMPO assessment which means that, under the method, the expediency score cannot be added. Therefore neither tree justifies a TPO. Street views
View from east
View from west – showing canopy outline of groups A. Wilson Chief Executive (National Park Officer) The Old Vicarage Bondgate Helmsley York YO62 5BP
North York Moors National Park Authority
TREE PRESERVATION ORDER. No. 2016/2
Chief Executive (National Park Officer)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3362-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 27729,
"total-output-tokens": 6598,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2185,
1
],
[
2185,
5295,
2
],
[
5295,
8684,
3
],
[
8684,
9532,
4
],
[
9532,
9751,
5
],
[
9751,
10238,
6
],
[
10238,
10238,
7
],
[
10238,
11892,
8
],
[
11892,
14918,
9
],
[
14918,
15840,
10
],
[
15840,
17504,
11
],
[
17504,
19998,
12
],
[
19998,
21985,
13
],
[
21985,
23838,
14
],
[
23838,
24889,
15
],
[
24889,
24969,
16
],
[
24969,
25187,
17
]
]
} |
9459ac370d708c3b43e6044a6bcbb1e6d91c63fd | London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee
Flood Risk Management
An update and guide on how to access funding
Item No: 12
Report by: Nishma Malde Job title: Head of Transport and Environment
Date: 24 October 2013
Contact Officer: Nishma Malde
Telephone: 020 7934 9945 Email: [email protected]
Summary: This paper provides an update on flood risk management and a guide on how local authorities can access funding.
Recommendations: The Committee is asked to:
1. Note progress and discuss what further measures can be taken to encourage uptake of funding by boroughs.
2. Advise their Council Leaders of the upcoming flood levy vote at Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) on the 20 November.
3. Seek guidance from the Leaders Committee on 12 November to inform RFCC representatives voting at Thames RFCC on the 20 November.
Background
1. A paper was presented to TEC Executive on 18 July setting out details about partnership working for flood risk management. The full paper is available here: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/committees/agenda.htm?pk_agenda_items=5382
2. One of the outcomes of the discussion on 18 July was, that it would help boroughs to understand how the funding announced in the Spending Review 2013 (SR13) could be accessed. As part of SR13, the government announced a protected six year capital settlement to improve flood management infrastructure and that it will make available nationally £370m in 2015/16 and the same in real terms each following year, rising to over £400m in 2020/21.
3. It is vital that London gets its fair share of the funding available as compared with the rest of the country the Thames region, including London, has the highest level of flood risk - namely surface water and tidal and river flooding. Further, London has a very significant proportion of the total properties at risk in the Thames region: • 1.3 million properties in London are at risk from surface water flooding(^1) • 534,807 properties in London are at risk from tidal and/or river flooding(^2)
4. As well as flooding properties, flooding also poses significant risks to critical infrastructure including to major road and railway networks, the underground, hospitals, water and electricity supply and sewage treatment facilities.
Progress
5. On 11 September, Members of the TEC Executive visited the Thames Barrier and were presented with a draft “how to access funding guide” by the Environment Agency. This guide has since been revised and is attached at Annex 1.
Role of Elected Members
6. Elected Members are vital to providing strategic leadership and direction for their own local areas as councils have a statutory duty as Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs). They also influence the work of their sub-regional Flood Risk Management Partnerships and the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC).
7. LLFA Members are the only RFCC Members who are permitted to vote annually to set the amount of local levy payable to the RFCC for use by all Risk Management Authorities. This locally generated funding can be used to fund a wide range of projects to reduce flood risk.
8. The majority of the Thames RFCC Members are elected representatives from LLFAs. Seven of these represent groups of London boroughs. To fulfill their role RFCC members representing LLFAs should have an understanding of the following: • Who is the lead contact for local flood risk management in each authority they represent • Duties and responsibilities of LLFAs under the Flood and Water Management Act • Progress of the boroughs with respect to their duties and responsibilities under the Act • Key local flood risk issues in each borough that they represent • Business of the local flood risk management partnership • Any potential flood risk schemes that require funding
Forward Look
9. TEC Members will wish to be aware of the following dates: • 16 Oct 2013 - RFCC discuss draft proposals regarding local flood levy in advance of the decision being taken at the 20 November RFCC meeting • 12 Nov 2013 - London Councils’ Leaders’ Committee paper tabled to discuss proposed flood levy payable in 2014/15 by boroughs to the RFCC • 20 Nov 2013 - RFCC levy vote meeting • Early Dec 2013 - Environment Agency publishes London borough surface water drainage risk maps as part of the requirements of the EU Floods Directive and Flood Risk Regulations 2009.
Recommendations
10. TEC Members note progress and discuss what further measures can be taken to encourage uptake of funding by boroughs.
11. TEC Members advise their Council Leaders of the upcoming flood levy vote at Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) on the 20 November.
12. TEC Members seek guidance from the Leaders Committee on 12 November to inform RFCC representatives voting at Thames RFCC on the 20 November.
Financial Implications
13. There are no financial implications to London Councils arising from this report.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) Drain London figures, December 2011 (^2) National Flood Risk Assessment, Environment Agency, 2012. Legal Implications 14. There are no legal implications to London Councils arising from this report.
Equalities Implications 15. There are no equalities implications to London Councils arising from this report. Annex 1 – How to Bid for Funding for Flood Risk Management
Environment Agency, October 2013
1. Assessing risk and identifying need
London boroughs, in their role as flood Risk Management Authorities (RMAs), have a duty to identify the areas at risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourse flooding, and develop cost effective measures to manage these risks.
Managing flood risk can either be delivered alone or in partnership with other RMAs including other boroughs, water companies and the Environment Agency (EA). The Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) would like boroughs to identify more risk mitigation projects to be delivered over the next 20 years.
Over the past five years, boroughs have undertaken a number of activities including preparing Surface Water Management Plans and Local Flood Risk Management Strategies, from which these measures can be identified. This paper outlines options for identifying need and accessing funding.
2. Funding
Flood and coastal risk management is funded through:
- Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA)
- Local Levy raised by Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs)
- Contributions from third parties.
Allocation of funding is administered by the EA on behalf of Defra. To access funding all RMAs are required to submit project proposals, which are then assessed against a series of pre-defined outcome measures. If the outcome measures are favourable, these projects then become part of a prioritised programme of work and are eligible for some FDGiA funding. Locally, the RFCC manages this programme and identifies the opportunities to utilise the local levy to deliver prioritised projects.
3. Applying for funding - the process
A Project Mandate must be completed explaining the problem and outlining possible solutions including a cost-benefit analysis.
RMAs must also complete a Partnership Funding Calculator which evaluates estimated cost against outcomes e.g. whole-life costs and benefits, number of properties with reduced risk and environmental benefits. The partnership score generated determines the amount of FDGiA to be granted. If this does not cover the total cost of the project then additional funding will need to be sought through the local levy or partnership contributions.
Completing the Mandate form and the Calculator serves as an initial feasibility study, but does not guarantee funding or commit a project to proceed. For projects that the RMA wishes to progress, a further investigation and detailed business case will be needed to gain gateway approvals and comply with Defra/EA project principles.
The more detailed elements of project design are usually completed by engineering consultants and are covered within the overall cost of the project. In addition to consultants already on existing local authority procurement frameworks, there is an option to utilise the wider EA Water and Environmental Management Framework. EA can provide further advice.
______________________________________________________________________
3 A blank copy of the Project Mandate is available from the EA contacts listed below. 4 The Partnership Funding Calculator and explanatory notes can be found on the EA website by following this link: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/122070.aspx 5 More information about the EA’s Water and Environmental Management Framework can be found here: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/procurement/134976.aspx 4. Summary of process
5. Environment Agency support
The Partnerships and Strategic Overview Teams are able to support the boroughs to identify the evidence needed to complete the forms, both at Project Mandate stage and as it progresses. These teams are split across London and a list of main contacts is provided in Appendix 1.
The teams already work closely with the boroughs at officer level and through the flood risk management partnerships. They have been involved in the development of Local Flood Risk Management Strategies and are familiar with integrated local risks. They have an overview of EA led work within the boroughs and can help facilitate joint working. Representative RFCC members would be expected to maintain an awareness of programme prioritised projects within their area and champion their delivery.
Whilst there is an annual cycle of programme approval, the EA would welcome discussions regarding potential projects at any stage of the financial year. Early engagement leads to a greater likelihood that the quality of evidence needed and understanding of any third-party funding options will result in more-robust bids being submitted.
## Appendix 1 – Environment Agency Contacts
| LLFAs | Flood risk management partnership | Partnership & Strategic Overview Team | PSO Team Leader | EA Area Flood Risk Manager | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------------------| | LB Hackney | | | | | | LB Enfield | | | | | | LB Waltham Forest | | | | | | LB Tower Hamlets | | | | | | LB Haringey | | | | | | LB Newham | | | | | | LB Lewisham | | | | | | LB Bromley | | | | | | LB Bexley | | | | | | LB Greenwich | | | | | | LB Havering | | | | | | LB Redbridge | | | | | | LB Barking & Dagenham | | | | | | LB Hounslow | | | | | | LB Barnet | | | | | | LB Brent | | | | | | LB Ealing | | | | | | LB Harrow | | | | | | LB Hillingdon | | | | | | LB Southwark | | | | | | LB Lambeth | | | | | | Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea | | | | | | LB Camden | | | | | | LB Islington | | | | | | City of London | | | | | | City of Westminster | | | | | | LB Hammersmith & Fulham | | | | | | LB Wandsworth | | | | | | LB Croydon | | | | | | LB Kingston upon Thames | | | | | | LB Merton | | | | | | LB Richmond-upon-Thames | | | | | | LB Sutton | | | | |
| London Lee Valley | Cllr Feryal Demirci | London East | Matt Akers | [email protected] | | London South East | Cllr Alan Smith | SE London & North Kent | Jack Hayes | [email protected] | | London North East | Cllr Barry Tebbutt | London East | Matt Akers | [email protected] | | London West | Cllr Dean Cohen | London West | Lee James | [email protected] | | London Central South | Cllr Barrie Hargrove | SE London & North Kent | Jack Hayes | [email protected] | | London Central North | Cllr Timothy Coleridge | London West | Lee James | [email protected] | | London South West | Cllr Russell King | South West London & Mole | Sarah Smith | [email protected] |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3363-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 11736,
"total-output-tokens": 3188,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1914,
1
],
[
1914,
5125,
2
],
[
5125,
5336,
3
],
[
5336,
8759,
4
],
[
8759,
9927,
5
],
[
9927,
16668,
6
]
]
} |
9417ae73f6f7078545a9ed3698d85c42b6124438 | London Borough of Havering
Delivering Efficiency Savings in the Procurement of Agency, Temporary and Interim Staff - A National Exemplar project
PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
PROJECT CLOSURE REPORT
Version: 0.5
Date: 30 March 2010
Author: Hassan Iqbal
Status: Final **Version 0.5**\
**Date of this version:** 30 March 2010
| Revision date | Previous revision date | Summary of Changes | Changes marked | |---------------|------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
**Distribution**\
This document has been distributed to:
| Name | Title | Date of Issue | Version | |------|-------|---------------|---------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Contents
SYNOPSIS OF ORIGINAL BID ......................................................................................... 4
PROGRESS AGAINST INTENDED DELIVERABLES AND OUTCOMES .................. 5
FUNDING AND COSTS .................................................................................................. 5
CHANGES MADE TO PROGRAMME AND WHY ..................................................... 6
MITIGATING ACTIONS TO RISKS, MANAGEMENT OF ISSUES .......................... 6
NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS ....................................................................................... 6
LESSONS LEARNED .................................................................................................... 8
EVALUATION TO DATE ............................................................................................... 9
PROJECT CLOSURE RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 9
BENEFITS TRACKING / LEGACY MATTERS ............................................................ 10
DISSEMINATION OF WHAT WAS LEARNED ............................................................ 10 SYNOPSIS OF ORIGINAL BID
1. The agency staff efficiency savings project was proposed by the London Borough of Havering (LBH) in 2004. Its purpose was to demonstrate how the recruitment and management of agency, interim and temporary staff by London local authorities could be undertaken more efficiently and achieve savings.
2. In particular, the project looked at managed services for agency, interim and temporary staff procurement. A managed service typically acts as an interface between the local authority requiring the staff, and the organisations supplying the staff. A managed service can be provided by an internal local authority department, or by an independent contractor.
3. More specifically, the objectives were:
• to demonstrably improve arrangements for recruiting all types of agency, interim and temporary staff across London, including administrative, clerical, social care, professional and other difficult-to-recruit staff disciplines;
• to make best use of, and build on existing procurement skills, in the specific area of agency staff recruitment;
• to reduce transaction costs in the procurement, implementation and operation of managed services;
• to increase the value added by managed services;
• to encourage the adoption of best practice across all London authorities;
• to identify further opportunities for cashable and non-cashable savings;
• to identify and build long term relationships with managed service providers to ensure continued value for money;
• to identify approaches used in other sectors in order to promote good procurement practice for public bodies;
• to ensure that the quality of and the ability to supply agency staff workers are maintained and improved;
• to ensure that all project deliverables and recommendations recognise the likely impact of equalities, diversity and organisational development policies, as well as community development strategies. PROGRESS AGAINST INTENDED DELIVERABLES AND OUTCOMES
4. The project has successfully delivered:
- An analysis of the use of agency, temporary and interim staff London wide;
- An analysis of LBH as a typical London local authority with unmanaged agency staff expenditure;
- A report, which details options for collaboration across London to achieve further savings;
- A step by step guide for local authorities to enable them to better manage agency staff and achieve savings in this category of expenditure;
- A database to receive and share information regarding the agency workforce across London – the Electronic Knowledge Exchange (EKE);
- 15 London boroughs signed up to the EKE, with the potential for more users to join
- A Managed Services User Group.
5. Some of these achievements are outlined in more detail at paragraph 7 below.
FUNDING AND COSTS
Budget
6. The project started in 2005/06 with a budget for its first phase of £135,000. Not all budgeted funds were spent in 2006 and 2007, and so they were carried forward. In 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 a further £130,000 and £80,000 respectively were budgeted for a project manager and administrative support, EKE hosting and maintenance, communications, managed services venues, ICT equipment and licences, room rent, printing and stationary, travel, supplies, services and miscellaneous expenses.
7. This funding was made available from Capital Ambition and claims for all project costs have been submitted.
Claim for outstanding expenditure
8. A total of £285,653.55 has been paid by Capital Ambition to LBH. Capital Ambition has advised that there remains £24,993.45 of budgeted funds. LBH believed however that there remained £60,000 of budgeted funds, and has performed work to the value of £58,617.81 accordingly. This £58,617.81 is £33,624.36 in excess of the budget which actually remains. LBH nonetheless wishes to claim for the full unpaid amount of £58,617.81. A claim form to accompany this application for payment is attached to this project closure report.
CHANGES MADE TO PROGRAMME AND WHY
9. Some commercial managed service providers had reservations about joining the EKE. They were concerned about disclosing information such as agency mark-ups which they considered to be commercially-sensitive. The EKE was therefore tailored to address these concerns.
MITIGATING ACTIONS TO RISKS, MANAGEMENT OF ISSUES
Issues
10. Issues were managed and tracked on a regular basis. Issues were added to and deleted from the Issues Register throughout the project. One challenging issue related to the change in project managers and project administrators throughout the assignment. Over the course of the project there were four project managers which led to some handover and continuity issues.
Risks
11. There were a number of risks highlighted at the beginning of the project. Risks were managed and tracked on a regular basis by the Project Manager and were added to and deleted from the risk register throughout the project following review and approval by the Project Board.
NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS
Toolkit
12. An initial launch event was held to launch the toolkit for managers. This event was a success with good attendance and excellent accompanying press coverage. The toolkit is now accepted as best practice in the public sector and is being promoted for use nationally by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC). It has subsequently been refreshed and is due for re-publication soon. The last information available showed that the toolkit has had over 20,000 downloads from all over the world.
Electronic Knowledge Exchange (EKE)
13. Harlequin Solutions were appointed to develop the EKE, and initial user group meetings - comprising both procurement and human resources professionals - were held to discuss the outcome of the development. These sessions were attended by: • Corporation of London • LB Croydon • LB Haringey
14. The EKE utilises the databases from member-managed service providers in London, and pools together aggregated, searchable statistics for the agency workforces. The EKE is searchable by selected boroughs and data for comparisons within London includes:
- Pay rates by role
- Numbers of staff
- Total expenditure, and by sub category
- Benchmarking
- Market intelligence
- Trend analysis, to see how everything changes over time
15. The EKE is currently being used by both procurement and HR personnel in participating boroughs, in defining the agency workforce, identifying gaps, skills shortages etc. The EKE is a useful tool for anyone who interacts with their managed service; be it from ordering an agency worker to making strategic corporate decisions about agency staff usage.
16. Data is captured from the managed services by XML in accordance with government data transfer standards (eGIF) and is anonymised so there are fewer data protection implications.
17. The London Heads of Human Resources and SLT sub-group have continued to support the process. Consequently participation in sharing information via the database has exceeded LBH’s initial plans for six London authorities. 15 London authorities in total are currently sharing their data through the EKE and work has been ongoing to bring the others on board. This work continues with all outstanding boroughs to gain engagement. In addition, the project team has presented the EKE to the OGC’s Agency Staff Demand Management group as an initial step towards rolling out its use beyond London.
**Managed Services User Group**
18. The development of the Managed Services User Group has been an extremely successful aspect of this project. All London boroughs now have a managed service of some type in place and forums were held in order to:
- Develop a managed service concept and act as a central point of communication with suppliers about future requirements;
- Share operational and concept innovations;
- Share best practice and lessons learned;
- Share updates in agency worker legislation.
19. The forums have been attended by all of the London boroughs, as well as the Metropolitan Police force, Transport for London, LFEPA, DCSF, Essex County Council, Surrey County Council and the Learning Trust and the evaluation of the events has been extremely positive with average attendance of around 45 people.
**Spend Analysis**
20. A major review has been undertaken on the use and cost of agency, temporary and interim staff across London. The findings from this study have led to the identification of a number of ways in which cashable and non-cashable savings can be made. In addition, opportunities to collaborate between organisations have been noted, and a better understanding of the temporary workforce and future needs thereof can be anticipated.
21. It has been established that almost £600m is spent on temporary staff across London each year and in some authorities temporary staff can comprise as much as 25% of the workforce. Organisations are often in competition for skilled temporary workers, and significant differences have been found between pay rates for similar work, and commission rates.
22. All London authorities have now recognised that benefits can be achieved through better control of these costs and ready availability of management information. All have implemented a managed service of some type achieving annual cashable savings of up to 9%.
23. LBH has achieved savings by implementing a managed service of £400,000 per annum. If LBH is taken as typical of the 33 London local authorities, this could represent savings of £13.2m across all 33 authorities, or approximately £40m of savings over three years.
**LESSONS LEARNED**
24. The principal lessons learnt from this project are as follows:
- Agree the respective roles of the people engaged much earlier. Some of the issues were about people having sufficient time to carry out the functions alongside existing priorities and workloads.
- Project board meetings must be given priority by project board members.
- Confirm clear project objectives (i.e. EKE function) at each project meeting. This would help guide the team in terms of what is achievable. There were a variety of views around its purpose and at certain points in the process these views dominated discussion at the expense of the development.
- Rather than approach the managed service providers in the first instance regarding their participation in the EKE, concentrate efforts on gathering support from the local authorities themselves and asking them to champion the resource with their managed service providers. • Do not rely on a single point of contact in authorities where the issues cross over into different service areas.
• When faced with resistance to participate in the EKE from some managed service providers, ask Capital Ambition to intervene.
• Some stronger intervention by Capital Ambition when project issues were first identified may have minimised some of the delays to overall completion of this project.
• Ensure that keeping up with the pace of day-to-day activity does not come at the expense of checking that originally agreed objectives are on track to be delivered.
• Ensure there is a thorough hand-over when there is a change to the project manager or project administrator.
EVALUATION TO DATE
25. The project has delivered some significant benefits across London and has helped shape the agency / temporary staff market. In terms of value for money (VFM) the project has delivered huge cashable and non-cashable savings for a relatively small outlay.
26. The toolkit is recognised as best practice on a national level and is being promoted as such by OGC. The number of downloads of the toolkit (over 20,000) has far exceeded expectations, and readers are from local and central government as well as the private sector.
27. The EKE is a recognised tool which can assist in providing useful data to help benchmark against other local authorities and make strategic decisions for the engagement of agency and temporary staff. Although 15 local authorities are signed up and participating in the EKE, there needs to be a continued drive to increase the number of participants.
PROJECT CLOSURE RECOMMENDATIONS
28. In completing this project, the project board recognise that there are business continuity elements which need to be addressed. It is the board’s belief that this work should be undertaken by Capital Ambition who are best placed to encourage further participation in the EKE and to oversee via the LDA the continued work on the Managed Services User Forum which has proved to be so popular among London authorities. There is a good appetite amongst members to use this group to achieve further reductions in transaction costs through closer collaboration, and to shape the future of service delivery. This will be taken forward initially through an event designed to assess future needs around agency staff within the wider context of procurement generally, the changing HR landscape and organisational changes.
29. LBH requests that the claim for payment attached as an appendix to this report is approved.
30. The final recommendation of the Board is to gain project closure approval from Capital Ambition.
BENEFITS TRACKING / LEGACY MATTERS
Pan London Collaboration Opportunities
31. Capital Ambition has sponsored a project to develop a pan-London portal for sharing policies, specifications and other documentation relating to the procurement, implementation and operation of a managed service and related to human resources issues. The project is being led by the LDA. The project is currently at design and consultation stage, with boroughs submitting their ideas for the look and content of the portal. LBH is a member of the project group, and will ensure that the option to include the EKE as a tool on the portal is taken forward.
Roll out of toolkit
32. The toolkit referred to at paragraph 6.1.1 above is being rolled out nationwide with the assistance of the OGC.
EKE
33. Data on the EKE will continue to be maintained, and further use of the EKE promoted.
Savings
34. Savings should continue to be achieved. More work is to be done on demand management for temporary and agency staff.
DISSEMINATION OF WHAT WAS LEARNED
35. The widespread use of the toolkit referred to at paragraph 6.1.1 above has spread the knowledge and lessons learned relating to the use and implantation of managed services for agency and temporary staff.
36. An event was held on 23 March 2010 in London to disseminate the work covered by this project.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3364-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 17075,
"total-output-tokens": 3836,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
265,
1
],
[
265,
1047,
2
],
[
1047,
2184,
3
],
[
2184,
4140,
4
],
[
4140,
6020,
5
],
[
6020,
8065,
6
],
[
8065,
10294,
7
],
[
10294,
12729,
8
],
[
12729,
15177,
9
],
[
15177,
16718,
10
]
]
} |
890cac9cc4b82bd4b23d747081c21b636fcb47ec | London Borough of Bromley
Petition Scheme
Who can submit a petition or e-petition? The Council welcomes petitions and a petition can be submitted by any person of any age who lives, works or studies in the borough of Bromley. All petitions will be acknowledged within five working days.
Who can sign a petition or e-petition? A petition can be signed by a person of any age who lives, works or studies in Bromley. All petitioners should provide as appropriate their home, work or education establishment address. Anyone signing an e-petition should also include a valid email address, for verification purposes. You can only sign a petition once; the list of signatories will be checked by officers and any duplicate signatures or obviously frivolous responses will be removed.
What issues can my petition or e-petition relate to? Your petition or e-petition should be relevant to some issue on which the Council has powers or duties or on which it has shared delivery responsibilities through the Local Area Agreement or other partnership arrangement. It should also be submitted in good faith and be decent, honest and respectful. Your petition may be rejected if it:
- Contains intemperate, inflammatory, abusive or provocative language.
- Is defamatory, frivolous, vexatious, discriminatory or otherwise offensive; or contains false statements.
- Is too similar to another petition submitted within the past six months.
- Discloses confidential or exempt information, including information protected by a court order or government department.
- Discloses material which is otherwise commercially sensitive.
- Names individuals, or provides information where they may be easily identified, e.g. individual officers of public bodies provided that this exemption will not apply to executive councillors, committee chairmen, the head of paid service or any statutory or non-statutory chief officer.
- Makes criminal accusations.
- Contains advertising statements.
- Refers to an issue which is currently the subject of a formal Council complaint, Local Ombudsman complaint or any legal proceedings.
- Relates to the Council’s planning or licensing functions as there are separate statutory processes in place for dealing with these matters.
During politically sensitive periods, such as prior to an election, politically controversial material may need to be restricted...
Privacy policy The details you give us for an e-petition are needed to validate your support but will not be published on the website. This is the same information required for a paper petition. On the completion of an e-petition, your details will be passed on to the principal petitioner. The Council may contact you in relation to any petitions you have signed, unless you have requested not to be contacted when signing the petition or e-petition.
**What information should my petition or e-petition contain?** Your petition or e-petition will need to include:
- A title;
- A statement explicitly setting out what action you would like the Council to do or not do. If you wish a Councillor or a senior officer to give account for a matter before a Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee then you must identify that individual and give reasons why they need to;
- Any information which you feel is relevant to the petition/e-petition and reasons why you consider the action requested to be necessary;
- A choice of options for signatories to choose from, i.e. will you simply be asking people to ‘agree’ with the petition or will you give them the option to ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’?
- Paper petitions should include space for signatories to complete the required information.
**How Many signatures does my petition need?** To qualify as a valid petition under the Council scheme a paper petition requires a minimum of 25 signatures and an e-petition 50 signatures. In exceptional circumstances, the Council may consider accepting petitions with fewer signatures where there is local issue affecting a small number of residents.
**Promoting petitions and e-petitions** The Council will not host e-petitions on its website. It is, therefore, down to the lead petitioner to spread the word about their e-petition in order to get as many people as possible to sign up. If this is not done then your e-petition could receive no signatures. Raising awareness of it could be done in a number of ways such as promoting it on local community websites, discussion forums or newsletters. The Council will not promote or advertise paper petitions or allow copies to be left for signature on its premises although your Ward Councillor may be prepared to assist you or promote your petition.
**What will happen to a Petition or e-Petition once it is submitted?**
Once a petition or e-petition has been submitted it will be referred to an appropriate Council officer for consideration. A Councillor (this will normally be the relevant Portfolio Holder, but in some cases it will be the appropriate committee chairman) will be identified to oversee the Council’s response. This might include taking the action requested in the petition, or explaining why the action will not be taken. Other possible responses might be to refer the matter to a Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee or to the full Council, to commission research or public consultation, to hold a public meeting or to request an investigation. A response will normally be sent to you within 10 working days and will be posted on the Council’s website. If you are dissatisfied with the response you may ask that the matter is considered by a relevant Policy and Development & Scrutiny Committee. If your petition has more than 250 signatures (500 for an e-petition) you, or a person you nominate, will be invited to address the committee for up to 5 minutes. If your petition has more than 500 signatures (1,000 for an e-petition) you may instead ask that the petition is referred to full Council for consideration and you or your nominee can address the Council up to for 5 minutes. If your petition is to require a Councillor or a senior officer of the Council (except in exceptional circumstances, this will be an officer at Assistant Chief Officer level or above) to give evidence in public before a Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee this will require a petition of 500 signatures (1,000 for an e-petition.)
After considering your petition the Committee or Council can refer it to the Executive, a relevant Portfolio Holder or a Chief Officer with recommendations for action. At the next scheduled meeting of the Committee or Council there will be a report back either advising that the recommendation has been complied with or giving reasons why it has not been possible to do so. The Director of Corporate Services will maintain a register of all petitions submitted and will report annually to Council on petitions received, actions taken to address petitions or reasons why it has not been possible to do so.
What can petitions and e-petitions achieve?
When you submit a petition or an e-petition to the Council it can have positive outcomes that lead to change and inform debate. It can bring an issue to the attention of the Council and show strong public approval or disapproval for something which the Council is doing, and local Councillors will always be informed about petitions which affect their Wards. As a consequence, the Council may decide to, for example, change or review a policy, hold a public meeting or run a public consultation to gather more views on the issue... LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM
PETITIONS SCHEME
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This Petitions Scheme was approved by the Council on 30 June 2010 under the provisions of Section 11 (1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the Act). It incorporates procedures to comply with the requirement under the Act for the Council to set up an E-petitions Scheme.
1.2 This Scheme, which is available on the Council’s website, will be updated periodically in response to experience with the Scheme, guidance from the Government or changes in legislation. The Scheme will be reviewed annually as set out in Section 14 below.
1.3 The Council has appointed a Petitions Officer, who will receive petitions and from whom further information and advice can be obtained. You can contact the petitions Officer by e-mail - [email protected], or by post at: the Petitions Officer, Room 203, Hammersmith Town Hall, King Street, London, W6 9JU (tel. 020 8753 2499).
2. PRINCIPLES
2.1 The Council welcomes petitions, either in paper form (see the form at the end of this document) or submitted via e-mail or through our E-petitions online facility. We accept petitions as a way in which people can let us know of their concerns and the degree of local support for what we do. We have agreed special procedures to ensure that all valid petitions are reported to an appropriate body within the Council.
2.2 We will treat something as a petition if it is identified as being a petition, or if it seems to us that it is intended to be a petition. Valid petitions, whether received by post, by hand, by e-mail or submitted in person or via our E-petitions online facility, will be accepted in accordance with this Scheme.
2.3 A petition can be open for signature up to a maximum of 90 days, unless an extension is agreed with the petition organiser; most will be responded to much sooner.
3. WHO CAN SUBMIT A PETITION?
3.1 Anybody who lives, works or studies in the borough may organise, submit or sign a petition.
4. WHAT ARE THE GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTING A PETITION? 4.1 A valid petition submitted to the Council must:
- Relate to something which is the Council’s responsibility, or which the Council has some influence over – the Council has close working relationships and, often, partnership agreements, with a wide range of public organisations operating in the borough and across London. These organisations include the Hammersmith and Fulham Primary Care Trust, the local emergency services, the West London Waste Authority, and Transport for London as it operates in the borough.
- Be a clear and concise statement covering the subject of the petition. It should state what action the petitioners wish the Council to take.
- Have the names, addresses and signatures of the people who support the petition (name, address and valid e-mail address if the petition is submitted via e-mail or via the E-petition facility). The address might be a residential, work place or study location within the borough, with a valid postcode.
- Meet defined thresholds for numbers of signatures of people who live, work or study in the borough. (See section 9 below).
- Contain contact details, including an address, of the petition organiser. This is the person we will contact to explain how we will respond to the petition. The contact details of the petition organiser will not be placed on our website. If the petition does not identify a petition organiser, we will contact signatories to the petition to agree who should act as the petition organiser.
- Not, in the Council’s opinion, be vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate.
- Not relate to planning or licensing decisions or to any other matter where people have a statutory right to make comments, or to request a review or to appeal.
5. HOW TO SUBMIT A PETITION
5.1 Petitions may be submitted by e-mail, post, in person at the Town Hall, or created, signed and submitted online through our E-petitions facility link. All petitions currently available for signature will be shown on our website. We reserve the right to check the validity of the addresses of anyone who signs a petition to ensure that they have a real interest in the borough.
5.2 The organisers of petitions are advised to use the form attached as an Appendix to this Scheme if they want to send their petitions by post, by hand or by e-mail; there is a specific format for petitions on our E-petitions facility. The form can be sent to the Petitions Officer by e-mail ([email protected]), or by post, or hand delivered to the Petitions Officer, Room 203, Hammersmith Town Hall, King Street, London, W6 9JU. You can contact the Petitions Officer on 020 8753 2499. 5.3 We welcome E-petitions which are created and submitted through our website. E-petitions must follow the same guidelines as paper petitions. On receipt of details from a person wanting to sign an E-petition, we will send an e-mail to the e-mail address provided. This e-mail will include a link which must be clicked in order to confirm the e-mail address is valid. Once this step is complete, the 'signature' will be added to the E-petition. People visiting the E-petition on our website will be able to see the names of everyone who has 'signed' it but not their contact details.
5.4 All petitions currently available for signature will be posted on the Council's website. The website shows what is happening to a petition as it goes through the various stages of the process set out in this Scheme. It will take five working days before a petition is available on our website. This is because the content of the petition needs to be checked as to whether it is suitable, and the petitioners' names verified to ensure they have a genuine interest in the borough. It will then be made available on the website for further signatures.
5.5 Elected Members of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham may sign a petition but will need to follow the Council's rules about declaring an interest if they are involved in decision making in response to the petition.
6. WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM THE SCHEME?
6.1 The following petitions will be excluded from the Scheme:-
- Where a petition is considered to be vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate.
- The petition applies to a planning or licensing application, where there are already procedures to make representations.
- The petition is a statutory petition (for example requesting a referendum on having an elected Mayor).
- The petition concerns a matter where there is already an existing right of appeal, such as Council Tax banding and non-domestic rates, where other procedures apply.
- The petition concerns a matter which the Council has no ability to influence (see section 11 below)
6.2 Invalid petitions will not be published. An explanation with the reasons for this will be sent out to the petition organiser.
6.3 In the period immediately before an election or referendum, the Council may need to deal with petitions differently. This is because the law requires local authorities during the period before an election or referendum to act in a way which does not appear to favour or discriminate any political party.
6.4 Where the petition is valid but the Council cannot publish it for some reason, we will contact the petition organiser with an explanation, and advise on how to change the petition in order to overcome the problem. If the petition is not resubmitted within 10 working days, a summary of the petition and the reason why it has not been accepted will be published under the 'rejected petitions' section of the website.
7. WHAT WILL THE COUNCIL DO WHEN IT RECEIVES A PETITION?
7.1 The Petitions Officer will send a valid petition to a Responding Officer in the relevant Council department. The Responding Officer will be responsible for investigating the issue and advising on the action to be taken by the Council. An acknowledgement of receipt will be sent to the person organising the petition within 10 working days of the petition having been made. Where the petition has been submitted via the E-petitions facility, the acknowledgment will also be sent to everyone who provides a valid e-mail address. The acknowledgement will say what we have done or intend to do in response to the petition. It will also be published on our website, except in cases where this would be inappropriate. The petition will be copied to the relevant Ward Councillor(s).
7.2 We want to ensure that petitions are clearly and effectively worded. We will therefore offer help to petition organisers to enable them to make their petitions as focused as possible, in the interests of getting a response from the Council which addresses petitioners’ concerns. If we feel there are other ways of getting a quicker and more satisfactory response to the subject of the petition, we will suggest them. We may therefore contact the petition organiser about these issues before the acknowledgment is sent or afterwards.
7.3 If the Council can do what the petition asks for, the acknowledgment may confirm that the requested action has been taken (or will be taken by a specified date) and the petition organiser will be asked to agree to the closure of the petition, either immediately or after the specified date.
7.4 If the petition has enough signatures to trigger a Council debate (see paragraph 9.1 below), or the petitioners want a senior officer to give evidence (see paragraph 9.3 below), then the acknowledgement will confirm this and state when and where the meeting will take place. If the subject of the petition needs more investigation, the petition organiser will be informed of the steps the Council plans to take.
8. HOW WILL THE COUNCIL RESPOND TO PETITIONS?
8.1 The response to a petition will depend on what the petition asks for and how many people have signed it, but may include one or more of the following:
- taking the action requested in the petition
- considering the petition at a Council meeting
- holding an inquiry into the matter
- undertaking research into the matter
- holding a public meeting
- holding consultation
- holding a meeting with petitioners • referring the petition for consideration by one of the Council’s Scrutiny Committees\* • writing to the petition organiser setting out our views about the request in the petition
\*Scrutiny Committees (also called Select Committees) are committees of Councillors who are responsible for scrutinising the work of the Council - in other words, the Scrutiny Committee has the power to hold the Council’s decision-makers to account. The Scrutiny Committees are overseen by the Scrutiny Board.
9. TYPES OF PETITION
a. Petitions for debate at Council
9.1 If a petition attracts a minimum of 5,000 valid signatures (unless it is a petition asking for a senior Council officer to give evidence at a public meeting) this will automatically trigger a debate at a full Council meeting. The full Council, a meeting which all Councillors attend to discuss major issues, will decide to take or not take the action requested in the petition, or to commission further investigation into the subject of the petition. The Council will try to consider the petition at its next scheduled meeting, although on some occasions this may not be possible; the discussion will then take place at the following meeting.
9.2 The petition organiser (or someone he/she nominates) may address the Council for no longer than five minutes on the subject of the petition. The Petitions Officer will contact the petition organiser in advance of the meeting to arrange this. Councillors will question all parties on the subject of the petition.
b. Petitions to call an officer to give evidence
9.3 The petition may ask for the Chief Executive or a Director to give evidence at a relevant Scrutiny Committee meeting about something for which the officer is responsible as part of his/her job. A minimum of 2,000 valid signatures will be required to trigger this action. For example, the petition may ask a Chief Officer to explain progress on an issue, or to explain the advice given to elected Members to enable them to make a particular decision. The Scrutiny Committee may decide that it would be more appropriate for another officer to give evidence instead of the senior officer named in the petition. The Committee may also decide to call a Cabinet Member or other Councillor to attend the meeting.
9.4 The petition organiser (or someone he/she nominates) may address the Scrutiny Committee for no longer than five minutes on the subject of the petition. The Petition Officer will contact the petition organiser in advance of the meeting to arrange this. Scrutiny Committee members will question all parties on the subject of the petition.
c. Petitions to Cabinet
9.5 A petition with a minimum of 250 valid signatures will be considered at a meeting of the Cabinet (the Council’s top decision-making body). Cabinet meets monthly (except in August). The Cabinet will try to consider the petition at its next scheduled meeting, although on some occasions this may not be possible and the petition may have to be deferred to the following meeting.
9.6 The petition organiser (or someone he/she nominates) may address the Cabinet for no longer than five minutes on the subject of the petition. The Petition Officer will contact the petition organiser in advance of the meeting to arrange this. Cabinet members will question all parties on the subject of the petition.
d. Petitions to a Cabinet Member
9.7 Petitions with a minimum of 100 signatures will be considered by the relevant Cabinet Member(s). Each member of the Council’s Cabinet holds Executive responsibility for a specific portfolio of Council functions. A Cabinet Member may refer a petition to the full Cabinet for consideration if he/she is of the view that the matters raised are sufficiently significant.
9.8 The Cabinet Member may request a meeting with the petition organiser (or someone he/she nominates) to discuss the subject of the petition. The Petitions Officer will contact the petition organiser in advance to arrange this.
9.9 Summary of Petition Types, Requirements and Decision Maker.
| Type of Petition | Threshold (Minimum number of Signatories) | Decision Maker | |----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Council Debate | 5,000 | Full Council | | Call an Officer to give evidence | 2,000 | Scrutiny Committee or Scrutiny Board| | Petitions to Cabinet | 250 | Cabinet | | Petitions to Cabinet Members | 100 | Relevant Cabinet Member(s) |
10. NOTIFYING THE DECISION TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO A PETITION
10.1 All petition organisers will be notified of the decision taken (with reasons if the decision is to take no action) within 5 working days of the decision being made. This notification will be published on our website, unless it is considered inappropriate to do so.
10.2 The Council accepts that it will not normally be sufficient for a decision maker to merely “note” a petition. The response to a petition will normally provide information on the steps the Council intends to take to address the concerns of the petitioners or reasons why their concerns cannot be addressed in the way they wish. 11. WHAT WILL THE COUNCIL DO IF THE PETITION IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO SERVICES PROVIDED BY IT?
11.1 If the petition is about something which the Council has no power to influence, we will consider making representations on behalf of the community to the relevant body. In such cases, the Petitions Officer will ask the petition organiser whether he/she wishes the Council to send the petition to the relevant authority if this is possible.
11.2 However, in many cases where the Council is not directly responsible for the matter which is the subject of the petition, it may work closely (or have formal partnership arrangements) with the body that is responsible (see para. 4.1 above). In this case, the decision maker may refer the matter to a Scrutiny Committee which will invite representatives of the relevant body to attend while the petition is considered.
11.3 If the petition is about something that a different Council is responsible for, the Council will give consideration to what the best method is for responding to it. This might consist of simply forwarding the petition to the other Council, but could involve other steps. In any event the Council will notify the petition organiser of the action taken.
12. WHAT CAN PETITIONERS DO IF THEY ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RESPONSE TO A PETITION?
12.1 If the petitioners are not satisfied with the Council’s decision in response to a petition, the petition organiser can request the Council’s Scrutiny Board(^1) to review whether the Council’s decision is adequate, by e-mailing or writing to the Petitions Officer. This should be done within 28 days of the Council’s response being received by the petition organiser, who should provide a short explanation of the reasons why the Council’s response to the petition was not considered to be adequate.
12.2 The Scrutiny Board will call for a report from officers on the request for a review of the Council’s decision, and will endeavour to consider the request at its next scheduled meeting; on some occasions this may not be possible and consideration will be deferred to the following meeting. Should the Scrutiny Board determine the Council has not dealt with the petition adequately, it may use any of its powers to deal with the matter. These powers include instigating an investigation, making recommendations to the Council’s Cabinet and arranging for the matter to be considered at a meeting of the full Council.
12.3 The petition organiser (or someone he/she nominates) may address the Scrutiny Board for no longer than five minutes on the subject of the petition. The Petitions Officer will contact the petition organiser in advance of the meeting to arrange this. Scrutiny Board members will question all parties on the subject of the petition.
(^1) If the Scrutiny Board was responsible for taking the original decision in relation to the decision, the appeal will be referred to another Scrutiny Committee (one of the Select Committees). 12.4 The petition organiser will be informed of the results of the Scrutiny Board’s review of the Council’s decision on the petition, with reasons as to why no action or any further action is recommended, within 5 working days of the Scrutiny Board’s meeting. This notification will be published on our website, unless it is considered inappropriate to do so.
13. ATTENDING A MEETING WHERE A PETITION IS BEING CONSIDERED
13.1 A petition may be considered at a formal meeting of the full Council, Cabinet or Scrutiny Committee.
13.2 Receiving of petitioners at a formal meeting
(i) People who have signed a petition may attend a meeting where the petition is being considered. The petition organiser will be given adequate notice of the date and time of the meeting.
(ii) The petition organiser (or one person nominated by him/her) may address the meeting for a period not exceeding 5 minutes.
(iii) Members may during a period not exceeding 10 minutes ask questions of a petition organiser (or nominee) if required.
(iv) Members may then invite officers of the Council and/or representatives of other relevant authorities to comment on the subject of the petition.
(v) The Committee will then debate the subject of the petition for a maximum of 30 minutes, taking into account the issues raised by the petitioners, officers and representatives of other relevant authorities. Petitioners may remain for the duration of the debate if they so wish.
13.3 Limitation on the number of petitioners attending a formal meeting
The Chairman of the meeting reserves the right to limit the number of petitioners present at a meeting to maintain order and/or to allow sufficient time for other business specified on the agenda.
14. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE OPERATION OF THE SCHEME
14.1 The Council will receive an annual report detailing the subject matter of all petitions received during the year, the number of signatures to each petition and a summary of the Council’s response to each. Changes to the Scheme will be recommended as necessary in the light of experience with its operation.
JUNE 2010 **PETITION FORM**
**PLEASE PRINT THE NAME AND CONTACT DETAILS OF THE ORGANISER OF THE PETITION (who must live, work or study in the borough)**
| Name: | Address: | |----------------|----------------------------------------------| | | | | Postcode: | Telephone: E-mail: | | | |
**PETITIONERS WHO LIVE, WORK OR STUDY IN THIS BOROUGH SHOULD GIVE THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESSES BELOW**
| Name | Address in Hammersmith and Fulham: | |------|-----------------------------------| | | • Where you live in the borough, or | | | • The name and address of your employer in the borough, or | | | • The name and address of where you study in the borough |
NB. Postcode is mandatory
| E-mail address | or signature (if posted or hand delivered) | |----------------|-------------------------------------------| | | |
Carry on with a separate sheet if you wish.
**WHAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PETITION?** IF THE PETITION INVOLVES ANY OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY OPERATING IN THE BOROUGH, PLEASE STATE WHICH AUTHORITY IS/ARE INVOLVED
WE HEREBY PETITION LBHF AS FOLLOWS: (This is an opportunity for you to state the purpose of your petition – you can attach additional pages if necessary).
Please state the date when you want your petition to be made to LBHF. This should be no earlier than the date on which you have obtained (or expect to have obtained) the minimum required number of signatures. Please send the petition by e-mail as soon as possible after this date.
Date of making the e-petition: .................................................................
If a petition is posted or hand delivered, the date of making the petition will be the date it is received by the Petitions Officer.
Please send your form to the Petitions Officer by e-mail ([email protected]) or by post/by hand at Room 203, Hammersmith Town Hall, King Street, London W6 9JU. You can get further information from this officer, tel. 020 8753 2499.
Summary of Petition Types, Requirements and Decision Maker.
| Type of Petition | Threshold (minimum signatories) | Decision Maker | |----------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Council Debate | 5000 | Full Council | | Call an Officer to give evidence | 2000 | Select Committee or Scrutiny Board | | Petitions to Cabinet | 250 | Cabinet | | Petitions to Cabinet Members | 100 | Relevant Cabinet Member(s) |
The Petitions Scheme will only apply to petitions which relate to matters for which the authority has responsibility or which it is able to influence via its partner authorities. Part Five – E. Petitions scheme
PETITIONS SCHEME KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA
Introduction
1. The Council welcomes petitions and recognises that petitions are one way in which people can voice their concerns. It will address with equal care and attention petitions from residents, from those who work or study in the Borough or from visitors or any other group of people who use Council services in one way or another.
Types of petitions
2. There are five main categories of petition:
(i) Ordinary petitions are petitions which do not come within any of the following specific types.
(ii) Consultation petitions are petitions in response to an invitation from the Council for representations on a particular proposal or application, for example on planning or licensing applications or proposals for parking restrictions. Consultation petitions which are received by the response date in the consultation invitation will be reported, along with other responses, to the forum or Cabinet Member taking the decision on the application or proposal concerned.
(iii) Statutory petitions - particular Acts of Parliament require the Council to consider petitions, for example a petition for a directly-elected Mayor. Where a petition is submitted under such a specific statute, we will report it to the next available meeting of the Council in accordance with the statutory requirements.
(iv) Petitions for debate - see paragraphs 17-20 below.
(v) Petitions to hold an officer to account - see paragraphs 21-22 below.
Contact point for petitions
3. All hardcopy/paper petitions should be sent to:
The Head of Governance Services
Kensington Town Hall Part Five – E. Petitions scheme
London W8 7NX
4. Alternatively petitions can be presented to a meeting of the Council. These meetings are published in the Council Meetings Calendar at www.rbkc.gov.uk/councilanddemocracy.aspx. If you would like to present your petition to the Council, or would like your local Councillor to present it on your behalf, please contact Martyn Carver at [email protected] or on 020 7361 2477 at least 10 working days before the meeting and they will talk you through the process. If your petition has received 1,500 signatures or more and you have so requested, it will also be scheduled for a Council debate: if this is the case we will let you know the meeting of the Council at which this will happen.
5. It is possible to create, sign and submit petitions online via the Council’s website at:
https://www.consultation.rbkc.gov.uk/KMS/EPetitionHome.aspx?strTab=EPetitions&NoIP=1
What are the guidelines for submitting a petition?
6. All petitions submitted to the Council must:
(i) include at the top of each separate page a clear and concise statement (‘the prayer’) covering the subject of the petition and stating clearly what action the petitioners wish the Council to take;
(ii) include the name, postal address and signature of any person supporting the petition; and
(iii) be accompanied by contact details, including an address, for the petition organiser or ‘lead petitioner\*’. This is the person we will contact to explain how we will respond to the petition. In the absence of a clear contact point, the first decipherable name and address on the petition will be used.
- Note: the Council will not display on its website any personal contact details for the petition organiser.
7. The Council will treat something as a petition if it is identified as being a petition, or if it seems to us that it is intended to be a petition. Part Five – E. Petitions scheme
8. We will not take action on any petition which we consider to be vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate, but will explain the reasons for this in our acknowledgement of the petition. Furthermore, in the period immediately before an election or referendum we may need to deal with your petition differently – if this is the case we will explain the reasons and discuss the revised timescale which will apply.
9. If a petition does not follow the guidelines set out above, the Council may decide not to do anything further with it. In that case, we will write to you to explain the reasons.
What will the Council do when it receives a petition?
10. In the case of ordinary petitions the following procedures will apply:
(i) An acknowledgement will be sent to the petition organiser as soon as possible - but no later than 7 working days after receiving the petition. It will let him/her know what the Council plans to do with the petition - in particular the name and contact details of the executive director to whom the petition has been referred and the six week timescale within which a response will be sent. In normal circumstances the consideration of, and response to, a petition will be a matter for the relevant executive director in liaison with the Cabinet Member into whose portfolio the matter falls.
(ii) If the Council can take the action that your petition seeks, the acknowledgement may confirm that we have taken that action requested and the petition will be closed. If the petition so requests and has enough signatures to trigger a Council debate, or a senior officer giving evidence, then the acknowledgment will confirm this and tell you when and where the meeting will take place. If the petition needs more investigation, we will tell you the steps we plan to take.
(iii) The executive director to whom the petition has been forwarded for handling will, as soon as practicable, e-mail the relevant Cabinet Member, all members of the relevant Scrutiny Committee and relevant Ward Councillors, reporting receipt of the petition and giving brief details on the prayer to, and level of support for, the petition - together with the timescale for a response and such other information or comments as may be relevant or helpful. Part Five – E. Petitions scheme
(iv) The relevant executive director will then consider the issues and draft a response in liaison with the relevant Cabinet Member. Once the draft response has been prepared this shall be circulated for information (usually by e-mail), with brief details on the prayer to and level of support for the petition, to all members of the relevant Scrutiny Committee and relevant Ward Councillors and no less than three working days will be allowed for them to comment on the draft response.
(v) The executive director and Cabinet Member will take into account if and as they see fit any views expressed by Scrutiny Committee Members and Ward Councillors and issue a final response to the petition organiser. A copy of this response will be sent simultaneously to the Head of Governance Services.
(vi) All responses to petitions will be sent within six weeks of the petition being logged unless there is good reason why this cannot or should not be done, in which case the executive director will send a letter to the lead petitioner explaining the reason for a delayed response (e.g. the need for a full traffic study, further consultation etc.).
(vii) It may be that issues raised in a petition are of wider interest to the Scrutiny Committee in question, in which case that Committee is at liberty to include these within its work programme. Also, if the subject matter of a petition so merits it, the Chairman of the relevant Scrutiny Committee may request that the formal response to the lead petitioner be deferred to enable full consideration of the issue at a meeting of that Committee. Scrutiny Committees have no formal ‘call in’ powers in this regard however, and accession to any such request is entirely a matter for the Cabinet Member concerned.
11. So as to ensure a high degree of transparency in the way the Council handles the petitions it receives, information on petitions submitted will in normal circumstances be published on our website.
How will the Council respond to petitions?
12. Our response to a petition will depend on what a petition asks for and how many people have signed it, but may include one or more of the following: Part Five – E. Petitions scheme
- taking the action requested in the petition
- considering the petition at a full Council meeting
- holding an inquiry into the matter
- undertaking research into the matter
- holding a public meeting
- holding a consultation
- holding a meeting with petitioners
- referring the petition for consideration by the relevant Council Scrutiny Committee\*
- calling a referendum
- writing to the petition organiser setting out our views about the request in the petition
\*Note: Scrutiny committees are committees of Councillors who are responsible for scrutinising the work of the Council – in other words, the scrutiny committee has the power to hold the Council’s decision makers to account.
13. In addition to these steps, the Council will consider all the specific actions it can potentially take on the issues highlighted in a petition.
14. If your petition is about something over which the Council has no direct control (for example local underground stations or hospital), we will consider making representations on behalf of the community to the relevant body. The Council works with a large number of local partner organisations and, where appropriate and possible, will work with these partners to respond to your petition. If we are not able to do this for any reason (for example if what the petition calls for conflicts with Council policy), then we will set out the reasons for this to you.
15. If your petition is about something which is the responsibility of a different council, we will consider the best method is for responding to it. This might consist of simply forwarding the petition to the other council, but could involve other steps. In any event we will always notify you of the action we have taken.
Statutory or consultation-related petitions
16. If your petition: Part Five – E. Petitions scheme
- is in response to a Council consultation exercise (see 2(ii) above);
- applies to a planning or licensing application;
- is a statutory petition (for example requesting a referendum on having an elected mayor); or
- relates to a matter where there is already an existing right of appeal, such as council tax banding and non-domestic rates;
other procedures apply. Initial questions in this regard should be directed to Martyn Carver at [email protected] or on 020 7361 2477.
Petitions for debate at a full Council meeting
17. If a petition contains more than 1,500 signatures and you have so requested, it will be debated at a meeting of full Council unless it is a petition asking for a senior Council officer to give evidence at a public meeting (see below). This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.
18. If a petition is presented at a full Council meeting, the Council will not debate the petition at that same meeting; however it will endeavour to consider the petition at its next ordinary meeting, or if this is not possible then at the earliest possible meeting thereafter.
19. The Council’s consideration of any petition will be based upon a written report from the relevant Council officer, published with the Council agenda. In addition, the petition organiser will, at the Council meeting at which the petition is to be considered, be given up to five minutes to present the petition. After any such presentation by the petition organiser, the petition will then be discussed by Council for a maximum of 15 minutes: the Council will then agree how to respond.
20. Full Council may decide to take the action the petition requests, not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate, or to commission further investigation into the matter, for example by a relevant committee. Where the issue is one on which the Council’s Cabinet (or an individual Cabinet Member) is required to make the final decision, the Council will decide whether to make recommendations to inform that decision. The petition organiser will receive written confirmation of this decision. Part Five – E. Petitions scheme
Petitions to call an officer to account
21. Your petition may ask for a senior Council officer to give evidence at a public meeting about something for which the officer is responsible as part of their job. For example, your petition may ask a senior Council officer to explain progress on an issue, or to explain the advice given to elected members to enable them to make a particular decision.
22. If your petition contains at least 750 signatures and so requests, the relevant senior officer (an Executive Director or Director) will give evidence at a public meeting of the Council’s relevant Scrutiny Committee. You should be aware that the Scrutiny Committee may decide that it would be more appropriate for another officer to give evidence instead of any officer named in the petition, for instance if the named officer has changed jobs. The Committee may also decide to call any relevant Councillor (such as the Cabinet Member concerned) to attend the meeting. Committee Members will ask the questions at this meeting, but you will be able to suggest questions to the chairman of the Committee by contacting [email protected] no later than three working days before the meeting.
Electronic petitions (‘e-petitions’)
23. The Council welcomes e-petitions which are created and submitted through our website at the address shown in paragraph 5. E-petitions must follow the same guidelines as paper petitions. The petition organiser will need to provide us with their name, postal address and email address. You will also need to decide how long you would like your petition to be open for signatures. Most petitions run for six months, but you can choose a shorter or longer timeframe, up to a maximum of 12 months.
24. When you create an e-petition, it may take five working days before it is published online. This is because we have to check that the content of your petition is suitable before it is made available for signature. If we feel we cannot publish your petition for some reason, we will contact you within this time to explain. You will be able to change and resubmit your petition if you wish. If you do not do this within 10 working days, a summary of the petition and the reason why it has not been accepted will be published under the ‘rejected petitions’ section of the website. Part Five – E. Petitions scheme
25. When an e-petition has closed for signature, it will automatically be submitted to the Council’s Head of Governance Services. In the same way as a paper petition, you will receive an acknowledgement within 10 working days. If you would like to present your e-petition to a meeting of the Council, please contact Martyn Carver at [email protected] or on 020 7361 2477 within 10 working days of receipt of the acknowledgement.
26. A petition acknowledgement and response will be emailed to everyone who has signed the e-petition and elected to receive this information. The acknowledgment and response will also be published on this website.
27. You can see all the e-petitions currently available for signature on the website. When you sign an e-petition you will be asked to provide your name, your postcode and a valid email address. When you have submitted this information you will be sent an email to the email address you have provided. This email will include a link which you must click on in order to confirm the email address is valid. Once this step is complete your ‘signature’ will be added to the petition. People visiting the e-petition will be able to see your name in the list of those who have signed it but your contact details will not be visible.
Duplicate and repeat petitions
28. Where more than one petition with the same or very similar prayer is received in time for a particular meeting, each petition organiser will be treated as an independent petition organiser, but only the petition organiser of the first petition received will be invited to address the meeting.
29. A petition will not normally be considered where it is received within six months of another petition being considered by the Authority on the same matter.
What can I do if I feel my petition has not been dealt with properly?
30. If you feel that we have not dealt with your petition properly, the petition organiser can ask the Chairman of the relevant Council Scrutiny Committee to review the steps that the Council has taken in response to your petition. It is helpful to everyone, and can improve the prospects for a review if the petition organiser gives a short explanation of the reasons why the Council’s response is not considered to be adequate. Part Five – E. Petitions scheme
31. If the Chairman accepts that the issue merits a review, it will normally be included on the agenda for the next meeting of that Scrutiny Committee, although on some occasions this may not be possible and consideration will take place at the following meeting. Should the Committee consider that the Council has not dealt with your petition adequately, it may decide to undertake its own review or investigation of the subject matter of the petition or make its own recommendations to full Cabinet or the relevant Cabinet Member.
32. Once the appeal has been considered the petition organiser will, within five working days, be informed of the outcome.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3365-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 25656,
"total-output-tokens": 11144,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2395,
1
],
[
2395,
5496,
2
],
[
5496,
7547,
3
],
[
7547,
7547,
4
],
[
7547,
9640,
5
],
[
9640,
12283,
6
],
[
12283,
15097,
7
],
[
15097,
17750,
8
],
[
17750,
20626,
9
],
[
20626,
23169,
10
],
[
23169,
26143,
11
],
[
26143,
28242,
12
],
[
28242,
29401,
13
],
[
29401,
31332,
14
],
[
31332,
32983,
15
],
[
32983,
34871,
16
],
[
34871,
37166,
17
],
[
37166,
39357,
18
],
[
39357,
41187,
19
],
[
41187,
43396,
20
],
[
43396,
45742,
21
],
[
45742,
48046,
22
],
[
48046,
48736,
23
],
[
48736,
48736,
24
]
]
} |
a409f958e3cfba090fa17e68e3ece353cfdc6d7e | Notes
Data Advisory Group (DAG)
Date 24 March 2011 Venue London Councils, Room 4 Meeting Chair Nick Brenton Contact Officer: Glyn Parry Telephone: 02079349730 Email: [email protected]
Attendees:
Nick Brenton (Chair) Association of London Directors of Children’s Services Gareth Ashcroft Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA) Parmjit Sahons London Borough of Hounslow Rob Atkins London Borough of Islington Dave Pether Connexions London West Clare Oatham National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) Phil Rossiter London Borough of Wandsworth Margaret Brightman London Borough of Lewisham Andrew Pearse Westminster City Council Michelle Harris London Borough of Southwark Andrew Mackey London Borough of Hackney Kate Welsh London Borough of Greenwich Eryl Shaw London Borough of Lambeth Mark Urban London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Alim Abdul London Borough of Harrow Kuljit Bisal London Borough of Harrow Glyn Parry (note taker) 14-19 Regional Planning Group (RPG)
Items 1. Welcome and introductions
1.1 The group greeted new members and welcomed the increased local authority (LA) representation.
Item 2. Notes of the last meeting
2.1 The notes of the last meeting (12 November 2010) were agreed – all actions have been completed or are underway.
Item 3. RPG remit/policy developments
3.1 GP informed the DAG that following the RPG Review, the Board has agreed to change the RPG’s name to London Councils: Young People’s Education and Skills. All branding online will change on 08 April 2011. The new constitution will be formally agreed at the next Board meeting and published on the London Councils website; a current draft is available on the 3.2 GP summarised the revised role of the Young People’s Education and Skills team as follows:-
- To provide pan-London leadership for 14-19 education and training provision in relation to the current and future need of learners and employers
- To support local authorities in undertaking their statutory functions
- To assist other stakeholders in planning, policy and provision
3.3 GP tabled a paper to the DAG setting out all the responses relating to data that were gathered in the RPG Review. RA stressed the importance of distinguishing between the roles of the RPG and YPLA concerning data, which could sometimes be fuzzy. The meeting agreed that the YPLA’s role was primarily concerned with the provision of data, whilst RPG’s was centred on signposting and analysis of the data.
**AP1:** GA and GP to ensure clarity over the YPLA and RPG’s role concerning data is evident in relevant communications/projects
**Item 4. YPLA data offer**
4.1 GA summarised the data offer that will be made available to local authorities in 2011. A selection of reports will be produced under three themes (understanding the learning landscape/achievement and progression/participation of young people) staggered over the course of the year to coincide with the timeliness of data. Full details are in the briefing note circulated to the group prior to the meeting:
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Item4YPLADataOffer.DOC.pdf
4.2 The narrative reports will be a concise summary spread over four pages. They will initially be shared on the Provider Gateway, and released on the YPLA website at a later date. GA confirmed that Academies and Learners with Learning Difficulties or Disabilities (LLDD) data will be included in the narrative reports, and that out-of-borough figures will be covered in the residency reports (even for boroughs bordering London).
4.3 The YPLA will also develop future data releases by:
- Adopting new visualisation tools
- Launching an ‘extranet’ to replace the Provider Gateway
- Scoping the possibility of segmenting the recipients of data into relevant groups
- Improving the transparency of allocations data (especially success rates) by creating an ‘Open Book’ of data to work with schools to improve its quality
4.4 The group emphasised the importance of involving relevant LA staff in the Open Book exercise as well as staff within schools.
**AP2:** GA to ensure that the YPLA communicates with relevant LA staff in regard to the Open Book exercise
4.5 GP raised the issue that the school success rates on the YPLA website (published as a result of a journalist’s Freedom of Information Act request) were now out-of-date, and requested that they should be replaced with the final rates that were used for the allocations.
**AP3:** GA to pass the request back to the relevant YPLA staff and alert the group of the outcome 4.6 NB asked what the plans were to share data related to the careers service. DP confirmed that Connexions would also produce residency based data and NEET data would be produced for the academic year. A reduced collection of management information (MI) would be published.
Item 5. RPG data analysis
5.1 GP summarised the activity planned by the RPG to support LAs in their use of data. Two key workstrands were identified and agreed to by the DAG:
- 14-19 and London, An Evidence Base: consisting of the three pan-London narratives plus supplementary evidence captured over the course of the spring and summer
- Intelligent London: a data portal on the London Councils website devoted to opening-up data related to young people, their education and progression through to employment and presenting it in accessible/appealing ways
**AP4:** GP to work with the YPLA to complete each of the three pan-London narratives, compile any supplementary evidence, and produce the full Evidence Base by September 2011
**AP5:** GP to continue to develop the Intelligent London website and provide access to DAG members for a pilot testing stage
**AP6:** GP to set-up an online forum space for DAG on the Communities of Practice website and send an invite to the forum to all members
Item 6. RPG data projects
6.1 **16-18 modelling:** The Greater London Authority (GLA) Data Management and Analysis Group (DMAG) were commissioned by the RPG over a year ago to complete a 16-18 student modelling exercise. GP updated the group that DMAG still hasn’t produced any outputs despite formal letters and emails requesting that the work is completed. DMAG did commit to delivering the work by 18 March 2011 in their last communication but this deadline was missed.
**AP7:** RPG to escalate the issue within the GLA and explore the possibility of requesting the return of the £20,000 paid to the GLA for the project
**AP8:** NB to contact the DMAG team to apply further pressure on them to deliver
6.2 **Special Educational Needs (SEN)/LLDD data:** GP updated the group on the progress of the SEN cohort mapping project. The National Pupil Dataset (NPD) team has now provided the SEN, School Action and School Action Plus year group cohort (years 7-11) numbers from 2006/07 – 2009/10. The YPLA has conducted an initial analysis of Key Stage 4 Year 11 learner numbers.
**AP9:** GP to work with the YPLA to produce the historic year group learner numbers for years 7-11 between 2006/07 – 2009/10. This dataset can then be used as the basis for creating projections for post-Year 11 LLDD numbers
6.3 **Travel to Success:** GP confirmed that the Travel to Success project had been completed. DAG fed back how useful the data had been and that the packs had been well received in LAs.
Item 7. Any other business
7.1 DAG discussed the future of the Choice website and what will happen to the data contained within it.
**AP10:** GP to find out more information regarding the future of Choice and data connected to it and inform DAG 7.2 GP raised the issue of ensuring that there were adequate numbers of Provider Gateway users in each LA, since this is the main route through which LAs will access the data provided by the YPLA and that many current users may be leaving LAs as a result of re-structuring.
**AP11:** GA to provide GP with a list of all current Provider Gateway users and compare it to RPG’s record of who is leaving LAs to determine which LAs may need to assign new users to the Gateway
7.3 GA informed the DAG that the current Data Protocol each individual LA has with the YPLA will expire at the end of March. The YPLA and RPG are working together to create one overall new Data Protocol that can be signed by RPG on behalf of all LAs (as was done with the Skills Funding Agency). The DAG agreed that this approach was sensible and should be pursued.
**AP12:** GP and GA to work together to agree a revised Data Protocol to be signed by the RPG
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3366-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 14713,
"total-output-tokens": 2171,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1692,
1
],
[
1692,
4567,
2
],
[
4567,
7587,
3
],
[
7587,
8520,
4
]
]
} |
0e48b37fb7d15202b382adc71f23e29c373a6a51 | 1 Welcome Introductions and apologies
1.1 John Galligan welcomed officers to the meeting and explained that in the absence of Mary Vine-Morris, who sent her apologies, he had been asked to chair the meeting in his capacity as vice chair.
2 Notes of the last meeting and matters arising
2.1 YB provided a progress update on action point 113. Following a proposal from the Data Advisory Group, the Learning Records Service is considering in more detail how access to Unique Learner Numbers and Personal Learning Records can be given to local authorities, and the associated contractual requirements. 2.2 DC and EG asked whether any changes were made to the Annual Statement of Prioritises (ASoP) following feedback at the last OSG meeting. YB informed officers that the YPES Board reviewed the document in light of comments made. A decision was taken to nuance the language around activities for the 19 plus age range. However, there was consensus that where local authorities had existing statutory duties, the ASoP should be bold and clear about fulfilling these.
2.3 In Hounslow there had been significant challenges with the Youth Contract provider (Urban Futures), particularly reaching young people and providing appropriate support. After discussions with Urban Futures, it was agreed the delivery of the programme would be sub-contracted.
2.4 Prevista had been in contact with local authorities to offer the opportunity to become direct delivery partners. Based on the terms, it would be unlikely boroughs would choose to do so given the high levels of risk.
2.5 Minutes from the previous meeting were approved.
3 Raising the Participation age (RPA)
(a) Pan-London drop-out and referral system
3.1 At the London RPA regional event on 27 November, it was agreed that London Councils would work with local authorities to explore the feasibility of a pan-London drop out/risk of drop out referral system.
3.2 Systems at a sub-regional level already exist to record joiner/leaver data and this information is shared across the sub-regional units via the London index. However, not all providers share information as a matter of course and the timeliness of information sharing needs to be significantly improved under RPA.
3.3 The development of a system would be split into three phases with the first stage, a feasibility study, due to commence in April. Officers reviewed the draft survey that would form part of the study and recommended:
3.3.1 Question 8, replace the ‘%’ symbol with the word ‘percentage’
3.3.2 Question 19, replace wording ‘do you think there should be’ with ‘Are you interested in exploring’
3.3.3 Communications with borough officers should clearly state the aim and purpose of survey to encourage responses.
3.4 Officers requested that there is continued engagement with OSG about the system to allow the opportunity feed into its development. There was consensus that for the system to be effective it should be publicised to education providers by June.
AP140: Pan-London drop out and referral survey to be circulated to 14-19 Leads incorporating changes suggested by members
(b) Participation report
3.5 Based on the latest statistics, the percentage of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) stood at 4.7 per cent (a 0.3 per cent decrease on the previous month), which was below the national average of 5.7 per cent. There had also been a reduction in the number of 16-18 year olds whose participation status is ‘not known’ for the past three months for 2012/13. However, concerns remained over borough performance and it was confirmed that conversations had taken place between the YPES Board and respective DCSs.
3.6 In February, the DfE revised the national participation figures originally released in June 2012. The revision was due to the Office for National Statistics revising their mid-year population estimates following the 2011 census. The revised figures indicate lower than previously reported participation. 3.7 The revision corrects the London anomaly of reporting over 100% participation for 16 year olds and brings the figures more closely into line with those reported through NCCIS. However, a challenge remains over the reporting/tracking of young people that are in independent schools which distorts borough figures.
4 Feedback from YPES Board
4.1 NS provided a summary update of key points that were raised at the last Board meeting, where Munira Mirza provided a verbal update of the Mayor’s commitment to take forward the Inquiry Panel’s recommendations. It was also confirmed that the London Schools Excellence Fund, a £24 million fund to be spent over two years, would be available to FE colleges provided any proposed application included direct partnerships with schools.
4.2 A paper was put forward, at the request of the Board, to identify areas where its membership could be strengthened to reflect the new 14-19 education landscape. Three areas were outlined and members debated whether these were the right areas and the merits of each organisation proposed for membership. The Board agreed to invite a representative from Jobcentre Plus, London Higher and the London Enterprise Panel’s Skills and Employment Working Group to join the YPES Board membership.
5 Policy Update
5.1 NS provided an overview of the paper which outlined the key policy statements, changes and items of interest in relation to 14-19 education and training that had occurred since the last meeting. In particular, the new duty on Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) (paragraph 3), RPA statutory guidance (paragraph 5) and changes to 16-18 learning provider accountability (paragraph 6).
5.2 Officers welcomed the new duty on CCGs as health would be a crucial partner in the successful delivery of Education, Health and Care Plans. However, some duties placed on councils were still not mirrored for CCGs.
5.3 RPA statutory guidance offers local authorities the flexibility to develop and build systems that allow for adaptation to meet local requirements. However, there was an element of risk that boroughs duplicate efforts but it could be addressed through the pan-London referral system.
5.4 It was noted that there were a number of learning providers that failed to reach the National Minimum Standard based on the points scores set by government.
6 Consultation on Vocational Qualifications
6.1 YB circulated the initial draft response to the consultation based on the feedback provided at the LA Forum. Officers were asked to review the initial response and send any feedback to [email protected] by Friday 26th April.
AP141: YPES to circulate initial vocational qualifications consultation response to OSG members for feedback.
7 Apprenticeships 16-18 Action Plan
7.1 NL explained that 16-18 apprenticeship performance in London flat-lined in 2011/12 (compared to 2010/11) and declined in the first quarter of 2012/13. Yet, the number of vacancies on National Apprenticeship Services’ (NAS) vacancy system had increased and was higher in London than this time last year.
7.2 NAS had contacted schools to make them aware of Apprenticeship opportunities available to young people in London and held meetings with borough officers where challenges had been identified. Organisations had been contracted in London to increase Apprenticeship take-up amongst 16-18 year olds.
7.3 To meet the Mayor’s target to create 250,000 by April 2016, an 18 per cent year-on-year growth would be needed from when the target was set in 2011/12. Work had been undertaken between partners to identify and implement workable solutions to meet the target i.e. securing an Apprentice Travel Concession.
7.4 Officers discussed the impact of Apprenticeships available to young people given the financial incentives for employers to create 19 plus apprenticeships due to the Work Programme. There was consensus that this may hamper the growth of the 16-18 Apprenticeship programme.
7.5 A traineeship programme to help young people aged 16 to 24 to develop the skills needed to secure Apprenticeships was scheduled to start in September 2013. Officers agreed that NAS should work closely with the Department of Education (DfE) on the development of this, so that the programme aligns to other reforms.
AP142: 18+ Apprentice Travel Concession - to be circulated to members by NAS AP143: Circulate details of providers in London funded by NAS to support YP take-up of apprenticeships
8 Work plan monitoring
8.1 The YPES team provided a summary update to OSG members of the major YPES work strands. Officers discussed the updates including the merit of exploring how the data dashboard could be sustainable in the long run and possible costs to local authorities.
8.2 Key Stage 4 Destination Measures will be published on the DfE Performance Tables website this year. However, Key Stage 5 Destination Measures will continue to be published as an experimental statistical first release, along with employment and characteristics data. Schools have received a letter to review their data before it is made public.
8.3 The High Needs Student Funding task and finish group presented a series of recommendations to the Association of London’s Directors of Children’s Services in respect of payment arrangements for students with high needs. These were now being explored with Finance Directors.
AP144: Next 14-19 Update to include details of DfE letter sent to schools requesting review of destination measures data.
9 AOB
9.1 Members were asked to note that the Raising the Participation Age - Vulnerable Young People event would take place on 29 April.
9.2 Members suggested that it would be helpful to review the terms of reference for the OSG and its relationship to the YPES Board
AP145: Next OSG to review the terms of reference for the OSG and OSG relationship to the YPES Board.
Date of next meeting: 14 June 2013, 10.00-12.00, meeting room 1, London Councils.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3367-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 8587,
"total-output-tokens": 2376,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
601,
1
],
[
601,
3996,
2
],
[
3996,
7256,
3
],
[
7256,
9968,
4
]
]
} |
9c6b86ae1b624f012b1064d4aebb402664b2223c | The National Archives
fundraising for archives
heritage lottery fund
Fundraising Strategy Developing a Fundraising Strategy
Fundraising for Archives
Sharon Elliot
8th August 2017 We will demonstrate the skills and tools required to develop an effective fundraising strategy. Why is a Fundraising Strategy Important?
“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
“I don't much care where —”
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.”
“Then it doesn't matter which way you go.”
Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland The worst fundraising strategy in the world! **Strengths** Internal What do you do well?
**Weaknesses** Internal What prevents you from doing better?
**Opportunities** External What is happening in the wider market that presents opportunities?
**Threats** External What is happening in the wider market that presents a threat?
**SWOT** Fundraising Strategy in Context
Vision and Mission What’s in a name....
- **Values**: What do we stand for? Ethics, Principles, Beliefs
- **Vision**: Where are we going? What do we aspire to achieve? Hope, Ambition
- **Mission**: What do we do? Who do we do it for? Motivation, Purpose
- **Strategic Objectives**: How are we going to progress? Plan, Goals, Sequencing
- **Actions & KPI’s**: What do we have to do? How do we know? Actions, Owners, Timeframes, Resources, Outcomes Examples
• Oxfam Vision: A just world without poverty • Mission: To create lasting solutions to poverty, hunger, and social injustice.
• English Heritage: Our vision is that people will experience the story of England where it really happened • Mission: To make sure that the historic environment of England is properly maintained and cared for. By employing some of the country’s very best architects, archieologists and historians we aim to help people understand and appreciate why the historic buildings and landscapes around them matter. From the first traces of civilisation, to the most significant buildings of the 20th century, we want every important site to get the care and attention it deserves.
• The British Library: Our mission: Advancing the world’s knowledge • Our vision: In 2020, the British Library will be a leading hub in the global information network, advancing knowledge through our collections, expertise and partnerships, for the benefit of the economy and society and the enrichment of cultural life. WILL IT MAKE THE BOAT GO FASTER?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INOQAuMGxBQ Fundraising Strategy in Context
- Vision and Mission
- Fundraising Objectives Fundraising Strategy in Context
- Vision and Mission
- Fundraising Objectives
- Income Types
- Resources Income Options
Donor → Gifts Funder → Grants Purchaser → Contracts Consumer → Open Market
Asking → Earning Income Sources:
- Partnership work/income
- Loans/Grants mix
- Sponsors – Co., & Corp.
- Trusts & Foundations
- Contracts
- Trading
- Products & Services
- Service Level Agreements
- Media/Journalism
- Income via marketing
- Training & Events
- DIY Fundraising
- Lottery Funds
- Shares
- Patrons/Individuals
- On-Line Giving
- Payroll Giving
- Gift Aid
- Donor Contributions
= How are you funded at the moment?
Note: Check Governing Document Setting Targets
- Targeting is essential in any Fundraising Strategy
- Whether you have one overall target or several depending on what you want to achieve – make sure you have one!
- Be realistic - make sure your targets and who you are targeting for the funds align!
- Make sure you have a plan in place to manage how you are going to achieve your targets How much money do you need?
Need is not the same as Want!
What do you need funds to pay for? • What is already funded? • Can you justify your expenditure?
Do you need to generate more money over time? • Why? What for? (is there a need for you to do more work, and if so, can you justify it?)
Modesty is the best policy Income Options
Income Types AFTER LUNCH EXERCISE Fundraising Strategy in Context Resources
Communications
Finance
How you measure Impact
People
Partners Resourcing your fundraising
You need to also make sure you allow space for fundraising
• How can you commit resource to fundraising?
• Does this impact on how much you can realistically raise?
• If your need is great, how can you find extra resource?
• Fundraising has lead-in times so if you started today you may see returns in
6 months+ for Trusts/Foundations
2 years+ for Major Donors
Anything from 1 to 10 years+ for Legacy gifts
1 year+ for Corporate sponsorship WIDER CONTEXT Remember – not all archives are equal (when it comes to fundraising)
How well equipped is your sector to fundraise?
How much internal support will you need to have, particularly if your archive is part of a larger body?
How much funding can your archive raise from within your larger organisation?
If your archive is independent/ specialist what are the reasons that you should be going into fundraising, and who are you competing with?
How geared up will you be to resource a fundraising campaign? “Have we thought about asking Richard Branson for a donation?” Fundraising activities RISKY BUSINESS… Building risk into Target Setting: Developing a Pipeline
As part of your target setting you should have pipeline of prospects, at least for the next year you need funds for.
Then you can….
1. Determine definitions which work for you for what constitutes a High, Medium or Low probability of being successful.
2. Grade each income opportunity as ‘high probability, medium probability or low probability’ of success. You may also want to have a category ‘cold ask’ for those that are a complete long-shot.
3. Adjust the amount of potential income accordingly.
## Addressing Other Risks
| RISK MAP | High impact | Med. Impact | Low impact | |----------------|-------------|-------------|------------| | High likelihood| Action! | Action! | Plan | | Medium likelihood| Action! | Plan | Awareness | | Low likelihood | Plan | Awareness | Awareness | Format
There is no ‘right’ format or structure – do what works for you!
The next few slides give some options for different headings you may want to use, and questions you may want to answer.
Don’t feel constrained by them however! Do what works for you. Next Steps… THANK YOU The National Archives
Fundraising for Archives
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2861-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 34,
"total-input-tokens": 43338,
"total-output-tokens": 2654,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
93,
1
],
[
93,
185,
2
],
[
185,
281,
3
],
[
281,
553,
4
],
[
553,
598,
5
],
[
598,
598,
6
],
[
598,
893,
7
],
[
893,
945,
8
],
[
945,
1374,
9
],
[
1374,
2407,
10
],
[
2407,
2485,
11
],
[
2485,
2564,
12
],
[
2564,
2670,
13
],
[
2670,
2779,
14
],
[
2779,
3224,
15
],
[
3224,
3583,
16
],
[
3583,
3906,
17
],
[
3906,
3935,
18
],
[
3935,
3935,
19
],
[
3935,
3956,
20
],
[
3956,
3988,
21
],
[
3988,
4065,
22
],
[
4065,
4551,
23
],
[
4551,
4565,
24
],
[
4565,
5069,
25
],
[
5069,
5132,
26
],
[
5132,
5155,
27
],
[
5155,
5171,
28
],
[
5171,
5734,
29
],
[
5734,
6059,
30
],
[
6059,
6317,
31
],
[
6317,
6329,
32
],
[
6329,
6339,
33
],
[
6339,
6386,
34
]
]
} |
40adc5e6440cced2ef6d694e9d49f27718ecb994 | Handout 1.05: Income Split
Complete the table for your organisation, function or project (whichever is most relevant for you) as percentages (%). They don’t have to be exact – just rough numbers!
| Income Type | Three years ago | Now | In three years’ time | |------------------------------------|-----------------|-----|----------------------| | **Parent Organisation** | | | | | **Other** | | | | | Statutory Grants | | | | | National Lottery Distributors | | | | | (e.g. Heritage Lottery Fund) | | | | | **Private Investment** | | | | | Trusts and Foundations | | | | | Corporate Sponsorship | | | | | Major Donors | | | | | Individuals (low level givers, | | | | | regular donors etc) | | | | | Events | | | | | **Earned Income** | | | | | Statutory Contracts | | | | | Sales | | | | | **Total (check they add up to 100%)** | | | |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2862-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1615,
"total-output-tokens": 342,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1748,
1
]
]
} |
c37d2a1f796b6c5e7f50632e1d837ba05f2b3869 | ## FUNDRAISING STRATEGY
### OVERALL ORGANISATIONAL STRATEGIC AIMS
### DEPARTMENTAL STRATEGIC AIMS
### FUNDRAISING OBJECTIVES
### CURRENT INCOME SOURCES
| FUNDRAISING DIRECT | FUNDRAISING INDIRECT | PARENT ORGANISATION | INCOME GENERATION | |--------------------|----------------------|---------------------|-------------------|
### INCOME BUDGET
| FUNDRAISING DIRECT | FUNDRAISING INDIRECT | PARENT ORGANISATION | INCOME GENERATION | |--------------------|----------------------|---------------------|-------------------| | BUDGET | STRETCH | BUDGET | STRETCH | | 12 Months | 12 Months | 12 Months | 12 Months | | 24 Months | 24 Months | 24 Months | 24 Months | | 36 Months | 36 Months | 36 Months | 36 Months |
### RESOURCES REQUIRED TO DELIVER INCOME
| FUNDRAISING DIRECT | FUNDRAISING INDIRECT | PARENT ORGANISATION | INCOME GENERATION | |--------------------|----------------------|---------------------|-------------------|
### KEY FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES
| INCOME STREAM | ACTIVITY | TIMELINE | |---------------|----------|----------|
### LEVEL OF RISK
| FUNDRAISING DIRECT | FUNDRAISING INDIRECT | PARENT ORGANISATION | INCOME GENERATION | |--------------------|----------------------|---------------------|-------------------| | BUDGET | STRETCH | BUDGET | STRETCH | | 12 Months | 12 Months | 12 Months | 12 Months | | 24 Months | 24 Months | 24 Months | 24 Months | | 36 Months | 36 Months | 36 Months | 36 Months |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2863-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1899,
"total-output-tokens": 501,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1760,
1
]
]
} |
ea30944f9d038d66356dd224e57d968c004a0e71 | Benchmarking & Evaluation
Heidi Bellamy - Director, Culture First The purpose of today is to: ‘enable you to better evaluate performance of the archive service and gain realistic comparisons of potential’. The topics
**Bench marking**: measuring performance against other comparable services to identify realistic outcomes and targets
**Developing an evaluation process**: how to design an effective evaluation process What is Benchmarking?
A systematic process for comparing performance More than a rank in a league table – track performance, plan and advocate It differs from other improvement techniques: • focuses on excellence; • involves detailed comparisons; • pools shared information to benefit all contributors; • encourages front line managers and staff in seeking out and implementing change Benchmarking in an archive context
Benchmarking data is usually quantitative so it’s important to support with more qualitative statements.
It can be put to best use when illustrating ‘stories’
• how well an exhibition went (higher visitor numbers than in the same period of a previous year) • how you are contributing to social agendas (how many volunteers and the hours they give) • how effectively you are spending public/charitable money (the amount of match £ and things you’ve been able to deliver as a result) What is available for archives?
Archive Service Accreditation - is a UK wide quality standard which offers a general benchmark PSQG data - survey of visitors to UK archives every 18 months Allows you to compare groups or apply filters. It covers: • Purpose of visit • Frequency of visit • Satisfaction with staff, services and facilities • Outcome of visit Headline report and benchmarking template for October 14 is available from the ARA website What is available for archives?
CIPFA data - comparative profiles enable you to examine how your service costs and performance compare to your peers/nearest neighbours. The profiles look at the following key aspects of archive service provision:
- numbers of access points and service users/visitors
- costs of running archives services
- levels of staffing and volunteers
- availability of resources to the public
- holdings and storage capacity levels
- levels of funding levered in
- user satisfaction How to use the benchmarking data
- Strategic Decision makers - Corporate level, Board of Trustees, Vice Chancellor etc
- Councillors
- Funders
- Commissioners
- Media
- Other? Corporate level
Good organisations will be assessing their performance at Corporate level. Demonstrating that archives offer value is vital. Compelling benchmarking data:
- £ funding secured in past years,
- user numbers have grown despite reduced staff or through volunteer support.
Worth benchmarking the range of functions carried out for the parent body. Benchmarking data can be used to grab attention! Statistics go down well, but make a simple statement, such as ‘Archives users up by 10%’
Some key things to bear in mind:
• Be accurate – make sure the data can be substantiated • Be clear about why you are communicating the information and what you expect as a result • Be concise - politicians are presented with a lot of facts so make yours stand out, it needs to bite-sized and memorable • Make it personal approach – tailor message to their individual interest or give it a local constituency focus Benchmarking data is good for demonstrating ‘how many’ or ‘how much’
Doesn’t illustrate benefit to the individual, community or place, so supplement with user testimony, surveys and interviews
Funders are likely to require additional reporting measures Commissioners
Archives can contribute to wider outcomes and a range of local priorities. You need to have an understanding of your unit costs. It helps to compare the proposed activity with alternative interventions or describe the proxy savings. Benchmarking data is a great ‘hook’ for media communications
Use a key fact such as an increase in user numbers or the financial value of your volunteers
Then enrich with narrative:
• How did you achieve the increase – new service/exhibition? • How does volunteering bring the community together? • What did the users enjoy/learn/benefit? Summary
Benchmarking data will provide a bedrock of evidence
Basic principles of using your Benchmarking data for advocacy:
• Know what message(s) you want to get across • Concentrate on delivering few key points well • Be clear about what Benchmarking data can and can’t do • Be sure of your conclusions Evaluation – a powerful tool for learning What is evaluation?
A structured way of thinking about what happens and why
Evaluation is based on the following ideas
• Evaluation involves making judgements, based on evidence, about the value and quality of a project • Evaluation is open and clear and involves all partners, including the people taking part • Evaluation helps with decision-making during a project and for future projects Why evaluate?
Evaluation has two main purposes:
• to improve practice during the project and for future projects • to show what happened as a result of a project
It can be simple or complex
Internal assessment or External evaluator Five stages of evaluation
Stage 1: Planning Stage 2: Collecting evidence Stage 3: Interpreting Stage 4: Moving forwards Stage 5: Reporting & Sharing Stage 1 - Planning to evaluate
Think about evaluation at the beginning and include in the project schedule/project budget
Set clear aims, objectives and measures of success to inform the evaluation
Consider:
• Who will have overall responsibility for evaluation? • Who else will have a role in collecting evidence? • How much will evaluation cost in time and money? • How will you collect the evidence you need? • When will you review the project? Stage 2 - Collecting evidence
Collect evidence before, during and at the end of a project This will help establish a baseline and enable you to illustrate change The evidence collected should help you judge if the aims and objectives have been achieved and capture any unplanned outcomes Quantitative and qualitative evidence Stage 2 - Choose the right methods
- Will the methods meet funders’ requirements?
- Flexible enough to reveal unexpected outcomes?
- Are they ‘user friendly’ for everyone taking part?
- Do they take account of equal opportunities, ethical and safeguarding issues for CYP and vulnerable adults?
- Will evidence be likely to give different points of view?
- Can evidence be collected without disrupting project?
- Do you have the resources to manage the chosen methods? Pros & Cons of evaluation methods
- Comments’ boxes and books
- Questionnaires
- Small group discussions
- Individual interviews
- Recordings
- Displays at the end of a project
- Observation
- Online websites/chatrooms
- Photography Stage 3 – Interpreting and analysing
Turning raw data into evidence can be time consuming. Quantitative - Survey monkey and similar speed this up. Qualitative evidence may not be as easy to interpret. The following techniques may help you:
• Look back at your original measures of success to help pick out what you need. • Initially sort comments into positive and negative groups. • Check that your judgements are based on evidence from the range of people involved with the project. • Focus on evidence which shows change, progress and development. • Try to establish the majority view. • Look for unexpected outcomes. • ‘Quotable quotes’ Stage 4 – Reflecting & moving forwards
A meeting at the end of the project should not be the end of the evaluation process!
• What were the key findings from the evaluation for the archive service and/or for other partners? • How can strengths and opportunities be built on? • How can weaknesses be reduced? • Is the project likely to have longer-term outcomes, as yet unknown? If so, how will you find out about them? Are they likely to be significant for future work? • What decisions and changes should now be made? Stage 5 – Reporting & Sharing
A written project report is useful for:
• building up organisational knowledge • sharing ideas and good practice with others • helping with future funding applications • showing people what you do
Other ways of reporting may be more appropriate?
In presenting the evidence consider safeguarding and confidentiality issues
Remember to share finding with participants! Stage 5 – Written Reports
Avoid the pitfall of too much description and not enough analysis, conclusions and future action points
• aim to make your report as short as possible • use tables and bullet points to summarise • remember that photographs/diagrams save on words
And keep asking these questions: Are we just telling the story of the project? Have we interpreted the evidence? Are future recommendations based on conclusions?
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2864-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 27,
"total-input-tokens": 33202,
"total-output-tokens": 2751,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
67,
2
],
[
67,
207,
3
],
[
207,
422,
4
],
[
422,
808,
5
],
[
808,
1328,
6
],
[
1328,
1777,
7
],
[
1777,
2284,
8
],
[
2284,
2461,
9
],
[
2461,
2823,
10
],
[
2823,
3378,
11
],
[
3378,
3633,
12
],
[
3633,
3881,
13
],
[
3881,
4223,
14
],
[
4223,
4531,
15
],
[
4531,
4573,
16
],
[
4573,
4968,
17
],
[
4968,
5204,
18
],
[
5204,
5354,
19
],
[
5354,
5806,
20
],
[
5806,
6133,
21
],
[
6133,
6602,
22
],
[
6602,
6836,
23
],
[
6836,
7479,
24
],
[
7479,
8000,
25
],
[
8000,
8402,
26
],
[
8402,
8838,
27
]
]
} |
e13079a13d825dbd78aef00623bab508a4e32e99 | What is full cost recovery?
Full Cost Recovery means securing funding for, or ‘recovering’, all your costs, including the direct costs of projects and all your overheads. Every organisation, whether voluntary, public or private, needs to recover all its costs, and ideally generate a surplus, or it cannot pay its employees, rent office space, offer its products and services, or plan for the future and the continued development and delivery of its services.
Funding to cover your costs can come from a variety of sources including: fees, charges, grants, contracts, donations, trading activities or payments in exchange for a particular product or service.
In an organisation there are two types of costs. Direct costs that are incurred as a direct result of running a project or service, and overhead costs that are incurred by an organisation in order to support the projects that it runs. The full cost of your organisation includes both the direct costs of all your projects and services and all your overheads. Therefore, the full cost of each of your projects includes both the direct costs and a portion of overheads as shown below.
It is important to note that although the diagram shows the overhead costs as proportional to the direct costs this will not always be the case. Since different projects make different demands on the organisation.
If you are not recovering the full costs of a project you are creating a deficit for your organisation. This deficit has to be met through additional fundraising or through subsidy from your unrestricted funds. Your unrestricted funds are not limitless. If you are not achieving full cost recovery you are jeopardising the longevity of your organisation and hence the services you provide. Full Cost Recovery: A guide and toolkit on cost allocation
This guide contains a template to help organisations calculate the full cost of a particular project or service, including an appropriate share of all relevant support services and other overheads.
Full costs of Project A
| A | B | C | D | E | |---|---|---|---|---| | Premises and office costs | | Central Functions e.g. finance, HR, IT | | Governance and strategic development | | General Fundraising (if needed) |
The full cost of an activity or output or project =
The direct costs of the activity +
The appropriate portion of all other costs in the organisation
Principles behind the template
The cost allocation template adheres to the principles behind The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting (CIPFA) guidance on best value accounting for local authorities Best value accounting: code of practice, CIPFA, 2000.
Average versus marginal cost
Projects costs can be calculated using either marginal costs or average costs. Average cost is the total cost of all services split by some determinant e.g. number of services delivered. The marginal cost is only the additional cost incurred in starting a new service, and does not include an appropriate share of overheads. For this reason, the template uses average cost.
Cost allocation
To calculate an appropriate portion of overhead costs to allocate to a project or service or output, the template uses a number of cost drivers for the different types of overheads. A cost driver is the factor that affects whether costs increase or decrease. The template uses:
- Headcount to allocate Premises and Office costs
- Time to allocate Central Function costs
- Expenditure to allocate Governance and Strategic Development costs
Full Cost Recovery: A guide and toolkit on cost allocation was developed with support from: The six step process of the template
The template calculates the full cost of a project or activity by using the following process:
1. Calculate the direct costs of the selected project or service;
2. Calculate the overhead costs for the organisation as a whole;
3. Allocate premises and office costs to the project, to the central functions (HR, finance etc.), and to general fundraising;
4. Allocate central function costs (now including a portion of premises and office costs) to the project, to governance and strategic development, and to general fundraising;
5. Allocate governance and strategic development costs (now including a portion of premises and office costs, and central functions costs) to the project, and to general fundraising;
6. Allocate general fundraising costs to the project if it needs to draw on fundraised income.
The output sheet
The output sheet shows the direct costs and the relevant portion of each category of overhead cost to give the full cost of the project.
Full Cost Recovery: A guide and toolkit on cost allocation was developed with support from: Full Cost Recovery Case Studies
*Full Cost Recovery: A guide and toolkit on cost allocation* was based on the full cost recovery template from *Funding our future II*. The cost allocation template is helping organisations across the third sector, from the largest household name charities through to smaller local agencies, take a more transparent, comprehensive and sustainable approach to costing projects.
The template helps charities to calculate the true cost of projects. Knowing true costs enables charities to review their costs, ensuring they are providing value for money. This knowledge in turn enables a more informed dialogue with their funders. The report also argues that all costs are essential to delivery, and must be recovered if charities are to survive, grow and develop.
The Compact Working Group, HM Treasury and the Department for Education and Skills have all recommended the template as good practice.
This paper contains seven case studies of charities that have used the template and its principles to cost their projects and services more effectively. BTCV
BTCV is the UK’s largest practical conservation charity. Founded in 1959, we help over 130,000 volunteers take hands-on action each year to improve the rural and urban environment at the same time as improving their personal wellbeing. We are committed to connecting people with place, whilst improving the diversity of the people with whom we work.
The turnover for BTCV Group for year-end March 2003 was just over £24M employing approx 750 staff. BTCV receives some strategic financial support in England from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Environmental Action Fund.
Other funding is provided on the basis of the delivery of specific projects and income generated through the delivery of those projects. Current funders include: The Community Fund, New Opportunities Fund, The Department for Education and Skills, The Home Office Active Communities Unit, The Department of Health, Learning and Skills Councils, Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, The European Social Fund and Local Authorities. This is not an exhaustive list as operational income comes from a very diverse source.
Traditionally we have looked for a percentage return on direct project costs to cover our infrastructure costs. However, many of our funders have only been willing to fund direct costs, and structure the bidding process accordingly. Covering continuity costs has been a major concern, as funders constantly seek innovation.
The consequences of Full Cost Recovery are probably not evident at this moment in time. We all recognise there is only a certain finite amount of funding available but better process for the allocation of the available “pot” are essential for a sustainable future.
Accepting the principles outlined in “Funding our Future II”, BTCV customized the template to reflect our activities. Our modified template recognises infrastructure costs at local, regional, country and group level and apportions these on the basis of the direct costs of a project. It can be used to generate targets to meet operational and infrastructure costs from project income or general fundraising.
The whole process enables fundraisers to justify levels of infrastructure costs, and adapt presentations to meet local needs and funders’ needs.
Our work has resulted in good evidence to justify the full cost of projects, based on real values and apportionments. We look forward to a time where Full Cost Recovery is accepted as normal everyday business rather than a battle to be fought. Community Network
Community Network, a national charity and company limited by guarantee, provides telephone conference call services to the third sector. Based in rented accommodation in London we have 15 staff of which 8 are full time, plus five Trustees, and an income of nearly £500k. The service is available Monday to Sunday 8.30am – 10.30pm with PIN access outside of these hours.
We have 800+ regular user-organisations ranging from large household name charities to small self-help and support groups and approximately 50,000 individuals used the service last year.
Currently we are in receipt of core funding from the Active Community Unit, Community Fund and Lloyds TSB Foundation, and receive project funding from the Department of Health. We also generate 46 – 50% of our income from conference sales.
In 2003 we were invited to tender, by Essex County Council, to provide conference call based support for carers across the county.
Recognising a potential new, and replicable, income generating opportunity we used the template to ensure an accurately costed and priced bid. Although at first glance the full cost recovery process didn't seem appropriate to our size or structure, it encouraged examination of our existing methods and a more rigorous approach to cost allocation. We were successful with our bid and six months later when we undertook an internal project review the figures still stood up! Since then, using the same template, we have been awarded contracts for a further two years!
Initially it took considerable time and effort on behalf of the Chief Executive and Head of Finance - but building full cost recovery into our operational processes, including a review of our current reserves policy, has allowed us to take a more robust stance with funders and clients alike by clearly demonstrating actual service costs. RNID
RNID is the largest charity working on behalf of the nine million deaf and hard of hearing people in the UK, with a vision of a world where deafness and hearing loss are not barriers to opportunity and fulfillment. It seeks to achieve this vision by campaigning, providing services, undertaking research, applying technology and building partnerships to maximise impact. It has 35,000 members and a total income of £46m, of which £33m is spent on service delivery.
RNID is a diverse organisation with major activities in employment, health, social care, communications, information, legal casework, equipment provision etc. Whether these activities generate fee, contract, sales or project fundraised income, RNID has sought to cost its work accurately in order to recover full costs. By doing so, services become sustainable and capable of expansion to meet identified needs without the limitations imposed by subsidies from voluntary income.
In order to achieve this aim, RNID has in recent years identified the costs of supporting activities such as HR, Finance and IS, and apportioned these to direct delivery services. Why then has RNID found the template attractive enough to change the processes and systems across the whole organisation?
Internally, we felt strongly that the template’s methodology would bring even greater rigour and accuracy, aiding the objective of recovering total costs. It also improved cost-effectiveness analysis of each service, which, when coupled with a measure of the impact achieved, clearly demonstrated levels of performance and efficiency.
The wider benefits of the template include a greater recognition by funders and purchasers of the value and cost-effectiveness of third sector service provision. With this comes a greater acceptance of the need to recover real costs. To achieve this, the sector has long needed a professional, consistent approach to identifying costs, which clearly demonstrates how charities incur and manage central costs in relation to service delivery.
From such a base, negotiations over fees and funding can focus on service levels, outcomes and efficiency without being distorted by the voluntary sector subsiding statutory services. The template is a step towards this brighter future. Ruth Brown, of Community First
As a development worker, I have introduced the template to two organisations, each with an income of between £120-160k. One is a mental health charity, predominantly funded by social services departments but looking at sustainable and independently funded projects, the other is a women's support charity, funded predominantly by LSC, Surestart and Community Fund, with some independent grants.
Costing up until I introduced the template was done on a "gut" feel. It is quite extraordinary how very close a gut feel can be, and I wouldn't want to underestimate the skills these chief officers have. However, as we all acknowledge, gut feel does not always accurately reflect the contribution of central functions to delivering the service, or the role and importance of indirect costs.
Both organisations quickly absorbed the implications of government policy and the template, and were keen to understand their central functions and how they could allocate them proportionately.
Both groups are now using the template to review their costing processes. The women's support group plans to use the template before each new funding application is put together. They found the more rigorous approach allowed them to cost their service more accurately, and build reserves in a clear cut manner, either through average costing or through putting in a reserves percentage with the confidence of being able to back up why it has to be that amount and why the funder should pay it.
Although the pressures of running an organisation limit the time chief officers can spend on changing processes, my colleagues and I are working hard to help chief officers overcome these pressures and work towards full cost recovery.
Both groups are increasingly confident in arguing their case, and I believe the model will give them the evidence they need to tip the balance towards full cost recovery. They are very positive about how it can allow them to cost more sustainable projects (e.g. training in the work place to pre-empt and prevent mental health issues). They both are committed to full cost recovery, and I believe that with support, will achieve it. Shaftesbury Society
The Shaftesbury Society is a large, Christian-based charity that works with disabled people and local communities to achieve social inclusion, empowerment and justice. We deliver a range of diverse services in three areas: Education (through 3 schools and 2 colleges), Adult Support Services, and Regeneration.
Turnover is £28m, with £3m of overhead costs. Approximately 90% of our funding comes from fees, contracted service agreements and grants. The remaining 10% is from voluntary donations.
In April 2003 we decided we needed to look at our overheads. We knew that our overheads had been growing but did not know the specific drivers that had contributed to this, or how best to attribute overheads to specific projects or outputs.
We began our own cost allocation process (a combination of Activity Based Costing and Zero Based Budgeting) in June 2003, led by the Director of Resources, David Walter. We found Funding our Future II and the template book helpful in affirming our process, explaining what made sense, and providing a standard methodology for minimising and treating the “lump” of overheads at the end that were difficult to allocate.
The exercise has proved invaluable for internal transparency, providing a more accurate “overhead charge” for different outputs and helping to inform everyone within the organisation what each part of the overhead does and costs.
We have made progress in our efforts to achieve full cost recovery, and one of the next steps is to lobby formula funders on the national rates used in formula funding to reflect justifiable changes in costs, and in particular the growth of overheads, over time. The template, and the transparency it provides in showing funders what projects and outputs actually cost, should be well received by funders and help us to make our case. Toc H
Toc H is a medium size charity, committed to building a fairer society by working with communities to promote friendship and service, to confront prejudice and practise reconciliation. Our activities include volunteering opportunities, community projects, and providing residential/non residential centres.
We have developed a family of programmes each geared towards working in the particular fields mentioned above. We employ around 30 full time and 10 part time staff; we also have around 3000 committed volunteers throughout England, Wales & Scotland.
Our main funders at the present time are the Community Fund, O.D.P.M, Wigan Council (Talbot Centres programme) each contributing specifically to a programme of our work.
Historically Toc H had applied the “10% rule” to any project operating within a programme. This had major disadvantages as the additional 10% bears no relation to our true operating costs.
Toc H adopted the template early last summer and found that it had immediate uses for identifying, calculating and distributing our direct support costs for each programme. This has proved very successful and is worked into each project budget.
It has been extremely useful to calculate the full cost of projects. We are now working to make sure our process takes account of the income generated by the organisation to cover operating costs.
A more rigorous approach to cost allocation will help provide a far more substantial future for charities, by raising awareness of actual delivery costs. This is a vast improvement on the historical ‘finger in the wind approach’, and being ‘grateful’ to funders for any amount of funding offered.
Lobbying, hopefully, will start to influence funders in acceptance of full cost recovery. Charities also have a responsibility to show prospective funders how indirect support costs play a part in delivery, and why it is essential to cover them. Vista (The Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind) is the major provider of services to blind and partially sighted people in Leicestershire and Rutland. It was founded in 1858, and is a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. Vista employs 238 staff and 560 volunteers. We have an annual turnover of almost £5 million.
Vista has service level agreements with the Social Services Departments of Leicester City Council, Leicestershire County Council, and Rutland County Council. Our residential homes are funded from fees from both local authorities and self-funding placements. Vista also receives grant funding from the Leicester Royal Infirmary (NHS Trust) Ophthalmic Department. Vista gets the remainder of its funding from fundraising and investment income derived from the Stock Market and investment properties.
In the past, cost accounting was used crudely, often missing significant overhead costs. This lead to several contracted services being under-funded. Additionally, it was difficult to show the local authorities where the problem lay because there was no coherent costing structure.
The adoption of both the template and other cost accounting models has allowed us to understand our cost base. Vista now understands its running costs, which coincides with the introduction of a fully delegated budget management system.
We now find that Vista more under-funded than was first thought, but have the knowledge to address the problems. Vista is now more confident that all the costs needed have been identified when we bid for projects. We are able to demonstrate the need for more realistic funding, which has resulted in the re-negotiation of more realistic fees for services.
Despite some resistance, now that we are able to be totally transparent with our costings, funders have slowly agreed to our revised fees.
Over the next financial year we will ensure that every service, whether funded from donations or under contract funders, must be underpinned by full cost recovery.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2865-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 21403,
"total-output-tokens": 4437,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1751,
1
],
[
1751,
3608,
2
],
[
3608,
4702,
3
],
[
4702,
5787,
4
],
[
5787,
8294,
5
],
[
8294,
10152,
6
],
[
10152,
12422,
7
],
[
12422,
14601,
8
],
[
14601,
16447,
9
],
[
16447,
18361,
10
],
[
18361,
20401,
11
]
]
} |
e869645cd2397e411a8605bf0e7ac14c0a4ba673 | Evaluation of the Fundraising for Archives programme
The National Archives
May 2018
©RedQuadrant 2018 Sue Mckenzie
Image copyright The National Archives Contents
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 4
2. Background ....................................................................................................................... 7
3. What the project aimed to achieve .................................................................................. 9 3.1 Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Outputs: who took part? ............................................................................................ 10
4. Project delivery: what actually happened ....................................................................... 14
5. Evaluation: how we have measured success .................................................................. 17
6. Success stories ................................................................................................................ 22
7. Lessons learnt ................................................................................................................ 24
8. Legacy: strategic recommendations .............................................................................. 25 Appendices: ....................................................................................................................... 26 Executive Summary
This report evaluates the success of the Fundraising for Archives training programme, delivered by The National Archives and funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund. The project was a capacity-building and training programme to support the UK archives sector in improving its fundraising knowledge, skills and capacity, and was delivered between 2016 and March 2018.
The programme emerged as a result of the ‘Funding the Archives Sector’ research project, which identified a range of skills gaps and development needs within the sector in achieving sustainable services and attracting external fundraising.
Fundraising for Archives aimed to create a step-change in the level of understanding and implementation of fundraising best practice in the archive sector.
The training focused on ten key areas:
- Financial preparedness: planning, efficiency and resilience;
- First steps in developing a fundraising strategy;
- Building a case for support;
- Developing advocates and in-kind support;
- Capital campaigns;
- Running fundraising events
- Individual giving: legacy;
- Individual giving: crowd-sourcing;
- Individual giving: relationship management (stewardship) and major gifts; and
- Measuring outcomes
By the end of the programme........
550 individuals took part from 408 organisations across the UK and beyond
So far 111 people have completed online modules
There were 92 training days and 93 mentoring sessions
Satisfaction was high, with 96% having a better understanding of fundraising options for archives as a result of the training and 96% feeling more confident about fundraising. Lessons learnt
- One of the biggest factors in the success of the programme was the delivery redesign in 2015, once it was established that the project was not going to work in its current form. The recognition that capacity from attending training is tight in many parts of the archives sector meant that more.
- Running a multi-year project with the inevitable changes in staff will always be a challenge in terms of maintaining continuity and ensuring consistency of quality.
- Recruitment to the cohorts was, nevertheless, an ongoing challenge. The non-user surveyed showed that 50% of those surveyed would have liked to have taken part in the programme but felt unable to. The current financial climate has led to budget and staff reductions in many archive services, particularly in the public sector. Releasing staff for training has become much more difficult, especially if commitment to a programme is required. The ‘resilience’ cohort, set up in 2017 to address these issues demonstrated the programme’s responsive ethos very well. Establishing networks across the sector to share knowledge and experience is enormously valuable. The cohort approach and events worked very well but the wider networking less so. The LinkedIn page was not enough, it became obvious that some facilitation is needed;
The mentoring support was very successful and the offer of individual support with funding applications and other projects was appreciated by participants;
There is still an issue with archivists having a wider understanding of the finances of their parent organisations. This is often the case with smaller services within, for example, a large local authority but it can be a barrier to obtaining funding and building partnerships;
Those working in the archives sector are more familiar with grant applications than with some of the more challenging areas of fundraising, such as crowdsourcing or securing legacies and gifts. The programme has helped build confidence in those areas;
The stability of funding for archive services is still a major concern for many of the participants.
Recommendations
The Fundraising for Archives programme has made a significant difference to the sector, building confidence and increasing skills. This is demonstrated by the positive feedback and success stories. One of the key successes, according to participants, was the availability of someone to talk to about projects and funding applications. Although the project is now at an end, thought should be given to continuing support, perhaps in partnership with other organisations such as ARA;
There is a growing challenge in the sector: how do we upskill staff when there is limited capacity for CPD? Releasing staff for training has become much more difficult, especially if commitment to a programme is required. Although it does not have the benefit of face to face learning, online training is a good way of reaching those who could otherwise not take part. With staffing very tight in many services, online modules should continue to be developed and made available and funding sought to develop more;
Additionally, the mixed approach to a national training programme: cohorts, open call and bespoke sessions, addresses the capacity issue and is one that should be adopted for other training. With the introduction of the ‘resilience’ module in 2017, participants were able to take part where they could and according to the capacity of their service. This was a key reason that so many people attended and benefited from the training, leading to a shift in knowledge nationally; • TNA could facilitate an online network for the sharing of ideas. The libraries sector has a very successful and active ‘innovation network’, where discussions, reports and examples of good (and bad) practice are shared across the country. This model could be adopted for archives. It would, however, need some facilitation;
• The two events for friends and supporters were very popular and the benefits of shared experience and networking were clearly recognised. There is a need for an ongoing networking forum for friends groups;
• There is much support amongst participants for training materials to be available online, as well as the actual eLearning modules;
• The feedback in Appendix D illustrates that there is a clear need for the training material to continue to be current. Archivists are operating in a fast changing world. Resources can disappear overnight and, equally, new ways of sourcing funding can appear. Some careful consideration needs to be given to how the valuable programme content can be updated in the future and remain responsive to the needs of the sector.
“The program has been a lifeline to beleaguered services, directly giving skills and knowledge. TNA have given leadership and mobilised the sector and wider partners. Things will never go back to how they were before”
Comment from Knowledge Sharing Day March 2018
1. Background
Fundraising for Archives (FfA) is a ground-breaking training programme for people who work in archives, aimed at equipping the sector with the confidence and skills to successfully secure funding for their service. Practical training, mentoring and online content are part of the programme. The programme was funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund’s Catalyst programme. The National Archives (TNA) received a grant of over £489k and aimed to reach 188 archive services across the UK. In fact, 408 organisations had been supported by the end of the programme.
The project began as Giving Value in 2014. Low take-up and uncertainty about the suitability of the delivery methods and capacity of the sector led to a pause in the project to review the programme. The review led to a reshaping of the delivery, ensuring a programme that suited to needs of archive staff and had a reasonable geographical spread. The revised programme became Fundraising for Archives and relaunched in 2015.
The project was delivered in partnership with The Scottish Council on Archives (SCA), Public Records Office for Northern Ireland (PRONI), Museums Archives and Libraries Division Wales (MALD), and the Archives and Records Association (ARA).
FfA offered tailored learning support which could be applied in real fundraising situations. The programme aimed to increase archivists and archive services’ capacity, skills and confidence in fundraising. This was an exciting opportunity for the sector to develop expertise, which would help to secure future investment and contribute to the future sustainability of archive services. The need for fundraising training was identified in the ‘Funding the Archives Sector’ report,¹ and was delivered against a backdrop of reduced public sector funding and increased expectations of securing external funding in archive services.
The FfA project originally aimed to deliver 30 open call sessions and 8 cohorts, delivering fundraising training for archivists and archive services across the UK, including Scotland and Wales.
¹ www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/.../archives/funding-the-archive-sector The infographic below illustrates the logic behind the development of the training modules:
**The foundations of Fundraising:**
- How much do you need?
- What are you asking for?
- Building internal support.
- Retaining & developing
- Current relationships
1. Financial Planning
2. Developing a Fundraising Strategy
3. Building a Case for Support & Advocacy
4. Monitoring & Evaluation
**Fundraising techniques and tools, specific to each income stream**
- Major Gifts, Corporates, Legacy Fundraising
- Bidwriting
- Building Networks
- Crowdfunding & Online Fundraising
- Friends Groups & Volunteer Fundraising
2. What the project aimed to achieve
3.1 Outcomes
For Heritage
- Heritage will be better managed as archive services will be more financially robust, and archivists and those managing archive services will have a better understanding of the value of bringing a strategic approach to fundraising; and
- Heritage will have increased long term sustainability and opportunities for access and engagement with new and existing audiences
For People
- Archivists and those working in archives will have the opportunity to develop new skills in the areas of strategic fundraising and advocacy as well as specific areas of development activity according to organisational need;
- Archivists and those working in archives will have learned to work with their parent organisations to advocate for their service, and have stronger, more confident services as a result; and
- Archivists and those working in archives will have developed new networks and peer support groups through which to continue to share their learning and continuously develop professional skills.
For Communities
- Archives will be more innovative and flexible in their approach to funding, bringing greater resilience and more sustainable services to their communities. This will increase the opportunities for local involvement in the service, and bring fresh new partnerships to increase the accessibility and reach of the collections. It will increase opportunities for community-built partnerships and volunteering.
In order to be clear about what the FfA programme aims to achieve in the longer term, RedQuadrant have created a simple Outcomes Framework, using the stated outcomes from the original application to the Heritage Lottery Fund and the stated ambitions of the project team. The outcomes framework articulates what difference the projects were trying to make to communities, practitioners and the wider archives sector. It has been used as the basis for the evaluation and for identifying strategic opportunities going forward.
3.2 Outputs: who took part?
The original proposed project outputs can be seen at Appendix E. However, following the review of the project in 2014 and the changes in delivery methods, the outputs have changed significantly. This is a positive development, the review ensured that the project reflected the capacity of the sector to engage in the training, and the successful delivery has proved that.
| Total number of **individuals** supported across entire programme | 550 | | Total number of **organisations** supported across entire programme | 408 | | Total number of **events** delivered across entire programme | 96 | | Total number of **places** available across entire programme | 1494 | | Number of events/activities | Number of individuals attending | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------| | Training days | Training days (face to face) | | 92 | 425 | | Conferences | Conferences | | 3 | 446 | | Specific/bespoke single-organisation support sessions| Specific/bespoke, single-organisation support sessions| | 11 | 48 | | Mentoring opportunities | Mentoring opportunities | | 93 | 93 | | Webinars | Webinars | | 3 | 17 | | TOTAL | TOTAL | | 202 | 1,029 |
### 3.3 Geographical spread
This was a national programme and it was important that archivists from across the country had the same opportunity to take part. The maps below were created using locations provided by participants in all aspects of the programme. Not shown on the maps are one physical participant from Rome, two online from Texas and one online from Bulgaria.
Training sessions were held in different parts of the country: Birmingham, London, Manchester, Wales and Scotland. Two bespoke training programmes were also commissioned in Gloucester and Cornwall.
Conferences for Friends Groups were held in London and Durham.
eLearning modules and mentoring by telephone were obviously easier geographically and were popular. However, a number of participants extolled the virtues of face to face learning. 3. Project delivery: what actually happened
The training modules In total, there were 92 training days. The training focused on ten key areas:
- Financial preparedness: planning, efficiency and resilience;
- First steps in developing a fundraising strategy;
- Building a case for support;
- Developing advocates and in-kind support;
- Capital campaigns;
- Running fundraising events;
- Individual giving: legacy;
- Individual giving: crowd-sourcing;
- Individual giving: relationship management (stewardship) and major gifts; and
- Measuring outcomes
Cohorts There were two rounds of cohorts in 2016 and 2017. Each cohort training schedule ran for approximately six months.
In 2016, they split into geographical areas: London, Birmingham, Scotland and Wales.
45 participants took part in the 2016 cohort and 40 in 2017.
In 2017, in response to issues identified around the capacity of services to commit, there was a ‘resilience’ cohort of 15 participants.
The resilience cohort was designed to meet the needs of archive services that were at the very beginning of their fundraising journey. The training package was tailored to place emphasis on getting the foundations for fundraising in place; to help develop funding streams to support smaller unspecified projects or core funding. It was also designed to suit services which did not have the capacity to commit to a 6 month programme or attend one course each month.
Open Call sessions Open Call session were stand-alone elements of the training that were open to all within the archives sector. 32 Open Call sessions were held in total.
87 participants attended Open Call sessions in 2016; 94 attended in 2017. **Bespoke training** 19 people received bespoke, i.e. specially commissioned training:
- 11 at Gloucester;
- 7 at Cornwall; and
- 1 person at UCL (London)
**Online modules** One of the most successful additions to the programme has been the introduction of e-learning modules on:
- Making a case for support;
- Financial planning;
- Developing a fundraising strategy;
- Measuring outcomes and evaluation;
- Crowdfunding; and
- Building networks and supporters
Three of these are already live online, and the remaining three will be go live as part of the move into ‘Business as Usual’.
Additionally, selected materials from the 11 training courses were made available in the archives sector area of TNA’s website, which is currently going through a refresh. A separate project has been begun by TNA staff to create a ‘decision tree’ with these materials and resources embedded within it.
At the time of writing, 111 people had completed online training modules.
**Mentoring support** As part of the project-extension phase of the programme, in early 2018, mentoring sessions were offered to:
- Discuss ongoing fundraising needs and offer tailored guidance archive services;
- Aid progression from theory to practice; and
- Learn about fundraising success stories or barriers that were encountered, and consider further steps which can be taken to reach fundraising goals
In total, 93 sessions were delivered. Detail of the range of issues that were raised is at Appendix E but they included:
- Support for funding applications;
- Advice on securing funding for specific collections, including crowdfunding;
- Setting up trusts or foundations;
- Securing donations; and
- Working in partnership with friends groups Conferences Two conferences were held for Friends Groups and supporters: one in London, where 52 people attended and one in Durham, with 40 attendees.
In addition, a Knowledge Sharing Day was held at the end of the project, with the presentation of case studies. There were 51 attendees.
Creating a peer to peer network One of the key aims of the project was to share knowledge and create an online peer to peer network. A LinkedIn group was set up with limited success. Please see recommendations at the end of this report. 4. Evaluation: how we have measured success
RedQuadrant used a wide variety of evaluation methods during the life of the project:
A survey of the first cohort to measure effectiveness of the training
Data from the diagnostic survey undertaken by participants at the beginning of the first cohort, was matched against a subsequent survey carried out once they had completed the course. In this way, RedQuadrant were able to measure progress. However, there are some caveats with this methodology because not all trainees studied each area identified. Additionally, in the light of a separate TNA project that focussed entirely on commissioning and the lessons learned from that exercise, commissioning training was de-scoped from the FfA project. Interestingly, a rise in understanding of commissioning still occurred.
Evaluation focused on the participants’ understanding of the 20 knowledge areas and 15 skills identified as key outcome areas for the course.
31 out of the 33 cohort members completed the initial survey. Only 22 out of the 31 completed the second survey, despite reminders. Although this was disappointing, measuring by percentage of the total possible score against each knowledge or skill area enabled a fair comparison.
Although this was a useful exercise it was time intensive and perhaps not the most effective way of measuring against project outcomes. It was therefore agreed with the project manager that, to make best use of evaluation resources, the survey of the second cohorts would not be undertaken and a final survey of all participants in the programme was done instead.
The full results of the survey are attached as Appendix A. Headline results are below:
A survey of archivists who did not take part in the programme
Using the Archives NRA email network, RedQuadrant surveyed those who chose not to take part in the survey. Full survey results are at Appendix B. 54 people responded and highlights were:
- 50% of respondents had wanted to take part in the programme but had felt unable to;
- 60% cited lack of time as their reason not to take part; and
- 61% favoured online learning as a viable way to learn A final survey of all participants in the programme
In April 2018, all participants were surveyed, whether cohort, open call, conference attendees or online. 65 people responded. Full survey results are at Appendix C. Highlights were:
- 96% of participants now have a better understanding of fundraising options for archives as a result of the training;
- 96% feeling more confident about fundraising;
- 31% did not feel part of a support and knowledge sharing network; and
- Only 58% felt they had a better understanding of their organisation’s finances
Feedback forms from training sessions
All training sessions had feedback forms for participants to complete. Comments from these have been considered for the evaluation and particularly the lessons learnt. They were used to create the word cloud in the Executive Summary.
Conversations with project partners
RedQuadrant interviewed the project partners in late 2016. They were asked for their views on:
- the importance of the project;
- whether they thought all areas were covered; and
- what they would like the outcomes to be for the sector:
A summary is set out below:
| Importance of project | |-----------------------| | Very important for the sector given current financial context – need to be able to look outside core funding; | | Meeting a very strong need – the archives sector needs these skills and doesn’t currently have them; | | Would expect it to be scalable across the sector, so different types of organisations can get what they need from it; |
| Coverage | |----------| | Being led by experts in field; | | The flexibility is a strength, amending the programme as it goes along – started with ten courses but have dropped a couple for which the take-up was low, e.g. philanthropy, which makes sense; | • An important aspect is that there is choice – different courses and different routes through – that’s why it’s proving successful as people can choose what they need; • The trainers are embedded, they understand the background, and the cohort approach is working well;
Ambitions for the programme
• Ideally, that people feel equipped with the confidence and skills to tackle fundraising for their organisation; • Some doubts about the resourcing capacity in some organisations to take it forwards – may depend on the culture of individual organisations and whether this is something they’re pushing for; • Confidence is a big part of this and is hearing good feedback from the cohorts – people definitely feel more positive about having a go; • Increasingly important to work in partnership and to be able to choose the right partners who will help you do this – therefore partnership working needs to be recognised in the training; • The funding bid route is still important – people need skills in filling out the forms, understanding about impacts (what they are, how to measure them), knowing what a successful bid looks like (and when not to bother bidding); • There will be 100s in the sector who have been through the training so the skills will be in the sector for some time; • Hope is that it creates a virtuous circle – more funding coming into the sector creating the capacity to bid for more and so on; Observation of training sessions in September 2016
In September 2016 RedQuadrant sat in on three of the training courses, which were being run simultaneously at The National Archives. The courses were:
- Crowdfunding and digital fundraising;
- Measuring outcomes and evaluation; and
- Friends Groups and volunteers
The evaluator sat in on all three of the sessions at different times and was also able to speak to participants during the breaks. The general sense was one of a successful day, with participants very keen to learn and plenty of interaction and excitement. There was also a clear message that the programme had been responsive to the needs of the archives sector.
The training rooms for ‘Measuring outcomes and evaluation’ and ‘Friends Groups and volunteers’ were full of industry and energy; the trainers used a variety of methods to engage and it was clear that progress was being made. The ‘Crowdfunding and digital fundraising’ course was less successful. The training was much less interactive and the trainer at times seemed ill-prepared. As a result of this the trainer was changed for future sessions.
All in all, a very positive experience and a definite sense of skills being acquired and put into practise. Additionally, from listening to the discussions, it was clearly a two way conversation between trainers and participants. Trainers were also learning and adapting as the programme progressed.
Conversations with delegates at the Friends Event
In December 2016 RedQuadrant also attended the training day for Friends groups in London, which was very well attended. The initiative was clearly welcomed by participants. There were a number of stimulating partnership fundraising examples from different archives across the country that illustrated the benefits of working with friends and community groups.
One of the key messages from the participants was how much they valued the networking opportunities and there was a clear request for more of these opportunities.
Conversations from the Knowledge Sharing Day
In March 2018, RedQuadrant attended the Knowledge Sharing day at TNA. Various case studies were presented:
- Norfolk Record Office summarised how they are improving their resilience in response to the support provided by the Fundraising for Archives programme. They mentioned some of their successes, such as the establishment of a charitable partner and the raising of over £30,000 for the purchase of archive documents and other archive related projects. They also briefly outlined the NRO’s plans to increase their fundraising in the future. • Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies shared what they have learnt so far, as they have sought to introduce different approaches to fundraising into day to day activities, seeking donations and funding to deliver HALS learning and access programme activities; the challenges and opportunities they have encountered.
• University of Stirling talked about their Fundraising for Archives inspired crowdfunding campaign where they successfully raised the target fund to help catalogue and digitise the Peter Mackay Archive, a collection of material relating to Southern African history.
RedQuadrant also engaged with participants on the day and asked them to outline the kind of support they wanted from TNA for future fundraising, now that the programme had ended. The resulting feedback is at Appendix D. 5. Success stories
Below are some emails from course participants that illustrate success as a direct result of the training.
University of Stirling
I just wanted to get in touch and let you know that following the course (Crowdfunding, Crowdsourcing and Digital Fundraising) I got the University to do a crowdfunder campaign for our Peter Mackay archive. We set the amount at £8,000 and raised the whole total through crowdfunder and also got some personal donations with the crowdfunder website http://libguides.stir.ac.uk/archives/mackay
A couple of weeks ago the project got a commendation from the Herald Higher Education Awards for campaign of the year. I wanted to say thanks as it is completely down to going on the course on crowdfunding.
Marx Memorial Library
As Archivist & Library Manager at the Marx Memorial Library - a small independent charity with sparse resources but unique historically significant archives - I found the Fundraising for Archives course incredibly helpful. Workshops encouraged participants to think creatively about income generation specific to the sector and to consider key components in a case for support. The resources provided were always informative and the discussion from representatives from a range of different organisations were thought provoking, particularly from the perspective of a lone professional.
Feminist Library
I wanted to tell you some good news:
1. I pitched and got the Library a three year relationship with Tate Modern for programmes, access to database, endorsement, marketing etc. We can either have Away Days there or get discount food! It will really help with bids, and getting Major Donors as we can have a cultivation party there!
2. I wanted to get going on Matrons/Patrons - and I got Ali Smith who is delighted. Upwards!
Gloucestershire Archives
Good news - our bid to Arts Council has been successful : ) Thank you again for all of your very pertinent and helpful comments which made me think much more clearly about what we were trying to achieve and why, and how to communicate that effectively to the Arts Council.
Gloucestershire Archives
I heard today that the Friends have been awarded £10k by Foyle towards fit-out of Heritage Hub. We asked for just short of £50k so the amount is slightly disappointing but considering we were submitting late in the project and proving that furniture supported learning, I feel it is a good outcome! Next stage is going to local businesses to see if they’ll support fit-out of kitchen items etc. – something I’ve not tried before…. Also crowd funding.... Thanks again for your support.
Gloucestershire Archives
Just found out that our bid to the Henry Smith Charity for £20K towards the EVOKE reminiscence project was successful. YES!! Thanks for all your help with it. Your input - and the Cohort training - was hugely useful 6. Lessons learnt
- One of the biggest factors in the success of the programme was the delivery redesign in 2015, once it was established that the project was not going to work in its current form. The recognition that capacity from attending training is tight in many parts of the archives sector meant that more.
- Running a multi-year project with the inevitable changes in staff will always be a challenge in terms of maintaining continuity and ensuring consistency of quality.
- Recruitment to the cohorts was, nevertheless, an ongoing challenge. The non-user surveyed showed that 50% of those surveyed would have liked to have taken part in the programme but felt unable to. The current financial climate has led to budget and staff reductions in many archive services, particularly in the public sector. Releasing staff for training has become much more difficult, especially if commitment to a programme is required. The ‘resilience’ cohort, set up in 2017 to address these issues demonstrated the programme’s responsive ethos very well.
- Establishing networks across the sector to share knowledge and experience is enormously valuable. The cohort approach and events worked very well but the wider networking less so. The LinkedIn page was not enough, it became obvious that some facilitation is needed;
- The mentoring support was very successful and the offer of individual support with funding applications and other projects was appreciated by participants;
- There is still an issue with archivists having a wider understanding of the finances of their parent organisations. This is often the case with smaller services within, for example, a large local authority but it can be a barrier to obtaining funding and building partnerships;
- Those working in the archives sector are more familiar with grant applications than with some of the more challenging areas of fundraising, such as crowdsourcing or securing legacies and gifts. The programme has helped build confidence in those areas;
- The stability of funding for archive services is still a major concern for many of the participants.
7. Legacy: strategic recommendations
- The Fundraising for Archives programme has made a significant difference to the sector, building confidence and increasing skills. This is demonstrated by the positive feedback and success stories. One of the key successes, according to participants, was the availability of someone to talk to about projects and funding applications. Although the project is now at an end, thought should be given to continuing support, perhaps in partnership with other organisations such as ARA;
- There is a growing challenge in the sector: how do we upskill staff when there is limited capacity for CPD? Releasing staff for training has become much more difficult, especially if commitment to a programme is required. Although it does not have the benefit of face to face learning, online training is a good way of reaching those who could otherwise not take part. With staffing very tight in many services, online modules should continue to be developed and made available and funding sought to develop more;
- Additionally, the mixed approach to a national training programme: cohorts, open call and bespoke sessions, addresses the capacity issue and is one that should be adopted for other training. With the introduction of the ‘resilience’ module in 2017, participants were able to take part where they could and according to the capacity of their service. This was a key reason that so many people attended and benefited from the training, leading to a shift in knowledge nationally;
- TNA could facilitate an online network for the sharing of ideas. The libraries sector has a very successful and active ‘innovation network’, where discussions, reports and examples of good (and bad) practise are shared across the country. This model could be adopted for archives. It would, however, need some facilitation;
- The two events for friends and supporters were very popular and the benefits of shared experience and networking were clearly recognised. There is a need for an ongoing networking forum for friends groups;
- There is much support amongst participants for training materials to be available online, as well as the actual eLearning modules.
- The feedback in Appendix D illustrates that there is a clear need for the training material to continue to be current. Archivists are operating in a fast changing world. Resources can disappear overnight and, equally, new ways of sourcing funding can appear. Some careful consideration needs to be given to how the valuable programme content can be updated in the future and remain responsive to the needs of the sector. Appendices:
Appendix A - first cohort survey results
Knowledge
| Knowledge area | Before the course % of confidence | After the course % of confidence | % improvement | |----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------| | Friends groups and volunteers | 36.4 | 63.6 | 27.2 | | Legacy and major gifts | 23.5 | 55.8 | 32.3 | | Corporate fundraising | 21.2 | 61.7 | 40.5 | | Capital campaigns | 29 | 59.7 | 30.7 | | Crowdfunding | 27.6 | 55.8 | 28.2 | | Fundraising via income generation | 47.9 | 68.2 | 20.3 | | Fundraising events | 34.6 | 60.4 | 25.8 | | Commissioning | 24 | 40.3 | 16.3 | | Planning for fundraising activity | 37.8 | 76.6 | 38.8 | | Legal and ethical requirements of fundraising | 30 | 59.7 | 29.8 | | Advocating for your service | 52.5 | 81.2 | 28.6 | | How to develop a case for support | 42.4 | 81.8 | 39.4 | | How to influence key decision makers | 37.3 | 71.4 | 34.1 | | Managing stakeholders | 42.4 | 72.1 | 29.7 | | How to measure the outputs and outcomes of activities and programmes | 51.2 | 74.7 | 23.5 | | Working with friends and volunteers for fundraising | 39.6 | 63 | 23.4 | | Securing legacies and major gifts | 24 | 53.2 | 29.3 | | Manage capital campaigns | 26.7 | 51.9 | 25.2 | | Making bids to grant making bodies | 67.7 | 82.5 | 14.7 | | Skill | Before the course | After the course | % improvement | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|------------------|---------------| | Identifying the relevant fundraising methods and opportunities for each project/need | 41.5 | 76 | 34.5 | | Planning for fundraising activity | 39.6 | 78.6 | 38.9 | | Ensuring legal and ethical requirements are met | 36.9 | 60.4 | 23.5 | | Advocating for your service | 58.5 | 80.5 | 22 | | Developing a case for support | 51.2 | 81.8 | 30.7 | | Influencing key decision makers | 45.2 | 68.8 | 23.7 | | Managing stakeholders to run a joint project | 46.1 | 61.7 | 15.6 | | Gathering evidence and information about impact and fundraising activity | 47.9 | 77.9 | 30 | | Measuring outputs and outcomes of activities and programmes | 52.5 | 79.2 | 26.7 | | Developing and using monitoring, evaluation and review techniques | 46.5 | 69.5 | 22.9 | | Working with friends and volunteers for fundraising | 38.2 | 63.6 | 25.4 | | Securing legacies and major gifts | 28.6 | 37 | 8.4 | | Managing capital campaigns | 27.2 | 55.2 | 28 | | Making bids to grant making bodies | 62.7 | 83.1 | 20.4 | | Developing and directing a crowdfunding campaign | 23.5 | 51.3 | 27.8 | Appendix B - Non-user survey results
Attached as a separate document
Appendix C - Full final survey results
Attached as a separate document
Appendix D - Feedback quotes
Comments from first cohort survey
- I thought the programme was most helpful - particularly in its coverage of a wide range of approaches to fundraising, many of which would never have occurred to me. If my scores seem a little ungenerous, it's because I need to reassemble my notes and course papers and go through them again to remind me of what I have forgotten since the end of the course.
- Well delivered. All sessions accessible. Some frustration that circumstances within own service did not mean that I could put into actual practice the main fundraising that I need to do, but am using the skills for smaller scale ventures to at least keep fresh on the techniques.
- The initial six training sessions were very helpful and based in Aberystwyth, however it was disappointing to find that the additional training sessions were based outside of Wales. There were a number of topics that would have been particularly useful - such as securing legacies and major gifts, crowdfunding, working with friends and volunteers, etc. Unfortunately, due to the location where these were based (either London or Crewe) it was incredibly difficult to secure clearance from a line manager for what would have required travel costs and an overnight stay.
- Some elements of the training were delivered better than others - bit inconsistent - e.g. finance elements but found the content relevant, helpful and confidence boosting - am now proceeding with first fundraising bid to a grant giving body. This is much stronger in consequence of attending the training. Thanks to Lucy Davis in particular for her input and assistance in driving this forward. I would recommend this course to both new professionals as well as those of us who need to update our skills.
- I found the training to be of great benefit and have recommended it to other archivists.
- Most modules were great - really useful and practical
- I did not attend the above subjects which I've given low scores to - save the crowdfunding (which was delivered by an ill-prepared external party) - however I found the rest of the training excellent and very useful to the sector.
- It was all very useful.
- Thank you for the opportunity to take part in the programme which has been really helpful
- Excellent programme many thanks
- The opportunity to tailor it to our needs was so useful and meant that I was able to bolster the aspects not looked after by my institutions fundraising department and leave out the bits (legacies etc.) which they are expert in. Trainer was excellent as well.
- Useful, but due to other commitments it's been difficult to follow up on some of the recommendations in the way I hoped I would have by now. Useful to have the notes to fall back on when needed.
- I found the sessions mixed in terms of content, and the dates set were very soon after getting onto the course so I couldn't make the first session. The second session was far too basic, and covered things I already knew. The third was very relevant and helpful, but felt rushed as it covered so much in only one day. The fourth had some useful content, but again some that I had covered before.
- Extremely valuable training programme, particularly in the current climate. Course leaders were outstanding!
- I really enjoyed it - well presented, interesting and fun. Usual problem though - you get on the train at the end of the day and never or seldom get a chance to review what you've learnt - but that's a fault that doesn't lie with the programme. I've acquired a new confidence and think in a more 3-D way about fundraising issues now. One issue however - the course constantly referred to 'charities' and a local authority is NOT a charity and can't ask for money or necessarily expect support in the same way. I don't think the answer is to make all the Archives charitable bodies because then we'd have to be out singing for our supper ALL the time, but maybe a bit more on the legal situation of asking for and accepting money into a local authority for a specific purpose (e.g. the Archives!) would be very welcome next time the training is offered.
- It was a privilege to be able to take part Comments from final survey: what support would you like to see in the future?
- Training on born-digital records
- An ongoing programme would be great!
- Another cohort intake to widen the benefits for other archives!
- Courses covered possible income strands and developing a strategy etc. but not the risk of core funding being reduced as external funds are secured driving the archives to chase funding to simply remain where there were.
- Instigating community participation
- Using Linked-In for cohort communication did not work at all: a Facebook group or an email list for archive fundraising would work better.
- Face to face training sessions, and to meet with others from the sector. In the libraries sector there is an "innovators network" which worked really well to share ideas across organisations, and I think this model could be applicable to archives as well.
- The National Archives has provided good support on grant applications and fundraising including one-to-one advice, ongoing training (e.g. as HLF programmes change) and highlighting new opportunities. With Fundraising for Archives ending it would be good to see TNA continuing to provide good support for the sector
- Influencing within organisation
- Specific advice for small voluntary organisations Comments from Knowledge Sharing Day March 2018
- More workshops with funders and funding bodies;
- A useful forum place to share ideas and achievements. the LinkedIn group didn't really take off;
- Someone/something to bounce any formulated ideas from and between;
- Benchmark sessions e.g. don't know where to start with fundraising no previous experience crowdfunding small but big impact case studies;
- How to tackle HLF e.g. where to start my project was a failure - evaluating getting back on the horse;
- Making connections services and people who could contact and Are willing to be contacted to offer support and discuss your project;
- Teach a change of culture re-being bashful about asking for donations;
- Case study is most useful it will be good to have more of those online for reference and sharing with colleagues; • Collaborations with universities to achieve large-scale funding how to go about this how to approach potential partners and how to apply;
• Archive services speed dating e.g. meet and chat those with money ask questions get advice;
• Telephone mentoring course have been really helpful having missed the cohort and done the e-learning it helps to have somebody to talk to you through I’m in the process of chairing the working group to develop a fundraising strategy for the archives;
• I’m using the resources from the e-learning to help us work through the different areas to build our strategy Sarah White has provided me with some valuable information and help me with planning the working group meetings;
• It will be helpful to make as many of the resources and training materials online as soon as possible as I came to the program quite late as new post and it will be good not to have missed out on all the learning;
• More examples of fundraising strategies with case studies Roses presentation was a good example of this;
• It was great to hear how fundraising training had been put into practice case studies top tips and more unusual or risky ideas;
• Really liked meeting other friends groups organisers and exchanging info face-to-face;
• Really excited about the online materials;
• Friends groups were excellent information on governance at the training conference;
• Didn’t find the LinkedIn group very useful I’d like to email a question and get an answer;
• The words business-like and commercial could be encouraged to be used;
• The program has been a lifeline to beleaguered services, directly giving skills and knowledge. TNA have given leadership and mobilised the sector and wider partners. Things will never go back to how they were before;
• Before Christmas I think there was an event where HLF talked about the kinds of projects they fund and what pots of money they have and then you could discuss your project ideas with some more of this would be amazing maybe different locations;
• This program has been really fantastic thank you; • Please could we hear more examples of what people have done following the training with writing e-learning please add more guidance.
Feedback from mentoring sessions
• Wonderful – thanks for this - really helpful. • I’m hoping to set my mind to this very shortly. • Thank you for this. I did indeed change the font straight away! Thank you for reading the Strategy despite the formatting issues. Your advice was very through and covered all the areas I wanted to talk about. It’s given me some positive steps to take going forward. • And a big thank you – inspiring and useful, really helpful. I am already ‘on’ the mission thing! • Thanks again for the support – much appreciated by all us ‘lone workers’ out here – and have a good weekend yourself. • Appendix E: Issues discussed at mentoring sessions (anonymised)Advice for Local Authority archives seeking to fundraise I now have a first draft of our record office’s first Fundraising Strategy! An expert eye would be really useful. • I would particularly like help with a funding bid I am writing (to Paul Hamlyn Foundation) which centres around diversity in the archives – so any further advice and support around that would be excellent. • I’d be very grateful for any mentoring and support/advice if possible. I work within a University, and so some of the more accessible funding streams are not available (we are not a small business, not a charity etc.). I also work alone, as an assistant, but with no line manager with archive experience. • We are hoping to raise funds to purchase a photographic collection from 1 Apr. We need to raise £40k so any advice on achieving this will be most welcome! • So far we’ve introduced two fundraising schemes: a donations box in our reception and the Adopt a Piece of History scheme (based on the British Library’s Adopt a Book scheme). Neither has been particularly successful so far, so it would be useful to find out if there is anything we can do about that. We’re investigating the possibility of getting a grant to design a website specifically for the Record Office, which will allow us to increase visibility for the scheme, and it will hopefully be included in the online shop we are establishing. It would be useful to know whether there are any issues with the scheme itself, the look of it, the way we’re advertising it, before we increase its publicity • We are part of a Trust that runs Libraries, Museums, Theatres and Archives. The Trust is keen to generate more income. I and my colleague in Local Studies have an idea for a project with the excellent co-op records we have. We would like to hire an archivist on a temporary contract to work with our volunteers to catalogue the records and to promote them to a wider audience. I do not have much experience of fundraising and none involving hiring staff on short term contracts.
- I am intending to submit an application to the Wellcome Trust in April and if there was anyone available to bounce ideas off that would be great! Or whatever is on offer really.
- We had a visit from Lucy some time ago which was very useful. Our current situation is that we were rejected by HLF in December (capital bid of £2.175 million plus development costs) so are currently licking wounds and considering best way forward. This is probably in the longer term, a revised bid to HLF. We would still therefore need to do most of what we’d planned to do for the original bid. In addition, we are still looking for pots of money with which to undertake public engagement and collections related work. Not sure if you feel we are a service that would benefit from one of your sessions – or if we’d be wasting your time. If there are more needy cases out there, then obviously it would make more sense to speak to them; however, if there is an advice session that you feel would work for us, then we’d be very pleased to hear it
- We have previously received project funding from HLF towards conservation, basic cataloguing and public-facing work, but are not in receipt of any external support at the moment. I’m interested in exploring avenues for conservation and cataloguing support for particular aspects of our collections, such as our collections of audio material, photographs, correspondence and business archives
- We want to establish a supporter scheme with the aim of raising money but to also broaden and strengthen its supporter base. It would be really helpful if we could discuss our plans with someone.
- We currently have a large cataloguing backlog and no specialist archive support so I would be interested to see if there is funding to support this.
- We are looking into various funding streams to get assistance for the cataloguing and development of the archive service. Although we are currently in the process of writing bids from the Wellcome Trust and HEA, any additional guidance would be useful.
- I would appreciate over-the-phone mentoring and support sessions to help learn how to raise funds and sustain our archive. We are all volunteers and need considerable funds to maintain the database and website, Digitise interviews in order to make them accessible, Transcribe the interviews to make their content discoverable, Continue interviewing key crafts people, Train participants in the project
- I would particularly like to discuss funding for a volunteer programme.
- I am interested in finding out about raising finance to launch a digitisation project • We are at the initial stages of putting a fundraising bid together and would be grateful to take up the opportunity for fundraising and support sessions. In particular we are interested in how an integrated heritage site like ours can take advantage of specialist archive funding, and also fundraising for collections digitisation.
• In the first instance I’d really like to find to if anyone can digitise our microfiche collection.
• I am hoping to put together a legacy giving campaign (on the back of the last Fundraising for Archives training event I attended) and would appreciate a session to run my proposed text etc. past someone knowledgeable.
• I would like to have a mentoring discussion re fundraising. My particular concern is not grant funding but being more effective in seeking commercial and sponsorship funding.
• Hi, my colleague was on your fundraising training programme last year but has now left our organisation. I have some questions around how to go about setting up a Trust which isn’t a Members’ organisation, like a Friends’ body, but purely a charity for raising funds for an archive service. I would welcome the chance to talk to someone about this.
• Our next fundraising activity will be a crowd-funding project which is a new area for us, so targeted support with this would be very helpful.
• Currently the Friends are fundraising for a multi thousand pounds very long term project to conserve and digitise the wills collection.
• We’ve submitted several applications and benefitted from Lucy’s wise advice. Our next stage is to attempt crowd funding.
• We are currently dedicating time and effort to submitting an application to the Wellcome Trust for engagement with a scoping exercise which if successful may lead to an application for funding for a medical related collection under our care requiring extensive cataloguing and conservation. I attended a Crowdfunding workshop hosted by the TNA in November and found the session productive, but due to all other commitments placed upon us which involves extensive engagement with the public, we are not always able to give the project the attention it requires and we can feel we are floundering, so expert opinion and guidance would be highly beneficial.
• Although I’ve been through the main sessions, I still feel that I’m lacking the headspace to put what we learnt into action in work. I really want to pull together something meaningful as a Strategy for my office and I’d like some individual guidance on this if possible.
• I’d be interested in booking a mentoring session. I’m currently working with a donated collection and trying to set up some kind of study centre around the work. It’s in its very early stages and would certainly benefit from some advice. • Advice on tapping into diverse funding streams and how to best present a case when your organisation is not obviously an archive
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2866-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 36,
"total-input-tokens": 68798,
"total-output-tokens": 12821,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
157,
1
],
[
157,
1705,
2
],
[
1705,
3326,
3
],
[
3326,
4372,
4
],
[
4372,
6923,
5
],
[
6923,
8282,
6
],
[
8282,
10415,
7
],
[
10415,
11029,
8
],
[
11029,
12789,
9
],
[
12789,
13741,
10
],
[
13741,
15560,
11
],
[
15560,
15560,
12
],
[
15560,
16119,
13
],
[
16119,
17795,
14
],
[
17795,
19519,
15
],
[
19519,
20046,
16
],
[
20046,
22202,
17
],
[
22202,
23991,
18
],
[
23991,
25411,
19
],
[
25411,
28010,
20
],
[
28010,
28820,
21
],
[
28820,
31234,
22
],
[
31234,
31682,
23
],
[
31682,
33799,
24
],
[
33799,
36413,
25
],
[
36413,
39329,
26
],
[
39329,
41524,
27
],
[
41524,
43114,
28
],
[
43114,
45858,
29
],
[
45858,
47140,
30
],
[
47140,
47974,
31
],
[
47974,
50057,
32
],
[
50057,
52820,
33
],
[
52820,
55511,
34
],
[
55511,
58281,
35
],
[
58281,
58411,
36
]
]
} |
0a90e7d5c0fedaf48a4257ab3f6fa3b70cb310ab | Funds Raised for Good Causes
FY 2019-20 Q4 Funds raised for good causes Income from game sales by quarter and versus last year
Published: 5 May 2020 Reporting Period: Q4, FY 2019-20 (January to March)
Since its launch in November 1994, the National Lottery has raised over £40 billion for good causes that include sports (including Olympic athletes), arts and heritage, as well as health, education and the environment.
Funds are raised from the sale of National Lottery games and supplemented by unclaimed prizes and interest on balances of funds held. The funds for the original good causes are held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF).
The Commission ensure that payments from the Lottery operator to the good causes are accurate and on time.
Total funds raised for good causes between Q4 FY 2018-19 and Q4 FY 2019-20
The chart below shows the most recent quarter and the preceding four quarters for comparative purposes. For consistency, each week’s ending date must fall within the reporting quarter, therefore the number of weeks within the quarters may vary.
The total raised for the NLDF in Q4 (January to March) was £439.12M. This was -£60.94M (-12.2%) below the October to December quarter and -£3.6M (-0.8%) below Q4 in FY 2018-19. The last 5 quarters have generated £2.23bn to good causes.
Total Returns to Good Causes Recent Quarters
1 Amounts relate to total value of proceeds from game sales raised for the NLDF in approximate calendar quarters. Q4 of FY 2019-20 comprises funds raised between the week ending 4 January to the week ending 31 March. They include all other income and adjustments from game sales, including unclaimed prizes. Commentary
Total returns for the final quarter of the current financial year were lower than the previous quarter by around £60 million but remain broadly consistent with the previous four quarters. The decrease against Q3 is likely aided by the following:
- Overall, draw-based game sales were lower this quarter against the last at around -2%.
- Total unclaimed prizes added as returns to good causes is around 9% (£4.6m) less than the previous quarter.
There was also a notable drop in returns to good causes from Lotto and EuroMillions this quarter against the last.
- Lotto recorded £157m in Q3 and £145 million in Q4, an 8% decrease.
- Similarly, EuroMillions recorded £156m in Q3 and £129m in Q4, a significant decrease of 18%.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2867-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 4821,
"total-output-tokens": 724,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
45,
1
],
[
45,
1679,
2
],
[
1679,
2417,
3
]
]
} |
4d2b724f1c89394754cad71afcadba60c0c21ce0 | Statistical Notice
Further breakdown of First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber Appeals, 2016
9 March 2016 Background
This ad-hoc statistical notice presents further breakdowns of already published information on the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FTTIAC) Appeals. The reason for this ad-hoc notice is so the data can be used in a court case.
Further details on FTTIAC tribunals can be found in the Tribunals and Gender Recognition Certificate Statistics Quarterly, England and Wales, published alongside this statistical notice:
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-and-gender-recognition-certificate-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2016
Users should refer to the Tribunals and Gender Recognition Certificate Statistics Quarterly Bulletin and accompanying Guide (also available at the link above) for definitions of the terms used in this statistical notice.
Table 1 in this statistical notice shows clearance times for Non-Suspensive appeals for the period November 14 to December 16. The timeframe used is from date of receipt in HMCTS to date of disposal in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). The cohort includes all disposals types – determined by a judge (except if remitted from the Upper Tribunal); withdrawn by either party; dismissed at the Preliminary Issue stage as invalid or out-of-time (except where the PI decision has been set-aside); or struck-out for non-payment of the fee.
Non-Suspensive appeals are defined as appeals where the Home Office/Secretary of State has certified that it is lawful to remove a person prior to any appeal right being exercised. Where an appeal has been certified as non-suspensive the appeal right must be exercised (or continued if certified after appeal lodged) after leaving the UK except where the Appellant is an EEA National when the appeal can be lodged while the Appellant is still in the UK prior to their removal. Table 1: Number of Non-Suspensive FTTIAC Appeal Decisions, by Cumulative % of Clearances by age of case at Clearance, and Mean(^1) Clearance Time, November 2014 to December 2016(^2)
| Financial Year and by month | Disposals (Number of cases) | Cumulative Percentage of Clearance | Average Clearance Time in weeks (Mean) | |-----------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | | | 25 % of cases cleared in x weeks or less | 50 % of cases cleared in y weeks or less (Median) | 75 % of cases cleared in z weeks or less | | 2014/15 | 52 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 9 | | 2015/16 | 780 | 5 | 11 | 22 | 14 | | 2016/17 | 708 | 5 | 16 | 33 | 21 | | Nov-14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Dec-14 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | Jan-15 | 12 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 6 | | Feb-15 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 6 | | Mar-15 | 17 | 12 | 15 | 17 | 16 | | Apr-15 | 32 | 6 | 10 | 12 | 10 | | May-15 | 27 | 9 | 14 | 21 | 15 | | Jun-15 | 51 | 7 | 13 | 25 | 15 | | Jul-15 | 58 | 5 | 12 | 23 | 14 | | Aug-15 | 55 | 9 | 16 | 32 | 19 | | Sep-15 | 82 | 6 | 13 | 25 | 15 | | Oct-15 | 81 | 5 | 9 | 21 | 13 | | Nov-15 | 71 | 6 | 14 | 22 | 15 | | Dec-15 | 60 | 2 | 7 | 17 | 11 | | Jan-16 | 53 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 11 | | Feb-16 | 103 | 1 | 11 | 20 | 13 | | Mar-16 | 107 | 7 | 10 | 26 | 16 | | Apr-16 | 86 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 19 | | May-16 | 73 | 4 | 10 | 23 | 15 | | Jun-16 | 66 | 6 | 19 | 33 | 20 | | Jul-16 | 77 | 10 | 25 | 36 | 25 | | Aug-16 | 105 | 4 | 9 | 29 | 19 | | Sep-16 | 104 | 4 | 15 | 35 | 23 | | Oct-16 | 65 | 3 | 16 | 36 | 23 | | Nov-16 | 76 | 6 | 17 | 37 | 24 | | Dec-16 | 56 | 11 | 18 | 35 | 25 |
(^1) The average clearance time includes not only cases heard in the First-tier but also preliminary issues (where an appeal is found to be invalid before a hearing) and withdrawals/abandonments during the appeal process.
(^2) Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available. Contacts
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office: Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: [email protected]
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division of the Ministry of Justice: Steve Ellerd-Elliott Chief Statistician Ministry of Justice 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: [email protected]
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be emailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence/ or email: [email protected]
Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
Alternative format versions of this report are available on request from: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2868-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 8450,
"total-output-tokens": 2007,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
120,
1
],
[
120,
1949,
2
],
[
1949,
9275,
3
],
[
9275,
10521,
4
]
]
} |
f8e4ca813955b3be47721bc291873f1c4c912db4 | Statistical Notice
Further breakdown of Social Security and Child Benefit Tribunal Appeals, 2016
9 March 2016 Background
This ad-hoc statistical notice presents further breakdowns of already published information on the Social Security and Child Benefit (SSCS) Tribunals. The reason for this ad-hoc notice is so the data can be used by Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions, in discussions with the Scottish Government.
Further details on SSCS tribunals can be found in the Tribunals and Gender Recognition Certificate Statistics Quarterly, England and Wales, published alongside this statistical notice:
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-and-gender-recognition-certificate-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2016
Users should refer to the Tribunals and Gender Recognition Certificate Statistics Quarterly Bulletin and accompanying Guide (also available at the link above) for definitions of the terms used in this statistical notice.
Table 1 in this statistical notice provides information on the number of SSCS tribunal appeals in Scotland for the year 2016, broken down by quarter of the year and outcome of the appeal. Table 1: Number of Personal Independence Payment Tribunal appeals in Scotland, by quarter, 2016
| | Receipts | Disposals | Cleared at hearing | Cleared without a hearing | Decision upheld | |--------------------------|----------|-----------|--------------------|---------------------------|-----------------| | **Total number of PIP Appeals in 2016** | 10,510 | 9,107 | 7,844 | 1,263 | 3,441 | | January- March 2016 | 2,028 | 2,420 | 2,127 | 293 | 921 | | April- June 2016 | 2,176 | 2,142 | 1,874 | 268 | 881 | | July- September 2016 | 2,712 | 2,049 | 1,698 | 351 | 744 | | October 2016- December 2016 | 3,594 | 2,496 | 2,145 | 351 | 895 |
1. Data includes PIP (New Claims) and PIP (DLA Reassessed). PIP started to replace Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for people aged 16 to 64 from 8 April 2013.
2. Receipts - Appeals received and attributed to a venue, normally the venue nearest the appellants home address.
3. Disposals denotes the total number of Appeals disposed of and is inclusive of both those cleared at hearing and those cleared without the need of a tribunal hearing.
4. Decision Upheld numbers of cases where the 1st tier decision was upheld.
5. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available. Contacts
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office: Tel: 020 3334 3536 Email: [email protected]
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division of the Ministry of Justice: Steve Ellerd-Elliott Chief Statistician Ministry of Justice 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: [email protected]
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be emailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from: www.statistics.gov.uk
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence/ or email: [email protected]
Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
Alternative format versions of this report are available on request from: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2869-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 6709,
"total-output-tokens": 1156,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
112,
1
],
[
112,
1167,
2
],
[
1167,
2832,
3
],
[
2832,
4078,
4
]
]
} |
c81f4d6310bab71802ab28c9a2d00349b432d970 | Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011
29th November 2011 Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011
Contents
About .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Measures ............................................................................................................................................ 5
01. Linking primary and secondary healthcare datasets ........................................................................ 5
02. Publishing prescribing data ........................................................................................................... 5
03. Train and bus data ......................................................................................................................... 6
04. Rail fares data ............................................................................................................................... 6
05. Civil Aviation Authority ............................................................................................................... 7
06. Highways and traffic data ............................................................................................................ 7
07. Fit note data .................................................................................................................................. 8
08. Universal Credit data .................................................................................................................... 8
09. Linking welfare data .................................................................................................................... 9
10. Open Data Institute .................................................................................................................... 9
11. Releasing reference data ........................................................................................................... 10
12. Personal data ............................................................................................................................. 13 Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011
About
- This document presents further detail on the measures on Open Data published in the 2011 Autumn Statement. The Chancellor’s full Autumn Statement can be accessed here.
Overview
- The internet has evolved to change the way we live, work and manage business processes within increasingly global marketplaces. Open Data is the next phase of this ICT revolution, enabling new systems, processes, products and markets to emerge, and supporting a whole raft of complementary innovations across the economy. The potential prize is considerable. A recent report estimated the current total direct and indirect economic value of public sector information at €140 billion per year for the EU27 (Vickery/ EU Commission, 2011). This suggests that similar information in the UK is already worth in the region of £16 billion a year.
- Consultation with industry would indicate that this emerging market is set to grow considerably. Demand for public sector data and information is significant across an expanding array of enterprises - including multi-million dollar Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg and Experian. Examples of these economic opportunities are already emerging in the UK, particularly amongst SMEs and high value sectors in which Britain has global competitive advantage, some of the most high profile of these being based in ‘Silicon Roundabout’ and TechCity in East London. Release of public sector information is designed to support growth and encourage the next Skype or Apple to come out of the UK.
- In brief, the measures in the Open Data work stream of the Growth Review are to:
- Boost growth in UK life sciences by transforming access to health and care data: with unprecedented data linking services to support enterprise and innovation;
- Empower local business growth and new markets with local transport data: real-time transport information will be released which will promote enterprise and improve access to public transport;
- Transform high tech consumer information markets through provision of online citizen access to personal data: all NHS patients can access their personal GP records online by the end of this Parliament and new procurement arrangement for school information and learning services in spring 2012 which supports the exchange of data between systems and aims to increase competition; and
- Support the growth of high-value businesses and make access to data easier for startups: Government is making available for free a range of core reference datasets. In addition it is announcing the creation of a Data Strategy Board and a Public Data Group which will maximise the value of data the public sector buys from Met Office, Ordnance Survey, the Land Registry and Companies House.
- These measures have been developed in collaboration with nearly 120 existing commercial enterprises – from GlaxoSmithKline, Experian and SAS UK, to Action 4 Employment and high-tech digital start-ups.
- The effective use of public sector data is vital to the growth of the UK’s knowledge economy. Much of this information has a high value, both in terms of the economic as well as social benefit that can be realised through its use. Recent developments in technology and analysis techniques give other organisations, and even individuals, the opportunity to exploit this data in ways which government could not be expected to foresee.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Review of Recent Studies on PSI Re-Use and Related Market Developments (2011) or undertake itself. Traditionally, government has sought to realise this value through charging for some of this information. More often than not, large tracts of public sector information remain unanalysed and under-used in Departments due to resource constraints, low awareness of value, and cultural unwillingness to make this data available.
- Put simply the mechanisms for growth through opening up government data are proposed to be:
- **building data and analytics markets** – through releasing data, organisations specialising in providing analysis can grow by providing a range of intermediary products and services for use by other businesses across a range of sectors;
- **expanding existing market opportunities** – the insights garnered from a broader analysis of government data allows entrepreneurial organisations to transform current products and services and to target them more effectively to the appropriate audience/market; and
- **helping create new products and services** – as well as producing efficiencies for business in their current markets, analysis of government data allows entrepreneurial organisations to develop new and innovative products, many of which link to one another (creating positive network effects) and support the growth of complementary digital technologies (with spillover effects across the wider economy).
- The Open Data work strand in the Growth Review sets out an ambitious package of measures. By making access to public data assets possible, these measures will support high-value, high-growth enterprise in a range of sectors – particularly among SMEs. Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011
Measures
1. **Linking primary and secondary healthcare datasets** - The Government will provide a service to link primary and secondary healthcare datasets from September 2012 to reinforce the UK’s position as a global centre for research and analytics and boost UK life sciences.
- To encourage innovation and investment in UK life sciences, the Health and Social Care Information Centre will set up a secure data linkage service as part of its core delivery service, and by September 2012 will deliver data extracts, using linked data from primary and secondary care and other sources, on a routine basis at an unidentifiable, individual level. This service will also be used and commissioned by the specialist research service (CPRD – see below) for their specific research purposes. The service will be available to all users of health and care information in order to drive improvements in care, enterprise and innovation, and will operate on a self-financing basis where users would pay the cost of the linking process.
- It will be informed by work that Government will progress to develop a programme with industry and academia, identifying specified datasets for open publication and linkage as well as championing emerging data-based innovations in health and life sciences.
- In addition, a complementary new secure data service, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), will be established within MHRA to service the specialised needs of the research and life sciences communities. Plans to establish this were published on 31 October.
2. **Publishing prescribing data** - The Government will publish further prescribing data by September 2012 and additional health and social care datasets by September 2013 to support health and social care data-based product and analytics markets.
- Data is the lifeblood of health and care services as well as life sciences firms, which rely upon precision, insight and intelligence to develop, test and market effective interventions safely. These measures will increase the breadth and granularity of health and social care data available through the Health and Social Care Information Centre, NHS Choices and data.gov.uk. This data will be published by September 2013 unless otherwise stated. With the exception of prescribing data (which will be available subject to a review of charging regimes) all other datasets will be accessible for free:
- Practice level prescribing data at presentation level, giving quantity prescribed, by September 2012 - subject to further analysis of costs, benefits and affordability issues;
- GP reference data (e.g. locations of practices, their list sizes and demographics);
- The Care Quality Commission’s Provider Profile Reports - CQC will also consider the scope for making available information that routinely feeds into these provider profiles;
- Choose and Book usage at GP practice level; and,
- DH will work with Local Authorities to develop further Local Accounts in adult social care with the aim of ensuring the accounts provide citizens with relevant information in a way that allows comparison between councils. DH will also continue to support the development of wide comparable social care metrics (in accordance with the Zero Based Review of social care data, Information Strategy, Social Care White Paper and Future Forum work). Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011
3. **Train and bus data** - The Government will work with the transport industry to make available by April 2012 timetable and real-time train and bus information to support the development of innovative applications to improve passenger journeys.
- This measure will support the development of a real-time transport information market, helping passengers make better travel decisions and businesses to better predict logistics and travel needs. This measure will release under the Open Government Licence (OGL) comprehensive timetable and real-time train and bus information as machine-readable and machine-processable data, as well as locational information about the rail network and its railway stations. Unless otherwise stated, the commitments to release this data will be for April 2012.
- DfT will work with the Transport Industry to make available the following rail data sets:
- Rail timetable information on a weekly basis (December 2011)
- Real-time running data from Network Rail
- Location data about Great Britain Rail network
- Location data about GB rail network stations
- DfT will also work with Traveline to release the following data relating to buses:
- Traveline National Dataset on a weekly basis (Great Britain buses); and
- Next Buses API of planned and real-time information at 350,000 GB bus stops (April 2012).
4. **Rail fares data** - The Government will consult in early 2012, through the Fares and Ticketing Review, on providing open access to rail fares data, giving passengers and business better information and enabling them to make the most cost-effective travel choices.
- DfT will work with the rail industry to ensure that full data on rail fares is made available to passengers and business. DfT will consult as part of its Fares and Ticketing Review on how the rail industry could provide this data in a way that protects passengers against potential misinterpretation of complex data on fares levels and restrictions. In addition, DfT will set out a way forward for Rail Transparency including Open Data in the forthcoming Rail Command Paper.
- Releasing this data will boost the market for fare finding and comparison services such as online search engines or mobile apps. This could also include comparisons between different modes of transport. We would expect this to result in savings for passengers and business.
5. **Civil Aviation Authority** - The Government plans to legislate to give the Civil Aviation Authority the power to publish data on the performance of aviation service providers, to enable users of air freight and passenger services to make the most cost-effective choices.
- In order to support growth, this measure will create a new duty for the CAA to publish (or arrange for others to publish), in an open format which permits comparisons, information as it consider appropriate to assist users of air transport to compare services.
- The CAA must consult on its policy for carrying out these new functions and have regard to a cost-benefit principle. The CAA will be able to require the industry to provide this information and it has the power to impose penalties when a person fails without reasonable excuse to comply. This will help service users to make more informed travel choices.
- In parallel DfT will work with CAA, airlines and airport operators to identify appropriate data that could be released as Open Data to demonstrate the performance of air service providers and airports.
- It is noted that the Open Data community has identified flight arrival and departure times and delays as the most desirable dataset and this will be considered as part of the process.
6. **Highways and traffic data** - The Government will release from March 2012 a range of highways and traffic data, including on road works, to help reduce congestion and enable business to make more predictable travel and logistics decisions.
- This measure will release data under the Open Government Licence (OGL) as machine-readable and machine-processable relating to highways and traffic in the UK.
- DfT will work with the Highways Agency, Local Authorities and others to deliver a package of data releases on the road network throughout 2012, including:
- Underlying location data from the Highways Agency HAPMS system covering the English Strategic Road Network – initial version in March 2012, followed by complete version later in 2012
- Roadworks data held by local authorities (December 2012)
- Unplanned disruption on English Strategic road network (March 2012)
- Data from Urban Traffic Management Systems (end 2012)
- Automatic traffic counter data on an annual basis – rolling programme of release (end 2012)
- Historic road condition data to 2010 (March 2012).
7. **Fit note data** - The Government will consult on the content of anonymised fit note data to be published from 2012 to drive innovation in the occupational health sector and improve management of sickness absence.
- It has been estimated that sickness absence costs UK Plc at least £10bn each year. Current data on causation of sickness absence and certification are scarce. DWP estimate that the overall economic benefit of the introduction of Fit Notes would range between £41m to £137m per annum. Releasing this data would have significant enterprise value as a driver of innovation in employee support, including occupational health, by enabling the development of new products and services to improve management of sickness absence outside the welfare system.
- DWP will consult on the release of anonymised aggregate Fit Note data with the aim of beginning publication in 2012.
8. **Universal Credit data** - The Government will design the Universal Credit ICT system so that aggregate benefits data can be published during the first year of live running of the system.
- Universal Credit is an integrated working-age credit that will provide a basic allowance with additional elements for children, disability, housing and caring. It will support people that are in or out of work and replace a number of tax credit and allowances that are currently available.
- DWP will ensure that the Universal Credit ICT system will support the production of aggregate data for use and re-use by industry and academia through open publication during the first year of the live running of the system.
- The ICT system will be designed from the beginning with open-data considerations in mind. The design criteria support this policy. Releasing these data are expected to have negligible additional costs at most.
9. **Linking welfare data** - The Government will consider opportunities for linking welfare datasets to other government and commercial datasets to increase their value to industry.
- DWP and CO will set up a sector board with user interests and academia to identify opportunities to link DWP data sets with other government and commercial data sets for societal and economic benefit, reporting through the DWP business plan in 2012.
- Industry consultations have indicated that many data sets held by DWP have a high market value. However, this value would be enhanced in combination with commercial and other public data sets. The DWP-Cabinet Office sector board will identify where the greatest opportunities lie in order to prioritise data sets for linking.
10. **Open Data Institute** - Government will provide up to £10 million over five years, with match-funding from industry and academia, to establish the world’s first Open Data Institute to help business exploit the opportunities created by release of public data.
- Establish a world-leading Open Data Institute (ODI) to innovate, exploit and research the opportunities for the UK created by the Government’s Open Data policy.
- Co-directed by Professor Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Professor Nigel Shadbolt and involving business and academic institutions, the ODI will be based in Shoreditch in East London and focus on (i) business innovation (ii) commercialisation (iii) developing Web standards to support the Open Data Agenda (iv) world leading research (v) a UK national training centre, and (vi) providing expert advice for Government.
- In view of the commercial and social priority of Open Data, the Government is to commit up to £10m over five years with match funding from industry and academic centres to support the Open Data Institute through the Technology Strategy Board. The implementation plan will be published by April 2012. Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011
11 Releasing reference data – The Government will establish a Data Strategy Board and a Public Data Group that will maximise the value of the data from the Met Office, Ordnance Survey, the Land Registry and Companies House. It will make available for free a range of core reference datasets from these bodies to support the development of high-value data businesses.
- Delivering on its commitment to establish a Public Data Corporation, Government is announcing the establishment of a Data Strategy Board (DSB) which will seek to maximise the value of data from the Public Data Group (PDG) of Trading Funds for long-term economic and social benefit, including through the release of data free of charge.
- Sending a clear signal of the DSB’s mandate, Government is announcing the release of additional core reference datasets for unrestricted use from the PDG, including, for the first time, weather observation and detailed weather forecast data and core data from the Companies Register.
- The PDG currently includes Ordnance Survey, Met Office, HM Land Registry and Companies House. The Group will identify and deliver efficiencies and synergies to reduce the cost of data for users and re-users of data and provide additional funding for making data freely available.
- This change clearly separates the commissioning and provision functions of public data, rebalancing the incentives to release more data for free, as well as strengthening the capability of Government to commission data for its own needs.
Detail of the initial data package
- This announcement signals a significant step towards making additional core reference data from the Met Office, Ordnance Survey, HM Land Registry and Companies House available and free at the point of use.
- As a tangible immediate step, the Government is announcing that the following core reference data sets will be made available free at point of use:
Met Office
- The Met Office will, from today and for the first time, release under the Open Government Licence (OGL) as machine-readable and machine-processable for unrestricted use, the following Public Weather Service weather forecast and real-time observation datasets, which together represent the largest volume of high quality weather data and information made available by a national meteorological organisation anywhere in the world:
- Forecast data of: weather type, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, wind gust, visibility, humidity, probability of precipitation, feels like temperature and UV index at 3 hourly intervals out to 5 days for 5,000 UK locations, updated hourly;
- Forecast data of: maximum daytime temperature, minimum night time temperature, midday and midnight: wind speed, wind direction and wind gust, humidity, and visibility and for each 12 hour day/night period: probability of precipitation, prevailing weather type and maximum UV index for 5 days for 5,000 UK locations, updated hourly; and
- The last 24 hours of observed weather, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, wind gust, visibility, pressure, pressure tendency for approximately 150 UK sites.
- Met Office will also run a competition to design a Met Office API solution which will help developers create new and innovative applications using Met Office data. Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011
- The DSB and Met Office will also work together with the aim of creating and releasing for re-use under the OGL over the next 12 months data which represents other services provided to the public as part of the Public Weather Service, subject to receipt of an acceptable business case.
**Land Registry**
- From 1 March 2012 Land Registry will make available “Price Paid information” showing all residential property sales in England and Wales at address level. This will be downloadable for re-use, in a re-useable format under the OGL, and updated monthly.
- Land Registry will also make available for free, downloadable for re-use in an accessible and re-useable format under the OGL the following data, updated monthly: a. Number and types of applications by customer by month; b. Number and types of transactions for value by customer by month; and c. Number of applications in England and Wales, by region and local authority district (or equivalent) by month; and d. Number of searches by month (which can be a leading indicator of housing market movements).
**Ordnance Survey**
- Ordnance Survey has committed to amend its derived data restrictions on Local Authorities' "Public Rights of Way" data, enabling this to be released more easily as Open Data.
- Ordnance Survey has also committed to work with Natural England to make available as part of OS OpenData a dataset of National Trails, for delivery in April 2013.
**Companies House**
- Companies House will develop a free downloadable bulk data file for open re-use which includes Company name, number, registered address, registration date, filing status and SIC code. The Data Strategy Board and Companies House will also consider subsequent release later in 2012 of directors' and office-holders' details.
**National Address Gazetteer**
- From Autumn 2011, data from local authorities, Ordnance Survey and Royal Mail has been brought together to form the National Address Gazetteer, a single, definitive address register. This is the first time that the England and Wales has had an authoritative source of spatial address data.
- Postcode information can be downloaded for free re-use via OS OpenData (CodePoint-Open).
- Any user can access data from the National Address Gazetteer for free to initially test, evaluate and develop into new and innovative products.
- The Government has asked Ordnance Survey and Royal Mail to: a. simplify and align their licence terms for development & testing b. provide greater support and ease of access for developers & innovators.
- The Government has also asked Ofcom, the new regulator of postal services, to review the pricing and licensing structure of the postcode address file (PAF).
**Structure and Governance**
- The PDC Transition Board will agree the Terms of Reference for both the DSB and the PDG Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011
detailing their full responsibilities by 31 January 2012. At the moment the current responsibilities of the DSB and the PDG are as follows:
**Data Strategy Board**
- The DSB will have responsibility for the commissioning and purchasing of data for free release to the public and ensuring that this represents good value for taxpayers. The DSB will receive funding of no less than £7m in this Spending Review period for the purchase of additional data for free release. It is envisaged that in the next spending review period, the DSB will seek to agree a proportion of dividends from PDG, as additional funding for Open Data. There needs to be a principle of transparency between the DSB and PDG in order for the DSB to be in a position to commission Open Data effectively and undertake informed negotiation regarding its share of PDG’s ongoing dividend stream for the next Spending Review period. To this end DSB will be able to audit PDG member accounts relating to public sector contracts.
- The DSB will also have responsibility for commissioning and purchasing data and services on behalf of the public sector from the PDG, leveraging expertise of existing customer groups (Public Weather Service Customer Group and the Geographic Information Group). This includes responsibility for the existing £170m p.a. funding for these data and services.
- Data users from outside the public sector, including representatives of commercial re-users and the Open Data community, will represent at least 30% of the members of DSB, ensuring the widest possible user community is involved in the commissioning of data for free release to the public. It will also incorporate existing public sector customer groups who will continue to provide sector expertise around the commissioning of weather services and geographic information for the public sector. The DSB will have an Independent Chair.
**Public Data Group**
- Government has charged the PDG with:
- the aggressive pursuit of individual and cross-asset efficiencies, delivering lower prices to all users of data, including the DSB, maintaining the commercial stability of its member companies and ultimately in order to enhance the funding available to the DSB. This will particularly benefit SMEs and not-for-profit organisations for whom price of data may be a barrier;
- the establishment of cross-organisational working groups (for example in areas such as IT infrastructure, licensing, etc) to build on best practice across the organisations. An example of this has already been undertaken in the formation of a working group to identify synergies between the surveying functions of Ordnance Survey and Land Registry; and
- the pursuit of collaborations across the wider public sector to deliver efficiencies through better data sharing.
- The Government will consider, on a case by case basis, the options for greater involvement of the private sector in the longer term delivery of these public services. This could take the form of partial sale, joint ventures with commercial partners, accessing private capital to support investment or the introduction of alternative management structures or expertise to drive efficiency. The Government will also consider the advisability of alternative delivery models such as turning any of its member Trading Funds into Companies Act companies.
12. **Personal data** - The Government will ensure all NHS patients can access their personal GP records online by the end of this Parliament. The Government will publish a new procurement arrangement for school information and learning services in spring 2012 to improve parents’ and pupils’ access to education data and increase competition in provision of learning services.
- These measures will help to position UK companies in the development of a personal information market, which is likely to be the next stage of development on from the growth of social networks. Online access to one’s own personal data enhances personal control and participation in public services. It also fuels innovation and growth in the supporting technology and data markets.
- All patients in the NHS will have online access - where they wish it - to their personal GP records by the end of this Parliament. GP practices that can already provide online access are encouraged to do so as soon as possible. NHS Choices will publish an interactive map at the earliest opportunity, subject to the successful passage of provisions in the Health and Social Care Bill relating to the powers of the Information Centre for Health and Social Care to require the supply of the necessary data. The Information Strategy for health and social care in England, to be published by April 2012, following consultation earlier this year as well as further advice anticipated from the NHS Future Forum, will publish details of the timetable.
- In education, Government will encourage greater value, choice, competition and innovation in the education data and learning platform markets by publishing a new procurement arrangement for school Information Management and Learning Services (IMLS) in spring 2012. Framework suppliers will need to ensure that education data is exportable in open and interoperable formats and that other developers (including SMEs) can access their APIs at little or no cost. They will need to ensure that their systems enable information about pupils to be shared electronically with parents, where schools choose to do so. DfE and BIS will also work with industry to agree common information standards for education and encourage their widespread adoption.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2870-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 13,
"total-input-tokens": 32682,
"total-output-tokens": 6496,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
86,
1
],
[
86,
2335,
2
],
[
2335,
5865,
3
],
[
5865,
7485,
4
],
[
7485,
10938,
5
],
[
10938,
13385,
6
],
[
13385,
15770,
7
],
[
15770,
17587,
8
],
[
17587,
19498,
9
],
[
19498,
22865,
10
],
[
22865,
25776,
11
],
[
25776,
29199,
12
],
[
29199,
31455,
13
]
]
} |
2cbccdd01917807904f9e233427c0aff55a0c8f9 | Customer led transformation programme Case study – Fylde Borough Council Customer led e-service solutions
## Contents
| Section | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | About Fylde | 3 | | Background | 4 | | Objective | 5 | | Approach | 6 | | Benefits | 15 | | Governance | 17 | | Resourcing | 18 | | Challenges and lessons learnt | 19 | | Next steps | 22 | The Customer Led Transformation Programme
Fylde’s work has been funded under the Customer Led Transformation programme. The fund aims to embed the use of Customer Insight and Social Media tools and techniques as strategic management capabilities across the public sector family in order to support Place-Based working.
The Customer Led Transformation programme is overseen by the Local Government Delivery Council (supported by Local Government Improvement and Development).
The fund was established specifically to support collaborative working between local authorities and their partners focused on using customer insight and social media tools and techniques to improve service outcomes. These approaches offer public services bodies the opportunity to engage customers and gather insight into their preferences and needs, and thereby provide the evidence and intelligence needed to redesign services to be more targeted, effective and efficient.
About Fylde
Fylde is a coastal borough in north-west Lancashire, (close to Blackpool) one of twelve districts in the county. It has a geographical area of 166 square kilometres with the main population base residing in the coastal resorts of Lytham and St. Annes. The administrative base of the council is located in St. Annes and the coastal towns are popular retirement and second home locations.
The population of the borough in 2007 was 76,400 and is expected to continue rising, having increased by 2,400 between 2001 and 2006. In 2007 almost 23 per cent of Fylde residents were over the age of 65 which is significantly higher than the Lancashire average (17 per cent) and the North-West and England average (16 per cent).
Fylde is a relatively affluent borough and many of the residents are retired professionals, who are highly articulate and demand high quality services. The quality of the local environment is a high priority and the local population is very active when it comes to engaging in the local community. The borough is statistically one of the safest areas to live in the country and although lower than the regional average, the fear of crime remains a local issue. Background
Using funding from the Customer-Led Transformation programme, Fylde Council has researched, designed and developed a range of ‘E-Services Solutions’ including the Fylde Forum. The Forum is a customer-led online facility that provides users with a gateway to information and access to services from a range of local service providers – as well as the knowledge, insight and views of other forum members.
The online solutions have been designed around insight generated by a target customer group (older active residents), and seeks to offer customers a single point of access to both ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQs) and a discussion forum relating to services from across the Total Place footprint. Hence, in addition to accessing information from public bodies, users also benefit from contributions – including views, opinions and advice – input by other users.
The service has been designed with ease of access and use, as a priority. Customers can log in to the forum and FAQs using existing identity services from Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo. The service can also recommend content based on pre-selected user preferences, demographics and browsing history.
A number of factors drove Fylde Council to pursue the E-Services Solutions project. During 2009, Fylde Council participated in a regional project led by Chorley Borough Council that used the ‘Circle of Need’ methodology (see ‘Circle of Need’ in box ) to develop a better understanding of what customers need from local public services, and how these services can be better joined up around those needs.
The ‘Circle of Need’ exercise helps to identify services from across a range of local providers that could be called upon in response to a customer enquiry or request directed at any single public body. The E-Service Solutions project at Fylde sought to provide self service access to appropriate information and services that meet the needs of the target demographic – ‘active elderly people living in pleasant retirement locations’. For further information on why the project focused on this demographic, see ‘Approach’ below).
The E-Service Solution sets out to recreate an online model that offers a comprehensive and seamless service to the customer at the first point of contact. Lessons learned from the ‘Circle of Need’ project were incorporated into the development of the e-service platform. Circle of Need
The Circle of Need model aims to give senior managers an understanding of how ‘customer need’ can be modelled to help them improve service design and provision and generate efficiencies.
Originally developed by Chorley Borough Council in 2007, the Circle of Need model stemmed from A H Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ but was simplified into a non-hierarchical model, which grouped together issues related to the same aspect of life.
The model identifies a list of needs, including:
- economic security
- physical security
- significant relationships with others
- education
- access to justice and democracy
- healthcare
- housing
- nutrition.
The circle concept focuses on a particular need and shows how other services – which are likely to be associated with the circumstances – can be accessed to meet the holistic requirements of the customer. The circle also incorporates relationships with the council’s other customers (citizens, businesses, neighbourhood and public interest groups). In addition it is possible to map service providers to services and customer profiles to needs to create a circle of need focussed on a particular customer profile or a particular service provider. In Chorley, the profile used was ‘families with low incomes and young children’.
Objective
Given the current financial outlook for local authorities, one of Fylde Council’s overarching objectives for the project was to deliver ‘more for less’ through the use of online service channels. The council recognised potential savings arising from migrating customer to lower cost contact channels, and were keen to refocus their web-presence so that it is more centred on the needs of customer and the community.
The council and LSP partners also identified a number of themes in their Sustainable Community Strategy that online service delivery could support.
“We wanted customers not only to able to access the website, the information, the services, but also through the forums and other mechanisms to tell us – day in, day out, easily in their own words or with each other in debates about community issues – about the sort of things they want us to be doing for their local community.”
Allan Oldfield, Director of Customer and Operational Services
Increasing community safety and reducing the fear of crime
The online platform offers police and other partners a means of directly engaging with customers. For example, Lancashire Fire Service identified the opportunity to use the platform to provide fire safety information and services with the aim of reducing the number of fires and fire casualties (see ‘Benefits’ below). The police have linked their national FAQ database to the site allowing a ‘one stop’ solution at the first point of access.
Health and well-being
The Primary Care Trust (PCT) had identified Fylde as having an ageing population that is expected to live longer than the national average which was one of the reasons the project team selected ‘older active elderly people’ as the target demographic. Hence the PCT saw the project as a means to help future-proof services against demographic trends.
The project team also identified a number of national indicators that the platform could support:
- NI14: Avoidable contact
- NI179: Efficiency and value for money delivered by the local authority
- NI 4: Percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions locally
- NI27: Understanding of local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime by the local council and police
- NI5: Overall satisfaction with the local area.
Significant changes in local government inspection and the national performance management framework since the project started in February 2010 has led to the Lancashire Local Area Agreement (LAA) performance framework being abolished along with the Place Survey and the national performance indicators. However, several of the indicators have been retained as local performance measures to help demonstrate the success of the project (results reported under ‘Benefits’ below).
“We wanted to start creating an online community that would give us a lot of natural and heartfelt feedback. But not just feedback on what we – the council – do, but also on what’s happening in the community. When you read through the Forum posts, and look at the responses you get a feel for the local community. You get a feel for what Fylde is like.”
Allan Oldfield, Director of Customer and Operational Services
Approach
The project team agreed a series of clear steps to get from the conception through to the design and to the development of the e-service platform, including:
- selecting a target demographic group
- reviewing social demographic data
- facilitating focus groups
- conducting one-to-one interviews
- conducting a postal survey
- specifying the system
- developing the e-service solution.
Selecting the demographic group for the pilot
The partners chose to pilot the approach with a socio-demographic group containing – ‘independent older people with relatively active lifestyles’. The project selected this group in consultation with partner organisations as it is the second most prominent group in the borough, and social demographic profiling indicated high levels of interest and engagement from this group in community issues. Furthermore the high number of professionally qualified individuals amongst the active elderly residents in this group meant that a large number would be more likely to have access to and use the Internet. These characteristics made this group ideal for piloting the proof of concept.
The PCT health profile illustrated that the borough had an ageing population who will live longer than the national average. Hence targeting this mosaic group would help to ensure that the project future proofed services to cope with increased demand as a result of changing demographics. The project team set about identifying the needs of the target customer group, building on the ‘Circle of Need’ work they had previously delivered in partnership with the North West e-Government Group and Chorley Borough Council.
The project used a number of different methods to collect further customer insight into the needs of this group, summarised in figure one.
**Reviewing social demographic data** Mosaic data sets where used to profile residents. The data provides social, economic and demographic profiles based on geographical location – usually centred on the post code.
The mosaic profiles provide a generic picture of a local community based on the predominant attitudes and behaviours drawn from the various data sets. The project sought to use mosaic data to more accurately target groups of residents for consultation and engagement.
Mosaic group ‘L’ is described as ‘active elderly people living in pleasant retirement locations’. The additional profile data highlighted the following attributes for this group:
- mostly contains residents over 65 years old whose children have grown up
- most are still married and live active lives with a high degree of mobility
- the majority are financially secure
- moved from their original family home to a retirement community
- the majority will be without mortgages and will have sold up elsewhere to relocate
- originally from professional vocations having commuted to the city to work
- familiar with the community from the past experience ie second holiday home or regular visitor in the past
- most locations are in coastal communities
- residing in bungalows, cottages or private apartments designed for elderly residents
- relocation provides opportunities to start new ventures, friendships and interests. Facilitating focus groups Focus groups with residents from the chosen social demographic group were a cornerstone of the customer centred approach. The project team held six focus groups at the beginning of the project and a further six comprising the same attendees towards the close of the project.
“I would like to compliment the excellent service that is provided on this website, a great effort by all involved.”
Focus Group Feedback
Each focus group was made up of 10 to 12 residents, and lasted about two hours. These focus groups were essential for the project to gain insight into the customer’s perspective, as well as their needs and expectations from all services but particularly online delivery.
The feedback gathered helped to shape the solutions developed as well as the marketing, communication and promotion of the outputs from the project. This was critical to ensure that the outcomes achieved identified customer need.
The customer insight generated by the focus groups revealed a fundamental issue with perception of the public sector’s online presence, and that the structure and language used by public service providers did not inspire customers’ confidence and trust online. This is an example of how the customer experience of using leading commercial websites shapes their expectations when using public sector websites.
This was evident from the expectations of:
- the availability of services out-of-office hours
- the speed of response to questions
- the style of language and communication.
Feedback from the target group highlighted that they preferred to use local and community-based social media and forums, rather than services such as Facebook and Twitter. The project had originally intended to focus on these platforms given their dominant market position.
Many customers are unsure about which agency is responsible for delivering which public services in their area. This finding was corroborated by a survey conducted by Saint Anne’s Town Council which discovered that two thirds of respondents did not know ‘who delivers what services’ in their local community.
The above-mentioned confusion was reflected in customers’ online behaviours in relation to service providers. Users were transferred from site to site, and said they would ultimately – and in fact quite quickly give up. This issue is exacerbated out-of-hours when the option to telephone or visit in person is not available.
Many of the target group were also frustrated at having an ever increasing number of usernames and passwords to log into various accounts. The customer insight indicated that having to have a new and different password for a council service would deter users.
One overarching finding was that a significant number of older people use computers regularly for day-to-day business and leisure but they were frustrated by the fact that local services cannot be accessed online easily.
Some customers felt they were ‘forced’ to use phone or e-mail because they could not access the service by their preferred method – online. Other members of the focus groups did indicate that they would not access some public sector services online because the subject matter or issue is emotive which warrants a more personal method of communication. This underlines the inevitability of the need to retain high quality accessible face-to-face and telephone contact.
Ultimately, the feedback indicated that a poor experience of public services online has a detrimental effect on the customer’s perception of a public body and their reputation. These insights influenced the development of the outputs of the project.
The project also cross-referenced data on web use with mosaic profiles and discovered the borough had three times as many mosaic group ‘L’ online users as the national average. Hence, although they were active online the focus groups feedback emphasised that older people were reluctant to engage public sector services online.
The project tested this by surveying focus group attendees and found that whilst 72 per cent have access to a computer and 83 per cent of those accessed private sector services online, only 22 per cent of those respondents accessed public sector services online (see figures 2, 3 and 4).
**Conducting one-to-one interviews**
The project team also conducted a series of ten one-to-one interviews to corroborate the findings of the focus groups. The feedback was consistent with the outcomes from the focus groups. Respondents reported:
- a lack of understanding regarding ‘who delivers what’ in the local community
- poor navigation and access acting as barriers
- preference for dealing with the public sector face-to-face or over the phone over ‘emotive’ subject matter.
| Yes | 72% | |-----|-----| | No | 28% |
| Yes | 22% | |-----|-----| | No | 78% |
| Yes | 83% | |-----|-----| | No | 17% | Conducting postal surveys The project team conducted a postal survey to gather data on the use of social media by members of mosaic group ‘L’. The project team had assumed that the group’s use of social media would be based on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. However, feedback from the postal survey illustrated a very low level of interest in the most popular social media platforms and a high-level interaction and interest in online discussion relating to local issues.
Figure 5 illustrates, the reasons stated for using social media are consistent with the behaviours and interests demonstrated by the target group when using other engagement channels. This evidence corroborated the view suggested by the demographic profiling that the target group is relatively well-educated, receptive to community engagement and that take an active interest in their local community.
Specifying the system In the light of the customer insight, it was necessary to respond to demand and adjust the prospective system’s requirements. Based on this customer insight the project team set themselves the following implementation objectives. The project sought to:
- provide an online community forum as a platform for self-service based on user generated information and peer support
Figure 5. Do you contribute to any of the following social media?
| Social Media | I do/would use it | I don’t/won’t use it | |-----------------------|-------------------|----------------------| | Local forum/debates | | | | Flickr | | | | YouTube | | | | Facebook | | | | Twitter | | | | MSN | | | | Myspace | | |
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • enable a single sign-on facility using existing and established online mechanisms that would also provide customers with a personal record and services based on their individual usage history • create a knowledge bank of frequently asked questions (FAQs) covering a range of service delivery organisations that is also populated through the forum and accessible to other platforms • present content to individual customers based on their historic use, expressed preferences and socio-demographic profile • present an easy-to-use and easy to navigate online service environment that would build customer confidence and trust and ultimately enable the delivery of almost all services to online channels.
Developing the e-service solution To meet these requirements, the project team developed an e-service solution comprising: • a ‘self-help’ community forum • a logon account • a community database of FAQs • a system for automatically recommending content.
The self-help community forum The partnership has piloted fyldeforum.co.uk, using an online customer service platform. The Forum works as follows: once a question or topic is posted on the Forum by the customer; the system alerts other registered users including; officers from partner organisations and elected members who are then able to post a reply. These alerts are sent out based on subject matter topics that the recipients have signed up to.
As more topics and questions are posted, and more responses gathered, the content on the forum accumulates into an extensive knowledge and community opinion bank covering a range of issues and partner responsibilities. Two examples of discussions supported by the platform include: • 161 replies to a posting regarding the provision of overnight parking facilities for motor homes in the borough. The discussion had 78 participants, and input from two council employees. (For further information, see Vox Pop with Allan Oldfield of Fylde BC available on the LG Improvement and Development Community of Practice) • 53 replies to a posting regarding the closure of a recycling centre in St Annes, generated by 22 participants in the discussion and three council employees. The debate helped to clarify that the recycling centre was being closed by the county council rather than the borough council, and galvanised support for the centre’s staff. (For further information, see Vox Pop with Councillor Tony Ford available on the LG Improvement and Development Community of Practice).
The forum is serving to: • signpost customers to information and online services that they can access directly in the future • provide customers with relevant answers based on past questions, preventing the need for them to post another question or contact the council • provide out of hours information, as well as responses and updates from officers and elected members out of hours – thereby increasing confidence and trust in online engagement • provide customers with information specific to the context and locality, provided by their peers • provide a link to the FAQ search tool, and generating content for the FAQ database, see figure 6 • capture the views, opinions and ideas of the community on the most topical issues of the day.
Though these approaches and tools are used extensively in the commercial sector, they are rarely used in such a transparent manner in the public sector. This approach requires an open and inclusive culture that is centred on the customer (see ‘Lessons learnt’).
The log-on account The customer insight work found that having to create an additional username and password to login to accounts frustrated and deterred potential users. Hence, the project sought to enable customers to login and register through other major social networks including Facebook, Twitter, Google and Open ID (figure 7).
The project integrated the free, open source product Janrain Engage which allows users to sign in to the forum using their existing accounts with the above platforms. This has helped to maximise online registration, while association with these strong brands has also promoted greater user confidence in the system.
As well as making the service easy to access and easy-to-use, using this login data also enables the platform to record the history of the customer’s online engagement and use this as one of the references for generating future recommendations for the customer.
The FAQ database To facilitate self-service on the website, the project team developed a data base of FAQs. The project used the workshops with the Total Place partners to create the initial list of frequently asked questions used to populate
Figure 6. Fyldeforum & FAQs the knowledge data base. Following this initial data set, the FAQs grow in response to questions posted by users – with the answers posted by the partner network or other users (see ‘Resourcing’ below).
To enable customers to access FAQs from the full range of public service providers that comprise the Total Place offering from a single point of access, the project team developed a sophisticated interface that can search and import FAQs from partner websites and databases. The facility currently searches for responses from Fylde Council, Lancashire County Council, the Forum and the national Police FAQ database, and the ambition is to integrate with other public sector FAQ databases. The facility is available on every page of the Fylde website.
The tool searches all postings on the forum to present responses to an enquiry and clearly labelling the source of the response for the user. In addition to the response to their specific question, customers are also presented with the views, opinions and responses that other users have already provided relating to the issue. The effect is to reduce avoidable contact, namely the number of calls, online ‘chat’ and e-mails that require a customer service assistant to support.
Figure 8. Example of a question answered. This then becomes part of the FAQ database Customers can also access these responses 24/7 in an effort to migrate users from more expensive methods of communication and service delivery that require human involvement and cost.
The longer term objective is to encourage all partners to use a standard XML schema for their FAQs so that it is possible to search each others data without duplicating content on a number of sites. For example, a customer could search from the Fylde website about noise nuisance and they will be presented with what the council can do alongside what help the police can offer without the need to jump from one website to another.
**Recommending content** The site also borrows the idea of personalised recommendations from the Amazon online store. Customers are asked for their postcode when they first login which is then used to recommend content that is relevant to the customer based on their geographical location and socio-demographic profile ie events, councillor contacts etc. Customers also have the option to sign up to a range of pre-selected topics by category – for example ‘sport and leisure’ – and subsequently receive relevant content.
The long term objective is to pull content from the full range of local public service providers based on the users’ interests and preferences, reinforcing the concept of the single point of access for all services. The project also hopes to be able to develop the ability to make recommendations based on users past web navigation history and previously used online services.
**Other outputs** As well as producing the forum and FAQ database for the residents of Fylde, the project has also produced a number of outputs that other local authorities and partnerships can benefit from:
- working implementation of open source logins – free for other councils to deploy
- working implementation of an un-moderated open forum – free for other councils to use
- source code for implementing ‘Ask the Police’ application programming interface – available for others to use
- framework for delivering customer focused web projects – available from the LG Improvement and Development Customer Insight Community of Practice
- need and services outputs for MOSAIC Group L – available from the community of practice. Benefits
Benefits to the customer include:
• reduced time and effort required to find the answer they are seeking by accessing a comprehensive range of services from a single point of access and single sign-on • increased relevance and specificity of information, due to access to the perspective and experience of other local people and the provisions of recommended content • increased availability of information and services through 24/7 access • increased confidence and trust in local online services due to association with existing social media platforms, and the joining-up of information from a range of service providers.
“Arguably, every visit to the forum could otherwise have become an avoidable contact – the customer would otherwise have contacted one of the partners. Moreover, once we post an answer that information is reusable. Over time the same information about the same question can be accessed by hundreds of users.”
Andrew Cain, Transformational Services Manager, Fylde Borough Council
Additional benefits realised from the project include:
• Using the forum and police feed to populate the FAQ has contributed to an increase in unique hits (on FAQs) by over 300 per cent. In March last year (2010), 320 pages were visited a total of 529 times. During March this year (2011), 1,080 pages were visited a total of 1,679 times. Arguably, these visits would otherwise result in a customer contacting the council or the police to get a response. • The FAQ bank has received over 900 unique visitors since launch. Arguably, these visits would otherwise result in a customer contacting the council or the police to get a response. • In addition to FAQs, 267 customers registered on the Forum and 207 topics have been posted – and well over 500 replies made. • The new functionality has also helped to increase use of the website by the pilot’s target group by 500 unique hits per month (Source: Hitwise analytics). This represents a 25 per cent increase in online service delivery by mosaic group ‘J’. • Using existing social media platforms for the log in process has helped to increased return visits. Logins increased from 1.6 logins per user to 3.3. Signups for email newsletters and alerts have increased substantially, helping Fylde keep users informed of local news and more effectively solicit feedback on council policies. • Previously, only 24 per cent of users chose to sign up for email alerts, but that percentage has increased to 87 percent after implementation of single sign-on. • Giving users personalised content based on customer insight increases the time customers spend on the site and decreases exit rate (source: Google analytics): • time on standard homepage 00:00:46 • time on personalised homepage 00:1:49 • exit rate on standard homepage: 21.70 per cent • exit rate on personalised page: 6.33 per cent. Benefits to the partners The E-Service Solution is also producing benefits for all partners. The platform is serving to:
- Increased channel migration to online services, thereby reducing the demand on email, phone and face-to-face contact all of which require more expensive human engagement. The graph (figure 9) below indicates a decline in the number of e-mails and online chats as the number of people using online self-service forms and FAQs increase.
- Fylde Borough Council has calculated that this migration to online channels from other communication methods has reduced avoidable contact to these other channels from 39 per cent to 29 per cent.
- Provided an additional and cost-effective method of creating engagement, for example the local fire service has noted an increase in the take-up of fire safety checks partly due to increase in the numbers being registered online. Since the launch of the service, there has been a 30 per cent increase in smoke alarms installed in homes.
- Enhanced the reputation of public sector online service with the positive shift in customers perception highlighted by recent customer feedback and the post project focus groups. Furthermore, a recent local survey monitoring NI5 ‘Overall satisfaction with the local area’ indicates a 3 per cent increase to 89 per cent.
The project has also helped to improve the working relationship with public and third sector partners identifying cultural and behavioural differences that when addressed will facilitate joined up service delivery.
Figure 9. Online channel migration data April to August 2010 Governance
The project team used the existing governance structures of Flyde’s Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) in order to encompass as broader range of services in a single point of contact as possible. The LSP currently includes the following organisations:
- Fylde Borough Council
- Lancashire County Council
- Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Council for Voluntary Service
- North Lancashire Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT)
- Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service
- Lancashire Constabulary
- Local Community Groups, Town and Parish Councils and others.
“I think it’s fabulous that you canvas ideas in this way.” – Caz
“It’s nice to see interaction like this from a council – a refreshing change.” – Connor
Customer feedback in response to a post requesting ideas to the topic ‘Help Fylde balance its books’.
The E-Services Solutions project reported to the LSP Executive. A series of workshops and network meetings were held with senior representatives from the partner organisations during the scoping stages of the project. The objective was to gather further insight into the target group and assess the current level of service provision, take up and expectations across all partner organisations. The workshops were also helpful in ensuring that the partners were fully engaged in the project and supported the project objectives as well as having the opportunity to shape the outcomes. The partner workshops and network provided an ideal platform for creating the initial list of frequently asked questions used to populate the knowledge data base.
The lead officers at Fylde Borough Council were given the remit by the partners to manage the project with clear requirements to provide progress reports and ensure appropriate ongoing engagement with the partner organisations throughout the project.
Resourcing
The project was co-ordinated and led by Fylde Borough Council, with insight and ideas input by the police, PCT, county council and other partners. The core project team comprised Fylde Borough Council’s director of customer operational services, the transformational services manager and the customer services manager. Partner organisations now have in excess of 18 employees supporting the forum – including two community safety officers to answer policing issues and the chief executive of the council.
Other people who respond to questions from residents include:
- county council staff
- town council members
- council leader
- cabinet members
- ward councillors
- YMCA charity.
“We have content managers in each service area that have been trained and are trusted and responsible for making sure that their service is up-to-date, accurate and available online. They have a great deal of autonomy and freedom to post what they see fit – without needing prior approval. Our online customer’s would not tolerate the associated delays. Other councils may be reluctant to trust their staff with such flexibility, but we undertook a risk assessment and decided the benefits were worth it.”
Allan Oldfield, Customer and Operational Services Manager Challenges and lessons learnt
During the course of the project a number of valuable lessons were learnt about the logistics of implementing the project effectively, the target customer group and the development of online customer led solutions. These lessons learnt will support future work and are outlined below.
01. The ‘tea drinking bureaucrat’ perception of Town Hall employees has filtered its way to online service delivery and manifested itself as distrust and a lack of confidence in online service delivery. Customers that will readily provide their credit card and other personal details over the internet and have a preference for online service delivery are reluctant to deal with the public sector online. This is an issue that needs to be tackled across the public sector and an area that warrants further research and understanding.
02. To establish an effective forum that can instil trust and confidence in the user it is essential to post responses quickly. Out of hours responses and updates are expected by the online generation which for some of the partners on the project required, and still does require, a change of culture and behaviour.
03. Forum responses must be posted in a ‘relaxed’ style that mirrors the customers. The typically long winded and very formal council response that has been cited from a script or standard operating procedure is inconsistent with the culture of an online forum. Partners must be prepared to take a risk with their online communication and be careful who they select to lead on any response. Employee roles, responsibilities and response time frames must be clearly articulated and agreed – if an employee knows it then they should be trusted to post it.
04. Feedback from customers suggests that the local government service list requirements and the integrated public sector vocabulary restricts the look, feel and navigation of local government sites which results in them not being as ‘slick’ or ‘easy-to-use’ as the market leaders in the private sector. Websites that are difficult to navigate can undermine customer confidence and ultimately trust.
05. The assumption was made that social media would involve Facebook and Twitter because they are the most dominant market leaders. However, the reality amongst the mosaic target group was different and these two market leaders featured low down on the agenda with a preference towards more local and community based social media and forums. A more in depth understanding of the online behaviours of the target group should be established.
06. A significant number of retired people do use computers and do prefer to deal with organisations online. The case for enhanced phone and face-to-face communication has been predicated on catering for the elderly and some of the most vulnerable in the community. However, the fact that services could not be accessed online was an issue for a significant number of the focus group participants. Customers were being ‘forced’ to use phone or email as a method of contact because they could not get the service online.
07. The focus groups expressed concern about the cost of the project to the local taxpayer and that the project was a waste of taxpayers money. It is important that this view is anticipated and it is stated clearly from the beginning how the project is being funded and the benefits it will realise.
08. Regular briefings and ongoing communication with partners is essential. These must include face-to-face sessions that provide the opportunity for instant feedback and further questioning by both parties. Some partners were unsure why the project was being carried out, the benefits that it offered and what responsibilities they had primarily because the majority of communication had been in the form of written updates as opposed to meeting and discussing the issues. Busy individuals can overlook written updates or miss the key messages.
09. Understanding the different cultures and behaviour in partner organisations will help to achieve more effective outcomes. Responding to out of hours forum postings and adopting a relaxed approach was a challenge for some partner organisations. Moving away from long established procedures and paper based approaches was a challenge for others.
10. The outcomes of the project also have an impact on existing policy and procedure. The target response time to customer contacts is five working days at Fylde Borough Council and up to 10 working days in some of the partner organisations. These response times are outside the expectations for online communities and new or separate standards need to be established for the project to succeed. There is a direct link to the culture of the organisation being ready for online service delivery and pre-empting existing policy and procedure being used as a means to delay or prevent any change. In light of these expectations, Fylde Borough Council is piloting a one working day response to emails.
The lessons learnt are an important element of the project outcomes and will be used to support the smooth implementation of additional work as well as similar projects in other organisations. Next steps
The project team are seeking to develop and enhance the E-Solutions in line with customer feedback and identified needs. The project has identified the following actions to achieve sustainability:
• use the platform with other socio-demographic groups in the local community
• develop a social media strategy to cater for the specific requirements of different market segments
• promote membership of the forum among residents, businesses, partners and elected members. The forums has been advertised in the local newspapers, and is now part of the induction process for new staff and elected members alike
• develop the online log-in account to include personal data from legacy systems such as revenues and benefits and electoral registration
• develop a sustainable mechanism to gather ongoing feedback from customers on their satisfaction levels and service requirements
• integrate the project outcomes into the partners’ channel migration strategies
• work with more partners to integrate additional databases into the FAQ search engine functionality
• establish protocols for posting online responses including minimum response times and minimum standard content
• continually review and improve the online service provision to maintain pace with the increasing customer demand
• capitalise on and sustain the initial benefits for the long-term.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2871-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 56449,
"total-output-tokens": 9032,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
106,
1
],
[
106,
735,
2
],
[
735,
2883,
3
],
[
2883,
5289,
4
],
[
5289,
8165,
5
],
[
8165,
11178,
6
],
[
11178,
12959,
7
],
[
12959,
16168,
8
],
[
16168,
18026,
9
],
[
18026,
20022,
10
],
[
20022,
22965,
11
],
[
22965,
24711,
12
],
[
24711,
26032,
13
],
[
26032,
28281,
14
],
[
28281,
31145,
15
],
[
31145,
32744,
16
],
[
32744,
33950,
17
],
[
33950,
35819,
18
],
[
35819,
38379,
19
],
[
38379,
40985,
20
],
[
40985,
40985,
21
],
[
40985,
42360,
22
],
[
42360,
42360,
23
],
[
42360,
42360,
24
]
]
} |
27534fc3e672b74695b9c21e7e125d68938eaed0 | Why did people go to war in 1642?
Key people & events
Charles I’s Personal Rule
Most monarchs disliked having to listen to Parliament. However, they always had to call Parliaments because they needed money and they needed Parliament to agree to taxes to raise that money. In return, MPs could express their concerns in Parliament about particular issues.
From 1629-40 Charles I ruled without calling Parliament. During this Personal Rule, Charles began to work closely with his officials to raise money without asking Parliament. He did this very successfully. Charles increased his income from £600,000 to £900,000 per year. However, he created a lot of bad feeling as a result.
- In 1626-7 he introduced a forced loan. Wealthy nobles and gentry were forced to Charles money whether or not they wanted to. Five knights who refused to pay the loan were thrown into prison without a fair trial and left there.
- Charles brought in a range of new customs duties and collected them very effectively. (New customs duties usually had to be approved by Parliament.)
- Charles also sold monopolies and patents. These gave control of a particular trade to one individual or company. This meant that other traders either had to pay to take part in the trade or they might be forced out of it altogether.
- Charles collected ship money. This was a tax traditionally paid in counties that had coastlines. It paid for the navy to protect the coast. Charles forced people in all counties to pay ship money. An MP called John Hampden fought a high profile court case against ship money in 1637, but lost.
The growth of opposition
By the late 1630s some of the nobles and gentry were worried that Charles had found a way to run the country without ever having to call Parliament. They were also concerned that Charles was trying to rule England the way kings ruled in France or Spain. Absolute monarchs ruled those countries. They had total power and did not have to take any notice of Parliaments, laws or
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ anything else. Charles’s use of courts like the Star Chamber to arrest opponents and punish them without a proper trial seemed to show he was planning to rule England the same way.
As a result of these concerns, a group emerged to challenge Charles. Their leader was John Pym. Other leaders were Oliver St John and John Hampden. They wanted to limit the king’s powers so that he had to listen to Parliament. However, they did not get their chance to challenge the king in Parliament until 1640.
Religion
In 1633 Charles appointed William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury. Charles and Laud held similar views on the Anglican Church (the Church of England). They both wanted the clergy (ordinary priests) and bishops (senior churchmen) to have more power and importance. For example, Charles appointed a bishop, Bishop Juxon, as Lord Treasurer. He also tried to force nobles who had taken over church lands in the 1500s to give them back to the church.
By the 1630s most churches in England were plain and undecorated. Most services were simple. They involved readings from the Bible with a priest preaching and teaching. Laud was concerned that many ordinary people found the services dull. He brought in services that involved more music and ceremony. Priests were allowed to wear decorated robes. Paintings, crosses, statues and stained glass windows were allowed in the churches. Laud also brought in a new prayer book.
Many ordinary people, nobles and gentry approved of these measures. By 1640 they felt that churches were attractive, but not too showy. They felt that church services were serious, but not too dull and boring. The church dealt harshly with people or groups who had different or extreme religious ideas. The gentry approved of this because it meant that everyone knew their place in society. Many people liked their new Anglican Church and were prepared to fight to defend it.
On the other hand, Laud’s changes also caused a huge amount of opposition. Many local lords and gentry did not want to give lands back to the church. They also disliked clergy being given important jobs in the government instead of them.
The loudest critics of all were the Puritans. Puritans were extreme Protestants. Like Laud, they believed that the Church of England in the 1630s needed changing. Unlike Laud, they believed churches and services should be even simpler. They were bitterly opposed to the Catholic Church. They worried that Laud’s changes were making the Church of England too much like the Catholic
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Church. They disliked the bishops because the Catholic Church also had bishops. They disliked the bishops because it was the bishops who put Charles’s religious policies into action. They hated Laud and he hated them. In 1637 William Prynne and two other Puritans published a pamphlet criticising Laud. He had them arrested, their ears cut off and their faces branded with red-hot irons. This treatment created a lot of sympathy for the Puritans. It also increased the hatred between the Puritans and the bishops.
The Puritans were a small minority, but they were very powerful and influential. Most came from the gentry or merchant class. They were usually well educated and successful in business. They were very determined because they believed God was on their side. The leading opponents of Charles I (including John Pym and John Hampden) were Puritans. They too were prepared to fight for their beliefs.
Scotland
Even greater arguments about religion were still to come. In 1637 Laud and Charles insisted that Scotland should use the prayer book that they had brought into the Church of England. The Scots resented this interference in their church. When the prayer book was first used in July 1637 there was a riot in Edinburgh. Scottish opponents of Charles I signed a Covenant (an agreement) criticising him. Charles immediately marched north with an army, but the Scottish Covenanters defeated him in 1638. Charles was beaten again in 1640 and the Scots invaded Newcastle. They agreed to leave if Charles paid a large amount of money. Charles did not have enough money. He had to call Parliament.
The country divides, 1640-41
Charles called Parliament in April 1640 and then dismissed it again because MPs refused to give him what he wanted. However, he was forced to recall Parliament in November 1640. For the next 12 months Charles still did not get the money he wanted. Pym and the other Puritan MPs attacked Charles’s ministers. They criticised Laud’s policies on the church.
In May 1641 Parliament accused the king’s chief minister and friend, Lord Strafford, of treason (betrayal of the country) and executed him. Many MPs were disgusted by the way Pym twisted the laws to get Strafford executed. The evidence against him was very weak. Pym used biased witnesses and prevented Strafford from talking to his lawyers. The trial collapsed, but Parliament then passed an Act that said Strafford was guilty of treason (rather than actually proving it). After Strafford’s death the attacks on Charles’s policies continued.
- In August 1641 Parliament got rid of ship money.
- In November they passed the Grand Remonstrance. This was a document criticising the policies of Charles and his ministers. MPs had never criticised a king’s actions like this before.
Some MPs felt Pym and the Puritans were going too far. They began to argue with Pym and support Charles. After all, Charles was the king, appointed by God. The country began to divide into Royalists, who supported Charles, and Parliamentarians.
Ireland and a declaration of war
In the middle of these tensions, attention suddenly turned to Ireland. Elizabeth I had conquered Ireland (which was mostly Catholic) in the late 1500s, but English control was always under threat. In October 1641 rebellion broke out in Ireland. All MPs agreed that an army had to be raised to fight the Catholic rebels. However, Royalists and Parliamentarians argued about who should command this army. As the arguments continued, Charles became impatient. In January 1642 he took troops into Parliament and tried to arrest five leading MPs (including Pym). His attempt failed, but his actions started a civil war. The Parliamentarians said Charles could not be trusted. Royalists rallied round Charles. Both sides prepared their forces. Charles declared war on Parliament in August 1642.
Find out more
Charles I’s Personal Rule http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-25.htm
British Civil Wars, Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1638-60 http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/index.htm
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2873-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 7666,
"total-output-tokens": 2075,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2046,
1
],
[
2046,
4617,
2
],
[
4617,
7088,
3
],
[
7088,
8662,
4
]
]
} |
ec03414fae4e1a6dc7613deacd6f0f2b10cd84b2 | Change Management for Digital Continuity SROs
This guidance relates to: Stage 1: Plan for action Stage 2: Define your digital continuity requirements Stage 3: Assess and address risks to digital continuity Stage 4: Maintain digital continuity
This guidance should be read before you start to manage digital continuity. The full suite of guidance is available on The National Archives’ website. Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 What is the purpose of this guidance? ............................................................................................... 5 1.2 Who is this guidance for? .................................................................................................................. 5 2 Why does change affect digital continuity? .......................................................................................... 7 2.1 What is your role? ............................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 How can you prepare for change? ...................................................................................................... 9 3 Type of change ...................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Business change ............................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Technology change ........................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Information and information management changes ........................................................................... 12 4 Managing change .................................................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Stage 1: Plan for action ..................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Stage 2: Define your digital continuity requirements ....................................................................... 15 4.3 Stage 3: Assess and manage impact and risks to digital continuity ................................................. 16 4.4 Stage 4: Maintain digital continuity .................................................................................................. 17 Appendix .................................................................................................................................................. 18 5 Examples of change and their impacts ................................................................................................. 18 5.1 Business change ............................................................................................................................... 18 5.1.1 Changes to how you need to find your information ..................................................................... 18 5.1.2 Changes to how you need to open your information .................................................................... 18 5.1.3 Changes to how you need to work with your information ............................................................ 19 5.1.4 Changes to how you need to understand your information .......................................................... 19 5.1.5 Changes to how you need to trust your information .................................................................... 20 5.2 Technology changes .......................................................................................................................... 20 5.2.1 Software changes ....................................................................................................................... 20 5.2.2 File format migration .................................................................................................................. 21 5.2.3 Hardware changes ...................................................................................................................... 21 5.2.4 Technology management changes .............................................................................................. 22 5.3 Information management change ...........................................................................................................22 5.3.1 Ownership and governance change .................................................................................................22 5.3.2 Individual staff changes ....................................................................................................................23 5.3.3 Operational policy and process changes ............................................................................................24 1 Introduction
Digital continuity is the ability to use your information in the way you need, for as long as you need.
If you do not actively work to ensure digital continuity, your information can easily become unusable. Digital continuity can be put at risk by changes in your organisation, management processes or technology. You need to manage your information carefully over time and through changes to maintain the usability you need.
Managing digital continuity protects the information you need to do business. This enables you to operate accountably, legally, effectively and efficiently. It helps you to protect your reputation, make informed decisions, avoid and reduce costs, and deliver better public services. If you lose information because you haven’t managed your digital continuity properly, the consequences can be as serious as those of any other information loss.
1.1 What is the purpose of this guidance?
This piece of guidance describes how to manage and protect your digital continuity through change, to ensure your business-critical information remains usable. It will help you understand:
- why change is such a risk to digital continuity
- the impact of different types of changes
- who you will need to work with to manage change
Finally, we propose a process you can follow during a specific change to put you in the best place to minimise the risks to your information.
This guidance forms part of a suite of guidance that The National Archives has delivered as part of a digital continuity service for government, in consultation with central government departments.
We assume that you have a good understanding of both what digital continuity is, and how it applies to your organisation. Change management is part of the final step of the four-stage process for managing digital continuity – so ideally you will have completed the first three stages and therefore have identified and documented your information assets and the risks associated with them.
1.2 Who is this guidance for?
This guidance is aimed at those responsible for looking after information and its digital continuity. Primarily this is the Digital Continuity Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), who should have been appointed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or equivalent manager at board level, to manage digital continuity across the organisation. The guidance may also be helpful to Information Asset Owners (IAOs).
There is a separate piece of guidance, *Digital Continuity for Change Managers*, which explains digital continuity and the risks and issues for change and project managers. It is a 'one-stop-shop' for people who have to manage changes, starting from a description of what digital continuity is, and taking them through to the specific risks and issues associated with particular types of change.
See more on the responsibilities and related roles that your organisation will need to address to ensure the digital continuity of your information in *Managing Digital Continuity*. 2 Why does change affect digital continuity?
You can only use your information in the way you need for as long as you need when your technical environment and information management appropriately support the business use you need from your information assets (see Figure 1 below). This happens when:
- you know **what information you have**, what it is about and where it is
- you understand **how you want to use it**, now and in the future
- your **technology and information management processes enable** you to use your information, and are agile enough to cope with changing requirements
Digital continuity is about managing the complex inter-dependencies between your information assets, your business needs and your technological capability so that they remain aligned. Changes to any of these elements could break this alignment and have a dramatic impact on your ability to use your digital information. Digital information is dependent on the technology you use to access it and the processes you have in place to structure and organise it. This makes digital information particularly sensitive to changes across your organisation – changes in technology, the way you manage information and to your business needs.
Government is experiencing widespread change to function, organisation, technology and policy and these changes increase the risk that we will lose access to valuable information, as:
- significant projects close
- organisational structures change
- agencies, Non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and organisations close
- staff move or leave
- IT systems are replaced, upgraded, outsourced or moved to cloud-based services
These can all have serious and long-lasting repercussions to your ability to use your digital information in the way you need, now and in the future. Even seemingly minor changes, such as a single member of staff leaving or a minor upgrade to a piece of software, can have an impact.
These types of change can raise the risk that you will lose the ability to access some or all of the information you rely on, resulting in situations where you can’t:
- **find** the information you need
- **open** the information you need
- **work with** your information in the way you need
- **understand** what your information is, or is about
- **trust** your information is what you say it is
Managing change to deliver digital continuity will enable you to continue delivering services effectively, to reuse and refer back to critical information at a later date, and to provide a record of government.
### 2.1 What is your role?
As Digital Continuity SRO, you should act as an advocate for your organisation’s information, ensuring digital continuity requirements are considered early enough in the process so that they can be smoothly incorporated into planning. It is almost always easier to maintain digital continuity through forward planning, than it is to re-establish it once it has been lost. If concerns are raised late in the project, it is much harder to address them without disruption or expense. You must be proactive in making sure that key people in your organisation, such as project and change managers, heads of information management, IT and information assurance are aware of the risks and issues related to information assets. For smaller changes, these individuals should be able to manage these risks and issues themselves, contacting the relevant IAOs whose assets are directly impacted. They should only need to involve you in larger-scale projects which may have a more significant impact, or impacts, across multiple assets.
The process of managing change should be a dialogue – there may have to be compromises made on both sides of the process. You may accept risks to, and constraints on, your ability to use your information in some way, to realise the wider benefits driving the change. Or you may need to adjust your scope and timescales to better protect the digital continuity of business critical information. However, it’s important that everyone works from an informed position, so that you have a shared awareness and acceptance of the impact upfront, rather than being surprised by problems that emerge later on.
2.2 How can you prepare for change?
The four-stage process for managing your digital continuity will equip you with the understanding that you need to better manage changes, large or small, in your organisation. By understanding your current assets, business requirements and technical environment you will be better placed to assess the impact that a specific change to any of these areas will have on your information quickly, clearly and confidently.
As part of the process you may have created or updated a number of tools and processes which can provide this understanding, such as:
- **Information Asset Register** (IAR) – documenting your assets and their usability requirements
- **Technical dependencies mapping** – documenting how the technical environment supports those usability requirements. This may be recorded with the IAR, a Configuration Management Database (CMDB), or a number of other types of register
- **Risk assessment** – documenting and analysing particular risks and issues to your information assets and digital continuity
You must keep informed of upcoming changes and the potential impact they may have on your information. This may come via the CEO or Executive Team, but will depend on the structure of your organisation.
You should liaise with change management teams either at an organisation level or a department level to make sure that digital continuity issues are covered within their change processes. Our guidance *Digital Continuity for Change Managers* explains the issues for this audience and provides advice on how they can include management of digital continuity in their existing processes. For each type of change listed in section 3 below, you may want to consider what processes you can put in place in advance to reduce the risk of minor changes affecting your digital continuity. For example, you can work alongside your HR team to make sure that exit processes are in place, so that when staff leave any information management issues are raised and understood. 3 Type of change
As shown in Diagram 1, change factors that affect digital continuity can broadly be grouped into three categories:
- changes to the way the business needs to use its information (section 3.1)
- changes to the technology that supports the information (section 3.2)
- changes to the way the information is managed (section 3.3)
Each of these types of change is likely to be driven by different departments who may have different ways to manage change and have varying levels of understanding and consideration for information management and digital continuity. Your own responsibilities and level of involvement will vary accordingly.
The Appendix contains more examples of each type of change and their impact.
3.1 Business change
Your business requirements drive the way that you need to use information. Any change to what your business does, or how it does it, can have a corresponding effect on your information. If your business change has an impact on how you need to use your information, you will need to perform an assessment to make sure that the new requirements are fully supported by your technology environment and information management. Business change often necessitates extensive knock-on changes in other areas, so you will need to make sure that you can support your new usability requirements.
A business change may influence only one of your usability criteria – for example, a change to your security policies which requires an amendment to who can open a specific asset. Alternately, it may affect a number of different usability requirements. For example, a Machinery of Government (MoG) change involving your organisation merging, dividing or closing down altogether, may necessitate a large-scale review of your information's usability requirements.
Who is involved in business change?
Business changes may be run according to a strict process and involve project and change managers. However they may also be done in a very ad hoc manner, often not really acknowledged as a 'change' at all. A large number of systems and individuals can be affected.
3.2 Technology change
The most obvious threats to digital continuity are changes to the technical environment which supports the use of your information assets. This type of change can be gradual, in that certain technologies become dated over time, or isolated – for instance, you may just be upgrading one piece of software. However, even such isolated changes can be made up of lots of smaller types of change – for instance, an EDRM migration may involve not only software changes, but also file format and technology management issues.
**Who is involved in technology change?**
Technology changes are usually managed from within the IT department, often within a small team with responsibility for the specific system which is going through the change. If the system (or even the entire IT department) is outsourced, the change will likely be managed by that company, with an internal contact.
Change management for technology changes are generally strictly mapped out from the start of the project and will often be taken from centralised processes. There are likely strict processes in place for managing the change and your organisation may have dedicated technical change and project managers.
Occasionally ad hoc technology changes are made, independent of the IT team and their processes. For example, a department may choose to introduce a new piece of technology or system without wider consultation. This might be done through external providers directly or through web services. These changes are often poorly managed and fail to follow the organisation’s processes. This can lead to isolated systems and information which is at greater risk of digital continuity loss.
### 3.3 Information and information management changes
The very processes that look after your information can sometimes themselves change and, if you do not properly manage them, you can lose digital continuity.
The way your information is managed varies between different organisations. You may have formal written policies and processes, documents and registers to manage your information – for example, retention schedules and IARs, metadata policies and file plan structures. There may be a dedicated team to manage information, with networks and extensive support for IAOs. Whatever processes your organisation uses to manage information, any changes to those processes will have an effect on your information, and you must ensure that assets or aspects of their usability requirements don’t fall through the gaps.
Knowledge and expertise in the understanding of assets and how they are used can be lost when members of staff leave or even just have extended periods of time off.
**Who is involved in information management change?**
You are likely to be working with people in your organisation responsible for information management – IAOs, Information Assurance (IA) and Information Management (IM) teams. It may even be that you instigated the change or are managing it yourself and that a driver for the change was to improve digital continuity. 4 Managing change
Each organisation plans and manages change differently depending on their scale, structure, available resources and risk appetites. Ideally your organisation will have a change process which is followed or adapted for each specific change and you can embed management of digital continuity into that process.
How the change is managed, your role within that process, and the input you can have in it, will vary. You may find your established change management process has digital continuity already embedded within it, or maybe you are in a position where you are able to influence the process and improve it, either at a strategic level, or for the specific change you are looking at.
However, it is not always possible to be involved with the process at this level, for example when dealing with a change managed by an outsourced IT provider. In these cases it may be better to take the actions required independently of the main change process. You need to make sure that someone is assessing the impact of the change on the information, performing a risk assessment and drawing up a list of requirements or action points which is then shared with those managing the change. They can then incorporate these actions and risks into their existing processes.
Managing Digital Continuity outlines a four-stage process enabling you to make sure you understand and protect the digital continuity of your information. You can apply this process on different scales – either to all the information an organisation holds, only to a specific sub-set of that information, or only to that information which will be affected by a specific change. This granularity allows you to address your digital continuity in manageable sections in a timely way and is particularly useful when looking at change.
The four stages of managing digital continuity are:
- Stage 1: Plan for action
- Stage 2: Define your digital continuity requirements
- Stage 3: Assess and mitigate risks to digital continuity
- Stage 4: Manage digital continuity You may want to use the four stage process outlined above to manage the entire change, or you may only want to use it as a checklist to make sure the key digital continuity issues and processes have been addressed within a wider change management process.
### 4.1 Stage 1: Plan for action
The first stage is to define the change that is going to occur. You should document and agree this with all parties involved. Note: this is the high-level change – you will consider the impact of that change on your information in the next step.
| Change | Details | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | What is changing? | What is it at the moment? | | | What will it be after the change? | | Why is it changing? | What is the principle driver for the change? | | | Are there any additional benefits? | | When is the change taking place?| Is there a deadline for the change? | | | Is there a timeline, can it be scheduled to coincide with other | It may be the change is fixed and you have no control over the scale and scope. However, it could be that in the process of defining the change (and going through the rest of the steps of the process) you are able to modify specific elements so that you can mitigate risk, minimise impact or take advantage of opportunities.
4.2 Stage 2: Define your digital continuity requirements
Once you have understood the change, you need to consider which of your information assets might be impacted, what their usability requirements currently are and how you must maintain or change those requirements.
Ideally you will have an IAR which lists all the information your organisation holds, grouped into manageable assets, each with an assigned owner and clearly defined set of requirements. You can use this register to check each asset and consider the potential impact, selecting out those assets which may be affected.
You must be sure to look beyond obvious impacts to track potential knock-on effects. There are likely to be complex relationships between information, technology and business needs so a variety of things may be affected indirectly. Examples of the types of changes and their impacts on how you use and support your information are provided in the Appendix.
For each of the assets potentially affected by the change you need to document their usability requirements, what they are currently, and what they must be after the change.
| For each information asset affected | How do you need to find it? | |-------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | The current usability requirements | How do you need to open it? | | | How do you need to work with it? | | | How do you need to understand what it is and what it is about? | | | How do you need to be able to trust that it is what it says it is? | | Any changes to the usability requirements | Specifically referencing the above requirements | | Any changes to the technology that supports these requirements | If the requirements have changed, how does the technology need to change to support the new | Any changes to the business processes | If the processes have changed, are there any follow-on effects that will impact the business?
### 4.3 Stage 3: Assess and manage impact and risks to digital continuity
Once you have a comprehensive list of the requirements to maintain and/or manage those that must change, you should do a risk assessment looking at how the change may impact your information. Ask the following questions:
| Risk assessment | | |-----------------|------------------| | **What are the risks?** | Are there any risks new requirements will not be met, or that existing requirements will be compromised by the change? | | **Mitigations** | How can we reduce the likelihood of each of these issues arising? Can we do anything before the event to reduce the impact of these issues if they do arise? | | **Testing** | How will we know when and if the risk has been successfully avoided? | | **Contingency** | If it is not avoided, what actions can be taken after the event to reduce the impact? |
Your mitigating actions may involve knock-on effects on other areas of your organisation – for example, if a piece of technology which supports one of your usability requirements is decommissioned, an alternative piece of technology may have to be reconfigured so that it can take over support. You should liaise with representatives from across your organisation to negotiate follow on changes which are necessary to retain your usability. It may be that you have to find a compromise – that they are not able to support the changes you need, or that they insist upon changes that you would rather not implement. However, there may also be opportunities for savings and efficiencies – streamlining redundant technology or sharing resources with other parts of your organisation.
You must answer and agree the questions above in coordination with everyone involved – the people organising and performing the change and the people affected by it. You should document the risks carefully and assign specific owners. Mitigating actions should be incorporated into the overall plan for the project and tracked accordingly. The change should go ahead only once everyone is in agreement that all the risks are acceptable within the risk appetite of the organisation as a whole, and this project in particular. At this point you may need to return to stage 1 and refine the details of the actual change, maybe adjust the timeline to allow for more testing, or modify the scope of the change to allow a gradual rollout. 4.4 Stage 4: Maintain digital continuity
Through the risk assessment and requirements gathering, you should generate a list of actions to ensure your organisation maintains digital continuity. You should add these into the action plan and scheduling for the change process as a whole.
Once everyone is in agreement about the scope, actions and risks involved, the change can actually go ahead. This might be as instant as flicking a switch, or may involve several months of development, testing and integration. As the change goes through, you should monitor the risks log and ensure all the plans are actioned. You should ensure ongoing testing and assessment to allow issues to be flagged and addressed early, before they become too serious, or unfixable.
After the change, you should review the impact assessment:
- Have all the risks been avoided or the contingency actions taken?
- Have all the information requirements been met?
- Have you still got digital continuity?
You should also ensure the IAR, CMDB and any other relevant logs and documentation are updated.
You may not feel the effects of a change until a seemingly disproportionate amount of time after the actual change has taken place. You should retain and monitor the risk/impact assessments for long term sustainability. Finally, as part of the change management process, you should review the process itself after each change. Each change is a learning opportunity to further develop processes and understanding. Appendix
5 Examples of change and their impacts
5.1 Business change
Changes in policy or legislation, changes in function, reorganisation and restructuring can all impact on how your business needs to use its information. This can prompt changes to different aspects of your usability requirements, or may require changes in ownership of information and where it is located and managed. Examples of changes to usability requirements for your information and the impact this can have are detailed below.
Business change often acts as a driver for further changes in technology and information management and ownership.
5.1.1 Changes to how you need to find your information
Changes to how you need to find your information can require both technology and information management changes.
| Example business requirements | Impact | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | You need searching to be faster, it currently takes too much time to find information | You may need to change your technology, improve your search algorithm, or improve your hardware to allow faster processing | | Search criteria need to be more flexible, you need to be able to search against more fields | This may be a technology change to allow you to record more fields, or enable you to make more complex searches. Or it may be an information management issue to update/introduce a metadata policy and train people to use it |
5.1.2 Changes to how you need to open your information
This category covers not only how you limit access to your information, but also how you need or want to share it more widely.
| Example of business requirements | Impact | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | You need to increase security and restrict who can access information | If you already have security measures in place which just need updating, this may be an information management issue to clarify roles and access levels. | However, it may also affect technology if you need to enable new restrictions
You need to share your information with a wider audience as part of the government transparency agenda
The IAO, alongside the information management team can advise on promoting the sharing of the information. Datasets for example can be shared via data.gov.uk
5.1.3 Changes to how you need to work with your information
The way you work with your information is what you can do with it once it is opened, how you need to be able to use it. These issues tend to be largely technology related, requiring changes to software or configurations.
| Example business requirement | Impact | |------------------------------|--------| | You need to make a previously editable asset read-only so that it is no longer updated and can be archived | You may need to migrate file formats, either using existing software or using new technology to produce an archivable format. The information management team should have recommendations for how to archive information | | You need to change the way data is gathered and entered into a database | You may need to make adjustments to the technology to enable you to record different information, for example adding fields to a database |
5.1.4 Changes to how you need to understand your information
Understanding your information is largely about metadata – information about your information. Who created it, when and why? When was it last updated?
| Example business requirement | Impact | |------------------------------|--------| | You need to be able to track version histories of documents and reliably identify the latest | You may already be able to do this within your current technology environment, in which case it falls to the information management team to train people how to use it and encourage them to do so. You may, however, require technology changes to add the functionality to your systems | | You need to be able to understand and evaluate your file formats to avoid technical obsolescence | The threat of obsolescence of information is now business critical, so you need to evaluate these formats in the context of your own business needs and technological environment | 5.1.5 Changes to how you need to trust your information
Trusting your information is about being able to prove, to a defined level of confidence, that your information is what it says it is. The information management team should be involved in any changes to the tracking and reporting of audit information; you should ensure everyone in the organisation understands how their actions are being monitored.
| Example business requirement | Impact | |------------------------------|--------| | You need to be able to start tracking who has printed a file | Your information management team will need to develop the policy for what is being tracked and who has access to the reports. The technology team will then need to implement systems to do this | | You need to be able to prove files have not been tampered with | If you have legal obligations, you must clearly understand what is required of your information so you can correctly and securely record it. Your business and legal teams will need to work closely with information managers to create the policy and work with the technical teams to implement and test the solutions |
5.2 Technology changes
5.2.1 Software changes
The software applications used to create, access, manipulate and store most public sector information are constantly changing and evolving – if these applications no longer support the information you have previously created and still need, then you have a continuity problem. However, not upgrading particular pieces of software may mean that support is no longer available, or you are not able to share and re-use files from other organisations.
| Example software changes | Impact | |--------------------------|--------| | Updating to a new version of a key piece of software | You may no longer be able to access files created in the old version. The same update may mean that files created in the new version can no longer be shared with another organisation which is still using the older version. You must make sure that the new version of the software does not remove features which you were using, or break any customised add-ins which you rely on | Updating the operating system
The operating system not only has direct impacts upon the way information is used, but can have indirect effects on the way that it impacts other pieces of software that may not be available on the new platform, but are required for your information.
Decommissioning legacy systems and old software, streamlining and consolidating IT systems
Information created using the decommissioned systems may not be accessible using other software. You may need to consider migrating data or file formats to maintain the usability of your information.
5.2.2 File format migration
The Government has selected Open Document Format 1.2 as the standard for editable office documents to be used across government. You should evaluate the steps required to comply with this requirement to see how you can best and most easily support this implementation.
Either as part of a software change, or in isolation, migrating information between file formats has a number of risks associated with it. Even if the new format has ‘better’ support for your long term digital continuity, the process of migrating into it can cause a loss of digital continuity itself. For example:
| Example file format changes | Impact | |-----------------------------|--------| | You need to migrate from a proprietary file format to another format such as an open one (maybe due to a software change) | The new format should be carefully evaluated before any migration is undertaken, it must support all the usability that is required and the migration must be done carefully to ensure no data or metadata is lost | | A new file format is now supported by an established piece of software | The new format should be evaluated to consider whether it is ‘better’ to use or not. For example, although your organisation is using the new version of the software, other organisations with whom you share your files are not and they cannot open the new format |
5.2.3 Hardware changes
Hardware is replaced on relatively well-planned schedules and lifecycles are documented and tracked to allow for long term planning of licenses, support requirements and budgets. Unfortunately, hardware changes also occur on short notice when systems fail. Disaster recovery plans should be in place to make sure that even these spontaneous changes are well managed and no information is lost. It is vital to include risks to digital continuity into all these types of planning to protect your information through expected and unexpected change.
| Example hardware changes | Impact | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Phasing out support for legacy media types such as floppy disks, magnetic tapes, CDs and DVDs | Although new data is not being created on these formats, it may be that older files are still held on these | | Introducing new hardware platforms to the organisation, for example Macs or smartphones | New platforms may not have support available for the software currently used to support the use you require from your assets |
5.2.4 Technology management changes The way you manage your technology affects the way it supports information. You must work with colleagues across disciplines to ensure you have an informed and consistent approach across your organisation. You should also avoid lengthy contract tie-ins or committing to contracts that make changes to meet new business requirements prohibitively expensive.
| Example management changes | Impact | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | The license for a particular piece of software is allowed to expire | Rationalising the number and types of licenses is a good way to save money, however you must perform a full audit to make sure that no one is actively using the software and that there are no legacy or archived files which you may still need to access in the future which you will not be able to do if the license has expired | | Reducing a support agreement from the top level to a mid-level, with corresponding decreases in response times | If a new support contract has lower response rates, in the event of a failure users will not be able to access their information for longer |
5.3 Information management change 5.3.1 Ownership and governance change Changes to your information governance structure, and roles accountable for owning information and risk, will prompt a change in how that information is managed. You need to ensure that you maintain an understanding of what information assets you have, and have a governance framework in place to manage risk and change. This challenge can arise when going through significant organisational changes and restructures, such as MoG change, when overall ownership of the information shifts.
### Example ownership/governance changes
| Example ownership/governance changes | Impact | |-------------------------------------|--------| | The asset is moved into a different department, a new group of people become the primary users and owners of the asset (this may be driven by a MoG change) | As information is created, changed and deleted from within the asset it is easy to introduce errors, for example incorrect or absent metadata, or corruption of audit trails. If the asset is moved into a different department, this may introduce risk as the technology and management processes change. You must ensure a full handover is given and the new users are correctly trained in how to use the information to prevent errors occurring. You must integrate the information asset into the new information and governance structures |
### 5.3.2 Individual staff changes
Each information asset is connected to a number of people and may be dependent on particular expertise to understand the information and maintain its context and supporting technology. As these individuals come and go they can have a significant impact on the digital continuity of those assets.
| Example people changes | Impact | |------------------------|--------| | The Information Asset Owner (IAO) leaves the organisation | The IAO is the primary custodian of the asset, responsible for managing risk and maximising opportunities. This is the individual who best understands the asset and its requirements and who should act as its advocate in times of change. If the asset owner changes, you can lose this understanding. If you do not replace the asset owner, or you poorly manage the handover, you have an increased risk of losing the digital continuity of your asset | | The technology administrator for the system holding a key information asset leaves the organisation | Bespoke and legacy technology is often highly dependent on the skills and expertise of a small number of individuals who have built up specific knowledge of how technology works or information is structured and organised. There is risk to the ongoing usability of the information if you do not capture and share the knowledge and effectively hand it over through succession planning | 5.3.3 Operational policy and process changes
Your organisation will have a number of policies and processes in place which inform how you should create, manage, share and discard information. The information management team should be responsible for both managing what is in those policies, but also for communicating and educating colleagues to make sure that operational processes are compliant with the policy. Policy and process changes may be driven from within or influenced by changes in wider policy and legislation.
| Example policy/process changes | Impact | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | The organisation is introducing a new protective marking scheme and needs to ensure this information is captured in the Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS) | Changes to the information you need to record about any given information asset will prompt a number of changes in policy and processes. You may need to update the EDRMS metadata policy to make it mandatory for staff to populate certain metadata fields. You may need to reconfigure the system to ensure it can capture and manage any new metadata required. You must train users on the new system | | The security policy is being revised to restrict the number of people who can access key finance documents | You will need to implement changes to privacy settings and access levels. You may be able to do this using existing technology, or you may have to customise them | | Transparency policy is being revised to require all published datasets are published in machine readable format | You may have to convert datasets from one format to another, or at the very least, their update their usability requirements in the IAR | | Retention schedules is being reviewed and updated, changing the retention period for various information assets | You will need to update retention related metadata and disposal schedules associated with information. You might need to change technology configurations and settings. Users of the information will need informing of the changes, and potentially trained. If retention periods are significantly extended, you will need to review the technology you are dependent on against the usability requirements to assess risks to digital continuity over the new retention period |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1704-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 47584,
"total-output-tokens": 9005,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
396,
1
],
[
396,
396,
2
],
[
396,
4427,
3
],
[
4427,
5005,
4
],
[
5005,
7253,
5
],
[
7253,
8019,
6
],
[
8019,
8935,
7
],
[
8935,
11082,
8
],
[
11082,
13874,
9
],
[
13874,
14250,
10
],
[
14250,
16594,
11
],
[
16594,
19407,
12
],
[
19407,
21451,
13
],
[
21451,
22869,
14
],
[
22869,
25076,
15
],
[
25076,
27607,
16
],
[
27607,
29098,
17
],
[
29098,
31556,
18
],
[
31556,
33772,
19
],
[
33772,
35917,
20
],
[
35917,
38327,
21
],
[
38327,
41170,
22
],
[
41170,
43410,
23
],
[
43410,
46355,
24
]
]
} |
aee70e719937d6aeed7bc339c06e4acf18cd8a47 | How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes
Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin
30 January 2014 How the measure of proven re-offending has changed and the effect of these changes
Background
The MoJ launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending.
Prior to the consultation there were six different measures of proven re-offending:
- National adult proven re-offending;
- Local adult proven re-offending;
- National youth proven re-offending;
- Local youth proven re-offending;
- Prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and
- Drug-misusing proven offending.
The new approach to measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:
- form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;
- compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition between the youth and adult criminal justice systems;
- understand how results for different offender groups (such as those managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit in to the overall picture on proven re-offending; and
- continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types of offender.
1 The response to the consultation is available here: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20111121205348/http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/565.htm Comparing trends in re-offending
Table 1 shows the proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction using the new measure of re-offending and the previous measures of adult re-conviction and juvenile re-offending. Comparisons we make use cohorts up to 2009.
Re-offending rates are lower using the new measure than using the previous measure. The differences are as follows:
- For adult and juvenile offenders the new measure is based on all offenders released from custody, receiving a non-custodial conviction at court, a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine over a 12 month period, but the previous measures only included offenders released from custody or commencing a court order in the first three months of the year. Using a three month sample over-represents prolific offenders in comparison to a full year’s worth of data.
- For adults the new measure counts all offenders including those who received a caution, fine or discharge, where the previous adult measure only included those who commenced a court order or who were discharged from custody.
- For adult offenders, the new measure is a measure of proven re-offending (which counts offences proven through a court conviction or a caution) whereas the previous measure is a measure of re-conviction (which only counts offences proven through a court conviction).
As a result, re-offending rates are 14.4 percentage points lower for adults and rates for juveniles are 4.1 percentage points lower using the new measure.
However, the re-offending rates are similar for adults given a court order or who received a custodial sentence, including those given a sentence of less than 12 months. Rates are between 1.0 and 2.6 percentage points lower using the new measure.
Table 1: Re-offending using the new and previous measures, 2009
| | New measure | Previous measure(s) | |----------------------|-------------|---------------------| | Adults | 24.9 | 39.3 | | Juveniles | 32.8 | 36.9 | | Adults given a court order | 34.5 | 35.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence | 46.8 | 48.5 | | Adults given a custodial sentence of less than 12m | 56.8 | 59.4 |
Figure B1 shows re-offending rates for adult offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
For 2009, 24.9% of adult offenders have a proven re-offence within 12 months using the new measure compared to 39.3% using the previous re-conviction measure. However, trends for adult offenders are similar using the two measures. The proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction rose between 2000 and 2002, fell between 2002 and 2006, rose between 2006 and 2008, and fell between 2008 and 2009 using both measures.
Figure B1: Adult re-conviction/re-offending, by re-offending measure, 2000, 2002 to 2009
The overall reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (1.2 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.5 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.7 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.8 percentage points between 2008 and 2009).
Figure B2 shows re-offending rates for juvenile offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.
In 2009, 32.8% of young offenders re-offended within 12 months using the new measure compared to 36.9% using the previous measure. The reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (0.9 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.1 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.4 percentage points between 2008 and 2009). Overall, the trends are broadly similar. Trends in proven re-offending/re-conviction rates for adult custodial offenders are similar using the new and previous measures. The proportion of offenders given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months who re-offended rose between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 1.4 percentage points using the previous measure). The proportion of offenders given any custodial sentence who re-offended fell between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 2.9 percentage points using the previous measure). The change in methodology
The following sections provide detail regarding the change in methodology between the methods in measuring re-offending and how those changes impact on the data.
The table below provides a comparison of the previous methodologies with the new approach. Table 2: Re-offending using the new and previous measures
Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending
| The cohort | Previous measures of re-offending | New measure of re-offending | |------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | National adult re-conviction | Offenders aged 18+ discharged from custody or commencing court orders under probation supervision between January to March | All offenders who received a caution/reprimand or warning, were convicted at court (other than custody), were discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest over a 12 month period. | | Local adult re-offending | Offenders aged 18+ on the probation caseload at the end of each calendar quarter | | | National youth re-offending | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | | | Local youth re-offending | Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between January and March | | | Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) | All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April | | | Drug-misusing offending | All Class A drug offenders identified through positive drug tests on arrest, OASyS or drug requirement as part of a court order, CJIT identification, or identification on prison release between January and March | | | The follow-up period to measure re-offending | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | | 3 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | | | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | | | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved | 12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved | Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending
| The headline measure | Previous measures of re-offending | New measure of re-offending | |----------------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | National adult re-conviction | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Number of further offences compared to number in previous year, against the reduction that would be expected given time on the PPO scheme | | Local adult re-offending | Proportion of offenders re-offending, compared to the rate that would be expected based on the offender characteristics | Proportion of offenders re-offending | | National youth re-offending | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | Number of further offences compared to what would be expected based on their previous offending history | | Local youth re-offending | Frequency of re-offending (the number of proven re-offences per 100 offenders) | | | Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) | Number of further offences compared to number in previous year, against the reduction that would be expected given time on the PPO scheme | | | Drug-misusing offending | Number of further offences compared to what would be expected based on their previous offending history | | | What counts as a proven re-offence | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | | National adult re-conviction | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | | | Local adult re-offending | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | | | National youth re-offending | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | | | Local youth re-offending | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | | | Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | | | Drug-misusing offending | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | | | What counts as a proven re-offence | Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months | |
What counts as a proven re-offence:
- Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow-up period or in a further six months.
- Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months.
- Offences committed within the follow-up period which were proved by a court conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow-up period or in a further six months.
- Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included.
We also include information on the frequency of re-offending and information on the predicted rate based on offender characteristics.
## Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending
| Use of a predicted rate | National adult re-conviction | Local adult re-offending | National youth re-offending | Local youth re-offending | Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) | Drug-misusing offending | New measure of re-offending | |-------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------| | A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics | A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics | A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics | No predicted rate | Evidence on the link between time on the PPO scheme and expected reductions in further offending were used to assess reductions in number of offences compared to the previous year | A predicted rate of re-offending was included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their previous criminal history | A predicted rate of re-offending is included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics | Logistic regression is used |
| Data source | Police National Computer | Police National Computer | Police National Computer | Youth Offending Teams data | Police National Computer | Police National Computer | Police National Computer | |-------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|
| Geographic breakdown | None | Region, Probation area, Local Authority | None | Youth Offending Team level | Police Force and Local Authority level | Drug Action team and Local Authority level | Upper and lower tier local authority areas for all offenders. Other breakdowns for specific categories of offender. | |----------------------|------|----------------------------------------|------|---------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------| The effect of the changes
Adults
Differences in methodology are reflected in different results. Table 3 shows the impact on reported rates of adult re-conviction/re-offending. The table breaks down the changes between the previous measure and the new measure to identify the different effects of the changes in methodology.
Table 3: Re-offending/re-convictions data for adult offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), first quarter of the year | Previous measure: re-convictions (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: re-offending (prison and probation offenders only), whole year | New measure: proven re-offending (all offenders), whole year | |------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | | | 2000 | 43.0 | 40.0 | 40.9 | 26.2 | | 2002 | 45.5 | 42.0 | 43.0 | 27.6 | | 2003 | 45.4 | 41.5 | 42.4 | 26.9 | | 2004 | 42.9 | 38.6 | 39.8 | 25.5 | | 2005 | 41.2 | 36.6 | 38.4 | 24.9 | | 2006 | 38.6 | 35.6 | 37.6 | 24.6 | | 2007 | 39.0 | 35.9 | 37.9 | 24.8 | | 2008 | 40.1 | 36.1 | 37.9 | 25.4 | | 2009 | 39.3 | 34.7 | 36.2 | 24.9 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | | | 2000 | 1.85 | 1.66 | 1.69 | 0.89 | | 2002 | 2.13 | 1.84 | 1.87 | 0.99 | | 2003 | 2.05 | 1.73 | 1.76 | 0.93 | | 2004 | 1.81 | 1.51 | 1.54 | 0.83 | | 2005 | 1.66 | 1.36 | 1.40 | 0.77 | | 2006 | 1.44 | 1.26 | 1.31 | 0.73 | | 2007 | 1.47 | 1.27 | 1.32 | 0.73 | | 2008 | 1.55 | 1.27 | 1.31 | 0.75 | | 2009 | 1.41 | 1.15 | 1.18 | 0.70 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | | | 2000 | 4.30 | 4.15 | 4.13 | 3.39 | | 2002 | 4.68 | 4.39 | 4.36 | 3.59 | | 2003 | 4.52 | 4.18 | 4.15 | 3.44 | | 2004 | 4.23 | 3.91 | 3.87 | 3.27 | | 2005 | 4.03 | 3.70 | 3.65 | 3.10 | | 2006 | 3.73 | 3.54 | 3.48 | 2.95 | | 2007 | 3.78 | 3.53 | 3.48 | 2.94 | | 2008 | 3.88 | 3.51 | 3.46 | 2.93 | | 2009 | 3.57 | 3.31 | 3.27 | 2.80 | | | Number of offenders | | | | | 2000 | 42,734 | 148,052 | 148,052 | 477,698 | | 2002 | 43,247 | 157,243 | 157,243 | 495,664 | | 2003 | 44,095 | 159,686 | 159,686 | 520,660 | | 2004 | 46,532 | 163,775 | 163,775 | 512,600 | | 2005 | 43,429 | 170,021 | 170,021 | 532,045 | | 2006 | 50,281 | 181,726 | 181,726 | 571,458 | | 2007 | 50,085 | 190,418 | 190,418 | 595,020 | | 2008 | 53,718 | 197,035 | 197,035 | 589,948 | | 2009 | 56,616 | 200,077 | 200,077 | 576,255 |
1. Based on the national adult re-convictions publication (March 2011)
Among adult offenders in 2009, the previous national measure (the first column) shows that 39.3% of adult offenders were re-convicted within a year based on a sample of 56,616 offenders. The second column shows the re-conviction rates from the previous measure looking at offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order, but at any point during the year. The inclusion of offenders from a full 12 month period means the results are calculated using the full proven offender population rather than a sample – this ensures we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample as in the previous adult re-conviction measure.
This leads to a lower proportion of re-convicted offenders (between three and five percentage points, e.g. 34.7% compared to 39.3% in 2009). The change to a full year also increases the number of offenders, to 200,077 in 2009.
The third column shows the proven re-offending rates from the new measure, but still based only on those offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order at any point during the year. Proven re-offending includes offences which result in a caution in addition to those resulting in a conviction at court. The proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend is between one and two percentage points higher than for those who were re-convicted (36.2% compared to 34.7% in 2009). There is little difference at this stage because we are still only considering offenders who already have a prison or a court order.
The fourth column shows the re-offending rates from the new measure looking at all adult offenders who received a caution, a conviction at court, discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates. The inclusion of these offenders increases the numbers considerably. In 2009, the previous adult measure tracks the re-offending behaviour of 56,616 offenders; the new measure tracks 576,255 offenders. The inclusion of offenders who received less severe disposals and are generally less prolific in nature reduces the proportion who re-offend by around 11 to 16 percentage points (36.2% compared to 24.9% in 2009).
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction over time in the proportion of offenders who re-offend is much lower using the new measure. Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were re-convicted fell 3.7 percentage points (from 43.0 to 39.3%). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 1.2 percentage points (from 26.2 to 24.9%).
______________________________________________________________________
2 The previous measure includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the first three months of the year, shown in column one. Column two includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the 12 month period. The number of offenders shown in column two is less than four times as many as in column one. This is because some offenders commence a court order or are discharged from custody more than once in a year. These calculations only count each offender once e.g. offender Y is discharged from custody in the first quarter of the year, and discharged again in the second quarter, but he is only counted as a single offender. Juveniles
The only change between the previous measure and the new measure of re-offending among young people is the move from a one quarter sample to including all young offenders over the period of a year.
Table 4: Re-offending data for juvenile offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009
| Year | Previous measure | New measure proven re-offending | |------|------------------|---------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2000 | 40.2 | 33.7 | | 2002 | 38.5 | 33.4 | | 2003 | 39.0 | 34.3 | | 2004 | 38.6 | 33.6 | | 2005 | 38.4 | 33.6 | | 2006 | 38.7 | 33.9 | | 2007 | 37.5 | 32.5 | | 2008 | 37.3 | 32.9 | | 2009 | 36.9 | 32.8 |
| Year | Frequency (average per offender) | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | Number of offenders | |------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | 2000 | 1.51 | 3.77 | 41,176 | | 2002 | 1.42 | 3.69 | 40,753 | | 2003 | 1.42 | 3.63 | 40,297 | | 2004 | 1.32 | 3.43 | 44,153 | | 2005 | 1.25 | 3.26 | 45,337 | | 2006 | 1.23 | 3.18 | 48,938 | | 2007 | 1.16 | 3.08 | 52,544 | | 2008 | 1.14 | 3.06 | 44,837 | | 2009 | 1.10 | 2.99 | 37,472 |
1. Based on the national juvenile re-offending publication (March 2011) publication
As for adults, using the whole year reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offended because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table 4 shows the reduction is between four and seven percentage points. For 2009, with the previous measure, 36.9% commit a proven re-offence within one year; with the new measure, 32.8% do so. The new measure, which is based on offenders from a 12 month period, includes over three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Change over time**
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction in the proportion of offenders who re-offend between 2000 and 2009 is much lower using the new measure.
Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend fell 3.3 percentage points (from 40.2 to 36.9%). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 0.9 percentage points (from 33.7 to 32.8%).
**Drug-misusing offenders**
Published results for drug-misusing offenders on the previous measure covered 2008 and 2009; results using the new measure cover from 2004 onwards.
The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year.
- Includes all drug-misusing offenders irrespective of the date of proven offence, whereas the new measure includes identified drug-misusing offenders who have received a caution, been convicted at court, been discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that were proven through a court conviction, whereas the new measure counts re-offences that were proven by a court conviction or caution.
As for adult and juvenile offenders, using the whole year to identify offenders reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offend, because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table 5 shows the impact on reported rates of re-offending/re-conviction by drug-misusing offenders. Table 5: Re-offending data for drug-misusing offenders, 2004 to 2009
| | Previous measure proven re-conviction | New measure of proven re-offending | |------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | **Proportion** | | | | 2004 | 67.3 | | | 2005 | 65.3 | | | 2006 | 58.6 | | | 2007 | 57.2 | | | 2008 | 61.0 | 56.4 | | 2009 | 57.0 | 54.7 | | **Frequency (average per offender)** | | | | 2004 | 3.20 | | | 2005 | 2.94 | | | 2006 | 2.37 | | | 2007 | 2.34 | | | 2008 | 2.6 | 2.29 | | 2009 | 2.2 | 2.10 | | **Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)** | | | | 2004 | 4.75 | | | 2005 | 4.51 | | | 2006 | 4.03 | | | 2007 | 4.09 | | | 2008 | 4.3 | 4.06 | | 2009 | 3.9 | 3.84 | | **Number of offenders** | | | | 2004 | 20,652 | | | 2005 | 29,112 | | | 2006 | 44,597 | | | 2007 | 54,474 | | | 2008 | 20,934 | 59,039 | | 2009 | 20,109 | 53,109 |
1. Based on the national drug-misusing offenders publication (December 2010)
Table 5 shows that the proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence is between two and five percentage points lower using the new measure (57.0% using the previous measure compared to 54.7% using the new measure). The new measure, which follows offenders over a 12 month period, includes between two and three times as many offenders as the existing measure.
**Prolific and other priority offenders**
Published results for prolific and other priority offenders (PPOs) on the previous measure presented the frequency of proven re-offending for all PPOs; results using the new measure cover the proportion of offenders proven to re-offend, and the frequency of proven re-offending for all offenders and for re-offenders from 2005 onwards. The previous measure:
- Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year. However, PPOs are generally on the PPO programme for a sustained period of time so this only has a moderate impact on numbers of offenders included.
- Includes all identified PPOs, whereas the new measure includes identified PPOs who have tested positive for cocaine or opiates, received a caution, been convicted at court, or been discharged from custody during a 12 month period.
- Counts re-offences that are proven through a court conviction or caution and also includes breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions. The new measure only includes re-offences proven through a court conviction or caution.
Table 6 shows the impact on reported rates of proven re-offending by PPOs and on numbers of offenders included in the measure.
**Table 6: Re-offending data for Prolific and other Priority Offenders, 2005 to 2009**
| Year | Previous measure proven re-offending | New measure of proven re-offending | |------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | Proportion | | | 2005 | 77.0 | | | 2006 | 75.7 | | | 2007 | 75.8 | | | 2008 | 77.2 | | | 2009 | 56.0 | 75.1 | | | Frequency (average per offender) | | | 2005 | 4.01 | | | 2006 | 3.83 | | | 2007 | 3.80 | | | 2008 | 2.6 | 3.80 | | 2009 | 2.4 | 3.49 | | | Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender) | | | 2005 | 5.21 | | | 2006 | 5.06 | | | 2007 | 5.01 | | | 2008 | 4.93 | | | 2009 | 4.3 | 4.65 | | | Number of offenders | | | 2005 | 8,555 | | | 2006 | 8,239 | | | 2007 | 8,309 | | | 2008 | 10,771 | 8,607 | | 2009 | 10,635 | 8,156 |
1. Based on the national Prolific and other Priority Offenders publication (March 2010) The average number of proven re-offences committed by PPOs in 2009 is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2008 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new).
The previous measure includes PPOs who have not been proven guilty of an offence or been discharged from custody in the 12 month period when the re-offending cohort is formed. This type of offender is likely to have a lower level of re-offending.
These differences may help to explain:
- why the frequency of re-offending is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2009 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new); and
- why the previous measure includes nearly 2,500 more PPOs in 2009 than does the new measure.
**Local adult re-offending**
The most similar results for the new measure of re-offending and the existing local measure of adult re-offending are the early estimates of re-offending of offenders given a court order. Like the existing measure of local adult re-offending, the early estimates of offenders given a court order:
- measure re-offending over three months;
- only measures offenders under probation supervision;
- provides results by probation trust; and
- compares actual re-offending rates with a predicted re-offending rate.
There remain significant differences between the early estimates and the existing local adult measure of re-offending, including:
- The existing local adult measure includes offenders on licence – the early estimates include offenders commencing court orders only;
- The existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach. This means offenders are counted if they are on the caseload at certain times in the year. Offenders who are on the caseload for a short period of time may not get counted with the existing measure. The early estimates count every offender who commences a court order;
- Because the existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach some offenders may get counted up to four times if they are on the caseload for over 12 months. The early estimates count every offender once; The existing local adult measure measures the re-offending of offenders at any point during the court order – the early estimates measure re-offending in the first three months after an offender commenced a court order; and
The predicted score for the existing local adult measure was derived from analysis of 2007 re-offending data and the prediction for the early estimates was derived from analysis of 2008 re-offending data.
These differences explain why the re-offending rate is higher with the early estimates of re-offending by offenders commencing a court order than with the existing measure of local adult re-offending:
- offenders on licence have lower rates of re-offending than those commencing a court order; and
- offenders serving a court order have lower rates of re-offending the longer they are on that court order.
However, the prediction for the early estimates has been tailored specifically to the relevant group of offenders.
**Local youth re-offending**
The previous measure of youth re-offending used data that Youth Offending Teams (YOT) collected themselves from their local police and courts. The measure was used as management information and was never published or put into the public domain. The new measure uses data from the Police National Computer (PNC). Internal analysis and discussion with stakeholders has highlighted a number of differences between the two data sources:
- The PNC includes a number of offenders who have received a reprimand or final warning which do not always appear on the YOT systems. As a result, there are more youth offenders and a higher overall youth re-offending rate using the new measure than using the previous local youth re-offending measure.
- The PNC includes more comprehensive data on re-offending as adults by offenders who originally offended as youths.
- Using PNC data reduces the data-collection burden on YOT and local police forces.
- PNC data measures re-offending on recordable offences and YOT data measures re-offending on all offences. Offences which are not recordable include speeding offences, parking offences and other minor motoring offences. As a result, YOT data is more comprehensive for motoring re-offences. The new measure allocates offenders to a locality using their home address data from the PNC; the previous local youth measure allocated offenders using offender management data. As a result, Looked After Children (LAC) who are in foster care, or in a children’s home, or in a boarding school or live with another adult known to children’s services, maybe allocated to a different YOT under the previous youth measure than the new measure.
For their re-offending to be included in the new measure, administrative data on young people in custody and secure accommodation has to be matched to the PNC. Some cases are not successfully matched. This process was not required for these offenders to be included in the previous local youth measure. As a result, YOT data can be more comprehensive regarding custodial offenders or those in secure accommodation.
Using PNC data provides an external measure of youth re-offending, which makes it an appropriate data-source to support any future policies which tie local funding to re-offending performance.
Using PNC data allows local youth re-offending to be measured on the same basis as national youth re-offending and adult re-offending, permitting adult and youth re-offending to be measured on a like-for-like basis and a more comprehensive picture of re-offending to be formed.
Work is underway to fully quantify the extent of these differences. Contact points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 020 3334 3536
Email: [email protected]
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Mike Elkins Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 2946
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom is available from www.statistics.gov.uk.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1705-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 19,
"total-input-tokens": 37921,
"total-output-tokens": 10485,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
141,
1
],
[
141,
1640,
2
],
[
1640,
4230,
3
],
[
4230,
5471,
4
],
[
5471,
6067,
5
],
[
6067,
6348,
6
],
[
6348,
8574,
7
],
[
8574,
12613,
8
],
[
12613,
15025,
9
],
[
15025,
29060,
10
],
[
29060,
32203,
11
],
[
32203,
35027,
12
],
[
35027,
36802,
13
],
[
36802,
40665,
14
],
[
40665,
43921,
15
],
[
43921,
46065,
16
],
[
46065,
48284,
17
],
[
48284,
49682,
18
],
[
49682,
50280,
19
]
]
} |
b0777131eeeb917d84976a1b333b96196f014c1e | Customer Nominated Contact
Request to change a Customer Member's role
1. Navigate to the My eRooms page and select the appropriate Room (A) from the list of available Rooms.
2. Select the change roles (B).
3. Check the **checkbox(es)** alongside the relevant member(s) (C) and select **Next** (D).
4. Select an appropriate **role** (E) for the member and select **Next** (F).
5. This screen confirms that your request has been sent to the Room's BAOs for approval.
6. Select **Close** (G) and return to the Room's homepage.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1706-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 2880,
"total-output-tokens": 208,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
209,
1
],
[
209,
529,
2
]
]
} |
6b6a26c6c13482095b4516be1d48e215a9bb5c7e | Self-service taxi licensing in Calderdale
Calderdale Council’s new online taxi licence renewal and application self-service has delivered over £53,000 in savings in its first six months of operation. The issue and context
Calderdale Council’s corporate mission is to be the ‘Best Borough in the North’ by focusing on three key priorities: growing the economy, reducing inequalities, and building a sustainable future.
At the time of applying to the LGA Digital Channel Shift Programme in early 2017 the council had recently adopted a new customer services strategy. This was informed by the organisational vision and mission, and by a recent LGA Corporate Peer Review. This strategy aimed to build from a position of strength and learning.
Calderdale had seen significant change in the way that customers had chosen to interact with it, with many now preferring to use the online self-serve options that were available 24/7. It was keen to ensure that its service delivery model continued to reflect this increasing demand and to deliver access to services that customers wanted, in the way they wanted them, whilst achieving much-needed savings.
The approach to channel shift was driven by the common need of all councils to reduce costs whilst ensuring that service delivery continued to meet the needs of citizens. Calderdale’s major change programme aimed to deliver digital innovation and transformation to underpin and deliver the aspiration for channel shift via its already highly rated (Socitm four-star) website.
In the previous five years Calderdale had seen online transactions increase from less than 9,000 to over 227,000 in 2015/16. Service efficiencies, achieved through service redesign, reducing avoidable contact and getting things right first time, had seen the number of contacts reduced via traditional channels – telephony contacts had reduced by 10 per cent, and face-to-face contacts by six per cent, year-on-year.
The project to make taxi licensing available online and have personal licence holder/applicant information available via the council’s main customer account, MyCalderdale, was seen as the next logical step in the council’s journey to deliver ‘digital by choice’ services and encourage wider use of all its online services.
“We wanted to use the opportunity of moving taxi applications online to show taxi drivers and taxi operators the other applications that are available online to them too. As a council we are looking at where we’ve got areas of digital isolation – and if we can show people applying for a taxi licence that online is the simplest and quickest way to do it then hopefully they will use online for other council services as well.”
Sarah Richardson, Assistant Director, Customer Services
Digital Channel Shift Programme
The work at Calderdale Council to support its innovative use of digital technology has been funded through the Digital Channel Shift Programme, which is managed and overseen by the Local Government Association (LGA).
The Digital Channel Shift Programme was set up to help councils and their partners to promote greater use of online tools and technologies for the benefit of both their customers and staff.
The aim is for the digital tools and solutions created through the programme to be reused by other councils and contribute to the wider work to transform local public services.
“Digital is the infrastructure that helps us provide services for people – it’s not so much a digital transformation, it’s actually a service transformation in terms of delivering better services to people.”
Councillor Jane Scullion, Portfolio Holder for Business Change and Customer Service The project objectives and targets
With the exception of taxi licensing, all high-volume transactions at Calderdale are available online with full back-office integration. The project therefore aimed to create an online taxi driver and vehicle licencing self-service facility, so that taxi and private hire drivers could apply online at any time of day or night, could track their applications, and see when their licences, MOTs or medical certificates were due to expire.
The starting point was the council’s modern, responsive corporate website that provided access to standalone application forms for taxi licensing. These application forms, once submitted to the licensing department via post or in person, then had to be rekeyed into a back-end system – which risked errors through miskeying.
Taxi licensing is a complex process and the existing provision was time-consuming and labour-intensive for both staff and drivers. Drivers often had to make repeat visits to the council in order to submit applications or provide additional documentary evidence to accompany their claim.
A self-serve facility could enable required evidence to be asked for and submitted during the application process. The process could be simplified such that applications could be automatically uploaded to the back-office system for processing, with drivers notified of the outcomes.
In addition, December 2016’s Casey Review had highlighted the safeguarding risks and had been highly critical of Rotherham MBC’s approach to licensing, calling for ‘much greater interest being shown’ by councils into the licensing of drivers.
Calderdale felt strongly that its approach to taxi licensing should be robust and transparent as it continued to make service improvements and efficiencies in order to address the issues highlighted in the Casey Review.
The taxi licensing service was to be redesigned to be available online through Calderdale’s customer account, MyCalderdale. The service was to be fully integrated with an existing CRM, payment system and back-office licensing software. Simple workflow would be developed in the back office to automate the processing of applications.
As there was no online service for taxi licencing then available, the project had potential to move significant numbers of these customers online. In addition to enabling drivers to manage their licensing applications online, using MyCalderdale as a portal was expected to encourage these customers to do other business with the council online.
Calderdale applied to the LGA for £15,000 funding to help purchase the taxi licensing module required to deliver the project. Including integration, consultancy support, licensing and training the total project cost was £23,919.
Targets
- move 100 per cent of all taxi licensing applications online, either through self-service or assisted service within council offices
- fully integrate with corporate CRM and back-office licensing software, eliminating dual keying completely
- generate £44,000 in efficiency savings in first full year of operation.
______________________________________________________________________
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575973/The_Casey_Review_Report.pdf The approach and progress to date
Calderdale’s licensing team handles the licensing and renewal process for over 1,500 licences on average in any one year. In 2015/16 the service incurred 6,369 calls and 4,101 face-to-face contacts relating to these licences.
At the start of this project to enable all licensing customers to self-serve, Calderdale’s licensing department was in the process of migrating from a legacy back-office system onto a new Idox licensing system.
The initial intention was to develop new, integrated online forms in a newly purchased Oracle Service Cloud customer relationship management system using its MyAccount facility. Forms were then to be integrated both into the licensing back-office system and an existing payment system.
However, it quickly became apparent that delays relating to securing the Oracle Identity Management single sign-on functionality within MyAccount would make this approach unachievable within project timescales.
A decision was therefore taken to procure and implement an existing Idox online taxi licensing module alongside the migration to the Idox licensing system. The web forms in this package could be tailored and configured to meet local user need and Calderdale’s own licensing requirements.
The intelligent forms would ask only for the information required for each type of licence application – new or renewal of an operator, driver or vehicle licence.
This switch in approach and the added complexity of running the project alongside a larger migration project led to some delay in delivery.
User research
Due to the historically high levels of face-to-face contact the team had few problems in engaging the drivers in this project.
However, they discovered a number of objections to moving the process online. For example, taxi driving is traditionally a cash-based business and an online service would involve online payment via credit or debit card.
In addition, Calderdale has a high percentage of Asian drivers, some of whom have English as a second language. Therefore research suggested that plain English and simple processes would be essential in order to make the service accessible to as many drivers as possible.
There had been an initial assumption that the trade was not digitally engaged, however this turned out to not be true. The majority of drivers had access to mobile phones and many were used to using internet services, such as Google maps, via these devices.
The mainly self-employed drivers predominantly worked shifts and were found to be enterprising as well as very good with their mobiles, but not necessarily so keen on paperwork, bureaucracy and ‘gathering up their documents’.
An engagement strategy therefore aimed to tap into the drivers’ existing interest in ‘doing things’ via their mobile phones whilst highlighting the time saved and convenience of being able to use their phone to apply for or renew their licence at any time of day and night.
“Had we just been putting in a forms package and integrating it with our existing licensing software it would have been a much more straightforward project – but we were doing it as part of a much bigger migration.”
Toni Kershaw, Customer Access Manager
“The drivers are not difficult to engage with but it’s traditionally cash-based business, so there are issues around any online service because it will require them to make payment online rather than by cash.”
Councillor Jane Scullion, Portfolio Holder for Business Change and Customer Service Eligibility checklist
Applying for a taxi licence is a rigorous process and the project team wanted to be sure that applicants had all the required information to hand – and were eligible to apply in the first place – before applying.
It was felt that the best way to manage expectations and prepare applicants for the application process was to first take them through a checklist of requirements.
Customers need to check the relevant boxes to confirm that they have read the information, are eligible to apply, and have supporting evidence to hand before they can go through to the application process. For example, applicants must be over 21, have held a UK driving licence for at least two years and have the right to work in the UK. Applicants would also need to provide a driving licence check code, a medical report, a disclosure and barring service enhanced disclosure, and proof of their right to work in the UK. They would also have to pass a driving assessment and English test, and attend the council’s professional standards training.
There is also information at this point about what happens to the application after it is submitted.
The checklist was considered key to both managing expectations and improving the customer experience – and avoiding the risk of a customer losing money by applying for something they could not have. It would also improve efficiency by reducing the number of ineligible or incomplete applications.
User testing
The first round of user testing was an internal process, with the taxi licensing team plus some internal staff who were not familiar with the taxi licensing process working through the process on computer, iPads and mobile phone to sense-check the information and customer journey.
Following on from this a series of workshops were held both at the licencing office and at the Customer First office in Halifax where there were a number of self-serve PCs available. A number of taxi operators and potential applicants were asked to test the process and give their feedback.
The feedback from this second round of testing was all positive, with very little comment about the form itself. Feedback instead focused around things that the team was already aware of through the user research – for example, the cultural shift to self-service and online payment.
Apart from getting feedback and testing the solution, a key aim of the workshops was to identify ‘influencers’ within the driver community who would be keen to ‘pass the word’ on to other drivers about the benefit of applying for and renewing their licences online.
The team is continually and proactively seeking feedback on the service in order to further improve it. When forms are submitted users are asked to comment on their experience. An example of the type of comment now received is: “About time”.
Digital inclusion
To accommodate those drivers who were unable, or unwilling, to make the switch to online self-service the council’s paper forms would continue to be available. In addition, access to computers was also freely available in the council’s Customer First office and staff both there and in the licencing offices would be available to help people make an online application and show them how to do it – with the expectation that they may be able to do this for themselves subsequently.
Calderdale was particularly keen to support people to use its online services because that opens up opportunities in other areas of life. Digital inclusion is therefore a key focus for all the council’s service areas.
**Drop-in service**
The licencing service runs regular drop-ins where drivers can come for support with an application and from where they must pick up their licence when their vehicle or driver licence is successful.
Waiting times and workloads at these drop-ins had been historically variable. With the online application process the team saw an opportunity to initiate an appointment system following a successful application, in order to better manage the footfall through the drop-in.
**Promotion**
A soft launch was agreed due the larger data migration running in parallel with the project.
The team felt that promotion of this service would be easier than that of other services as they already knew who all the 1,500 licence holders were, and these people could be targeted via the renewals process and via their operators’ offices.
“We visited the taxi operators to show them how easy the system was to use and to encourage them to get all their drivers on board.”
**Sarah Mellor, Licensing Officer**
When drivers are notified that a licence is due for renewal they are now sent a letter containing their reference code and told to use this to complete the renewal online.
Operators were also encouraged to put up information posters and to support their drivers by giving them access to the PCs in their offices and helping those for whom English was not their first language.
During research and testing sessions staff had looked for opinion formers, those people who are influential in the taxi business, the people that others go to for advice and information. Staff then made sure that these people were engaged and that they understood how the system worked and what the benefits were for them from going digital.
This influencer strategy has been particularly successful as taxi drivers who have used the self-serve application are not only happy with it but they are actively telling their peers about it.
Meanwhile, those contacting the service to apply or renew a licence are being nudged to the online service and are told ‘this is really easy, you can even do it on your phone’. Alternatively they are encouraged to visit the licensing service’s reception where a computer has been specifically installed for taxi drivers to use and staff are happy to help them through the process.
**LGA support**
The Calderdale project team believes that participating in the LGA Channel Shift Programme has given them much more than just funding.
The support, networking, shared learning and best practice has also been of great benefit. For example, another council on the programme, Cheltenham Borough Council, was also tackling
“So…it’s not just about the funding, it’s about a network that you’ve been able to build up, the support and sharing of ideas – which we can take forward for any project we’re working on. And this is quite priceless.”
**Toni Kershaw, Customer Access Manager** a project to put taxi licensing online. In addition, Cheltenham was using the Idox back-office system and online forms solution and both councils were able to share their learnings and experience with implementation.
Despite the different demographics that these councils serve, this engagement was very helpful as the projects progressed.
Launch
The self-service taxi licensing forms launched in September 2018, seven months after an original planned launch target of February that year. The delay was attributable to a number of things including the change in approach from the Oracle MyAccount to the Idox forms and the complexity of running alongside a broader data and system migration project within the service. In addition, the council elections in May 2018 impacted on the planned launch day which was postponed until after these took place. However, this did provide an opportunity for the officers leading on this project to better engage elected members who had expressed concerns about how taxi drivers had been consulted and involved in shaping this new online service. As a result, members were happy to go ahead with the launch. Apply for a new drivers licence
Private Hire Driver, Hackney Carriage Driver and Dual Badge Driver
To apply for a new driver licence, please confirm that you:
- meet our requirements;
- and have fulfilled or are aware you need to fulfill the fitness criteria.
Pre-application check
Fitness criteria
In order for us to consider your application, you will be required to supply the council with evidence of your fitness to hold a Hackney Carriage or Private Hire driver’s licence. For this the council will require the following:
- A copy of your full UK driving licence along with a check code to view my details online (only valid for 21 days)
- A medical report from your own GP using the council’s approved medical form, and passport size photograph signed by the GP [Driver medical examination form](#)
- Disclosure Barring Service check Enhanced Disclosure (s2 forms of ID required unless registered on the update service)
- Proof of your right to work/remain in the UK (we will need sight of original approved documents)
- Pass the driving assessment with Kirklees Council, the certificate is required to be shown as evidence along with a signed photograph by the driving examiner (please see our policy for details)
- Pass English Test at ESOL Entry Level 3 in Speaking, Listening and Reading (please see our policy for details)
- Attend the Council’s Professional Standards Training
Requirements
Please confirm that you meet the following minimum requirements:
- I am 21 years or over
- I have held a full DVLA driving licence for two years or over
- I have the right to work in the UK
Submit
What happens after your application is submitted?
After you submit your application, you will be given a reference number.
Note: Use this in all correspondence with us. The outcome – successes and challenges
The service had only been live for six months at the time that this case study was written. In that time period, whilst some way off its first-year target of 100 per cent, the service has seen promising take-up of the self-service channel.
It has also seen a corresponding reduction in the use of traditional face-to-face (down six per cent), telephone (down 3.5 per cent) and postal channels.
Back-office administration has been significantly improved as applications and renewals are automatically updated in the back-office system and applicants no longer drop off pieces of paper as and when.
Previously, the administrative work involved in collating, rekeying and processing these paper applications and supporting evidence, and then communicating with applicants about what was required next, had placed a large time burden on staff. Self-serve and automation has removed this burden freeing up staff time and removed the risk of miskeying application information.
Calderdale’s licensing team had been anticipating the launch of Uber in its area. This was expected to significantly increase the department’s workload as more drivers applied for licences to work for this new operator. However, with the new system in place the service has been able to cope with the additional 15 per cent demand for licences without the need to take on additional staff.
Calderdale believes that the project will deliver significant financial and efficiency benefits to the council over the next twelve months, but that it has already been a win-win for both the council and the taxi drivers.
Financial benefits
Since September 2018 when self-service taxi licencing went live on Calderdale’s website to the end of the financial year in March 2019 the council has monitored its savings in reduced face-to-face visits, call volumes, print and postage and cash payments.
Perhaps more importantly at this stage in the take-up cycle for the new service it has also coped with a 15 per cent increase in the volume of licence applications. This is quantifiable as an efficiency of £16,085. They have also avoided recruiting a manager, as had been previously expected, thanks to the automation and self-serve facility. This resulted in a saving of £32,083 – calculated from the go-live in September 2018 to the end of March 2019.
They have also seen a reduction in face-to-face visits, saving £3,279 and a reduction in call volumes resulting in £1,315 saved compared to the same six-month period in the previous year.
Further small savings have been made through automating payments and on post and packaging totalling £373.
“It is a lot easier to do it online, but you need to tell people how easy it is. If you have a smart phone you can do it no matter where you are, so it’s a lot easier and convenient.
“Drivers took time off work before and they’d spend an hour or hour and a half in the council office when they could have been working and earning money.”
Yasir Iqbal, Private Hire Driver
“It works absolutely perfectly. We’ve had no negative feedback about the online process. The only area we need to expand into now is to increase the take-up and do some work around promoting and raising confidence in the online process.”
Sarah Richardson, Assistant Director, Customer Services
Sarah Richardson, Assistant Director, Customer Services
“It has allowed us to reduce demand on face-to-face services and telephony services, and it’s much more efficient because we don’t need to key the applications into our system – they upload automatically.”
Sarah Richardson, Assistant Director, Customer Services In this first six months Calderdale has delivered a total of £53,134.94 in savings from the successful introduction of its online taxi licensing self-service – significantly ahead of the anticipated target of £44,000 for the first full year of operation.
Non-financial benefits
The team is confident that the improved speed and accuracy of licence applications is helping to keep the public safe – making sure that details are checked, paperwork complete and licenses issued with a clear audit trail.
As outlined above, the released capacity in staff time meant that the service could manage the 15 per cent increase in workload due to the arrival of Uber in the borough without the need to recruit more staff.
Taxi drivers meanwhile like the new system as it is accessible from anywhere, at any time and via their choice of computer, tablet or mobile phone. This is of particular benefit to those drivers working the night shifts.
Not only has the council saved money but so have taxi drivers as they no longer need to take time off work during office hours to apply for or renew their licences.
The service also has a better and wider range of clean customer data in a standardised format to analyse and gain customer insight for better decision-making and resource targeting.
This improved data set and the released staff capacity has led to a reduction in enforcement cases and better decision-making in the enforcement process.
Staff in licensing feel positive about the change according to staff surveys and feel that they are able to add more value to the service delivery. And the project team as a whole has had the opportunity to enhance their digital skills leading to greater confidence in their ability to deliver such projects.
No formal complaints have been made about this service since it was launched in September 2018.
Challenges
Finding that the original plan to develop the licensing self-service within the council’s planned new MyAccount was not possible due to issues with the Oracle identity management system was a major blow to project plans.
Whilst switching to an approach linked to the new back-office system in licensing was ultimately successful, the change in direction added significant delay to the start of the project.
During the project the back-office supplier, Idox, created a new digital team and appointed a new project manager to provide more robust project support and faster responses. However, until this point the project had progressed more slowly than anticipated.
Meanwhile, the local elections in May 2018 led to a delay in completing the user testing.
In the meantime, the team also found that running the project alongside a major data migration to a new licensing system added an additional strain on resources and staff time.
All of these issues contributed to some extent to the seven-month delay in the go-live of this service.
“As a politician you always count success if you don’t get any complaints – and I’ve had absolutely no complaints. I’ve checked in with various other people in the community and there have been no problems at all. And that’s what a politician wants to hear!”
Councillor Jane Scullion, Portfolio Holder for Business Change and Customer Service
“We’ve received a much higher percentage of applications with the introduction of Uber and we’ve been able to manage those applications without extra resource. Applications have increased by 15 per cent but we have been able to absorb that work due to the fact that the manual side and administration side has been reduced.”
Toni Kershaw, Customer Access Manager Key learning points
**Political impact:** don’t underestimate the political interest in programmes relating to niche or specific client groups. Earlier and ongoing engagement with elected members at different stages of the project would have been beneficial as nervousness about the impact this project would have on the taxi trade community led to a delay in launch. As a result of this experience members are now involved from day one in all service delivery change projects.
**Conflicting priorities:** take account of the impact of other projects on staff resource. Licensing staff were grappling with the migration to a new licensing system – and a steep learning curve in its adoption – at the same time as delivering this project. This meant that key activities such as user research and testing were competing for time and attention against other priorities.
**Pace:** in hindsight the team felt that it probably ‘bit off more than we could chew’. The ambition to deliver both migration and self-serve projects simultaneously was commendable, but a phased approach may have worked better and perhaps have delivered efficiencies more quickly along the way.
**Engage early:** you can never engage too early with service users especially in niche areas where opinion formers and influencers can help to bring the behavioural change required in a shift to self-service.
**Be agile but stick to the plan:** the team was impacted by projects running in tandem and had to readjust its approach, timelines and delivery plan which meant that some planned activities, for example user engagement, could not be undertaken as early as intended.
**Knock-on impact of delays:** as the project experienced delays it was impacted by corporate events that were unanticipated in project planning. For example, a corporate service review – which started after the planned delivery date – began to absorb staff time and attention because the channel shift project had been delayed.
**Focus on testing:** you can always do more testing and even after go-live this should be continued to ensure that anomalies and unusual application circumstances are accommodated.
“Pick your battles is the key learning and look at what you can do to get those efficiencies more quickly, rather than waiting for the end game.”
**Toni Kershaw, Customer Access Manager**
“Always plan for more user testing than you think you will need! Try and think of all the different possible scenarios and really test, then give yourself time before going live.”
**Sarah Mellor, Licensing Officer**
“One key lesson learnt was that we had not done enough engagement with our elected members and they were concerned that we hadn’t consulted or engaged with taxi drivers sufficiently so the new online service might cause some problems within the taxi trade community, and that they would find it difficult to use.”
**Sarah Richardson, Assistant Director, Customer Services**
“These are the easy things to get right, but the things that are quite often missed – and we’ve been guilty of that ourselves this time in terms of the communication and stakeholder buy-in including elected members. You’ve got to bring them along with you and make sure they are aware at every stage.”
**Toni Kershaw, Customer Access Manager** Next steps
The key focus for the immediate future is to achieve the target switch to 100 per cent self-serve for taxi licencing renewals and applications.
In light of Calderdale’s experience with take-up of other services it believes that this target is achievable. For example, the council has already delivered a 98 per cent take-up of online school applications and the recent introduction of an online blue badge application has already led to 50 per cent of applications moving to self-serve or assisted digital.
Work to deliver the 100 per cent self-serve target in taxi licencing has already begun, with further visits to taxi operators and drivers being encouraged during all telephone and face-to-face contacts to try the online renewal service, supported by offers to help them work through the process.
Meanwhile, as paper application forms are no longer generally available, new applicants are encouraged to try digital first.
Targeted communications with new operators to the area, such as Uber, are also taking place – suggesting that, as an online operator, Uber should be leading the way in encouraging its drivers to use the online services.
In terms of future development, the team plans to create options for customers to receive text and email notifications about the progress of their transaction.
It is also exploring a joint initiative with neighbouring authorities – under the West Yorkshire Combined Authority – to create a new online disclosure and barring service (DBS) check.
“I don’t see any reason why in 12 to 18 months’ time we will not have 100 per cent of applications online. A bit of confidence in the system, more engagement and making sure that’s ongoing and we keep the momentum going – to make sure the drivers understand how it benefits them, that it’s not just about making it easier for us.”
Toni Kershaw, Customer Access Manager Contact for further information
For further information on this project, please contact:
Toni Kershaw Customer Access Manager Calderdale Council
Telephone: 01422 288001 Email: [email protected]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1707-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 13,
"total-input-tokens": 34719,
"total-output-tokens": 6993,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
201,
1
],
[
201,
3670,
2
],
[
3670,
6861,
3
],
[
6861,
10377,
4
],
[
10377,
13404,
5
],
[
13404,
16848,
6
],
[
16848,
17996,
7
],
[
17996,
19779,
8
],
[
19779,
23427,
9
],
[
23427,
27038,
10
],
[
27038,
30327,
11
],
[
30327,
32209,
12
],
[
32209,
32418,
13
]
]
} |
01ad48a13d77b5df1ecc96b3f23435c3ba670eef | Channel Tunnel Rail Stakeholders Workshop
Anne Yvrande-Billon (Chair of the Binational Committee)
Paris, 17 June 2016 Cooperation and coordination framework
Cooperation agreement
BINATIONAL COMMITTEE PERMANENT SERVICE
Clear distinction between investigative and decision-making responsibilities
Coordination for the adoption of decisions or opinions with an aligned legal and practical effect across the entirety of the Channel Fixed Link
Fully coordinated aligned decision-making process Cooperation agreement
- **Signed on 16 March 2015** by the chairs of ARAF and ORR
- **General objective**: “set out the guidelines for this cooperation as part of a coordinated and efficient approach to regulation between the Authorities which monitors and ensures that the principles of transparency, predictability, fairness and non-discrimination are observed in relation to the Fixed Link”
- **Public agreement** (available online on ARAFER and ORR websites) without binding legal obligations
- **Key provisions**:
- **General approach to cooperation (article 3.1)** “The Authorities acknowledge the vital importance of cooperation and co-ordinated decision-making and the desirability of sending aligned, clear and consistent signals to the Concessionaires and other existing and potential users of the Fixed Link”
- **Objectives for cooperation (article 4)**:
- “Promotes fair competition between railway undertakings and promotes full transparency and non-discriminatory access to the Fixed Link;
- Supports the provision of better services for passengers and freight users;
- Respects the need for the infrastructure manager to have a sound financial structure;
- Promotes optimal use of rail capacity and efficiency in the operation of the Fixed Link” Cooperation agreement
– Key provisions (follow up):
• **Creation of the binational committee** (article 7) and the **permanent service** (article 8)
• **Exchanging information**: “All information and documents obtained by one Authority in exercising its regulatory body functions in connection with the Fixed Link shall be passed to the other Authority as soon as possible” (article 13) Binational Committee
– Main missions: • Steering the **activities of the permanent service** • **Exchanging views** between the Authorities in support of coordinated and consistent decision-making by the Authorities • Ensuring **conciliation between the Authorities**
– Composition: • ARAFER: Anne Yvrande-Billon (chair of the BNC for 2016-2017), Jean-François Bénard and Marie Picard • ORR: Daniel Brown, Giles Buckenham and Joanna Whittington
– What has been achieved: • **4 meetings** since its creation • **3 stakeholders meetings** (Eurostar, Eurotunnel, Freight Transport Association) • **Recommendations** on Eurotunnel’s 2017 Network Statement Permanent service
- A bi-national standing working group
- Main missions:
- Enhancing cooperation between the Authorities
- Provide advices and recommendations to the bi-national committee and the Authorities
- Annual work programme submitted to the bi-national committee for approval
- Formal working arrangements (included in the rules of procedure)
- Composition:
| | France | United Kingdom | |------------------------|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Head of delegation | Miguel AMARAL | Brian KOGAN (Chair of the permanent service) | | Economic advisor | John MOORE | Carl HETHERINGTON | | Legal advisor | Jérémie PIETE | Adedayo AJIBADE | Permanent service (follow up)
– What has been done:
• Almost one meeting a month • A number of working meetings with Eurotunnel • Two internal workshops • Public consultation on Eurotunnel’s Network Statement (22 July 2016) • Preparation of the recommendations on Eurotunnel’s 2017 Network Statement
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1709-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 10144,
"total-output-tokens": 1105,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
120,
1
],
[
120,
496,
2
],
[
496,
1778,
3
],
[
1778,
2168,
4
],
[
2168,
2839,
5
],
[
2839,
3707,
6
],
[
3707,
4008,
7
]
]
} |
1c7babb2f2c73ffba445a95deedeffec6be89620 | Chapter 7 Enforcement
Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Legislation, Enforcement Roles and Provisions Section 3 Surrender, Detention, Seizure and Condemnation Section 4 Hierarchy of Enforcement Section 5 Risk Based Enforcement Section 6 Intervention Protocol Section 7 Annexes
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1.1.1 FSA enforcement role These enforcement arrangements apply to all meat establishments approved in Great Britain (GB) and under veterinary control.
Enforcement action is taken in accordance with the FSA enforcement policy.
1.2 Relevant references
1.2.1 Authorised Officers (AOs) Authorised Officers (AOs) involved in enforcement activities must bear in mind the definitions contained within the various pieces of legislation.
1.2.2 Plant management Proprietor: Under the Food Safety Act, Section 53 (1) in relation to a food business, means the person who carries out the business.
1.2.3 Food Business Operator (FBO) Food Business Operator means the natural or legal persons responsible for ensuring that the requirements of food law are met within the food business under their control.
Regulation: (EC) 178/2002, Article 3, Paragraph 6. 1.2.4 Court References to ‘court’ should be taken to mean, in England and Wales, a magistrates’ court.
1.2.5 Justice of the Peace References to the ‘Justice of the Peace (JP)’ should be taken to mean, in England and Wales, a magistrate.
1.2.6 Duly authorised representative Duly authorised representative is a responsible person who has the authority to act on behalf of the FBO.
1.2.7 Legal definitions Most legislation includes a definition section that provides guidance on many of the phrases contained within it. The table below identifies where this guidance can be found in the main pieces of legislation that we enforce.
| Legislation | Location of definition | |-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | (EC) 178/2002 | Articles 2 and 3 | | (EC) 882/2004 | Article 2 | | (EC) 852/2004 | Article 2 | | (EC) 853/2004 | Article 2 and Annexes I, II, III | | (EC) 854/2004 | Article 2 | | (EC) 999/2001 | Article 3, Annex I | | (EC) 1069/2009 | Article 3 | | (EU) 142/2011 | Annex I | | (EC) 2073/2005 | Article 2 | | (EC) 1099/2009 | Article 2 | | The Food Safety Act 1990 (as amended) | Sections 1, 2 and 53 | | All domestic regulations, for example, the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations, the TSE Regulations, Animal By-Product (Enforcement) Regulations, the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations | Regulation 2 ‘Interpretation’ | 1.2.8 Guidance documents
- EU Commission Guidance on Implementation of HACCP.
- EU Commission Guidance on Implementation of EC 852/2004.
- EU Commission Guidance on Implementation of EC 853/2004.
- EU Guidance on Key questions relating to import requirements.
- EU Commission Staff Working Document on the understanding of certain provisions on flexibility provided in the Hygiene Package.
- EC 2073/2005 Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuffs.
- EC 178/2002 Guidance Notes for Food Business Operators on Food Safety, Traceability, Product Withdrawal and Recall.
- Food Law Code of Practice and Practice Guidance.
- Meat Industry Guide (MIG).
- Industry Guide on Edible Co-products and Animal By-products.
- Food Safety Management Diary for Meat Producers.
- The Wild Game Guide and Photo Annex.
2. Legislation, Enforcement Roles and Provisions
2.1 Legislation and enforcement provisions
2.2 Division of enforcement responsibilities
2.3 Communication with FBOs
2.4 Recording and monitoring enforcement action
2.5 Guidance on completion of enforcement programme
2.6 Gathering and preserving evidence
2.7 Information obtained from unauthorised sources (The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA))
2.1 Legislation and enforcement provisions
2.1.1 Code of Practice
The ‘Food Law Code of Practice and Practice Guidance’ have been issued under:
- Section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990 (as amended)
- Regulation 26 of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 / Regulation 24 of the Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006, and
- Regulation 6 of The Official Feed and Food Controls (England / Wales) Regulations 2009
To provide guidance for food authorities on enforcement issues under the legislation. Whilst the FSA is not a food authority, it is an enforcement authority and the principles set out in the Code have been mirrored in this chapter. 2.1.2 Requirement to enforce
Each Member State (MS) must enforce food law by monitoring and verifying that relevant legislative requirements are met through a system of official controls and other activities. It is for each MS to lay down the rules on measures and penalties to be applied when infringements of food law are detected. Regulation (EC) 178/2002, Article 17, Paragraph 2.
When the competent authority identifies non-compliance, it shall take action to ensure that the operator remedies the situation. When deciding which action to take, the competent authority shall take account of the nature of the non-compliance and the operators past record with regard to the non-compliance; Regulation (EC) 882/2004, Article 54
Food law includes all statutes, regulations and administrative provisions governing food in general, and food safety in particular, whether at Community or national level. It covers all stages of production, processing and distribution of food, and also of feed produced for, or fed to, food-producing animals.
2.1.3 Enforcement provisions
Each MS must enforce food law by monitoring and verifying that relevant legislative requirements are met through a system of official controls and other activities. It is for each MS to lay down the rules on measures and penalties to be applied when infringements of food law are detected. Regulation (EC) 178/2002, Article 17, Paragraph 2.
When the competent authority identifies non-compliance, it shall take action to ensure that the operator remedies the situation. When deciding which action to take, the competent authority shall take account of the nature of the non-compliance and the operators past record with regard to the non-compliance; Regulation (EC) 882/2004, Article 54
Food law includes all statutes, regulations and administrative provisions governing food in general, and food safety in particular, whether at Community or national level. It covers all stages of production, processing and distribution of food, and also of feed produced for, or fed to, food-producing animals. 2.1.4 General principles
(EC) 178/2002 sets out the general principles and requirements of food law, establishes the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and lays down procedures in matters of food safety. It contains:
- definitions (of food, food business operator, and other terms)
- basic principles – FBO responsibility for food safety
- traceability requirements
- EFSA to provide independent scientific opinion
2.1.5 Official controls
(EC) 882/2004 sets out the official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare.
Key points covered are:
- organisation of official controls
- crisis management
- imports from third countries
- financing / charges
- national enforcement measures
- community controls – for example, Directorate F audits
2.1.6 EC hygiene regulations
The hygiene regulations include:
- (EC) 852/2004 dealing with the hygiene of foodstuffs. Key points:
- applies to all food businesses
- looks for good hygiene practice and HACCP based procedures
- concept of industry guides
- (EC) 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. Key points:
- requirements beyond 852/2004 for food of animal origin
- approval of meat premises • identification marking • objectives of the HACCP based procedures • food chain information
• (EC) 854/2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. It contains: • nature of official controls – for example, inspection, verification, auditing • role of OV and MHI and trained, qualified operatives, and • control on imports
• (EC) 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs • (EC) 2075/2005 laying down specific rules on official controls for Trichinella in meat and
• The domestic Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006.
2.1.7 Amendments EC Regulations are amended periodically and it is important that the original published versions are read in conjunction with any amendments.
Note: It is suggested that users ensure that they access the latest version of the EC Regulations by checking at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm or
Volume 2, chapter 14 of the MOC carries recently published consolidated versions of all EC Regulations.
2.1.8 Domestic regulations The domestic regulations include:
• The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and The Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006 - as amended.
Note: These provide enforcement powers in respect of the obligations that apply in Regulations (EC)852/2004, 853/2004,854/2004, 2073/2005 and 2075/2005. • The Official Feed and Food Controls (England / Wales) Regulations 2009-as amended.
**Note:** These provide enforcement powers in respect of the obligations that apply in Regulation (EC) 882/2004
• The General Food Regulations 2004 (Wales) and The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 (England): • Provide enforcement powers in respect of the obligations that apply in Regulation (EC) 178/2002. For example: ▪ Article 14 ‘the food safety requirements’ ▪ Article 19 ‘recall, withdrawal and notification requirements’
**Note:** Domestic Regulations are amended periodically and it is important to read the original text in conjunction with the amendments. Consolidated versions are available in Volume 2 of the MOC.
### 2.1.9 Meat Industry Guide compliance
Use of the ‘Meat Industry Guide’ (MIG) by an FBO is voluntary. However, where an FBO fails to follow good hygiene practices described in the guide, they would need to demonstrate to the competent authority’s satisfaction that they have nevertheless complied with all legal requirements in the Hygiene legislation.
Failure to follow the guide or a suitable alternative (agreed with the OV) that achieves the same outcome may prevent the FBO from being able to rely upon a statutory due diligence defence if the non-compliance resulted in a prosecution.
### 2.1.10 Enforcement Concordat
In addition to the legal requirements imposed by the EC legislation, FSA Operations Group has been a signatory to the Enforcement Concordat since June 2001 and is required to adhere to its main principles, which **include proportionality and consistency of enforcement**.
The DTI Enforcement Concordat: Good Practice Guide for England and Wales states of proportionality that apart from taking a progressive approach, enforcement will **mean applying the principles of risk assessment to enforcement activity and enforcement bodies should focus their attention on the most serious risks**, or where potential hazards are least well controlled. Compliance in lower-risk business activities should be encouraged by being open and helpful (paragraph 44).
In respect of consistency, the Enforcement Concordat states that ‘it is important to ensure, and demonstrate, that enforcement activities are consistent both within a single enforcement body and between enforcers regionally and nationally. Whilst consistency of approach does not mean uniformity, it does mean ‘taking a similar approach in similar circumstances to achieve similar ends’ (paragraph 50 of the Guide).
2.1.11 File contents A premises file must be maintained by the OV at all slaughter establishments supervised by the FSA. This should include details of the plant approval, the FBO responsible for potential offences, all correspondence in date order, copies of all letters, formal notices, minutes of meetings, accounts of telephone conversations and informal notes taken.
Audit reports, letters, formal notices and other correspondence served on FBOs of non-slaughter establishments must also be retained and sent to York to be scanned and retained in electronic premises folders.
2.1.12 Security The premises file and all enforcement literature must be kept secure at all times. When not being referenced or updated, the premises file should be kept in a locked filing cabinet. It will contain evidence that may be required at a later date, together with additional unused material that the prosecution lawyer may have to disclose should a case go to trial.
2.2 Division of enforcement responsibilities
2.2.1 FSA enforcement responsibilities
- Red meat slaughterhouses (cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, domestic solipeds, large farmed game, ratites).
- White meat slaughterhouse (poultry, lagomorphs, farmed game birds).
- Game handling establishments (wild game dressing and cutting).
- Cutting plant. Establishments approved as ‘slaughterhouses’ for activities limited to the dressing of carcases.
Any of the following where co-located with a slaughterhouse, cutting plant or game handling establishment:
- minced meat establishment
- meat preparation establishment
- mechanically separated meat establishment
- processing plant (for meat products, rendered animal fats and greaves, treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, gelatine and collagen)
- cold store
2.2.2 Local authority enforcement responsibilities
- Hunters supplying small quantities of wild game or wild game meat directly to the final consumer / local retailers.
- Primary production of wild game carcases by hunters, including game larders they operate.
- Producers supplying small quantities of meat from poultry and lagomorphs slaughtered on farm directly to the final consumer / local retailers.
- Butchers’ shops (retailing meat to the final consumer or exempt under marginal, localised and restricted).
- Any of the following not co-located with slaughterhouses, cutting plants or game handling establishments:
- meat preparations establishment
- minced meat establishment
- mechanically separated meat establishment
- processing plant (for meat products, rendered animal fats and greaves, treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, gelatine and collagen)
- cold stores where storage is the only activity
- Premises manufacturing composite products containing meat and other edible co products.
- Collection centres and tanneries that handle raw material for the production of collagen and gelatine. 2.3 Communication with FBOs
2.3.1 Communication channels Effective communication is essential when guiding an FBO on compliance with legal requirements as well as best practice.
The majority of day-to-day compliance can be achieved through verbal discussion.
The OV should work with the FBO to establish agreed lines of communication between the FSA and the FBO and their staff.
It is also important that contingency arrangements exist to avoid difficulties when the FBO’s normal contact person is unavailable.
2.3.2 FBO contact details The OV must have available at the establishment the contact details for the FBO. For example:
- full name(s)
- address(es)
- telephone numbers
- full limited company name and registered office address
Where any ownership or approval details change at an establishment, the FBO is obliged to pass this information on to the competent authority:
*The FBO shall ensure that the competent authority always has up to date information on establishments, including the notification of any significant change in activities and any closure of an existing establishment.*
**Reference:** (EC) 852/2004, Article 6, Paragraph 2.
This information should subsequently be provided to:
- FSA York Finance
- FSA York Operations Assurance (OpA) Approvals and Registrations
- the Inspection team at the plant
This will ensure that the OV is always aware of the legal entity responsible for any potential offences within the establishment, whether they are a sole trader, partnership or limited company. 2.3.3 Key communication functions
The OV is responsible for:
- advising the FBO on compliance with legal requirements
- advising the FBO on corrective actions when infringements of legal requirements have been detected
2.4 Recording and monitoring enforcement actions
2.4.1 FSA enforcement programme
Enforcement action taken by AOs must be recorded accurately on the Enforcement Programme.
The purpose of this document is to help the OV in their:
- assessment and prioritisation of enforcement action
- communication of enforcement action to other members of the inspection team
- tracking or monitoring of enforcement action through to compliance or a referral for investigation
The document:
- acts as an aide memoire and provides a comprehensive record of enforcement action taken in the establishment
- enables the FSA to assess the FBO’s record as regards compliance with food law
- contributes to the risk assessment process and will help set the frequency of future competent authority audits
- provides an outline of the non-compliances to both Veterinary Auditors and internal audit staff
2.4.2 Ongoing enforcement action
When attending any establishment either on a temporary basis or when replacing the previous OV, the incumbent OV or Veterinary Auditor must:
- familiarise themselves with all ongoing enforcement action • maintain the momentum of existing enforcement action, and only where they are able to support this enforcement, should they escalate it
2.4.3 Completing the enforcement programme
The enforcement programme should be a ‘live’ form, updated as necessary every time enforcement action is taken. Entries should be grouped together in themes that match the categories contained in the audit form. This will:
• ensure that all non-compliances relating to the same subject are easily identifiable • allow similar non-compliances to be tracked more effectively to facilitate follow up action • permit the AO to identify systemic failures; that is, where numerous individual non-compliances in an area illustrate the FBOs failure to have appropriate systems in place to manage and prevent such issues from occurring, such as cleaning and maintenance • allow the AO to prepare for regular meetings with the FBO to discuss progress with corrective actions from audit and rectification of general contraventions observed
Some non-compliances may be of a recurring nature (solved once corrective action is requested but re-appear shortly afterwards). In order to demonstrate continuity of enforcement action, and, if necessary, prove repeated non-compliance in cases referred for investigation, such deficiencies should be entered under the same reference number. In electronic forms, the additional entries can be made on subsequent lines of the same box, underneath the original entry.
Alternatively, details may be entered under a different reference number, which may be cross-referenced to the previous entry where details of the offence were recorded.
2.4.4 HACCP based non-compliances
Where numerous contraventions are observed in an area and these are the result of the FBOs failure to have effectively implemented and maintained their food safety management systems, the entry made in the enforcement programme to evidence the escalation of the HACCP failure should be linked back / cross referenced to the individual non-compliance(s) in the appropriate themed area of the enforcement programme to evidence cause and effect. Enforcement action on HACCP based failures should be escalated in parallel to the non-compliance that results from its failure to show cause and effect.
2.5 Guidance on completion of enforcement programme
2.5.1 Reference number The AO should enter the plant number, followed by the last two digits of the year, and a sequential number for each deficiency (for example, 9999/07/001, 9999/07/002/, 9999/07/003/).
These numbers should correlate with the reference number for any written enforcement. In letters, the reference number should be included in full.
2.5.2 Regulation reference and deficiency The AO should:
- state the legal provisions that have been breached
- give a short description of the deficiency, for example, fittings in the chillers are rusting
More than one line may be used if required.
2.5.3 Action required The AO must detail any action the FBO must take in order to satisfy the requirements of the legislation.
2.5.4 Agreed completion dates The AO must insert the date agreed with FBO management for the correction of the deficiency, or the date for compliance specified in any formal notice.
If the FBO management does not agree to a completion date, the AO must insert the date they consider appropriate for completion and indicate that it was ‘not agreed’. Any letters should also include this date. The date should be used as a milestone. Where compliance has not been achieved by the due date, the FBO should be reminded of the issue and then enforcement action may require escalating to the next stage in the hierarchy.
When agreeing or setting completion dates, a reasonable deadline for the rectification of each deficiency should be agreed. The deadline should be realistic to allow the FBO to rectify the deficiency, whilst still considering the risk to public health.
2.5.5 Detention notice served and withdrawn
The AO should specify the date on which a formal detention notice (ENF 11/1 or ENF 11/26) has been served on the FBO. It is essential that the issue for which the food is detained is monitored, paying particular attention to the 21 day time limit for a Food Safety Act detention.
Where the AO is satisfied that the food can enter the food chain, they should insert the date on which the detention notice is lifted, below the date on which it was served.
If, as a result of the examination / investigation, the AO does not wish to release the meat for human consumption, they must insert ‘Not Released’ under the date the notice was served. This is to indicate the action taken and to verify that the detained food has not been forgotten about.
2.5.6 Date compliance achieved
Record the actual date that compliance was achieved, even if it was the same day that enforcement action was taken.
2.5.7 Structural work
Where structural work must be undertaken, the ‘corrective action’ section of an advisory letter or Hygiene Improvement Notice (HIN) should be specific enough to explain the legal requirement and the outcome to be achieved, without being too prescriptive about the exact way in which this must be achieved.
There may be many ways that the FBO can achieve compliance, but provided they comply with the legal requirement, they have the option to do the work in the way that they see fit, or to carry out equivalent work. 2.5.8 Monitoring progress
The AO should regularly monitor progress towards compliance to identify whether the deficiency is likely to be rectified within the agreed time scale. If necessary, they should ask to see evidence of how corrective action is progressing, for example, planning permission application / copies of quotes for work / structural plans.
Where the work does not progress at the agreed rate, the AO should escalate the matter and consider serving a HIN to formalise a suitable time scale, thereby maintaining the momentum in enforcement.
However, it is important that an agreed action plan is set out at the start and that the OV takes a reasonable approach where certain issues arise that are outside the FBOs control.
2.6 Gathering and preserving evidence
2.6.1 Introduction
The AO must gather evidence at the time the offence is witnessed, making detailed contemporaneous notes, which at a later stage could be relied upon in Court. It may be impossible to gather evidence retrospectively as it may no longer exist. Evidence may come in a variety of forms and must supplement a witness statement as an exhibit in order that it may be admissible in court. It is always useful to obtain corroboration and assistance from other members of the Inspection Team.
Detailed evidence gathering at the time of the offence will provide the AO with as much material as possible to support their witness statement and prove the elements of the offence.
Note: Look after evidence – keep it secure. It is fundamental to proving the offence should formal action be pursued.
2.6.2 Best evidence rule
The AO should also have regard to the ‘best evidence’ rule. Whenever possible, any original items of evidence should be preserved, for example, the original form of a document, rather than a photocopy. If the evidence is a part of a carcase, SRM or a broken limb, it should be preserved by the OV (for example, by freezing). If it is not practical or not possible to preserve the evidence, at the plant, for example, if perishable goods are involved and no facilities are available to freeze the product, the OV should try to organise alternative facilities at which to securely store the evidence. The FBO should also be given the opportunity to have the evidence examined by an expert before destruction.
The AO may also wish to consider taking photographs and / or sample evidence before perishable goods are destroyed. If there is doubt about what evidence should be retained, the AO can obtain further advice from FSA Legal.
2.6.3 Note taking
When gathering evidence, remember to record the details of any other persons present, to identify all potential witnesses in the case. This will enable corroborative witness statements to be taken; or for the investigating officer to test the strength of the evidence overall.
The AO should make full use of their pocketbook to make factual contemporaneous notes. These may be referred to in court to help recollect facts and figures that are impossible to recall in detail after the event.
Note: In court, a witness is able to refer to contemporaneous notes recorded in their pocketbook that were made either at the time of the incident or at a later time whilst the events were still fresh in their memory.
However, witnesses are not permitted to read from their witness statement when giving evidence, except in certain limited circumstances.
Note: Where an officer refers to their pocketbook when giving evidence in court, the defence is entitled to see that notebook.
2.6.4 Use of FSA official pocket book
The pocketbook is essential for recording details of incidents at times when the plant daybook is not readily available. For example, where an incident occurs away from the FSA office or in non-slaughter establishments where no daybook exists and where detailed facts need to be recorded immediately. The use of the pocketbook is not to replace the plant daybook for recording day-to-day activities, but should supplement completion of the daybook. 2.6.5 Important points
Pocketbooks may be inspected in court, therefore the following guidance must be followed to maintain validity:
- Record name on front cover, designation and date started.
- Make all entries with ink or ball pen.
- Include only original entries and do not copy notes from elsewhere.
- Record the date and time at commencement, and upon completion.
- Enter the notes at the time ‘the offence’ is witnessed or as soon as possible afterwards (contemporaneously), whilst the facts are fresh in the memory.
- To make alterations, strike a pen through the error and write the correction. Then initial in the left-hand column. **Notes must not be erased.**
- Do not remove pages from the notebook.
- Sign and date each entry at the base of each page.
Entries must be relevant, factual, legible, concise and written in plain English.
If accompanied by a colleague whilst witnessing a contravention, one AO may record the details in their pocketbook. The other may read through the notes made and where they agree with what has been recorded, they may countersign at the end of the entry to acknowledge that it is a true and accurate account of events.
Where the AO and FBO have had a conversation regarding action to be taken to achieve compliance, it may be beneficial to ask the FBO to sign the notes taken by the AO as an accurate account of what was agreed.
2.6.6 Security
The AO is responsible for ensuring the security of their notebook and for producing it in court. Further notebooks are available from York on return of the completed notebook – contact Operations Assurance Business Support by email.
2.6.7 Return of all notebooks
Notebooks remain the property of the FSA and **must** be returned to York prior to leaving the FSA. 2.6.8 Disclosure of unused material
The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) places an obligation on the prosecuting authority to retain and record all relevant information relating to any enforcement action.
The prosecuting authority – a term which includes the OV, the FSA team members, the IO, the prosecuting lawyers and the enforcement agency itself – has a duty to investigate all reasonable lines of enquiry and disclose to the defence all relevant unused material which:
- might undermine the case for the prosecution, or
- might reasonably be expected to assist the defence case
This material may include:
- informal and formal memos
- email traffic
- previously unreported offences and / or warnings recorded on operational paperwork
- daybook entries
- contemporaneous notebook entries
- minutes of meetings
- draft witness statements
- photographs and all negatives from both used and unused photographs
- instructions to expert witnesses or analysts
2.6.9 Storage and availability
Anything that is relevant to the case and which is not used by the prosecution is unused material and can be potentially disclosed. This fact makes it important that when notes are taken, emails written or drafts prepared, they should be made on the understanding that the defence may be entitled to see them and refer to them in open court. Even if there are good reasons for arguing that they are so sensitive that the defence should not see them, there is a high threshold which needs to be met to satisfy the court that this is the case.
The OV and FSA team should therefore ensure that:
- all material relevant to a course of enforcement is recorded and retained all material is safely stored
The IO must be made aware of the existence of all relevant material as soon as possible after a referral for investigation is made.
2.6.10 Photographic evidence
Taking photographs in approved premises for the purposes of evidence gathering will often be a fundamental part of the evidence gathering process.
The AO may inform the FBO of what is intended as a matter of courtesy. However, the FBO cannot stop an AO from taking photographs for the purposes of evidence gathering and it could be an offence for them to obstruct the AO who is carrying out their duties.
- When photographs are taken, details should be recorded in a contemporaneous notebook, including the photograph number, the subject, location and date / time. Colleagues should assist one another in this process.
- Photographs should be taken with a suitable digital camera; however, a record must be kept of how the digital information was downloaded and on to what medium it was stored, together with the Supporting Evidence Photographic Report for recording full details of digital images taken (see annex 6).
Reference: See ‘Digital Camera Protocol’ on the following page for additional information.
- Where the subject photograph is not clear, it may assist the court to have a colleague appear in the photograph to point to the item that needs identifying.
- Video filming is very useful to demonstrate a particular high-speed operation / operational practices or welfare issues in a live animal.
- When printed, it is useful to add details to the reverse of the photograph, clearly indicating the subject matter, location and other relevant details.
Although all AOs have powers to take photographs for the purpose of evidence gathering, they must always seek the permission of the FBO if they are taking photographs for any other reason than evidence gathering.
Note: Any verbal comment recorded whilst any filming is being undertaken must later be transcribed word for word and will constitute part of the evidence. Tip: Give the camera lens time to adjust to the temperature / humidity before taking pictures in order to prevent fogging.
2.6.11 Conventional camera protocol If the AO intends to photograph evidence using a conventional camera, capture images and run off the remainder of the film taking blank shots.
2.6.12 Digital camera protocol When the AO intends to capture images using a digital camera, they should ensure the following:
- the memory card is clear of previous images, unless you have come from another visit; for this reason, it is advisable not to use a personal camera or a non-work issued camera phone to take evidential images, as these items may also contain personal photographs
- poor quality images must not be deleted as they may become unused material in due course
- full particulars of images of the case are recorded, using the Supporting Evidence Photographic Report, available at annex 6 of this chapter
- all images taken that relate to that case, together with the corresponding photographic evidence report, are downloaded onto the hard-drive of a computer
- when required for a referral for investigation, all the images relating to that case and supporting photographic evidence report are copied onto two separate non-reusable CD-ROMs
- one CD is marked as the ‘Master Copy’; this must be bagged and tagged, and its details recorded in the daybook or in the AO’s contemporaneous note book, and stored somewhere secure
- the other CD is marked as the ‘Working Copy’; it should also be tagged and its details recorded in the daybook or in the AO’s contemporaneous note book, and stored in a secure place for collection by the Investigating Officer
2.6.13 Supporting evidence photographic report The ‘Supporting evidence photographic report’ has been introduced to provide a contemporaneous record of images taken whilst gathering evidence. In ideal circumstances, the report should be completed at the time the evidence is gathered. However, when this is not feasible, it should be completed as soon as possible thereafter.
The report should be stored electronically in the same file as the images to which it relates.
A new report should be prepared to accompany images of each separate incident. This is available at annex 6 on ‘Supporting evidence photographic report’ of this chapter.
2.6.14 Retention of unused photographic images All unused photographs, images and negatives must be retained.
2.6.15 Samples: physical confirmation of the failure A variety of different types of sample may be gathered as evidence, for example:
- rust / dirt scrapings
- samples of meat / offal / SRM
- trimmings of faecal or other contamination
- heads of animals
- whole carcases or joints
- bodies of dead animals
The AO should inform the FBO of their intentions. Enlist the services of a colleague to witness the collection of the sample (if available) and also to record details of what, when, where and how; recording the date and time in their pocket notebook. The samples should be bagged and labelled with all relevant details and sealed with a tamper evident seal.
All samples must be kept under secure conditions in an environment where they will not deteriorate. Details of storage location and transportation should also be recorded to maintain continuity of evidence. Temperature logs and relevant calibration records of chillers and freezers, where evidence samples are stored, should be accurately maintained, as they may be required as evidence in court. 2.6.16 Post-mortem evidence
There may be circumstances where an animal has died in transit or in the lairage, and a post mortem examination would be required, for example to support a case for a breach of animal welfare legislation.
Before undertaking any post mortem examination, the OV must have regard to the requirements in chapter 6 on ‘Notifiable diseases’.
Where the OV is to perform a post mortem examination on site consideration must be given to the following:
- there should be suitable isolation facilities in the lairage to carry out the examination
- hygiene procedures must be followed and C and D carried out following examination and disposal
- the OV should have the appropriate protective clothing and equipment required for the procedure
- a detailed report of the findings must be prepared at the time
- photographic evidence should be gathered having regard to the guidance contained in this chapter
- appropriate specimens should be retained, for example, fracture site, limbs or bodies of animals / birds and stored as outlined below to maintain continuity of evidence
**Note:** Once examined, the specimen should be retained in a secure location in case the FBO requires their own appointed representative to view the evidence.
Where an on-site post mortem examination is not considered appropriate, the carcase can be sent to the nearest APHA laboratory for examination. Continuity of evidence must be maintained as outlined below.
The HOD / FVC should be consulted before initiating an off-site post mortem examination or advising the laboratory that the carcase is being sent.
The HOD / FVC will advise on any financial implications involved in the cost of the APHA post mortem and report.
**Note:** Body parts that are required as evidence, but are, by definition, ABP must be retained until the conclusion of the court case. Afterwards, they must be disposed of appropriately. 2.6.17 Temperature readings: factual figures
The AO should ensure that where thermometers are used for evidential purposes, the thermometer used is periodically calibrated, and where required for evidence in court is recalibrated. The calibration certificates will be required as an exhibit and all relevant temperatures are recorded where necessary; ambient, surface, probe (internal) and between packs ask a colleague to help record these details at the time the readings are taken.
**Tip:** The AO should ensure that when asked, they can explain what temperature related to which carcase together with its location.
2.6.18 Light meter readings: factual figures
When gathering evidence of poor lighting conditions, ensure that the light meter used is within calibration before taking the reading. If the meter readings are required as evidence for court, it is advisable the light meter is recalibrated to demonstrate that it was accurate on the day it was used.
**Tip:** Do not take light meter readings when the sunshine is streaming in and no processing is being carried out.
2.6.19 Humidity readings: factual figures
When gathering evidence of poor humidity conditions, ensure that a calibrated hygrometer is used and if the readings are required as evidence in court, that the hygrometer is recalibrated to demonstrate that it was accurate on the day it was used.
2.7 Information obtained from unauthorised sources – RIPA
2.7.1 Introduction
This topic covers instruction on dealing with information which may be provided under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (known as RIPA).
2.7.2 Information received
Under the law, AOs should take extreme care when dealing with a case where plant staff or other contacts have provided information about possible offences or misconduct. Where this sort of information is provided, the AO must always inform their line manager, who must in turn notify FSA York who will be responsible for informing FSA Legal Division and Investigation Branch.
2.7.3 Questioning contacts
Plant staff or any other person must not be asked to obtain or pass on information about possible offences or misconduct. If they are asked to pass on information, it almost certainly will not be possible to conduct a successful investigation into the allegations since it will not be possible to use the evidence obtained.
2.7.4 Use of informers
It is essential that AOs remember not to ask plant staff or other contacts to obtain or pass on information about possible offences or misconduct even where they have first come forward of their own free will and given information about such matters.
AOs must not try to get someone to act as an informer or obtain information in an undercover way.
2.7.5 Example 1
A disgruntled employee contacts you to inform you that the operator of a licensed slaughterhouse and cutting plant is using the licensed premises at night and without FSA supervision to slaughter and process cattle which have no passports. He is in a position to know when this is happening and to contact you at the time it is taking place.
2.7.6 Example 2
An MHI is transferred to a new plant and becomes aware that the ITL and other MHIs at the licensed premises are working in collusion with the plant management. The ITL and some other staff are returning condemned sheep carcasses to the line after trimming them. In return the ITL is receiving cash payments and meat cuts of his choice. The MHI is willing to inform you of when these incidents take place and to collate information on the dates, times, persons involved, number of carcasses and owners of the stock. 2.7.7 Example 3
A delivery driver from a licensed slaughterhouse has delivered several consignments of over temperature pig carcases to a large city market. He is concerned that he may be prosecuted with the originating plant operators if a load is intercepted at the market. He is willing to provide information relating to dates times and consignment details of future deliveries which he believes have not been chilled to the correct temperature before transportation. 3. Surrender, Detention, Seizure and Condemnation
3.1 Voluntary surrender
3.1.1 Means of voluntary surrender
Where meat has not been produced in accordance with the hygiene regulations or is unfit for human consumption, the FSA should seek voluntary surrender of the meat.
Voluntary surrender is an everyday occurrence within a slaughterhouse and should always be evidenced by completing a ‘Rejected Meat Receipt’ (PMI 4/8). This will identify the carcase, part carcase, and offal and should be issued for all routine matters and signed by the OV/MHI and a responsible member of the plant management.
An ‘Agreement to Destroy Food’ (ENF 11/7) notice should be completed where any dispute arises, or where issues are more complex. For example, where:
- there are large quantities of meat
- the animal’s identification is being questioned
- the farmer retains ownership of the carcase after processing and their consent is required
This agreement should be completed before the meat is consigned to the bin and is in addition to the ‘Rejected Meat Receipt’. Reference: See chapter 9 on ‘Forms for PMI 4/8 and ENF 11/7.
3.1.2 Legal powers
The authorised AO has powers to detain food under:
- the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and the Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006 (as amended)
- the Food Safety Act 1990 (as amended), via the above Regulations
- Article 18 of Regulation (EC) 882/2004 for third country imports
3.2 On line temporary detention
3.2.1 Holding carcases identified for detention
In many slaughterhouses, the majority of detained carcases are rectified on the detained rail, under the supervision of an MHI dedicated to that task.
Colour-coded plastic hook tags can be used to identify carcases for detention. The colour-coded tags are used to signify specific conditions and serve to alert the MHI to the action required. Make the FBO aware of the system. The colour-coded tags should be used to represent the following:
| Colour | Use for | |--------|-----------------------| | Red | Pathology | | Yellow | SRM | | Green | Contamination | | Blue | Sample identification tag | | Grey | TB carcases |
3.2.2 Labelling detained carcases
Carcases and offal that have been detained for further inspection and that require more secure individual identification can be tagged using individually numbered talisman seal(s).
To maintain correlation between the carcase and offal, several talisman seals must be used. The individual seal numbers should be recorded with any other relevant details for the carcase and cross-referenced on the Detention of Food Notice. The seals must remain in place until the carcase and offal have been re-inspected and a decision made on the fitness of the carcase and offal for human consumption.
3.2.3 Detention tape Detention tape should be used to help identify any boxed meat, or shrink wrapped pallets of boxed meat and should be used in conjunction with a Detention of Food Notice.
3.2.4 When to formally detain There may be occasions where meat cannot be dealt with immediately on the detained rail because:
- the OV may wish to undertake a further examination of the carcase to identify any signs of oedema / emaciation, fever or other pathological condition that may not be evident when the carcase is still warm
- the OV may wish to carry out an investigation into the origin, marking, age, fitness, suitability of any meat or animal under the FBOs control
- the FBO prefers to carry out rectification work / removal of arthritic limbs when carcases are chilled
In such circumstances, the OV will require the FBO to store the suspect meat in a detained chiller.
3.2.5 Assessment of the detention facilities and history and confidence in management Detention facilities vary in type, size and security, the OV must assess how satisfactory the facilities are and how the FBO intends to detain meat that has to be stored for further examination / investigation.
The assessment should identify:
- how secure the facilities are, including number of people who are in possession of a key
- the level of confidence in management and their staff
- whether previously detained meat has ever been sold, gone missing or been moved contrary to the OVs instructions • whether the size of the detained facility is sufficient to accommodate all the suspect meat • whether the meat has already received a health mark or identification mark
The decision whether to formally detain meat with a Detention of Food Notice (ENF 11/1 or ENF 11/26) will depend on all the above factors.
Reference: See chapter 9 on ‘Forms’ for ENF 11/1 and ENF 11/26.
It may not be necessary to serve a formal detention of food notice on the FBO in many non-contentious day to day situations, for example:
• where meat is stored over night for routine rework and has not been health marked, and • is secured in lockable detained facilities on the premises, • where the FBO has always been compliant and has a good relationship with the FSA, or • where carcases have been tested for BSE / trichinella and are awaiting a negative test result prior to being health marked
However, where there are contentious issues, a history of non-compliance at the plant; and the FBO:
• refuses to voluntarily surrender non-compliant / certified meat declared unfit for human consumption, or • has detention facilities that are too small / not secure enough, or • intends to take the meat before a Magistrate / Sheriff to seek a condemnation order
the OV should, as a matter of good practice, always formally detain the meat using a formal detention notice (ENF 11/1 or 11/26). This is to ensure that the competent authority can secure all non-compliant meat and take formal action where the FBO breaches any of the requirements specified in a formal detention notice.
Note: (EC) 853/2004, Annex III, Section I, Chapter IV, Paragraph 12 requires the FBO to follow the instructions of the OV to facilitate post mortem of all animals. Where they fail to do so, this may constitute an offence for obstructing the OV and for failing to comply with the EC Regulations.
In order that the OV can prove that they instructed the FBO to detain the meat and take action where this did not occur, it is always good practice to serve the formal detention of food notice. 3.3 Detention under the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006
3.3.1 Relevant legislation A Detention Notice (ENF 11/26) can be served under Regulation 10(1) of The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 or Regulation 9(5) of The Food Hygiene (S/W) Regulations 2006.
3.3.2 General principle A Detention Notice provides powers to an AO to detain any animal or food of animal origin (specified in the notice), either on the premises, or at another location (specified in the notice).
Detention under the provisions of Regulation 10(1) or 9(5) is intended to be used in circumstances where further examination of the animal or food is required, or sampling is undertaken (for example, for potential residues or when a DNA test is being conducted by the Local Authority to clarify the identity and trace the origin of an animal).
3.3.3 Declaring unfit Formal detention is inappropriate when the OV is required to declare material unfit for human consumption because detention can only be applied to food. Once meat has been declared unfit, it will become an animal by-product and disposal should be in line with the requirements of the EU and domestic Animal By-Product Regulations. See annex 5 ‘Flow diagram’ and chapter 2.8 ‘Animal by-products’, section 5.
Note: where meat is being declared unfit and the FBO is disputing the actions of the AO, it is useful to set out the rationale for this action in writing to the FBO.
3.3.4 AO duties The AO should:
- discuss the reason for service of the detention notice with the FBO
- ensure the detained meat is accurately identified using an individually numbered talisman seal, the details of which must be recorded on the detention notice, or by using FSA detention tape for boxed meat • once identified, ensure that the detained meat is secured so that it cannot be tampered with • record details of the date and time of service of the notice on the back of the form, in a pocketbook, or in the plant daybook • ensure that the FBO can easily identify what has been detained at the time of service • advise the FBO of the likely timescale for the examination, so that they can take steps to prevent deterioration of the product; for example, boning under FSA supervision and freezing to preserve the value of the meat
3.3.5 Service details The notices: • should be served by hand on the FBO or their duly authorised representative • may be hand written • must be served as soon as practicable The AO should always retain a copy of the notice served.
3.3.6 Time period No time period exists within which the examination must take place, however, this must be completed as soon as practicable.
3.3.7 Right of Appeal No right of appeal exists against the service of a 10(1) detention notice under the domestic Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 or 9(5) of the Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006.
3.3.8 Withdrawal The notice may be withdrawn by the AO completing the withdrawal section at the base of the detention notice, once they are satisfied that the meat is fit for human consumption. The meat may then be released / health marked. If the AO is not satisfied that the meat is fit for human consumption, then they should seek voluntary surrender of the meat for disposal as an animal by-product.
Where voluntary surrender is not forthcoming, prior to the meat having been health marked, the OV should send a letter to the FBO explaining why they are declaring the meat unfit and serve an animal by-product notice requiring the disposal of the meat under the domestic animal by-product regulations. Where the meat has been health marked and subsequently deteriorates and becomes unfit, and the FBO refuses to surrender the product, the OV must seize the food under the provisions of Section 9 (3) (b) of the Food Safety Act 1990 (as amended) and take it before a Justice of the Peace or Sheriff to be condemned.
**Note:** Detention under the provisions of Regulation 10(1) or 9(5) of the domestic hygiene regulations is intended to be used for short term issues to allow a further examination to take place, or samples to be taken.
### 3.3.9 AO checklist
Where the detained food is not released, specify in the AO checklist on the reverse of the Detention Notice:
- the nature of disposal and the category of ABP that the food was consigned under
- whether an agreement to destroy food Notice was signed by the FBO and the notice reference number
- whether the detention led to the food being certified, seized and taken before a court to have it condemned
### 3.4 Detention of Food under the Food Safety Act 1990
#### 3.4.1 Relevant legislation
Regulation 25 of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and Regulation 23 of The Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006 also allow the AO to detain suspect food for further investigation. This is achieved via the detention provisions contained in Section 9(3)(a) of the Food Safety Act 1990, which provides powers for the AO to detain, inspect and seize any food that is thought may not comply with the food safety requirements and is intended for human consumption. The Detention of Food Notice to use in these circumstances is the ENF 11/1 Note: Formal detention is inappropriate when the OV is required to declare material unfit for human consumption—because detention can only be applied to food. Once it has been determined that the meat has to be declared unfit, it will be an animal by-product and disposal should be in line with the requirements of the Animal By-Products Regulations. See annex 5 on ‘Flow diagram’ of this chapter and chapter 2.8 on ‘Animal by-products’, section 5.
3.4.2 When to serve a Food Detention Notice (ENF11/1)
When FBOs are unwilling to either surrender meat that the AO has judged unfit, or is un-cooperative with respect to the voluntary detention of food for further investigation into its fitness or for compliance with the food safety requirements to be properly assessed, the AO must formally detain or seize (as appropriate) the food in accordance with Food Safety Act Section 9.
Note: The AO shall as soon as is reasonably practicable, and in any event within 21 days, determine whether or not he is satisfied that the food complies with the food safety requirement.
Legislation:
- Regulation 29 (3) of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and Regulation 27(3) of the Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006 specify that where food has not been ‘produced, processed, or distributed’ in accordance with the regulations it shall be treated for the purposes of Section 9 of the Food Safety Act, as failing to comply with the food safety requirements.
- Art 14 (EC) 178/2002 identifies the food safety requirements.
- (EC) 854/2004, Annex 1, Section II, Chapters II, III and V identify the circumstances where meat is required to be declared unfit for human consumption.
3.4.3 Reasons for service
Meat which fails to comply with food safety requirements under Article 14, (EC) 178/2002 includes:
- meat that is unsafe
- meat that is unfit for human consumption
- meat that is injurious to health 3.4.4 Service of notice
Prior to serving a notice, the AO must have in their possession all the evidence to justify its service. The Detention of Food Notice should be served by hand on the person in possession of the meat who is deemed to be ‘the owner’. A copy of the notice can be forwarded to the monetary owner, if different.
**Note:** Monetary owner could be the owner of the animal from which the meat was produced, for example, the farmer.
3.4.5 Content of notice
The notice must specify:
- description (carcase / box type, colour, markings)
- quantity
- identification marks if any (detained tags, numbers or labels)
- a different location to which it may be moved (if applicable)
- why, in the officers opinion, the food does not comply with the food safety requirements, linking the matter to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 178/2002
3.4.6 Number of notices
Where a quantity of meat of different types or batches is being detained, the AO should issue a separate Detention of Food Notice for each type or batch.
Where the meat that fails to comply with the hygiene requirements is part of a batch of the same class or description, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is shown that the whole batch fails to comply and the AO should detain all of it. Part of the food may subsequently be seized if necessary and an Order for Condemnation of Food applied for. The Detention Notice must be withdrawn in respect of the remainder if the AO is satisfied that the problem affects only part of the batch.
**Regulation:** 29 (3) of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013, Regulation 27 (3) the Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006 and Food Safety Act 1990 Section 8 (3). 3.4.7 Right of appeal
No right of appeal exists for a Detention of Food Notice under the Food Safety Act 1990. However, if not voluntarily surrendered, the meat must be seized and taken before a Justice of the Peace or Sheriff for them to determine whether the food should be condemned or not.
3.4.8 Time limit
The AO shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, and in any event within 21 days, determine whether or not they are satisfied that the meat complies with the food safety requirement.
If they are satisfied that the food complies with food safety requirements, the AO must immediately withdraw the notice.
Or, if the AO is not satisfied that the food complies, they must seize the food and have it dealt with by a Justice of the Peace.
3.4.9 Withdrawal
If the notice is to be withdrawn, the AO must immediately serve a Withdrawal of Detention of Food Notice upon the recipient of the original Detention Notice - ENF 11/2.
If a Detention of Food Notice is withdrawn, or condemnation order is refused, compensation is payable to the owner of the food for any depreciation in its value which can be shown to result from the AOs actions.
The AO must ensure that all detained food is suitably and securely stored to minimise any deterioration.
Examples: In a lockable room, or by means of a security talisman tag on the chiller door.
3.4.10 AO checklist
Where the detained food is not released, specify in the AO checklist on the reverse of the Detention Notice:
- the nature of disposal and the category of ABP that the food was consigned under • whether an Agreement to Destroy Food Notice was signed by the FBO and the Notice reference number • whether the detention led to the food being certified, seized and taken before a court to have it condemned
3.5 Condemnation procedure
3.5.1 When an application for a Condemnation Order from the court is not appropriate
When the provisions relating to ‘Decisions Concerning Food Chain Information; Decisions Concerning Live Animals and Decisions Concerning Meat’ in Regulation (EC) 854/2004 require meat to be declared unfit for human consumption prior to the Health Mark or ID Mark being applied.
Reference: (EC) 854/2004, Annex I, Section II, Chapters II, III and V.
The OV should inform the FBO, in writing where a dispute arises, that the legislation requires the material to be declared unfit for human consumption and disposed of as an animal by-product (ABP). See Article 54 of Regulation (EC) 882/2004.
If the FBO fails to voluntarily surrender such product, the OV must serve a ‘Notice for the Disposal of Animal By-Products’ (ENF 11/12) in accordance with chapter 2.8, section 5 on ‘Enforcement’. See also annex 5 of this chapter.
3.5.2 When to apply for a condemnation order from the court
Only after meat has been health marked or ID marked and it has failed to be produced, processed or distributed in accordance with the hygiene regulations, or breaches the ‘food safety requirements’ should the OV:
• formally detain the food (ENF 11/26 or 11/1) • certify the food as non-compliant (ENF 11/25) • formally seize the food (ENF 11/27) • apply to a Magistrate or Sheriff to issue a Condemnation Order 3.5.3 Obtaining a condemnation order
In England and Wales a Condemnation Order may be obtained from a Justice of the Peace at the Magistrates’ court.
3.5.4 Action to take
The OV is to follow the steps in the table below.
Reference: The Food Safety Act 1990 Section 9 (3) (b), Section 9(4) (b).
Reference: The Food Law Code of Practice.
| Action to take | Description | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Detain the food (ENF 11/1) | Ensure that any food that you suspect does not comply with the food safety requirements is formally detained using a Food Safety Act Detention of Food Notice (ENF 11/1) or Detention Notice (ENF 11/26). Reference: See chapter 9 on ‘Forms’ for ENF 11/1. | | Complete and serve Certification of Meat Notice (ENF 11/25) | Once the OV has determined that the food has not been produced, processed or distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Hygiene Regulations they must serve notice on the FBO with the reasons why it fails to comply. Reference: See chapter 9 on ‘Forms’ for ENF 11/25. | | Complete and serve a Seizure of Food Notice (ENF 11/27) | If after certifying the meat, the FBO refuses to voluntarily surrender the food, complete a Seizure of Food Notice (ENF 11/27) and serve it on the FBO and a copy on the owner of the food where relevant. Reference: See chapter 9 on ‘Forms’ for ENF 11/27. | | Complete and serve a Food Condemnation Warning Notice (ENF 11/3) | ENF 11/3 should be served on the owner / person in charge of the food (FBO). If relevant, a copy of the Condemnation Warning Notice should also be served on the owner of the animal from which the meat was produced, for example, the farmer. | | Task | Description | |-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Advise FSA legal adviser | FSA will arrange legal representation. A summary of events and copy of all legal notices must be sent to FSA Legal. | | Contact the local police | Establish which court covers the area for the establishment where the detained food is held. | | Contact the court | In England / Wales - speak to the Clerk of the Court to establish local procedures. Explain: | | | • the officer is authorised under the Food Safety Act 1990 and Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 or Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006 | | | • that the OV is seeking an Order for Condemnation of Food from a Justice of the Peace | | | • the nature, quantity and location of the product detained, and confirm that the premises fall within that court’s jurisdiction | | | • the reason the Order is being sought referring particularly to the legislation under which the case is brought | | | In England and Wales establish with the Clerk a date, time and location for the court hearing. The location can be either the local courtroom or the plant depending upon circumstances. | | Complete and serve Food Condemnation Warning Notice (ENF 11/3) | Ensure that the notice is served by the most appropriate method available in the circumstances to ensure that all relevant parties are informed of the time and place of the hearing in good time. Document and retain records of service to show the court. Retain copies of the Condemnation Warning Notice, the Certification of Meat Notice and the Seizure of Food Notice to produce to the Justice of the Peace, the Clerk to the Court and the FSA legal representative. Have a copy of the relevant sections of the Code of Practice and Practice Guidance. Reference: See chapter 9 ‘Forms’ for ENF 11/3. | | Contact the court | In England / Wales - speak to the Clerk of the Court to establish local procedures. Explain:
- the officer is authorised under the Food Safety Act 1990 and Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 or Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006
- that the OV is seeking an Order for Condemnation of Food from a Justice of the Peace
- the nature, quantity and location of the product detained, and confirm that the premises fall within that court’s jurisdiction
- the reason the Order is being sought referring particularly to the legislation under which the case is brought\
In England and Wales establish with the Clerk a date, time and location for the court hearing. The location can be either the local courtroom or the plant depending upon circumstances.\
**Note:** The court date must coincide with the availability of the FSA legal representative, so liaise with FSA Legal prior to serving the Condemnation Warning Notice.\
The OV and any other witnesses should inform Operations Assurance (OpAs) of dates when he/she/they are available for court. The OV and witnesses should bear in mind the comments of the Code of Practice on the speed with which the case should go to court. | | Complete and serve Food Condemnation Warning Notice (ENF 11/3) | Ensure that the notice is served by the most appropriate method available in the circumstances to ensure that all relevant parties are informed of the time and place of the hearing in good time. Document and retain records of service to show the court.\
Retain copies of the Condemnation Warning Notice, the Certification of Meat Notice and the Seizure of Food Notice to produce to the Justice of the Peace, the Clerk to the Court and the FSA legal representative.\
Have a copy of the relevant sections of the Code of Practice and Practice Guidance.\
**Reference:** See chapter 9 ‘Forms’ for ENF 11/3. | | Attend the hearing | Prepare three copies of the Complaint for Condemnation of Food Order (ENF 11/15) and of the Order For Condemnation of Food (ENF 11/16) itself for the Justice of the Peace to sign. Read the papers again before going to court. Attend court early to meet the FSA advocate. On attending the hearing, the AO should take:
- their Authorisation Certificate / Warrant for the legislation being enforced
- copy of the Certification of Meat failing to comply with the requirements of the Hygiene Regulations
- copies of the Detention and / or Seizure Notice and a record of service
- copies of the Condemnation Warning Notice and record of service
- copies of the Complaint for Condemnation of Food Order
- copies of the Order for Condemnation of Food
- contemporaneous notes which may be referred to (notebook or plant daybook)
- a consolidated copy of the relevant legislation (highlight sections for easy reference)
- copies of the Code of Practice
- any additional evidence, for example, copies of a public analyst or expert report
- a representative sample of the food if the hearing is to be held in court and the entire batch cannot be transported (where appropriate)
**Reference**: See chapter 9 ‘Forms’ for ENF 11/15 and ENF 11/16. Explain clearly when presenting the evidence in court:
- why the meat should be condemned
- quote the Regulation(s) which has / have been breached
- what the problems are if the meat is not condemned
- what the risk is to public health | If successful: maintain supervision to ensure meat is disposed of
| If successful: maintain supervision to ensure meat is disposed of | If the Justice of the Peace / Sheriff issues an ‘Order for Condemnation of Food’, upon receipt of the Order, ensure that the person in charge of the meat (and the owner if notified) receives a copy. Ensure that the details of disposal have been recoded and that a copy of the waste transfer note has been kept on file. | |---|---| | If unsuccessful: meat is health-marked and restored to owner | Where any issue of compensation arises the AO must not discuss or negotiate any compensation for depreciation in value of the meat or food. The AO should ask the FBO / Owner of the food to put any complaint in writing to the Head of Operational Delivery (HOD). | | Official Detention of non-compliant meat from third countries | Where meat has been imported directly from a third country into the UK and suspicion exists of non-compliance with traceability requirements or correlation between the product and any certified guarantees, an AO may officially detain the product using the ENF 11/32. See chapter 3 on ‘Imported and exported meat and animals’, section 4 on ‘Action for unsatisfactory consignments’. | 4. Hierarchy of Enforcement
4.1 Introduction 4.2 Informal enforcement action: Verbal 4.3 Informal enforcement action: Written 4.4 Formal enforcement action: Statutory Notice 4.5 Statutory Notices for Hygiene Contraventions 4.6 Remedial Action Notices (RAN) 4.7 Hygiene Improvement Notices (HIN) 4.8 Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notices (HEPN) 4.9 Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Orders (HEPO) 4.10 Referral for investigation 4.11 Protocol for referral for investigation 4.12 Referral for investigation: FSA Legal 4.13 Change of FBO during enforcement action 4.14 Warrant to enter premises 4.15 Process for obtaining warrant to enter premises in England and Wales 4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 The hierarchy of enforcement
The flow diagram below outlines the stages that comprise the hierarchy of enforcement.
Start
Verbal Advice/Request for compliance (always a requisite)
Informal Advisory Letter
Formal Statutory Notice
Recommendation for Prosecution OR Formal Caution
End 4.1.2 Approach to the hierarchy The approach to the hierarchy of enforcement and level at which the AO commences enforcement action will be dependent upon:
- the urgency / severity of the situation
- the most appropriate course of action that will control the risk
- the enforcement tools available under that piece of legislation
- the history of the FBO and their willingness to comply
- the FSA Operations Enforcement Policy
4.1.3 Enforcement; informal and formal action The term ‘Enforcement’ includes advisory visits, assisting the FBO with compliance, approval visits and formal enforcement action (see Enforcement Concordat: Good Practice Guide for England and Wales Paragraph 88).
Verbal advice, written advice and written warnings all constitutes informal enforcement action.
Formal enforcement action includes official detention of food, the service of formal notices, cautions, referrals for investigation and prosecutions.
4.1.4 Subject of enforcement action Any FBO or person who is the subject of enforcement action should be kept fully informed of any intended or actual enforcement action by the OV.
4.1.5 The health mark and enforcement hierarchy The health mark is not part of the hierarchy. However, the AO should refuse to apply the health mark in red meat plants under the following circumstances:
- where the animal has not undergone ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection in accordance with (EC) 854/2004, Annex 1, Section I, Chapter III, paragraph 2 (a)
- where there are grounds for declaring the meat unfit for human consumption, or in the OVs opinion, after examination of all relevant information, the meat constitutes a risk to public or animal health, or is not suitable for human consumption in accordance with (EC) 854/2004, Annex 1, Section II, Chapters II, III and V
- where the meat fails to comply with the provisions of Article 14.5 (EC) 178/2002 in that the food is unacceptable for human consumption according to its intended use, for reasons of contamination (whether by extraneous matter or otherwise), or through putrefaction, deterioration or decay
Similarly, the Identification Mark ((EC) 853/2004, Article 5,2) must only be applied by the FBO to products in poultry slaughterhouses and all cutting plants if the product has been manufactured in accordance with the requirements of (EC) 853/2004, in establishments meeting the requirements of Article 4 of (EC) 854/2004. Where the product has not been so manufactured, then any application of this mark to meat will contravene (EC) 854/2004, Article 5, 2.
This breach will:
- constitute an offence under Regulation 19 of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and Regulation 17 of the Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006
- potentially warrant the service of a Remedial Action Notice under Regulation 9(1) of the same Regulations, immediately prohibiting the use of the mark
### 4.1.6 When to give verbal advice
The first stage of enforcement action considered by the AO should be education and advice. Whilst it is the FBOs responsibility to know which legal provisions are applicable to their business, the AO should ensure that, where necessary, they clarify and update the FBO on any relevant legal requirements. This is to ensure that the FBO understands the outcome to be achieved.
Verbal advice should go hand in hand with all stages in the enforcement process to help the FBO achieve compliance, and understand why enforcement action is being taken. For example AOs must always try to explain to the FBO why immediate action may be required, why a statutory notice is being served, or why the matter is being referred for investigation, if appropriate.
Where verbal advice is of a technical nature, it may be helpful for this to be followed up with a letter in writing confirming the discussion / meeting.
It is important that the AO does not continue to give verbal advice where this is being ignored, without escalating enforcement action in the appropriate way. Note: Where immediate action is required on public health or animal welfare grounds, verbal advice should be given, but if ignored it may be appropriate to move straight to formal enforcement action to secure compliance as soon as possible (for example, Public Health - RAN, Animal Welfare – WATOK Enforcement Notice, Improvement Notice or refer for investigation).
4.1.7 Records If it appears likely that enforcement may be escalated, or the FBO has a history of non-compliance, verbal advice should be recorded on the FSA enforcement programme.
4.2 Informal enforcement action: Written
4.2.1 Advisory letters Advisory letters are considered ‘informal’ enforcement action and failure by the FBO to comply with a letter of advice will not necessarily constitute an offence. However, an advisory letter produced later in court will help to demonstrate fairness and proportionality in the enforcement approach and that the FBO may have ignored previous advice.
Advisory letters should be sent by the OV to the FBO when:
- the FBO or a staff member has failed to take appropriate corrective action following verbal advice
- where there is a contravention of the Regulations which does not have an immediate impact on public health or animal welfare
The AO should inform the FBO of the intention to write an advisory letter. Ideally, the AO should meet with the FBO or their representative before issuing an advisory letter to discuss all the issues including the timescale for completion. It is good practice to ask the FBO to confirm in writing their agreement to any timescale. Accurate minutes of any meetings in respect of compliance should be taken.
In advisory letters, the AO must not warn of prosecution action in the event of future contraventions, as this could prejudice any future formal investigation.
Advisory letters must be typed and sent on FSA official letterhead paper. In the case of advisory letters sent to limited companies, these should be addressed to the FBO c/o The Company Secretary at the Registered Office address and a copy handed to plant management.
4.2.2 Checklist for advisory letters
The table below lists the points that an OV should follow when drafting an advisory letter. The OV should:
- Address the advisory letter to the relevant FBO. In the case of a limited company, also copy the letter to the Company Secretary at the Registered Office address.
- Detail the relevant EC and Domestic Regulations under which the offence is committed.
- Quote the legal requirements.
- State the non-compliance (what is wrong).
- State the corrective action required, or that works of an equivalent effect are acceptable.
- Indicate the timescale sought for compliance.
- Distinguish clearly between legal requirements and best practice.
- Conclude the advisory letter politely and point out that it is an offence not to comply with the regulations.
- Make members of the FSA team aware of the letter and record details on the enforcement programme.
The AO should not threaten prosecution.
Ideally, this should be agreed with the FBO before drafting, or the FBO should be asked to respond in writing providing the timescale.
Do this in the letter heading. 4.3 Formal enforcement action: Statutory Notice
4.3.1 Preparation for formal action
Before taking formal enforcement action, the AO should:
- advise the FBO verbally of this intention
- be aware of all ongoing enforcement action by reviewing the Enforcement Programme
- have regard to the FSA Operations Enforcement Policy
- ensure that evidence has been secured to demonstrate that the contravention still exists that will warrant the escalation of enforcement action
4.3.2 Statutory notices
Statutory Notices are legal documents and care must be taken to ensure they are completed correctly and used appropriately. They should only be served by FSA AOs authorised to do so. 4.3.3 Checklist prior to serving statutory notices
The diagram below lists the points that an AO should follow before serving a Statutory Notice. The AO should:
Start
Issue verbal advice (where the hierarchy applies this is always the starting point)
Verbal advice complied with?
Issue letter of advice
Letter of advice complied with?
Check that agreed timescales have elapsed and there is sufficient evidence to justify a formal notice
Consider issuing a formal notice
No further action at this time At the time of serving a formal Statutory Notice, the AO should ensure that all the following checks are complied with:
- the formal notice is addressed to and served on the correct person / legal entity; this will depend on which particular regulation has been breached
- the local plant manager has received a copy of any formal notice where the original was served on the limited company and sent c/o ‘The Company Secretary’ to the Registered Office address
- the notice is clearly worded, concise and easily understood; it is typed (unless drafted by hand and served immediately), dated and signed by the AO
- the notice accurately describes the non-compliance relevant time frame within which compliance should be achieved
- the action required to remedy the breach of the legislation and the problem identified in the contravention box is clearly described
- an official hard copy of the notice should be used (taken from the MOC) and not a photocopied, sample or draft notice
- all sections have been completed correctly and any irrelevant areas deleted as necessary
- the notice includes all required information on rights of appeal and on the applicable procedure and time limits, and a copy of the notice that was served has been retained and / or scanned as a permanent record
If any of the above checks are not complied with, the AO must ensure action is taken to secure compliance before proceeding to serve a formal Statutory Notice.
4.4 Statutory notices for hygiene contraventions
4.4.1 Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and the Food Hygiene (W) Regulations 2006
The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and the Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006, provide 3 notices for hygiene non-compliances:
- Remedial Action Notice (Regulation 9(1))
- Hygiene Improvement Notice (Regulation 6)
- Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notice and Order (Regulation 8)
Reference: See section 3 on ‘Surrender, detention, seizure and condemnation’ in this chapter for details of detention for examination and sampling under Regulation 10(1) of the England Regulations and 9(5) of the Scottish and Welsh Regulations and detention for further investigation under Section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990, via the provisions of Regulation 25 of the domestic England Regulations and Regulation 23 of the domestic Scottish and Welsh Regulations.
4.4.2 Service details
Formal Notices provided for under The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and the Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006 and the Food Safety Act 1990 can be served by any AO.
FSA policy is that only OVs or competent MHIs that have successfully completed the unannounced inspections training should serve and withdraw formal notices.
Regulation 10(1) and 9(5) Detention Notices served under The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006, should be served on the FBO, or their duly authorised representative.
The Food Safety Act Detention Notice should be served on the person in charge of the food.
4.4.3 Formal service and delivery of notices
When drafting formal notices, it is very important to ensure that they are directed at the correct legal entity responsible for any potential offences that can be committed.
4.4.4 Finding company addresses
Checks on a company’s registered office details may be done by logging on to Companies House website at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house and clicking on to the free company details link under the ‘find company information’ heading.
The organisation can also be contacted on 03031234500, or by email at [email protected] between 08:30 and 18:00, Monday to Friday. | Type of Notice | Legislation | Purpose | Should be served upon | |------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------| | Detention of Food Notice | Section 9 Food Safety Act 1990 [via Regulation 25 Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013/ Regulation 23 Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006] | To detain food while further investigation is carried out | The person in charge of the food (the FBO) | | Certification of Meat Notice | Regulation 29 Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013/ Regulation 27 Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006 | To certify that food has not been produced, processed or distributed in accordance with the Hygiene Regulations and fails to comply with the food safety requirements | The FBO or person in charge of the food. | | Seizure of Food Notice | Section 9 Food Safety Act 1990 [via Regulation 25 Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013/ Regulation 23 Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006] | To seize food in order that it may be taken before the court to be condemned | The person in charge of the food (the FBO) | | Remedial Action Notices | Regulation 9 Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 / Regulation 9 Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006 | To seek compliance with hygiene matters that pose an immediate risk to public health | FBO or Duly Authorised Representative | | Hygiene Prohibition Order | Regulation 7 Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013/ Regulation 7 Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006 | Prohibition of a food business proprietor or manager from participating in the management of any food business | FBO | 4.5 Remedial Action Notices
4.5.1 When to use a Remedial Action Notice (ENF 11/24 (E and W))
The Remedial Action Notice (RAN) may only be used:
- when any of the requirements of the Hygiene Regulations\* are being breached, or
- when inspection under the Hygiene Regulations is being hampered
\*“The Hygiene Regulations” in this context means either the provisions of the EU Hygiene Regulations (852/2004, 853/2004, 854/2004, 2073/2005 and 2075/2005) or the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations (2013)/ Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006.
It should be used specifically where the AO considers that the operator should take immediate action to achieve compliance, or where the rate of operation of the plant is detrimental to its ability to comply with the Hygiene Regulations.
The OV must verbally request that the FBO rectifies the situation and serve the notice if compliance is not met. It is essential to gather the necessary evidence at the time the contravention is identified to justify its service in case an appeal against the RAN is lodged by the FBO.
The OV must verbally inform the FBO of the intention to serve the notice and record the information in the enforcement programme.
4.5.2 Purpose of a RAN
A RAN places a legal requirement on a FBO to take immediate action to achieve compliance with the Hygiene Regulations. The AO must specify on the notice whether the RAN is intended to:
- prohibit the use of any equipment or any part of the establishment specified in the notice
- impose conditions upon or stop a process
- require the rate of operation to be reduced to such extent as specified in the notice, or to be stopped completely
A RAN can be used to direct the FBO to rectify both hygiene and structural / maintenance deficiencies, which fall under (EC) 852 and 853/2004 and (EC) 2073 and 2075/2005 or the domestic hygiene regulations themselves and that require immediate action. In the case of maintenance and structural problems, that do not pose an imminent threat to public health and can be rectified in the longer term, a Hygiene Improvement Notice should be used. This would be served under Regulation 6 of The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013/ Regulation 6 of the Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006.
4.5.3 Identification of the non-compliance
Where the RAN is being served under section 9(1)(a), because a requirement of the Hygiene Regulations is being breached, the AO is required to:
- specify which requirement(s) of the Hygiene Regulations have been breached in the “contravention” box of the RAN; it is not sufficient to merely repeat the legal requirement set out in the legislation, as this does not specify the precise nature of the breach
- cite the relevant legal reference(s) of the Hygiene Regulations, ensuring this identifies the exact provision that places an obligation on the FBO; this should include the general obligations to comply with the relevant provisions in the Annex(es) to the EU Regulation, and any specific requirement contained in the Annex, for example, Regulation (EC) 853/2004, Article 3 and Annex III, Section I, Chapter IV, Paragraph 7(b) (i)
- if the FBO is breaching more than one legal provision by their conduct, cite the most relevant and specific applicable provision; where there are no specific requirements, use the more generic references which apply to the scenario in question
- describe the measure(s) / action(s) which, in your opinion, the FBO must take to remedy the breach identified in the “contraventions” box of the notice
- ensure that the contravention(s), legal reference(s) and action(s) all link to one another; the measure(s) to be taken must be relevant to the contraventions identified earlier in the notice; the AO must not require the FBO to undertake actions which they have not identified as contraventions in the earlier part of the notice
- if a RAN is served under Regulation 9(1)(d), conditions can only be imposed on a process in the establishment, and the process in question must be specified; examples of a process might be “evisceration”, “dressing”, and “skinning”
FBOs have a responsibility to monitor significant hazards in a process, determine where a process is out of control, identify the root cause of such non-compliances and rectify them through corrective actions, as part of their HACCP based procedures. However, in many cases FBOs will have failed to monitor and failed to undertake the corrective actions identified in their HACCP plan. A HIN can be used to require compliance with the systemic HACCP deficiencies and the RAN can be used to address any hygiene risks evident as a result of the FBOs failure to have taken any appropriate corrective actions.
It is sometimes difficult to determine the root cause of a non-compliance where the causes are varied. In such circumstances, the AO should specify the actions they believe are required to remedy the issue and require that the FBO achieves any objectives the regulations set out.
In some cases – for example, where a slaughter process is clearly out of control, where the root cause of a serious problem is unknown, or where an AO has already served a RAN which has been breached by the FBO – the AO should consider serving a RAN which prohibits the carrying out of a process (under Regulation 9(1)(d)) or requiring the FBO to stop operations completely (under Regulation 9(1)(e)).
4.5.4 Service and withdrawal
A separate RAN should normally be served on the FBO in respect of each specific deficiency, or for each item of equipment or machinery. In some circumstances, the effect of serving the Notice may be to stop the entire operation.
A RAN may be used to stop the operation completely in circumstances such as pest infestation, failure of sterilisers, inadequate overnight cleaning, failure of the hot water supply, lack of potable water supply or where the behaviour of the FBO is hampering adequate health inspection.
**Note:** Where the notice has the effect of stopping the operation completely, the OV must consult with their line manager to ensure that the action requested of the FBO is proportionate to the risk.
Service and withdrawal of a Remedial Action Notice must be done by an OV or suitably trained MHI.
The AO who observes the deficiency should serve the formal notice. If the Notice has been served by post on the FBO, a copy of the Notice should be handed to someone at the plant address by the AO that observed the deficiency. 4.5.5 Tagging All equipment that has been the subject of a RAN must be clearly identified and tagged using a numbered security seal, and accurately cross-referenced to a RAN.
4.5.6 Who to serve the notice on The notice may be served on the FBO in person if present at the plant, or on a duly authorised representative of the FBO, where it is clear who this individual is (see approval application document).
4.5.7 Alternative service methods Where it is not possible to identify the name and address of the person on whom the notice should be served, it can be served by addressing it to the FBO in their capacity as “occupier” of the establishment at which corrective action is required (naming the establishment). The notice may then either be handed to someone else at the establishment who appears to be in charge, or by attaching the notice or a copy of it to some conspicuous part of the establishment.
The provisions relating to the service of notices are contained within Regulation 30 of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013/Regulation 28 of The Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations. They correspond with the provisions of Section 50 of the Food Safety Act 1990.
4.5.8 Information for notices The following information is to be included on the reverse of the OV copy:
- the name of the plant representative to whom any copy notices have been handed (in circumstances where the original has been posted to the FBO at the plant or served at the registered office address of a limited company)
- any comments made by the plant representative when handed the notice
- details of any food detained at the same time as the service of the RAN
- the reference number of the Detention Notice served
- details of any appeal that is lodged by the FBO in respect of the service of the RAN 4.5.9 Rights of appeal
The FBO has the right of appeal (Regulation 22 (England), Regulation 20 (Wales) to a Justice of the Peace or Sheriff regarding the decision of the OV to serve a Remedial Action Notice. If the occupier appeals, the OV must notify FSA York, Field Operations (FO) Enquiries immediately.
The provisions of the Remedial Action Notice remain in force until such time as the appeal is upheld.
4.5.10 If removed or defaced or destroyed
The notice is the property of the FSA. If the AO discovers that any notice affixed to an establishment has been removed, defaced, or destroyed, the notice should be replaced as soon as possible and the events recorded in the pocketbook or daybook.
4.5.11 Failure to comply
Failure to comply with a RAN is an offence (Regulation 9(5) The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 / Regulation 9 (7) The Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006). If the operator has failed to comply with such a notice, complete a Referral for Investigation report - ENF 11/6.
4.5.12 Corroborative evidence rules
Where possible, service of a notice should be evidenced or corroborated in some way. If a notice is served by hand, then a second AO should be present when it is served to corroborate this fact. Both, the AO who served the original notice and the corroborating officer should sign a copy of the notice and indicate the date and time of service, and should also make a note of the details of service in the Plant Daybook and / or their pocketbook. A witness is required to observe any AO fixing a notice to the premises.
When posting a notice, the OV should obtain a proof of postage certificate and retain this as evidence. Where this is not possible, they should record the details of where the notice is posted and the postage address in their pocket book and have a colleague corroborate the postage and countersign the entry. Where no colleague is available to corroborate postage, record details of posting in the same way as above and photograph the envelope. 4.5.13 Multiple contraventions
Where different contraventions have been identified, a different notice should be served for each and every separate contravention.
A notice containing multiple contraventions:
- will be more complicated to draft and it is more likely that an FBO may be confused by what the AO is trying to convey; this may affect the validity of the Notice as it is important that enforcement requirements placed upon an FBO are clear
- will require actions that must be capable of curing all the issues cited in the contravention section
- cannot be withdrawn if there are certain issues still outstanding even if some aspects have been complied with
- cannot be referred for investigation as certain aspects of the notice may have been complied with
- if appealed, will result in all of the issues being the subject of the appeal, even where some may have been complied with
In limited circumstances, it may be acceptable to cite more than one issue and legal reference on a RAN, provided that:
- the legal references and contraventions relate to the same category, for example, maintenance, cleanliness of the premises
- the actions the AO requires the FBO to take are capable of curing all the contraventions identified earlier in the notice
4.5.14 Withdrawal of a RAN
A RAN is often used to correct problems with operational practices that pose a potential risk to the safe production of food. They may be left in place until the AO is satisfied that the FBO has complied with the legal requirement. There may often be occasions where the non-compliance is intermittent and the AO wishes to be satisfied that the FBO / their staff have changed their behaviour before withdrawing the notice.
However, the AO must monitor the situation and come to a determination within a reasonable time frame given the non-compliance they are requiring the FBO to correct. The time frame for removing the notice may vary depending on the nature of the non-compliance; however, if the Notice is breached, it must be referred for investigation. If the officer is satisfied that the actions required by the Notice have been complied with, it must be withdrawn and it is not appropriate to leave the notice in place for long periods after this point as it does not offer certainty for the FBO as to whether they will face any future legal proceedings, since they are now complying with the Hygiene Regulations.
However, in situations where compliance with the requirements is intermittent, it is important to remember that there is no maximum timeframe to leave a RAN in place, and no requirement about when a RAN has to be withdrawn, except that it should be withdrawn once the AO is satisfied that it has been complied with.
Notification of withdrawal of a RAN must be effected in the same way that the notice was served. If the FBO is a limited company, and the Notice was served at the company’s registered office address (with a copy of the Notice having been handed to a member of staff in charge at the production plant), then the withdrawal notice must also be sent in the post to the registered office address, and a second copy should be handed to someone appearing to be in charge / duly authorised representative at the plant.
4.6 Hygiene Improvement Notices
4.6.1 When to use a Hygiene Improvement Notice (ENF 11/23 (E and W))
The Hygiene Improvement Notice (HIN) should be used:
- where there is a record of non-compliance with breaches of the regulations
- where the history of compliance by the FBO is such that the OV has reason to believe that an informal approach will not be successful
- where formal action is proportionate to the risk to public health
A HIN should not be used for non-hygiene related matters, for example, failure to comply with the provisions of the Animal By-Product Regulations, WATOK or TSE Regulations.
The Code of Practice requires that both verbal and written advice be given to a FBO prior to a HIN being served. However, the Code also acknowledges that there may be circumstances where the AO believes this informal approach will be unsuccessful. If these informal stages are to be bypassed, the OV must have suitable evidence to demonstrate that the FBO has ignored previous informal advice in this area, prior to circumventing these requirements. 4.6.2 Purpose of a HIN
The purpose of a HIN is to place a legal requirement on a FBO to take action to achieve compliance with the EU Food Hygiene Regulations.
A HIN may require the FBO to:
- address any hygiene deficiency that does not require immediate action
- repair a structural defect with the building
- to build or construct additional facilities to cope with an increased throughput
- address failures to implement and maintain a sound HACCP based system
The identified action must be stated on the HIN.
4.6.3 When not to issue a HIN
A HIN cannot be used to impose a continuing burden, and should not be used in the following circumstances:
- where the contravention might be a continuing one, for example, wooden pallets stored in the presence of unprotected fresh meat and the Notice would only secure an improvement at that point in time
- where breaches exist that pose a potential and imminent risk to health and urgent action is needed; in these cases it is more appropriate to use a Remedial Action Notice (RAN) and in more serious situations (subject to Head of Operational Delivery approval) an Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notice
- for the failure to implement good hygiene practice
An HIN cannot be issued unless a contravention of the Hygiene Regulations is identified.
4.6.4 Service
Service of a HIN is by an AO. HINs must be served on the FBO.
Note: Where the FBO is a limited company, the envelope (but not the notice itself) is to be addressed to the limited company c/o The Company Secretary at the Registered Office. The AO who observes the deficiency should serve the formal notice. If the Notice has been served by post on the FBO, a copy of the Notice should be handed to someone at the plant address by the AO that observed the deficiency. Details of how the notice was served should be recorded on the back of the HIN.
4.6.5 Service checklist
When serving a HIN the AO must:
- have in their possession all the evidence to justify its service
- verbally inform the FBO of the intention to serve the notice
- state why it is served and the action needed to remedy the breach
- sign, date and if possible type the HIN
4.6.6 Drafting and serving a notice to a sole trader
Ensure that the name of the individual on the formal Notice clearly identifies the individual acting as the FBO, beyond doubt, and will need to include both their forename(s) and surname.
Where family members have the same names, try to include any additional names that the person may have, to avoid confusion. The notice may be served by hand on the sole trader at the plant, or addressed to them personally at the plant address.
4.6.7 Drafting and serving a notice to a partnership
Where a number of individuals act as the FBO under a partnership arrangement, a copy of the Notice must be served on each and every partner. The box identifying the FBO must include each and every partner’s full name.
The notices may be served by hand on each partner at the plant, or addressed to each of them personally at the plant address, with a covering letter explaining that the same notice has been served on the other partners in the business.
4.6.8 Drafting a notice to a FBO with limited liability status
Where the FBO has limited liability status, the name of the FBO will be the full name of the limited company, for example, ‘ABC Meat Ltd’. The Notice must be sent by post to the registered office or principal address of the company, with a copy of the Notice handed to the relevant person in charge at the plant. The envelope must be addressed to the limited company c/o ‘The Company Secretary’, where one exists.
**Note:** Whilst a company secretary is no longer a legal requirement within a limited company structure, where they exist, they are generally the person responsible within a limited company structure, who receives such notices. They are not the FBO or proprietor, and therefore should not be referred to on the formal notice.
### 4.6.9 Content of notice
The notice must specify the:
- grounds for believing the FBO is failing to comply with the regulations
- precise nature of the alleged breach
- measures needed to be taken to secure compliance
- timescale (date) for compliance
- appeal provisions, including the name and address of the relevant local court
**Note:** Alternative works of equivalent effect may be acceptable.
### 4.6.10 Drafting the notice
The AO is required to:
- describe the contravention that has been observed that constitutes a breach of the Hygiene Regulations; it is not sufficient to merely repeat the legal requirement set out in the legislation, as this does not specify the precise nature of the breach
- cite the relevant legal reference(s) within the Hygiene Regulations, ensuring that this identifies the exact point or paragraph that places an obligation on the FBO, including the general obligation for the FBO to comply with the relevant provisions within the Annexes of the legislation where applicable; for example, Article 3 and Annex III, Section I, Chapter IV, Paragraph 7(b) (i) of Regulation (EC) 853/2004
- where the contravention breaches various legal requirements, use the most relevant and specific provision where this exists; however, where there are no specific requirements, use the more generic references which apply to the FBO in question
- describe what measure(s) / action(s) in their opinion the FBO must take to secure compliance with the contravention(s) identified earlier in the notice
- ensure the contravention(s), legal reference(s) and action(s) must all link to one another; the AO must not require the FBO to undertake actions or measures that were not identified as contraventions earlier in the notice
- set out a timescale which is a minimum of 14 clear days from the date the notice is served; it is important that if the AO identifies more than one legal reference and contravention that are of a similar theme, that the time frame for compliance is suitable for both issues
4.6.11 Drafting notices with more than one legal breach identified
A notice should only deal with one contravention. This will avoid any potential problems if the Notice is appealed; in which instance, all of the issues cited on the notice will be held in abeyance until the court makes a determination on the validity of the Notice.
Where different contraventions need to be remedied within different time frames; for logistical and operational reasons you cannot place separate time scales on the same notice.
The more contraventions that are cited in a Notice, the more complicated the Notice will be to draft, and it is more likely that an FBO may be confused by what the AO is trying to convey. This may also affect the validity of the Notice as it is important that enforcement requirements placed upon an FBO are clear.
The actions the FBO must take that are specified by the AO in the Notice must be capable of curing all the issues cited in the contravention section; failure to do so will make it more problematic to ensure that the actions the FBO must take, will secure compliance with the relevant legal provisions.
It may be acceptable to cite more than one legal reference or issue on a notice, provided that:
- the legal references link to all the contraventions described by the AO
- they relate to the same theme
- the actions the AO requires the FBO to take are capable of curing all the contraventions identified in the notice and ensure all legal obligations are adequately dealt with 4.6.12 Posting
Ideally, all HINs should be posted at a Post Office and a certificate of posting obtained. Where it is impractical to gain access to a Post Office the notice should be posted in a post box, corroboration obtained by a colleague where they are available, and a record made in the AOs pocketbook which should be countersigned.
4.6.13 Right of appeal
Recipients have a right of appeal against Hygiene Improvement Notices to the Magistrates’ Court. During the appeal period the requirements of the notice are suspended.
In the event of an appeal by someone who is aggrieved by the service of the HIN, the AO is to inform FO Enquiries at York immediately, who will arrange legal representation through FSA Legal for the appeal hearing.
4.6.14 Requests for notice extension
If the FBO were to request an extension to a HIN, this must be in writing and requested prior to the expiry of the notice. This will be an informal arrangement between the AO and FBO as there is no legal basis for the AO to extend the notice. It will constitute an informal undertaking by the AO not to refer the matter for investigation unless the FBO continues to be non-compliant after the agreed extension date.
Where there is a genuine reason for such an extension and the criteria in the Code of Practice are met, the AO should discuss with the FBO the length of time required to comply and confirm their agreement to the extension in writing.
The AO must review the works carried out by the FBO after the agreed extension date specified in the letter has expired and either withdraw the Notice or refer the breach of the Notice for investigation; see below.
4.6.15 Failure to comply
Failure to comply with an HIN is an offence. If the FBO has failed to comply with a notice, complete a Referral For Investigation report for the breach of the formal notice as well as a breach of the substantive offence that led to the notice being served in the first place.
Reference: See the topic 4.9 on ‘Referral for investigation’ for additional information.
4.6.16 Compliance and withdrawal After the service of a HIN, the AO must check that it is complied with by the stated date.
Where compliance is achieved, the AO must confirm formally in writing that they are satisfied with the works carried out.
Measures that achieve the same outcome as those specified in the notice must be accepted as achieving compliance.
A template is available in annex 4 to this chapter that can be used as the basis of a letter to the FBO where:
- the OV is satisfied that the action required in the HIN has been carried out and compliance has been achieved to their satisfaction, or
- the OV has served the HIN in error and/or it has to be withdrawn due to a technicality
Note: Please delete the paragraph that is not applicable.
Reference: See annex 4 on ‘Hygiene Improvement Notice letter template’.
4.7 Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notices
4.7.1 Caution Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notices (HEPN) can only be issued after authorisation from FSA Legal.
4.7.2 When to use Issuing a Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notice (HEPN) should only be considered after discussion with the FVC, and where there is a real and imminent risk of injury to health that is so serious that action requires the backing of the court, for example, contamination of the potable water supply.
**Reference:** Specific examples and further guidance are given in the Code of Practice made under Regulation 26/Regulation 24 of the Regulations.
The HEPN must be served on the FBO by using the same procedures as outlined in the topic ‘Hygiene Improvement Notices’.
**Note:** The limited timescales are set out in the subsequent topics.
### 4.8 Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Orders
#### 4.8.1 Application process
The table below provides an overview of the application process for a Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Order (HEPO).
| Stage | Description | |-------|-------------| | 1 | The AO must give the proprietor at least 1 full day's notice of their intention to apply for a Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Order (HEPO) by serving a HEPN on the FBO. A HEPN has an immediate prohibitory effect and once served the AO should contact the local court to immediately arrange for a hearing. **Note:** A copy of the HEPN must be affixed in a conspicuous position to the premises at which the notice relates. | | 2 | The AO applies for an HEPO from a magistrates’ court (England and Wales). The application must be made within three days of the service of the notice. The day of the service of the notice is regarded as day one. There is no legal requirement for the application to be heard in three days, although the court should be asked to list the hearing at the earliest opportunity. Once made the HEPO supersedes the HEPN. The AO must also affix a copy of the HEPO in a conspicuous position to the premises at which the HEPO relates. | | 3 | Once the FBO applies, in writing, for the HEPO to be lifted, the application must be determined as soon as practicable and within 14 days. Once the OV is satisfied that the proprietor has taken significant steps to remove the health risk(s) specified in the notice, the OV should sign the withdrawal certificate at part 5 of the HEPN. **Regulation:** The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013/ The Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2006, Regulation 8. | 4.8.2 Sources of advice
Advice should be sought from FSA Legal, who will assist in the preparation of the case prior to the court's hearing of a HEPO.
4.8.3 Evidence
Monitoring of the prohibition and any action taken by the proprietor must be recorded. Suitable evidence should be gathered prior to serving the HEPN for production in court.
4.8.4 Procedure
The table below shows the steps for an AO to follow when applying for a HEPO.
| Stage | Description | |------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Contact local court to arrange hearing | The hearing must take place within three days of service of the HEPN. On establishing dates and times, the AO must notify the FBO by serving a Notice of Intention to Apply for a Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Order. | | Prepare for hearing | Prior to the hearing the AO should: | | | • read all the relevant papers | | | • prepare to be questioned as a witness | | | • bring all relevant evidence to court | | | The AO should also prepare three copies of: | | | • the HEPN | | | • the Notice of Intention to Apply | | | • the Complaint for a Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Order | | | • the draft Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Order duly completed and ready for signing by the Justice of the Peace | | | The AO must monitor the premises whilst awaiting the hearing and record any breaches of the notice or changes in circumstances at the plant. | | At the hearing | It is crucial that the AO has gathered significant evidence at the time the HEPN was served and that this evidence is presented to the court. |
### Stage Description
| Stage | Description | |-------|-------------| | Court will decide whether to issue the HEPO or not | If the order is made the AO should produce a draft completed order for signing by the Magistrate. The order must then be served on the FBO as soon as possible and a copy affixed to the premises in a conspicuous place. Any breaches of the order whilst in force should be recorded and evidence collected. The matter should then be referred for investigation. | | Risk is removed | The AO must then formally cancel the HEPO by writing to the FBO. The withdrawal of such a HEPO must not be unreasonably withheld. Once the order has been complied with, the business can recommence its operation. |
### 4.9 Referral for investigation
#### 4.9.1 Appropriate uses
A referral for investigation is required in the following circumstances:
- repeated presentation of SRM
- SRM being consigned from the premises still attached to the meat (except in the case of VC being consigned to approved cutting premises)
- failure to test bovine animals which require BSE testing
- contraventions of the Animal Welfare Act and WATOK
- breaches of the European Regulations and/or the Food Safety Act leading to an imminent risk to public health
- continual failure to observe requirements of Regulations
- obstruction of FSA personnel engaged in official duties
- failure to comply with all formal notices
- breaches of Detention Notices
- failure to comply with legal requirements identified at an approval visit
#### 4.9.2 Evidence
The AO must collect adequate evidence at the time of the offence before referring the matter for investigation. The AO must identify the contravention and complete the enforcement programme.
Regard should be given to the Enforcement Policy and relevant codes of practice prior to any referral for investigation being put forward.
4.9.3 Referral to FSA Legal Where the AO considers that an incident requires investigation, the matter will be referred to FSA Legal for an investigation to be undertaken.
Note: The process to follow when making a referral for investigation is detailed in topic 4.11 on ‘Protocol for a referral for investigation’, in the table onwards.
4.9.4 Decision to prosecute In England and Wales, the decision whether or not to prosecute for contraventions of hygiene and SRM rules is made by an experienced prosecutor in FSA Legal, having been investigated fully by an FSA Investigating Officer.
The decision to prosecute for contraventions in England of the animal welfare, TSE (RMOP and BSE testing) and animal by-product legislation will be made by an experienced prosecutor at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), on the basis of an investigation carried out by an FSA Investigating Officer.
(From 1 September 2011, the CPS took over Defra’s prosecution functions).
The decision to prosecute for contraventions of the equivalent legislation in Wales will be made by Welsh Government lawyers on the basis of an FSA investigation.
4.9.5 Caution For England and Wales, in certain circumstances where there is sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed, FSA Legal may decide a formal caution is more suitable than pursuing a prosecution. Once signed by the FBO, it will be retained for a period of at least 5 years. Where the FBO is found guilty of similar offences within this period the caution may be cited together with other previous convictions to the court. A formal caution has the status of a finding of guilt and is recognised as such by the courts. However, the caution itself is not classed as a criminal conviction. Where the necessary criteria have been reached, the AO will be notified of the decision to issue a caution and the rationale for that decision. The FSA IO will oversee the signing of the caution.
4.9.6 Rules of evidence
The AOs main task will be to gather of facts and evidence at the time of the offence, which may be used in court at a later stage. An AO must not attempt to conduct a full investigation as specific training is needed to ensure that the investigation is carried out in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) (or equivalent) requirements. Only specially trained FSA Investigation Officers conduct investigations. AOs must not attempt to caution or interview suspects or to take statements.
Note: Remember the requirement for corroboration in the Scottish courts.
4.9.7 Statements
Statements will be taken by an FSA Investigation Officer. They are a record of specific events an individual witnessed in a chronological order. They must refer to all relevant evidence and produce these as exhibits for the case, e.g.:
- photographs
- samples
- copies of notices
- copies of daybook entries
Exhibits are usually identified by the initials of the AO and then consecutively numbered. The IO will assist with numbering when preparing the final statement.
Note: Where the AO is satisfied that the action required or work specified in a formal notice has been completed, the date that it was completed should be specified in a witness statement and on the back of the copy notice.
4.11 Protocol for a referral for investigation
4.11.1 Protocol for a referral for investigation
The table below outlines the process and rationale for a referral by the AO for formal investigation. | Process | Rationale | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | The AO is to discuss the issue with the rest of the inspection team, where relevant when the contravention occurs, and prior to completing the ENF 11/6 ‘Referral for Investigation’. | This will ensure that the entire inspection team is aware of all formal enforcement action taking place at the plant. All members of the Inspection Team are Authorised Officers and must assist in all enforcement action as and when required, including acting as a witness in court if necessary. | | The AO is to ensure the inspection team is aware of any proposed enforcement action before the FBO is advised of referral. | This will forewarn and forearm colleagues that a contravention has been referred for investigation. | | The OV is to provide a summary at team meetings, detailing the stage to which the investigation has progressed. | The team as a whole will be more effective in identifying similar breaches, so that MHI colleagues will never unknowingly condone activities that the AO is attempting to stop. | | If advice is needed on the correct enforcement approach, the AO should consult with their Contract Manager and FVC at an early stage if necessary. | Early advice will provide the necessary support to quickly address any queries regarding enforcement approach. | | Where FVCs or Contract Managers are not able to answer queries, relating to the current enforcement approach, the AO should request advice from FSA Legal via FO Enquiries (OpA) at FSA York. | This early clarification will avoid unnecessary mistakes, lead to a more consistent approach, reduce legal challenges, improve evidence gathering and ultimately improve the success of cases in court. | | AO decision made to refer the case for formal investigation. | Remember that at this stage it is just a recommendation – the FBO is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. | | Process | Rationale | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | The AO is to collect all evidence relating to the referral | All relevant evidence must be supplied to enable the referral for investigation to be considered. In particular, photographs must be taken to assist the court, especially where the nature of the offence may be difficult to visualise and where the photograph proves elements of the offence. | | The AO is to send all evidence along with the ENF 11/6 and the latest FBO audit report, to the OpA Business Support team at FSA York within 10 working days of the offence being identified and the AO’s decision being made to refer for investigation. | Hygiene offences carry a 12-month time limit from when they are discovered by the AO; within which charges should be laid at the court. The time limit between identifying obstruction contraventions and laying charges at the court is 6 months. The time limit between identifying animal welfare cases and laying charges is 6 months, beginning with the date on which evidence which the prosecution thinks is sufficient to justify the proceedings comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge. The IO must be afforded enough time to investigate the offences identified. | | Once received, OpA will acknowledge receipt of the recommendation and associated paperwork and allocate a unique number to the referral. This number will be notified to the AO in the confirmation email. (If confirmation is not received within 5 working days the AO should contact OpA Business Support.) | Confirmation will be sent to provide assurance that the documentation has been received. | | Inform the FBO as a matter of courtesy | After a recommendation for investigation has been passed forward, it is inappropriate for Officers to pass comment on the potential outcome of any investigation under consideration. |
### 4.11.2 Process to be followed
| Process | Rationale | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | If compliance is achieved after a referral for investigation has been made, the OV must record this, including compliance with any formal notice. | This will demonstrate the effectiveness of the operator’s ‘Due Diligence’ systems and identify any defences or mitigation that the operator may wish to put forward. | | Where additional information is required, FSA Legal will request further details, to gain a better understanding of the issues involved. | Where evidence is lacking, the issue is complex, the approach taken by the AO requires further explanation. FSA Legal may contact relevant colleagues (for example, OV, FVC, Contract Manager) so that a comprehensive and informed picture can be gained of the issues surrounding the referral. | | This may include checking that: | | | • all the necessary evidence has been gathered | To prove the elements of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. | | • the correct course of action has been taken | To stand up to legal scrutiny. | | • all formal notices have been correctly drafted and served | To make sure that all the procedural requirements relating to enforcement have been followed. | | • all formal notices must only request the FBO undertake a course of action required by the Regulations | To ensure that the notice is legally compliant and defendable in case of an appeal. | | • time limits within which recommendations should be put forward by the AO after an offence has been identified | To ensure that long delays are not holding up the recommendation process and the FSA does not have to defend any ‘abuse of process arguments’ by the defence alleging delays in investigating offences | | • the hierarchy of enforcement has been followed and the approach to enforcement has been both reasonable and proportionate to the contravention identified | To ensure that all Codes of Practice, the FSA Operations Enforcement Policy have been complied with. | | • all formal notices have been correctly drafted and served | To make sure that all the procedural requirements relating to enforcement have been followed. | 4.12 Referral for investigation: FSA Legal
4.12.1 FSA protocol
The table below outlines the process and rationale for formal investigation by the FSA.
| Process | Rationale | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | FSA Legal Services will review the referral and appoint an Investigation Officer to formally interview the alleged defendant(s) and take statements from the Inspection Team and any other potential witnesses. | FSA Legal will inform the AO and the Operations Assurance Team at York, which IO has been appointed to each case. |
When the investigation is complete:
- FSA lawyers will review all case files relating to hygiene and SRM contraventions
- CPS lawyers will review all welfare, ABPR and RMOP and BSE testing infringements in England
- Welsh Government lawyers will review all welfare, ABPR, RMOP and BSE testing infringements in Wales
- the Procurator Fiscal’s office will review all Scottish contraventions
- and make a decision on the appropriate course of action
This could be:
- not enough evidence exists to pursue the case
- procedural errors have been identified and no further action is taken, but it is recommended that enforcement action is restarted
- it is not in the public interest to take formal action
- it may be the FBOs first breach and/or they admit the offence and take appropriate corrective action so it is felt that a formal caution may be more appropriate
OR
When a decision is made NOT to take the case forward the AO/ITL and the Operations Assurance Team at York will be advised of the reason by FSA legal
### Process
| Rationale | |-----------------| | When a decision is made to take the case forward to court, the IO must inform the AO/ITL and the OpA Team at York prior to informing the plant operator of this intention. This will ensure the Inspection Team is aware of the fact that the Plant Operator will be facing formal action, so that they are aware of any potential conflict. | | Any AO who is unfamiliar with court procedure may benefit from some discussion with their FVC or the IO before any court appearance. Arrangements can also be made for a visit to the court before the trial takes place. Witnesses will be sent a copy of their statement to review before appearing at court. See witness guide at annex 7. | | If the witnesses are not required to attend a guilty plea, the outcome of the case will be cascaded to all witnesses. |
### 4.13 Change of FBO during enforcement action
#### 4.13.1 New FBO
From the moment the new FBO takes over the premises they are responsible for its condition and operation. Any enforcement action initiated prior to the change of ownership should be reassessed. Where the new FBO fails to immediately address any outstanding enforcement issues, these should be pursued by the AO, through the hierarchy in the normal way.
#### 4.13.2 Re-issue of notices
In the event of the premises changing ownership whilst a formal Notice is still in force, the existing Notice should be withdrawn because it will not be enforceable against the new FBO. If the new FBO fails to immediately address the outstanding issues a similar Notice should be issued on the new FBO with an explanation of why the Notice is being issued. Evidence must be gathered again to justify the service of the Notice.
The situation should always be reconsidered prior to re-issuing the Notice. The AO may have to justify to a court on some future occasion why they (re-)issued the Notice.
**Note:** Where the FBO has changed, the Approvals and Registrations Team in FSA OpA, York should be informed so that a FVC can assess the new FBO’s operating practices.
### 4.14 Warrant to enter premises
#### 4.14.1 Access refused
An AO who has been refused entry to premises should contact their FVC/HOD immediately for further advice. In the event that access to an established is refused, it may be necessary for an AO to apply to a Justice of the Peace, for a Warrant to Enter Premises, to gain access to carry out their duties.
FSA Legal should be contacted for advice on any refusal by the FBO to grant entry to an AO. Where there is a threat of violence, reference should be made to [https://foodgov.sharepoint.com/hr/Documents/BullyingandHarassmentPolicy.pdf#search=bullying%20and%20harassment](https://foodgov.sharepoint.com/hr/Documents/BullyingandHarassmentPolicy.pdf#search=bullying%20and%20harassment) for guidance. A report must also be made to the local police force.
Examples of when it is necessary to apply for a Warrant to Enter Premises include:
- circumstances where the AO needs to enter to find out if there has been a contravention of the Hygiene Regulations
- entry is required to find out if there is evidence of any such contravention
- reasonable access has been refused or the AO believes it will be refused and the AO has given the occupier notice of intention to apply for a warrant
- the premises are unoccupied
- asking for permission, or giving notice of asking for permission would defeat the object of the entry
- where urgent access is needed 4.14.2 Execution of the warrant
The warrant must be executed within one month and is no longer valid once the AO has used it to gain access. It cannot be used twice. When executing a Warrant to Enter Premises in England or Wales, Code B of the Codes of Practice, made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), should be complied with. Legal advice on this and other aspects of the Warrant should be obtained before entry is attempted. FSA Legal will advise further.
4.14.3 Access
Advise the local police of the intention to execute the Warrant at a certain time and date. The establishment must be visited as soon as possible and, on production of the Warrant to Enter Premises, the occupier should grant access. If the occupier fails to grant access, he or she will be in breach of the warrant. Record the events in the contemporaneous notebook and inform the FVC/HOD.
4.14.4 Forced entry
The Warrant to Enter Premises allows the use of force to gain entry when necessary. However, the AOs should never attempt a forced entry themselves, but should contact the Police for assistance. 4.15 Process for obtaining a warrant to enter premises in England and Wales
**ENTRY WITH WARNING**
- Access to premises refused after showing authorisation
- Record details in contemporaneous notebook
- Serve Notice of intention to apply for a warrant
**ENTRY WITHOUT WARNING**
- No notice of intention to apply for a warrant
- Identify local magistrates court, which covers area of premises and arrange hearing
- Complete 3 typed copies of each of the following:
- Application for a warrant
- Warrant
- Notice of Intention (if served)
- Visit magistrates court with completed documentation at appointed time, and personal identification which may be requested
- On oath or affirmation state the reasons why a warrant is being sought
- Magistrate signs application and warrant if successful
**ACCESS GRANTED**
- Advise Police of when you intend to execute the warrant
- Visit premises and produce signed warrant and authorisation within 28 days from date of issue (Note: Warrant can only be used once)
**ACCESS still refused**
- Record details in contemporaneous notebook
- Refer to RO for further action on breach of warrant
5. Risk Based Enforcement
5.1 Why a ‘risk based’ approach: Legal references
5.1.1 Introduction The FSA has adopted a risk based system of assessing public health and animal welfare risk in line with both legal requirements and codes of enforcement practice.
5.1.2 Risk analysis and risk assessment European food safety and hygiene legislation makes various references to the competent authority applying a risk based approach to the delivery of official controls.
Regulation (EC) 178/2002, Article 6, Paragraphs 1 and 2 state:
‘in order to achieve the general objective of a high level of protection of human health and life, food law shall be based on risk analysis, except where it is not appropriate to the circumstances or the nature of the measure’, and that ‘Risk assessment shall be based on the available scientific evidence and undertaken in an independent, objective and transparent manner’.
5.1.3 Intensity of official controls Regulation (EC) 854/2004, Recital 6 states: 'The nature and intensity of the official controls should be based on an assessment of public health risks, animal health and welfare, where appropriate, the type and throughput of the processes carried out and the FBO concerned'
Article 4, Paragraph 9 states:
‘The nature and intensity of auditing tasks in respect of individual establishments shall depend upon the assessed risk. To this end the competent authority shall regularly assess:
a) public and, where appropriate, animal health risks b) in the case of slaughterhouses, animal welfare aspects c) the type and throughput of the process carried out, and d) the FBOs past record as regards compliance with food law’
(EC) 854/2004, Article 4, also requires the competent authority to carry out official controls to verify the FBOs compliance with (EC) 852/2004, (EC) 853/2004 and (EC) 1069/2009.
5.1.4 Risk based enforcement
Regulation (EC) 882/2004, Article 54 states:
Where the competent authority identifies non-compliance, it shall take action to ensure the FBO remedies the situation, however, they must also take account of the nature of the non-compliance and the FBOs past record with regard to non-compliance.
5.1.5 Enforcement concordat
As a signatory to the DTI Enforcement Concordat (See Annex 3), any enforcement action taken by the FSA should be proportionate to the risk. The DTI Enforcement Concordat: Good Practice Guide for England and Wales, also states:
‘apart from taking a progressive approach, enforcement will mean applying the principles of risk assessment to enforcement activity, and enforcement bodies should focus their attention on the most serious risks, or where potential hazards are least well controlled’. 5.1.6 Suspected breaches Where breaches have been identified:
- persistent offenders should be identified quickly and face proportionate and meaningful sanctions
- regulators must act in a way that is proportionate to the risks as they understand them, except where immediate action is required
5.1.7 Risk based enforcement not risk based compliance FBOs have a duty to comply with the general hygiene requirements laid down in Annex II to (EC) 852/2004, (see Article 4) as well as specific requirements contained in Annex II and III of (EC) 853/2004, (see Article 3).
All legal references applicable to a risk based approach apply to the competent authority and not the FBO. Therefore, whilst the FSA must take a risk based and proportionate approach to enforcement, the FBO must comply with all relevant hygiene / welfare / by-product requirements and may not conduct a risk assessment and decide to comply only with certain areas that they consider to be medium to high risk.
5.2 Risk management
5.2.1 Purpose of a risk management system The purpose of a risk management system is to communicate effectively between colleagues when describing and comparing risks and to ensure that the different components of the risk assessment process have been defined.
In this way we can objectively compare both food hygiene and animal welfare risks at different premises, where FBOs employ different food safety management systems and have different attitudes towards compliance.
5.2.2 Defining risk The risk assessment consists of two independent components:
- likelihood – how likely is it, that the risk is realised
- impact – how bad the outcome could be if it were realised
When describing risk, it is helpful to use the ‘XYZ’ model to help avoid ambiguity: that is, the ‘risk’ that a specific event or issue [X] occurs in the plant, o for example, the risk of microbiological contamination through offal being dragged across the floor
because of a set of circumstances [Y] the ‘likelihood’, o for example, that there will be massive microbiological contamination on dirty slaughterhouse floors and offal are being removed by new staff member who has had no training
resulting in [Z] the ‘impact’, o for example, food poisoning of consumers, from bacteria on offal leading to death in vulnerable groups
5.2.3 Examples of how to describe risk Some more examples using the ‘X, Y, Z’ model are set out below:
High risk
• the risk that carcases with faecal contamination are produced [X], because the FBO does not have adequate systems in place to prevent dirty livestock from being slaughtered [Y], resulting in consumers getting food poisoning [Z]’ – Public Health Risk
• ‘the risk that lairaged animals cannot lie down, stand up or turnaround without difficulty [X], because the FBO has used untrained staff without the necessary knowledge and experience to lairage animals [Y], resulting in animals being overcrowded and experiencing avoidable suffering [Z]’ – Animal Welfare Risk
Low risk
• ‘the risk that wrapped and packaged meat will become cross contaminated from contact with a wall with a cracked tile [X], because the FBO has not implemented an adequate maintenance programme to replace broken tiles that cannot be effectively cleaned [Y], resulting in the potential for consumers getting food poisoning [Z]’ – Public Health Risk
• ‘the risk that wrapped vacuum packed meat will become contaminated from contact with used packaging and from other environmental contamination [X], because the wrapped meat is removed from a non-waxed box, that is not easy to clean, re-labelled and replaced in the same box [Y], resulting in the potential for consumers getting food poisoning [Z]’ – Public Health Risk 5.3 Risk assessment: Defining impact and likelihood
5.3.1 Categorising impact Impact can be categorised as:
1 = minor risk, technical breach with minimal or no implications 2 = moderate risk 3 = major risk 4 = catastrophic risk
5.3.2 Rate the impact
- Assess and describe the ‘Reasonably Foreseeable Worst Case Impact’ (RFWCI) for the event, but not the ‘worst possible case scenario’.
- Rate the impact: 1 for a minor impact and 4 for a catastrophic impact.
- It is not a requirement to foresee bizarre events, or acts of God.
- It is, however, a requirement to understand that many risks are ‘reasonably foreseeable’ through a pro-active approach to risk management.
5.3.3 Scoring the impact The impact rating will be determined by:
- the species of meat being processed
- the bacteria associated with that type of meat
- the intended customers of the FBO
- whether the customers are part of a vulnerable group
5.3.4 Categorising likelihood Likelihood can be defined and categorised as:
1 = unlikely – do not expect to happen 2 = possible – may occur occasionally 3 = likely – will probably occur 4 = has happened or is almost certain to occur 5.3.5 Likelihood factors
- Has the event occurred, or could it occur at any moment?
- Intensity (speed of the line, pressure by management for operatives to do the job, operative being paid per carcase and not by time).
- Numbers of staff (for example, volume of staff to train, competencies, turnover).
- Duration (how long does the activity take, does it require a long concentration span?).
- Accident, incidents, near misses (past history of the FBO).
- Supervision of staff.
- Environment, age of equipment, ventilation, maintenance.
- Complexity of operation – multi species.
5.3.6 Recording likelihood data
When describing the likelihood factors, the account must be backed up with objective evidence. The likelihood should describe an unambiguous data driven account.
Gather and retain suitable evidence to demonstrate that the likelihood factors have been accurately considered.
5.3.7 Assessing likelihood
Impact and likelihood are treated as independent variables when undertaking a risk assessment.
Care should be taken to ensure that once the RFWC impact has been considered, you do not assess the likelihood of the RFWC factor (Z), for example, food poisoning and death occurring in consumers.
It is the likelihood of the risk being realised (X) that must be assessed, for example, assess the likelihood of carcases becoming contaminated within the plant that could potentially lead to the RFWC (Z) factor. 5.3.8 Rating likelihood
- Look at the likelihood data for the risk.
- Check that the data is related to the concern [X] and not the impact [Z].
- Rate the likelihood.
5.3.9 Risk matrix
The risk score is a multiple of the reasonably foreseeable worst case impact and likelihood factors that prevail at the specific plant in question resulting from the food safety management systems the FBO has in place.
| Likelihood | Almost Certain | Likely | Possible | Unlikely | |-------------|----------------|--------|----------|----------| | Impact | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Trend | Trend Description | |-------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | G | Green; baseline to be established | | GA | Green / Amber; Situation Worsening; risk increasing | | AR | Amber / Red; Situation Stable; risk unchanged | | R | Red; Situation Improving; risk decreasing |
5.3.10 Trend
Assigning a trend allows you to indicate whether the risk is increasing, unchanged or decreasing, even where the overall score on the matrix remains the same.
For example, where an overall score is 4x4=16, the FBO may have taken some corrective action to improve the process and initial indications suggest that this has started to work. In this case the trend could change to demonstrate an improving status, even though the overall risk score may still remain unchanged.
All risks in the red (R) and amber red (AR) zone should have appropriate countermeasures by the competent authority to manage both the likelihood and impact with actions by the FBO to address both.
5.4 Recording procedure
5.4.1 Recording requirements for risks scoring 4 to 16 (ENF 11/5) All contraventions must be recorded on the Enforcement Programme, (ENF 11/5).
Reference: See chapter 9 on ‘Forms’ for ENF 11/5.
Where the assessed risk scores medium to high, between 4 and 16, the OV should progress the matter through the hierarchy in the normal manner, gathering evidence at the time the offence is identified.
Reference: See topic 2.6 on ‘Gathering and preserving evidence’ for additional information.
5.4.2 Exception reporting requirements: low risks scoring 1 to 3 (ENF 11/29) Where it has been determined that the risk posed is low, with a score between 1 and 3, the:
- non-compliance must be recorded on the Enforcement Programme (ENF 11/5), evidence of the low likelihood factors must be retained, to justify the low-risk assessment
- the rationale for not escalating the non-compliance, perceived to be low risk, must also be recorded on the ‘Risk Assessment For Enforcement Form’ (ENF 11/29)
The assessment which details the appropriate evidence and backs up the likelihood factors will act as ‘tangible’ evidence of the decision making process that:
- justifies the reason for not progressing the non-compliance
- provides a rationale for colleagues to ensure a consistency of approach Non-compliance should always be brought to the attention of the FBO. However, where there is no justification in escalating the issue, an entry should also be made in the ‘Completion Date’ column of the ENF 11/5.
**Note:** All issues identified as a low-risk (1 – 3) must be re-assessed at successive audit frequencies to identify any changes to the likelihood factors and at monthly frequencies in slaughterhouses.
Where the likelihood factors remain the same, record this in your contemporaneous pocket book or in the plant day book.
**Note:** Where the likelihood factors have changed and the risk has increased, the non-compliance must be re-entered on the Enforcement Programme (ENF 11/5), evidence must be gathered and the issue progressed through the hierarchy in the usual manner.
For example, an isolated maintenance issue that has no major impact on public health should be pointed out to the FBO and recorded on the ENF 11/5. Where the risk assessment results in a low-risk score, the matter can be recorded on the ENF 11/29 and closed off by cross referencing the ENF 11/29 with the Completion Date column in the ENF 11/5.
Where the unresolved maintenance issue becomes more serious or where other minor maintenance issues emerge that individually may not pose a major risk to public health, but cumulatively may lead to the deterioration in the fabric of the building, this will be indicative of a failure by the FBO to have in place and implement a suitable maintenance programme.
In such circumstances it would be reasonable for all these matters to be re-entered on the Enforcement Programme ENF 11/5 and escalated through to compliance.
**Reference:** (EC) 852/2004, Annex II, Chapter I, Para 1.
Other non-compliances that may constitute a low risk might include:
- minor cleaning issues in non-production areas
- ABP transit bins that have been colour coded but not labelled appropriately with the category of ABP
- operatives not wearing the appropriate PPE (for example, snoods) in boxed meat areas
- other low risk issues the FBO has identified themselves through effective monitoring systems, that have not been rectified immediately, but for which the risk is being managed and a plan exists for the matter to be resolved and the appropriate improvements to their process is being implemented
Reference: See chapter 9 on ‘Forms’ for ENF 11/29.
5.4.3 Audit An audit trail must be established to demonstrate that the FSA is managing risk appropriately. Veterinary Auditors will review the risk assessment to satisfy themselves it provides the appropriate assurance and ensure the quality of documentation by monitoring the effective recording of evidence for low risk issues.
5.4.4 Risk assessment process The flowchart below outlines the steps in the risk assessment process. 5.4.5 Reporting considerations 1: proactive risk assessment
An initial risk assessment should be undertaken when the potential risk is first identified. Where the risk is then realised because the event has occurred, a further assessment will need to be undertaken.
It is important that initial risk assessments are not undertaken in hindsight and that all potential risks are identified. 5.4.6 Reporting considerations 2: frequency v likelihood The likelihood rating for non-compliances should not be scored low after the risk has already been realised.
Do not confuse frequency with likelihood and score the risk low because the event has only occurred infrequently.
If an event could happen at any time, or has already occurred, the likelihood score must be high.
The frequency with which an event occurs is academic, once it has happened.
5.4.7 Reporting considerations 3: FSA controls not a likelihood factor! The likelihood of an event occurring should not result in a low score, when the FSA has an inspection point at a specific stage in the process that is able to identify a problem.
The presence of an FSA inspection point should not be used to mitigate the risk score.
The likelihood of an event occurring will not be affected by the presence of the FSA Operations Group. It is the FBOs systems and controls that are being assessed to determine the likelihood factor [Y], not the presence of the FSA carrying out an inspection checks at a particular point in the process.
5.4.8 Other factors to be considered The FSA has identified certain high level outcomes that are to be achieved:
- to limit food borne illness caused by meat
- to detect and control animal diseases
- to achieve high standards of animal welfare in approved establishments
- to facilitate the international trade of animal products
- meat entering the food chain is free from SRM
- animals intended for the food chain are tested for BSE / TSE where BSE testing is required • meat from all animals tested for BSE / TSE does not enter the food chain unless tested negative • meat from over age animals does not enter the food chain • evidence of deliberate fraud
Where such contraventions are identified, that compromise these outcomes, the overall risk (reputational / business / public health / animal welfare) to the organisation will be high. As such these matters should always be recorded on the ENF 11-5 and progressed through the hierarchy.
5.4.9 ENF 11/29 risk assessment form
It is important that the FSA can objectively assess the consistency of risk assessments. To ensure consistency of approach, the Risk Assessment Form (ENF 11/29):
• must contain valid data • must demonstrate the data can be tested and is true • must be consistent and appropriate (for example, the impact is reasonably foreseeable, the likelihood is of the risk being realised) • must demonstrate competent authority controls are proportionate to the risks 6. Intervention Protocol
6.1 Introduction 6.2 Strategic aims 6.3 Background 6.4 Summary of risk rating 6.5 Approvals 6.6 Referral for review of approval 6.7 Additional controls 6.8 Low risk establishments 6.9 Medium risk establishments: Improvement necessary 6.10 Serious risk establishments: Urgent improvement necessary 6.11 Approach to FBOs identified as Urgent improvement necessary and support to frontline teams 6.12 Dealing with adverse behaviour by the FBO 6.13 Time recording 6.14 Routine monitoring 6.15 Support available 6.16 Routine publication of audits and naming Urgent improvement necessary establishments on FSA website 6.17 Flowcharts 6.18 Review 6.1 Introduction This document provides guidance to Heads of Operational Delivery, Operations Managers, Field Veterinary Leaders, Field Veterinary Coordinator, Service Delivery Managers, Official Veterinarians (OVs) and frontline teams on:
- Monitoring performance of approved meat establishments; and
- Action that should be taken in the event that a Food Business Operator (FBO) does not put in place measures to raise levels of compliance with legal requirements.
Food Business Operators can access this protocol at:
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/auditing-meat-establishments
6.2 Strategic aims The goal of the Intervention Protocol is to safeguard consumers and improve public health by improving overall business compliance through:
- Targeting high impact intervention where risks to public health exist
- Seeking prompt compliance in high risk areas of non-compliance and targeting intervention.
- Provide a graduated and proportionate response to legislative non-compliance ensuring advisory and deterrent elements, along with the escalation of sanctions, where necessary, based on the level of non-compliance risk at individual establishments.
6.3 Background As part of the intervention protocol, we want to ensure that all FBOs of approved meat establishments are complying with legal requirements and are taking responsibility for the production of safe meat. FSA resources and attention will be directed to non-compliant FBO establishments utilising non-compliances identified during official control activities outlined below:
- results of FBO audits
- findings from unannounced inspections (for example, routine or investigating complaints)
- establishment level inspection and audit findings (serious deficiencies or where evidence of repeated stoppage exists) The protocol also brings in a process for recommending the prompt withdrawal of approvals as the ultimate sanction for poor performance by FBOs, whilst taking an open and transparent approach to informing FBOs about what we are doing and why, in accordance with risk-based assessment methodology. We also want operational staff to have clarity on when to act and what action to take. However, the FSA must take action quickly in the event of significant FBO non-compliances / or consistent flouting of the regulations. Where an FBO fails to put in place the necessary measures leading to significant public health, animal health and welfare improvement, FSA officials may recommend that their approval status is reviewed. This could lead to their approval being withdrawn or suspended.
By gathering high quality evidence at the earliest stage via audits, unannounced inspections and regular official control activities, prompt intervention will be taken with the right enforcement actions.
Openness is one of the core principles of the FSA and underpins our strategic outcome that consumers and customers should have the information and understanding they need to make informed choices. Evidence suggests that consumer confidence and purchasing choice can also be a powerful incentive to drive up the standards of businesses.
Advice and education that can be applied will often secure sustained compliance as well as delivering a more cost-effective enforcement regime. Voluntary compliance is likely to be more sustainable in the long term than formal enforcement action as outlined in the following illustration: 6.4 Summary of risk rating
Actions taken by official staff will be driven by findings from audits, unannounced inspections and other OC activities. The FSA will use results from inspections and audit of FBOs to support informed tactical actions. Using these, we will
- escalate where necessary quickly the enforcement activity for high risk and/or persistent non-compliances; and
- Identify and prioritise criteria to assess risk-based planning and delivery of official controls.
Educational approaches should be considered at low and medium risk establishments and FSA training materials are available at the following link;
https://foodgov.sharepoint.com/orggov/Documents/recommendedriskmanagementtraining.pdf#search=training
The table below presents a summary of tactical information on required actions, using the audit outcomes as a guide to plant level characteristics of compliance. | Compliance Category | FBO status | Intervention | |---------------------|------------|--------------| | **Serious Risk** | Recurrent deficiencies and/or failure to permanently resolve deficiencies within a reasonable time frame (Reasonable is relative to the nature and magnitude of the deficiencies present and will be consistent with enforcement timelines and any written correspondence from the FSA) | Establish appropriate enforcement action. Review approval if there are serious deficiencies or repeated stoppage of the line. | | **Medium risk** | Deficiencies / Repeated deficiencies | **Monitor** via unannounced inspections in cutting plants and routine attendance in slaughterhouses and follow up audit visits. Advice FBO on educational programmes aimed at improving compliance (Meat Industry Guide, FSA training package). Reasonable timelines to correct deficiencies. Review approval if there are serious deficiencies or repeated stoppage of the line. | | **Low Risk** | Compliant | **Monitor** via Unannounced Inspections in Cutting Plants and routine attendance in slaughterhouses and follow up visits. Advice FBO on educational programs aimed at improving compliance (Meat Industry Guide, FSA training package) where conditions are deteriorating during interim audit period. Reasonable timelines to correct deficiencies. | 6.5 Approvals
Approval of establishments must be kept under review by the competent authority whilst carrying out official controls, including initiating action to withdraw or suspend the approval in certain circumstances as described in Article 31(2) (e) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Interpretation of the ‘criteria for suspension’ / ‘withdrawal of approval working’ definitions for the terms ‘serious deficiency and repeated stoppage’ are available at the following link:
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/approved-food-establishments
In this intervention protocol the FSA is strengthening the links between official control activities, enforcement, and review of approvals. Audit is a useful tool for risk-profiling premises. Having good quality audits / unannounced inspections, and good quality enforcement action, will ensure that the right evidence is available to review approval, where there are concerns around non-compliance, repeated stoppages and / or deficiencies.
Activities / enforcement / approvals cycle
6.6 Referral for review of approval
Drawing on findings from the carrying out of official controls, or as a result of local intelligence, Field Veterinary Leaders will have responsibility for initially assessing whether to undertake the process to initiate suspension / withdrawal in accordance with this protocol. Other matters which trigger a review of approvals are outlined in the approvals policy, for example, fire. Heads of Operational Delivery have an overarching responsibility to make sure that appropriate action is being taken.
The Field Veterinary Leader will arrange the collation of evidence packs to assist in any review of approval liaising with the relevant contractor where applicable. These evidence packs must include but are not limited to:
- current approval documentation and approval history;
- latest copy of Statement of Resources
- latest FBO audit report and unannounced inspection results and a comparison of trends over recent audits
- latest enforcement programme, any supporting intervention; records and pictures or any other evidence of the deficiencies
- an overview of activity, including reports of meetings held with the FBO (for example, following a establishment being identified as Urgent Improvement Necessary); and
- any other relevant information.
The ‘Operational Policy for the Approval of Meat Establishments’ gives details to FBOs of the process that will occur after the Field Veterinary Leader submits their recommendation to the Operations Head Veterinarian; this policy is available on the FSA website. Local Authorities will be informed in the event of revocation of approval by the FSA to establish an appropriate handover of responsibilities.
6.7 Additional controls
Past experience has demonstrated that introducing additional controls may provide an effective incentive to the FBO and deliver improvements in compliance. The Head of Operational Delivery should consider whether additional official controls are required (up until satisfactory compliance is achieved), taking advice from the Field Veterinary Leader / Coordinator. For example, an additional OV may be brought in to focus upon enforcement and hygienic production and practice, allowing the resident OV to continue to carry out daily duties. It will also ensure that public health risks are safeguarded ahead of any such review.
Charges for additional controls will be made under Regulation (EC) 882/2004 and the Meat (Official Control Charges) Regulations 2009. The Head of Operational Delivery has ultimate responsibility for determining where additional controls should be put in place. The Head of Operational Delivery should inform the FBO in writing prior to additional controls being introduced, explaining reasons for this action and that charges for these additional controls will be passed onto the FBO. Any changes to resourcing (for example, requirement for a second OV) should be communicated to the contract Area Veterinary Manager and to the Head Office for the contract supplier in advance, in the normal way.
The Statement of Resources must also be amended by FSA Service Delivery Managers to reflect changes to resourcing.
When reviewing corrective actions taken by the FBO the following considerations must be taken into account:
- confirm what actions were taken and why, the appropriateness of the actions
- review any records that demonstrate the effectiveness of the corrective actions
- observation the changes; a follow-up inspection may be needed to confirm that the corrective action has been completed and is effective
Once appropriate action has been taken to address non-compliances, the additional resource should be removed and this made clear to the FBO, backed up by evidence from the FSA enforcement programme demonstrating improving conditions, Adjustments can then be made to the Statement of Resources.
The Head of Operational Delivery should inform the FBO where normal resourcing is being re-established, drawing on advice from the Field Veterinary Leader / Coordinator, with formal confirmation provided in writing. The Head Office for the contract supplier should be advised on any changes.
### 6.8 Low risk establishments
Low risk establishments will have audit outcomes of Good and Generally Satisfactory, with audit frequencies of 12 and 18 months (18 months for slaughterhouses only).
All premises must have at least one interim unannounced inspection (UAI). Field Veterinary Leaders should monitor the results of all UAIs and ensure enforcement action and / or official control activities are escalated accordingly and as per the Intervention Protocol. Whilst the FSA reserves the right to carry out a chargeable re-audit should this be necessary, prompt action is required to ensure that appropriate action is taken immediately should conditions at the premises significantly worsen from the last audit outcome. FSA Veterinarians and OVs are supplied with the FVL Review of Approval Report at Annex 3 to report issues should they arise.
| Compliance Category | FBO status | Intervention | |---------------------|------------|--------------| | Low Risk | Compliant | Monitor via unannounced inspections and follow up visit. Advise FBO on educational programs aimed at improving compliance (MIG, FSA training package) any minor non-compliances with reasonable timelines to correct deficiencies in line with the FSA enforcement policy. | | Good / Generally Satisfactory (18 and 12 month audit frequencies) | | |
6.9 Medium risk establishments: Improvement necessary
Improvement Necessary establishments will be subject to more frequent audits (3 monthly) and intervention than those that are demonstrating compliance with audit outcomes. Audit outcomes are designed to drive improvement in lower compliance premises by linking audit outcomes to follow-up action.
Improvement Necessary establishments will be those which are exhibiting major non-compliances that are likely to compromise public health (including food safety), animal health and welfare, or which may lead to the production and handling of unsafe food if remedial action is not taken.
There is a role for the FSA as a regulator to work with FBOs to facilitate compliance. The key to a successful working relationship is communication. There is nowhere that this is more important than in relation to guiding the FBO on compliance with legal requirements.
Improvement Necessary premises have the following audit outcome profile: Audit outcome | Definition | Non-compliance threshold ---|---|--- **Improvement necessary** | Major non-compliances identified at audit and/or non-compliances during the audit period not always responded to and corrected promptly. | 3-6 majors during audit or during audit period | No critical during audit period |
The approach for first time and repeat offenders is the same as outlined in the table below; however, the default position is to tactically address non-compliance concerns should conditions significantly worsen during the interim audit period.
| Compliance Category | FBO status | Intervention | |---|---|---| | **Medium risk Improvement Necessary** | Deficiencies/ Persistent deficiencies | **Monitor** via unannounced inspections and follow up visits. Advise FBO on educational programs aimed at improving compliance (Meat Industry Guide, FSA training package) Reasonable timelines to correct deficiencies Review approval where conditions are worsening resulting in serious deficiencies |
Medium risk establishments should be identified utilising official control activities and dealt with in order of non-compliance, for example, by prioritising premises which are demonstrating significant enforcement.
### 6.10 Serious risk establishments: Urgent improvement necessary
In line with audit outcomes, establishments can be identified as Urgent Improvement Necessary based on the severity and quantity of non-compliances.
Urgent Improvement establishments may have a critical non-compliance where the contravention poses an imminent and serious risk to public health (including food safety), animal health and welfare and/or multiple major non-compliances (as per MOC guidance) which are likely to compromise public health (including food safety), animal health and welfare or may lead to the production and handling of unsafe or unsuitable food if no remedial action is taken. Urgent Improvement Necessary interventions and procedures are of paramount importance and the FSA needs to escalate enforcement activity quickly to influence food business perceptions around risk and consequences of non-compliance.
### 6.11 Approach to FBOs identified as Urgent Improvement Necessary and support to frontline teams
Following an audit which places (or keeps) an establishment in urgent improvement necessary, notification will be sent to the FBO by Operations Assurance Division, this is to emphasis the seriousness of the FBOs current position following audit. The wording is provided at Annex 5.
**Note:** Where it is considered that critical establishment level activities are of serious risk to public health, these activities must be addressed using appropriate enforcement and put forward for a review of approval. More than 6 Major non-compliances, which have not been rectified within reasonable time periods (for example, interim audit period), will also trigger a review of approval. It is important to differentiate between historical NCs (even if major) which have been closed and those which are still open, or where FBOs have not shown willingness to cooperate.
Once the notification of audit outcome audit letter has been issued identifying an establishment as Urgent Improvement Necessary, it is important for the FSA Field Veterinary Leader to meet with the FBO to carry out a thorough assessment of enforcement action and any response by the FBO which has been taken in the premises, and to discuss the action that will follow. Where audit scores trigger an FBO going into Urgent Improvement Necessary, the Field Veterinary Leader should carefully monitor action being taken, taking into account:
- patterns of non-compliances
- frequency of moving in to this compliance rating
- the need for additional controls
- more formal escalation of enforcement
- timelines for improvement, or for referral for a review of approval
As a starting point, the FBO has a responsibility to operate in compliance with the regulations and should be encouraged to look at their most recent audit report and / or unannounced inspection report (where applicable) and in particular the Corrective Action Report and Enforcement Programme. These should identify key areas where the FBO needs to take action or make improvements. In addressing corrective actions, it may also be helpful to refer the FBO to relevant sections of the Meat Industry Guide, for clarification on legal obligations and advice on how these may be met. Of course, an FBO may determine other ways of achieving compliance with the law as these may be equally valid.
The FSA Field Veterinarian [Field Veterinary Leader or Field Veterinary Coordinator] and contractor veterinarian should work with the FBO to help them draw up an action plan of steps that they can take and timescales to improve compliance offering ideas of the actions that the FBO may take to improve. FBOs should agree a reasonable timescale for any actions with the veterinarian, so that they can show satisfactory progress.
FSA Field Veterinarians will have an important role to play in overseeing the consistency and actions taken by the OV in partnership with the contractor, with the OV supported by the contract Area Veterinary Manager where applicable. In particular, the FSA Field Veterinarian should increase their visibility within the slaughterhouse. In standalone cutting establishments, the FSA Field Veterinarian will oversee official control attendance and actively liaise with contractors and FSA staff who have been allocated to the premises.
It is important that a brief report of any meetings with the FBO is produced; a template is available at Annex 6. This should summarise discussions held, and particularly any education and support provided to the FBO. These meeting reports (together with any subsequent progress updates) will serve as a useful reminder of the approach taken and may form part of the evidence base in the event that a referral for review of approval is made. The FBO should be given opportunity to comment and agree the content of the meeting record. Heads of Operational Delivery should consider and authorise any additional controls recommended by the Field Veterinary Leader, and / or unannounced inspections within the interim audit period. Field Veterinarians shall provide progress reports to Heads of Operational Delivery as required.
During these inspections the FSA Field Veterinarians should ensure that the FBO is making progress against any agreed timescales and the action plan. Any issues or concern over action being taken should be raised with the contract Area Veterinary Manager in the first instance, as appropriate, or with the Field Veterinarian in the case of standalone cutting plants. The Head Office for the contract supplier should also be updated on any issues arising.
6.12 Dealing with adverse behaviour by the FBO
It is appreciated that, whilst many FBOs will respond positively and will want to put in place measures for improvement, others may react in a negative way. There is a wealth of resources available on Foodweb on avoiding confrontation or aggression in the workplace, including a code of conduct, and what to do when an incident happens:
http://fsahome/human/policiesprocedures/Pages/NewBullyingandHarassmentPolicy.aspx
6.13 Time recording
Cutting plant inspections by OVs should be coded to ‘NOTH’ (other non-chargeable time), although it should be remembered that if enforcement is necessary as a result of the visit (or subsequent visits) that this is chargeable to the FBO and should be coded to ‘INSP’ (official controls – inspection). Time spent on additional controls should also be recorded to ‘INSP’.
At slaughterhouses, OV activities will typically form part of the normal official control duties and time should be recorded to ‘INSP’ (or other time-codes) as per guidance in the Manual for Official Controls. This should be time-coded to ‘INSP’.
6.14 Routine monitoring
Heads of Operational Delivery should review action taken at establishments within their areas at their Operations Management Team meetings, drawing on advice from their Field Veterinary Leaders. Trends of compliance are monitored at a national level at the Field Management Group meeting. This includes a review of latest audit scores and changes to establishments that are identified as Urgent Improvement Necessary.
6.15 Support available
Field Veterinary Leaders / Coordinators will ensure that support is in place for frontline teams, and will liaise with the contract Area Veterinary Managers and OVs working at establishments identified as Urgent Improvement Necessary to ensure a consistent approach is taken.
The Head of Field Operations will offer guidance and support to the Head of Operational Delivery and staff, as will legal and veterinary and technical colleagues.
Staff in the Operations Assurance Division’s Delivery Assurance Team will issue relevant letters to FBOs and will also provide performance management information on activities in relation to Urgent Improvement Necessary establishments.
The Operations Assurance Division’s Business Support Team may also be called upon to provide administrative support to Field Veterinary Leaders in the production of evidence packs.
The Operations Assurance Division’s Approvals and Registrations Team will receive the review of approvals from the Field Veterinary Leader and compile a submission to the Operations Head Veterinarian. This submission will provide a background to the case, referencing the Field Veterinarian Leader report and accompanying evidence.
6.16 Routine publication of audits and naming Urgent Improvement Necessary establishments on FSA website
The FSA publishes results of FBO audits on the FSA website:
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/auditing-meat-establishments
If an FBO is not satisfied with a score awarded in any section of the audit report, the FBO does have the right of appeal against the outcome of the audit. Any appeals must be made in writing within 14 calendar days of receiving an audit report. There is a form to complete and the process is explained in the letter issued to the FBO, accompanying the FBO audit report. Chapter 4 on ‘Audit, HACCP Based Procedures and Verifying Operators Own Checks’, sets out the appeal procedure. We will not publish an audit report on the FSA website until after an appeal process has been undertaken and the audit has been finalised. Necessary FSA interventions will continue during the appeal period.
6.17 Flowcharts Two process flowcharts are available at Annex 4.
6.18 Review These guidelines will be kept under review yearly and will be updated as required. 7. Annexes
Annex 1 Examples of enforcement of the EC Hygiene Regulations Annex 2 Enforcement policy Annex 3 Enforcement Concordat Annex 4a Template for HIN compliance letter Annex 4b Template for HIN/RAN cancel letter Annex 5 Flow diagram: The treatment of animals, meat and food unsuitable for the human food chain Annex 6 Supporting evidence photographic report template Annex 7 Intervention Protocol – FVL Review of Approval Report Annex 8 Intervention Protocol – Process flowcharts Annex 9 Intervention Protocol – FBO audit outcome letters note Annex 10 Intervention Protocol – Meeting templates Annex 11 Intervention Protocol – HOD FVL Meeting Template Annex 12 Intervention Protocol – Example intervention log Annex 13 Intervention Protocol – FSA intervention record
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1710-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 109,
"total-input-tokens": 196348,
"total-output-tokens": 42202,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
284,
1
],
[
284,
1163,
2
],
[
1163,
3321,
3
],
[
3321,
4119,
4
],
[
4119,
5201,
5
],
[
5201,
7277,
6
],
[
7277,
8542,
7
],
[
8542,
9981,
8
],
[
9981,
12003,
9
],
[
12003,
13835,
10
],
[
13835,
15422,
11
],
[
15422,
16954,
12
],
[
16954,
18299,
13
],
[
18299,
20448,
14
],
[
20448,
21765,
15
],
[
21765,
23726,
16
],
[
23726,
25665,
17
],
[
25665,
27757,
18
],
[
27757,
29520,
19
],
[
29520,
31208,
20
],
[
31208,
33239,
21
],
[
33239,
35110,
22
],
[
35110,
36737,
23
],
[
36737,
38653,
24
],
[
38653,
40461,
25
],
[
40461,
42288,
26
],
[
42288,
42761,
27
],
[
42761,
43824,
28
],
[
43824,
45443,
29
],
[
45443,
47081,
30
],
[
47081,
49138,
31
],
[
49138,
50940,
32
],
[
50940,
52311,
33
],
[
52311,
54388,
34
],
[
54388,
56305,
35
],
[
56305,
58006,
36
],
[
58006,
59572,
37
],
[
59572,
61195,
38
],
[
61195,
63466,
39
],
[
63466,
66076,
40
],
[
66076,
67974,
41
],
[
67974,
69499,
42
],
[
69499,
70744,
43
],
[
70744,
71407,
44
],
[
71407,
71720,
45
],
[
71720,
73419,
46
],
[
73419,
75720,
47
],
[
75720,
77702,
48
],
[
77702,
78915,
49
],
[
78915,
79596,
50
],
[
79596,
80106,
51
],
[
80106,
82162,
52
],
[
82162,
83827,
53
],
[
83827,
85841,
54
],
[
85841,
87767,
55
],
[
87767,
90129,
56
],
[
90129,
92330,
57
],
[
92330,
94135,
58
],
[
94135,
96162,
59
],
[
96162,
98218,
60
],
[
98218,
100476,
61
],
[
100476,
102032,
62
],
[
102032,
103859,
63
],
[
103859,
105727,
64
],
[
105727,
107988,
65
],
[
107988,
109716,
66
],
[
109716,
111199,
67
],
[
111199,
113372,
68
],
[
113372,
116364,
69
],
[
116364,
118019,
70
],
[
118019,
119977,
71
],
[
119977,
121703,
72
],
[
121703,
123982,
73
],
[
123982,
126491,
74
],
[
126491,
130234,
75
],
[
130234,
132037,
76
],
[
132037,
133574,
77
],
[
133574,
135527,
78
],
[
135527,
136631,
79
],
[
136631,
137771,
80
],
[
137771,
138760,
81
],
[
138760,
140468,
82
],
[
140468,
142233,
83
],
[
142233,
144199,
84
],
[
144199,
145352,
85
],
[
145352,
146780,
86
],
[
146780,
148152,
87
],
[
148152,
149819,
88
],
[
149819,
151999,
89
],
[
151999,
152629,
90
],
[
152629,
153020,
91
],
[
153020,
154594,
92
],
[
154594,
155565,
93
],
[
155565,
156231,
94
],
[
156231,
158026,
95
],
[
158026,
159644,
96
],
[
159644,
160539,
97
],
[
160539,
161892,
98
],
[
161892,
163143,
99
],
[
163143,
165422,
100
],
[
165422,
167567,
101
],
[
167567,
169423,
102
],
[
169423,
171324,
103
],
[
171324,
172890,
104
],
[
172890,
175479,
105
],
[
175479,
177556,
106
],
[
177556,
179607,
107
],
[
179607,
180088,
108
],
[
180088,
180871,
109
]
]
} |
7c901b75d0aada33b7c21a7157977b95c51d394e | Chapter 13 Imports and Exports
Part A Goods imported before the delivery of an import entry
This part not yet allocated Chapter 13 Imports and exports Part B International Collaboration (Defence) Arrangements
Section 1 Background to the relief
1.1 Coverage This guidance covers the relief available under Item 2 of Group 13, Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994. It explains the conditions relating to the zero-rating of supplies in connection with International Collaboration (Defence) Arrangements (ICDAs). In cases where relief is not applicable under Item 2 Group 13 you will need to consider whether other zero-rating provisions apply, particularly those covered by Groups 7 and 8 of Schedule 8.
1.2 Background to the relief The relief for ICDAs has existed since the introduction of VAT. The terms of an arrangement are contained in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or supplement thereto - see Section 3 - which contains a mutual tax waiver clause unequivocally committing all participating governments to ensure that their national taxes do not bear on the project or, failing that, to bear them themselves. The provisions of Item 2, Group 13 give a proper basis for such relief in terms of UK VAT law, without which any cost of UK VAT to other participants would fall as an additional burden on the Ministry of Defence (MOD).
1.3 HQ responsibility The HQ section responsible for this area of the tax is the Government and Education Branch. Chapter 13 Imports and exports Section 2 EC and UK Law
2.1 European VAT law There is no specific reference to International Collaboration Defence Projects (ICDPs) in EC law. However, the UK’s authority to zero-rate supplies in connection with these projects is derived from EC Sixth Directive Article 28 paragraph 2(a) and EC Second Directive Article 17 (which allows zero-rates in force on 31 December 1975 to be retained). We accept that the conditions set out in these Articles are satisfied.
2.2 UK VAT law ICDPs are eligible for zero-rating by virtue of Item 2 of Group 13, Schedule 8 of the VAT Act 1994:
2. The supply to or by an overseas authority, overseas body or overseas trader, charged with the management of any defence project which is the subject of an international collaboration arrangement or under direct contract with any government or government-sponsored international body participating in a defence project under such an arrangement, of goods or services in the course of giving effect to that arrangement.
The main point to remember here is that relief only applies to supplies made to or received from either: (a) an overseas authority or body responsible for managing a qualifying project: or (b) an overseas authority, body or trader under direct contract to a UK or overseas authority or body responsible for managing a qualifying project.
Note (1) defines an international collaboration arrangement:
(1) An “international collaboration arrangement” means any arrangement which- (a) is made between the United Kingdom Government and the government of one or more other countries, or any government-sponsored international body for collaboration in a joint project of research, development or production; and (b) includes provision for participating governments to relieve the cost of the project from taxation.
The form of this arrangement is contained in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (see section 3).
Note 2 defines an overseas authority:
(2) “Overseas authority” means any country other than the United Kingdom or any part of or place in such a country or the government of any such country, part or place.
The term “overseas body” is explained in Note (3):
(3) “Overseas body” means a body established outside the United Kingdom
Note (4) explains the term “overseas trader”: (4) “Overseas trader” means a person who carries on a business and has his principal place of business outside the United Kingdom. Section 3 What is an International Collaboration (Defence) Arrangement (ICDA)?
3.1 Introduction ICDAs are arranged between the UK Government and one or more other governments or government sponsored agencies such as NATO. They can cover collaboration in research and all phases of equipment procurement and in-service support from design through development and production to post design services and the provision of spares, repair and maintenance. The legal definition of an ICDA is contained in Note 1, Group 13, Schedule 8 of the VATA 1994. The note identifies the two elements which must be present for a project to be eligible for zero-rating:
- the arrangement must be made at government level;
- the project must be relieved from the effects of any taxation.
In this guidance ICDAs will be referred to as “ICDAs” initially then as “collaborative projects”. ICDAs can be complex and involve the use of highly technical jargon. Although it is not necessary to be an expert in the technical terms used, you will need a basic understanding of the structure of a typical ICDA project to ensure that the relief is properly applied.
Collaborative projects are agreed between national governments. They have a number of organisational levels:
- Level 1: Project definition, direction, control and funding The responsibilities at this level rest with the participating governments, with MOD representing the UK. The participants usually use a single body as a project management organisation (PMO). The PMO is funded by the participants and acts as contracting authority to procure the work required.
- Level 2: Project management If there is a PMO, it may be an agency of one of the governments (e.g. UK’s MOD Procurement Executive) or a multi-national body which may be set up specifically for the purpose (e.g. the NATO Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Management Agency). It will be responsible to the participants and will employ one or more prime contractors which it will pay with funds provided by the participants. Any UK PMO will be registered for VAT. Participants’ funding of the PMO is consideration for supplies by the PMO to the extent that the supplies come within the scope of UK VAT. The PMO (or the individual participants if there is not a PMO) engages a prime contractor or prime contractors and each prime contractor may be expected to engage first level sub-contractors, who may engage second level sub-contractors and so on.
- Level 3: Prime contractors At this level prime contractors from different countries will have been appointed to to carry out specific technical responsibilities. (This is the highest level that you will encounter in the course of routine control visits).
- Level 4: First level sub-contractors These will be appointed by the prime contractors and will have responsibility for specific technical parts of the project. (Item 2 Group 13 zero-rating cannot apply below the first level of transactions between a prime contractor and a first level sub-contractor. At this level prime contractors from different countries will have been appointed to carry out specific technical responsibilities). Level 5: Second and subsequent level sub-contractors The number of parties involved as second and subsequent level sub-contractors may be quite large. Again they have specific technical responsibilities.
3.2 What is a Memorandum of Understanding? The agreement reached by the different governments involved in the project is recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This document determines whether the project is approved as an International Collaboration (Defence) Arrangement for the purposes of Item 2, Group 13 zero-rating. To be eligible for relief the project must involve international collaboration (i.e. a project undertaken by more than one nation) and it must be relieved from the burden of national taxes on other nations’ shares of the cost. The MOU will have a clause stating that the project is relieved from taxes, customs duties and other charges.
Officers must contact the Government and Education Branch to confirm the status of collaborative projects. Not all MOUs relate to projects that qualify for Item 2 Group 13 relief (see Paragraph 4.2). Section 4 Eligibility for zero-rating
4.1 Introduction MOD is responsible for negotiating international collaboration MOUs on behalf of the UK. This process does not involve HM Customs and Excise either at Headquarters or local office level. But when MOD’s General Finance Division identifies an MOU that meets the criteria for an ICDA for Item 2 Group 13 zero-rating, they will notify the Government and Education Branch. MOD have details of the participants, project management organisation (if any) and prime contractor(s) for the individual projects. Item 2 Group 13 zero-rating applies in the absence of any other relief - to any supply by or to any of these bodies where one or other of them belongs overseas and the supply is in a chain that leads to the delivery to the participants of services or equipment in accordance with the objectives of the arrangement.
4.2 Relief from taxation and the extent of approval An ICDA only qualifies for relief inasmuch as supplies follow the procurement chain prescribed in the relevant approved MOU. Not all MOUs in relation to a project will be approved for Item 2 Group 13 zero-rating. MOUs that are not will be excluded from the details in the project list. Any procurement in relation to a qualifying project but outside the approved MOU arrangements is not relieved. For example, for a project with a PMO, single nation procurement directly from the prime contractor would not be relieved if the relevant MOU prescribed the inclusion of the project management organisation in the supply chain.
A collaborative project does not have to run through all the stages of research, development, production and supply of the final product (including in-service support). In addition there is frequently more than one MOU in force for any one project. A collaborative project could be for research only or could take a proposal through to development but not include production. It is essential to confirm that the supplies with which you are concerned are properly covered by a valid MOU.
4.3 Supplies in the UK All supplies made in the UK between the MOD and UK contractors follow the normal VAT rules. Relief under Item 2 Group 13 applies only to supplies made to or by an overseas body charged with the management of a collaborative project. Goods forming part of an ICDA may be delivered from one participating contractor to another within the UK for process or assembly.
4.4 United Kingdom Project Management Offices A Project Management Office (PMO) based in the UK may be an agency of the UK MOD and under direct “contract” by the arrangement to the governments participating in the collaborative agreement. It may be a separate legal entity to the UK MOD and may make and receive its own supplies. As a result a PMO may require a separate VAT registration. Supplies by UK contractors to a PMO based in the UK are not covered by relief under Item 2. These supplies cannot meet the “supply to or by an overseas authority” criteria set out in Item 2. The relief available under Item 2 Group 13 also applies to charges made by a UK Project Management Office to an overseas government for managing a project on its behalf. If the PMO is established within MOD it is covered by MOD’s VAT registration. Chapter 13 Imports and exports
The Project Horizon programme Joint Project Office is the first and only example to date of a UK PMO established outside MOD. Supplies to MOD by such a separately registered UK PMO are not covered Item 2 Group 13 relief.
4.5 Final supply Some difficulty has been experienced in defining the scope of Item 2 Group 13, in particular whether the relief extends zero-rating to the supply of the final product. Previously Item 2 had been interpreted as providing relief on supplies up to and including production of the equipment, but not on the final supply to the participating governments. This is because the law allows relief for the research, development and production elements of a project but did not specifically cover the supply of the finished product.
Following discussions with MOD we have accepted that governments would be unlikely to enter into such ICDAs without having access to the final product of the collaborative effort. Relief under Item 2 does therefore include the supply of the finished product (i.e. final supply) of a collaborative project.
4.6 Own variants Own variant products from collaborative projects which, whilst researched, developed or produced jointly, include features specific to the requirements of an individual country, qualify for relief under Item 2, provided they are funded by the collaborative project.
In the MRCA Tornado project each of the three participating countries took a different variant of the basic aircraft. It is not necessary for the participating countries to take identical versions of the end product for the project to be eligible for zero-rating.
4.7 Imports eligible for relief Goods imported by any UK contractor as the agent of an overseas authority, body or trader are zero rated under Item 2, provided:
- the goods are imported to give effect to an ICDA with an approved MOU; and
- they include the following declaration in the supplementary information box of the Customs entry, box 44:
Zero rate Group 13 Item 2:- The goods included in this entry are the property of (name of overseas customer) and are entered by (name of company) as agent, for the purposes of the (name and phase) International Collaboration Defence Project.
- include in box 47 of the Customs entry, the VAT rate as “VAX”.
Note - all goods relating to an ICDA are the property of the PMO until the final supply is made to the respective governments. It follows that imports/acquisitions of goods by UK contractors are made in their capacity as agent of the PMO.
4.8 Import duty and the Ministry of Defence The Duty on Defence Imports Memorandum (DODIM 77) allows the MOD to import defence related goods free of customs duty. Relief under DODIM 77 is also claimed where UK traders are importing goods on behalf of the UK MOD for defence contracts.
The UK MOD are shown as the consignee in box 8 of the C88 (Single Administrative Document). The UK MOD (not HM Customs and Excise) is the responsible authority to decide which goods qualify for this relief. Any enquiries as to eligibility should be referred to the UK MOD Defence Transport and Movements Executive (DTMX Andover) for land and sea movements and to HQ Strike Command High Wycombe for air movements). In Customs and Excise TPG/SRT are responsible for policy on DODIM 77 imports.
4.9 Intrastat reporting arrangements - exceptions to the general rule (i) Diversion of goods by MOD If goods are diverted to a different EU member state, or to home use, by the MOD after supply by the manufacturer, no amending action should be taken. Under normal circumstances the declarant (in this case the manufacturer) would be required to make an amendment, however, it is considered that it would be impractical to require the MOD to inform the declarant of any diversion. (ii) VAT/Intrastat mismatches Tariff and Statistical Office (T&SO) consider that since both they and control officers are aware of traders who are involved in collaboration projects it will be possible to take this into account when dealing with discrepancies. Chapter 13 Imports and exports Section 5 Establishing that the conditions of the relief have been met
5.1 Supplies by the UK trader Is the supply made by the trader (under contract) to an overseas authority, body or trader that is a participant in or project management organisation or prime contractor for an ICDA on the qualifying list? Is the supply in a chain culminating in a supply to the participants under one of the MOUs (international collaboration (defence) arrangements) that are approved in respect of the qualifying collaborative project on the list?
5.2 Supplies to the UK trader Is the supply to the trader made by an overseas authority, body or trader that is a participant in or project management organisation or prime contractor for a collaborative project on the qualifying list? Is the supply in a chain culminating in a supply to the participants under one of the MOUs (international collaboration (defence) arrangements) that are approved in respect of the qualifying project list?
Item 2 Group 13 zero-rating only applies if the answer to both questions in Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 is yes. Chapter 13 Imports and exports Annex A Decision chart: Does the project supply qualify for relief?
This chart lists the factors which indicate whether a supply can be zero rated under Group 13 Item 2. At each stage of the chart you are cross referenced to the relevant part of this guide.
I supply made to an overseas authority, overseas body or overseas trader?
5.2
Is supply made by such a person?
5.1
Is the overseas authority, overseas body or overseas trader charged with the management of any defence project which is the subject of an international collaboration (defence) arrangement?
NO
YES
Is the overseas authority, body or trader under direct contract with a government or government-sponsored international body participating in a collaborative project?
NO
YES
Are the goods or services supplied in the course of giving effect to this collaborative project?
NO
YES
Supply eligible for relief under Item 2 of Group 13, Schedule 8, VATA 1994
NO RELIEF Chapter 13 Imports and exports Annex B International Collaboration Defence Projects at 1 July 2002
AIRCRAFT TORNOADO (MRCA) - Multi-role Combat Aircraft JAGUAR (Engine & Airframe) EUROFIGHTER (TYPHOON) 2000 SPEY SM1A Support - Gas Turbines CALF - Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter FLA - Future Large Aircraft JSF - Joint Strike Fighter
NAVAL EQUIPMENT NATO VSHORADS/SHORADS - Very Short Range & Short Range Air Defence Systems Programme LR5 Submarine Radar System NATO SINS - Ships Low Cost Inertial Navigation Systems TALISMAN SSTD - Surface Ship Torpedo Defence CNGF - Common New Generation Frigate (Project Horizon) COBLU – Outboard Electronic System
HELICOPTERS GAZELLE PUMA LYNX EH 101
MISSILES/ORDNANCE MILAN (improvement MIRA) - Weapon System MLRS - Multi Launch Rocket System M483A1 15mm Artillery Shell Sidewinder (AIM 9L) - Air to Air Missile System TRIGAT (3rd Gen ATGW) - Anti Tank Guided Weapon ACEATM - Aimed Controlled Effect Anti-Tank Mine ASRAAM - Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile Goalkeeper CIWS - Close in Weapon System PAAMS - Principle Anti-Air Missile System (formerly FAMS) including Sampson Naval Radar FH70 – Howitzer NLAW – Joint Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon System
ELECTRONICS TACOMS 2000 - Tactical Communication Post 2000 Tech for Future Combat EIFEL MOCRAT - Management Organisation for the Central Region Integrated ADP System for Allied Tactical Operations Centre COBRA - Counter Battery Radar Programme MLS - Microwave Landing System DATA - Demonstration of Aero-Engineering Technology EUROACT - European Active Control Technology NILE - NATO Improved Link 11 DIRCM CSM - Directional Infrared Countermeasures System Chapter 13 Imports and exports
OTHER MRAV – Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1712-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 18,
"total-input-tokens": 29442,
"total-output-tokens": 4846,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
124,
1
],
[
124,
155,
2
],
[
155,
1457,
3
],
[
1457,
1488,
4
],
[
1488,
3785,
5
],
[
3785,
3916,
6
],
[
3916,
7069,
7
],
[
7069,
8145,
8
],
[
8145,
11399,
9
],
[
11399,
14526,
10
],
[
14526,
15466,
11
],
[
15466,
15497,
12
],
[
15497,
16582,
13
],
[
16582,
16613,
14
],
[
16613,
17566,
15
],
[
17566,
17597,
16
],
[
17597,
19244,
17
],
[
19244,
19316,
18
]
]
} |
81b503f29df01b78c9e00cee564d513b5e61be39 | Charged Licence
Terms and Conditions
01. Definitions and interpretation
02. Grant
03. Term
04. Your obligations
05. Payment and payment arrangements
06. VAT
07. Invoices
08. Current Information
09. Ending the Licence
10. Consequences of the Licence ending
11. Changes to the terms of the Licence
12. Assignment
13. Further warranties
14. Governing Law
The Schedule This Licence is dated and is made between (the Licensor) and (the Licensee named in the Schedule).
1. Definitions and interpretation
In this Licence, unless the context requires otherwise, the following expressions shall have the following meanings:
‘Accounting period’ As set out in the Schedule ‘End-user’ Users or subscribers who use electronic or digital versions of your Product ‘End-user Licence’ The terms of use which establish how End-users may use the content of electronic or digital versions of your Product ‘Fee’ The fee charged by us as set out in the Schedule ‘Information’ The copyright work or database subject to a database right specified in the Schedule ‘Licence’ This licence, including the Schedule ‘Product’ Your product or products as set out in the Schedule ‘Re-use fee notice’ The notice in writing given to you by us in accordance with section 11A(5) or 19(2D) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ‘Start date’ As stated in the Schedule ‘Statement’ A statement of the money you receive from the sale or supply of your Product (not including VAT) and any royalties payable to us for each Accounting period. ‘We’, ‘us’, ‘our’ The Licensor ‘You’, ‘your’ The Licensee named in the Schedule, and its agents
2. Grant
In consideration of the payment of the fee, we are granting you the world-wide, non-exclusive rights set out in the Schedule.
3. Term
This Licence begins on the start date and is for the initial term given in the Schedule. It will continue after that term unless you or we end the Licence.
4. Your obligations
You have the following obligations under this Licence: 4.1. to let us know in writing (by post or email) of any change to your name, address or any other details relevant to this Licence;
4.2. not to present out-of-date Information as being current;
4.3. to ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status or that we endorse you or your use of the Information;
4.4. to ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent us or the Information;
4.5. to acknowledge the source of the Information by including any acknowledgment set out in the Schedule;
4.6. to feature any copyright statement set out in the Schedule;
4.7. not to reproduce the Royal Arms [other logos, crests, etc. may be added] unless they form an integral part of the Information and you are reproducing them in that context;
4.8. to keep full and accurate records of any sales of your Product for accounting purposes;
4.9. to send us, if we ask for it, one complimentary copy of your Product
[Other conditions may be added where necessary for compliance with national, EU or international law]
5. Payment and payment arrangements
This Licence is granted subject to payment of the Fee and in accordance with the payment details set out in the Schedule. If required by us, you must send us a Statement and allow inspection by us (or our representatives) of your accounts and records in accordance with any details set out in the Schedule.
6. VAT
Payments will be subject to VAT (where applicable) at the rate in force at the due time for payment.
7. Invoices
We will send you an invoice and/or a Re-use fee notice (as the case may be) for the amount that you are due to pay to us (unless we have already sent you an invoice or notice).
We have the right to charge interest on any amounts that are not paid within the [x] days at a rate of [x]%.
8. Current Information
We have the right to withdraw permission for the re-use of Information that becomes out of date during the period. We will tell you in writing and ask you to remove the obsolete Information from your Product by a given date.
9. Ending the Licence
This Licence may be ended:
By you
You have the right to end this Licence at any time by giving [x] days’ notice to us in writing (by post or email). By us
We have the right to end this Licence:
- after the end of the initial term by giving you ([x]) calendar months’ notice in writing (by post or email);
- at any time if you are wound up, declared bankrupt, placed in the hands of receivers or creditors or otherwise stop operating;
- at any time if there is a material breach of the terms of this Licence and you do not put this right within ([x]) days of our telling you in writing or by email, or
- in order to comply with any legal requirement.
10. Consequences of the Licence ending
Ending this Licence shall not affect our right to payments and information related to payments, including Statements, under this Licence.
11. Changes to the terms of the Licence
The terms of this Licence may only be changed if you and we agree in writing (by post or email). We will confirm any changes to the Licence, sending you an amended Schedule.
12. Assignment
You must not assign or sub-license (except in the context of issuing an End-user Licence) your rights under this Licence to any other person.
13. Further warranties
We warrant to you that to the best of our knowledge, and subject to any further warranties set out in the Schedule, we have the authority and power to grant the rights set out in the Licence and that the Licence does not infringe any other person or organisation’s rights.
14. Governing law
This Licence is governed by the laws of [specify either England and Wales or Northern Ireland].
[An appropriate signature block may be added]. The Schedule
Part 1
Start date The start date is [specify the date of this Licence or such other date as may be agreed]
Licensor’s name, address and email address
We will update you if any of these change.
Licensee’s name, address and email address
Acknowledgments and copyright protection
\[Insert text of acknowledgment and copyright statement as required. The default will be “[insert description of Information] licensed by [insert name of copyright holder/authority]. Copyright © [name of authority, year of first publication of the work] All rights reserved”. In the case of a Crown body, the following acknowledgment should be used “[insert description of information] Crown copyright licensed by [insert name of Crown body] on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.”\]
Information
Insert details of the Information being licensed under this Licence.
The rights to re-use of the Information
The Licensee may re-use the Information, including re-use by:
• copying, publishing, distributing and transmitting the Information; • adapting the Information; • exploiting the Information commercially (including by combining it with other information, data or applications, or your own Product); • allowing End-users to use the Information as authorised by an End-user Licence (except that an End-user shall not have the right to sub-license the right to access the Information).
Product
[Specify details of the Licensee’s product where applicable.]
Term
\[Insert the duration of the Licence for an initial term of [x] years, after which the licence shall continue beyond the initial term subject to the termination provisions contained in the Licence. The initial term should not be for a period less than 1 year.\]
Warranties
[Further warranties may be specified as may be appropriate.]
Dispute resolution
[Details of the Licensor’s complaints procedure may be specified here as may be appropriate.] Part 2
Payment details
[Insert details of the fee (such as a one-off fee, annual fixed fee, or royalties based on a percentage of sales or use) being charged; when the payment is due; and any other specific payment arrangements (such as a requirement for royalty statements and provision for inspection of accounts). Reference may be made to a Re-use fee notice where one has been issued. Arrangements may also be specified for receipts for payments.]
Accounting periods
[The following may be added: The first Accounting period will run from the start date until ............. (inclusive). After that, the Accounting periods will be from ............. to ............. (inclusive).]
Statements
\[The following may be added: “You must send us a Statement (for each Accounting period within [x] days of the end of each Accounting period so that we can calculate the payment due).”\]
Inspections of accounts
[The following may be added: “We, or our representative, may inspect your accounts and records for Sales income and any royalties payable to us. These inspections will take place at your premises during your normal business hours. We shall give you reasonable notice of our wish to inspect your accounts, in writing (by post or email).”]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1713-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 10071,
"total-output-tokens": 2246,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
359,
1
],
[
359,
1973,
2
],
[
1973,
4210,
3
],
[
4210,
5733,
4
],
[
5733,
7672,
5
],
[
7672,
8920,
6
]
]
} |
476ecaf9304523c2f8732a1928d855201f9ad7e8 | Charity Archivists and Records Managers Group (CHARM)
The Charity Archivists and Records Managers Group is made up of people responsible for the management and care of charities and voluntary organisations’ archives and records or who are involved with them more generally. CHARM membership is open to anyone interested in the sector and its records and archives.
CHARM provides a forum where issues of interest can be discussed and action taken. Its members form a network allowing them to draw support from each other and benefit from others expertise and experience.
CHARM’s main outward looking aim is to promote the importance of charity and voluntary sector records and archives and to raise the profile of the role of archivists and records managers within both the charity and voluntary sector and the archive, records management and information professions.
Meetings are held four times a year and consist of a mixture of business, discussion and presentations on specific issues. In addition, CHARM-online, the group’s e-mail discussion list allows a greater degree of communication, information exchange and participation than is possible via meetings alone and allows members who find it difficult to travel to be involved.
For more information about CHARM see http://www.charmonline.org.uk/
To contact CHARM or become a member please go to http://www.charmonline.org.uk/contactus.shtml
See CHARM’s facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/CHARMOnline
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1714-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1645,
"total-output-tokens": 325,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1471,
1
]
]
} |
998324f998dd1a68e8cece7adf5e47b6e9274b76 | Charter for Families Bereaved through Public Tragedy
In adopting this charter I commit to ensuring that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) learns the lessons of the Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath, so that the perspective of the bereaved families is not lost.
I commit to the CPS becoming an organisation which strives to:
1. In the event of a public tragedy, activate its emergency plan and deploy its resources to rescue victims, to support the bereaved and to protect the vulnerable.
2. Place the public interest above our own reputation.
3. Approach forms of public scrutiny – including public inquiries and inquests – with candour, in an open, honest and transparent way, making full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts. Our objective is to assist the search for the truth. We accept that we should learn from the findings of external scrutiny and from past mistakes.
4. Avoid seeking to defend the indefensible or to dismiss or disparage those who may have suffered where we have fallen short.
5. Ensure all members of staff treat members of the public and each other with mutual respect and with courtesy. Where we fall short, we should apologise straightforwardly and genuinely.
6. Recognise that we are accountable and open to challenge. We will ensure that processes are in place to allow the public to hold us to account for the work we do and for the way in which we do it. We do not knowingly mislead the public or the media.
Alison Saunders Director of Public Prosecutions
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1715-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1736,
"total-output-tokens": 355,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1521,
1
]
]
} |
3ba1d6f949826acd7b8987d705e090f2d43b099a | Check the label
How to use nutritional labels on pre-packed foods to find calorie, fat, saturates, sugars and salt content information.
Nutritional labels give you information which can help you make a healthier and more informed choice when deciding which food and drink products to buy. By checking the label each time you buy something, you will take more control of your shopping habits.
Whilst it is mandatory for nutrition information to be displayed on the back of all food packaging, some supermarkets and food manufacturers also display nutritional information on the front of pre-packed food in a handy traffic light system.
Using the traffic light label is very helpful when you want to compare the calorie, fat, sugar and salt content of different food products at a glance and helps you make a more informed choice. On this page, we will give tips on how to check the nutritional information on pre-packaged foods and help you understand what it means.
Traffic light labels
The traffic light labelling system will tell you whether a food has high, medium or low amounts of fat, saturated fat, sugars and salt. It will also tell you the number of calories and kilojoules in that particular product.
- energy (kilojoules (kj) and calories (kcal))
- fat
- saturates
- sugar
- salt Red means the product is high in a nutrient and you should try to cut down, eat less often or eat smaller amounts.
Amber means medium. If a food contains mostly amber, you can eat it most of the time.
Green means low. The more green lights a label displays, the healthier the food choice is.
**TIPS**
Did you know? When you see ‘kcal’ on the nutritional label, it means the number of calories that product has.
**Reference Intake indicators**
Reference Intake is shown in percentages and provides information on how the amount of fat, saturates, sugars and salts within that product fits into your daily recommended diet. In the case of this food label, the amount of sugar is 38% of the total recommended daily intake, therefore you should be careful of the amount of sugar consumed in other foods throughout the day. Calories
Eating and drinking more calories than we need can lead to weight gain. Excess weight gain can lead to obesity. Obesity increases the risk of some types of cancer including bowel cancer and breast cancer and increases the likelihood of developing serious conditions including coronary heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes.
Knowing the calorie content of food and drink can help ensure you're not consuming more calories than you need and can help you make a more informed choice.
TIPS
Did you know? The recommended calorie intake for men is 2500 calories per day and 2000 calories per day for women.
Useful food shopping tips
- Use the colour coded labels and choose more greens and ambers than reds.
- Use the reference intake % to decide whether that food is a good choice.
- See if other similar products have lower amounts of sugar, fats and salts.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1716-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 4390,
"total-output-tokens": 758,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1298,
1
],
[
1298,
2123,
2
],
[
2123,
2995,
3
]
]
} |
58fc446c2b4c60712f22385b1fb0f539dd88ca3a | The economic and social benefits associated with Further Education and Skills: Learning for those not in employment
London Economics and Ipsos MORI
AUGUST 2013 About London Economics
London Economics is one of Europe's leading specialist economics and policy consultancies and has its head office in London. We also have offices in Brussels, Dublin, Cardiff and Budapest, and associated offices in Paris and Valletta.
We advise clients in both the public and private sectors on economic and financial analysis, policy development and evaluation, business strategy, and regulatory and competition policy. Our consultants are highly-qualified economists with experience in applying a wide variety of analytical techniques to assist our work, including cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria analysis, policy simulation, scenario building, statistical analysis and mathematical modelling. We are also experienced in using a wide range of data collection techniques including literature reviews, survey questionnaires, interviews and focus groups.
Head Office: 71-75 Shelton Street, London, WC2H 9JQ, United Kingdom. w: www.londecon.co.uk e: [email protected] t: +44 (0)20 7866 8185 f: +44 (0)20 7866 8186 @LE_Education
The Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute
Ipsos MORI's Social Research Institute is the leader in public sector research, helping policy and decision-makers understand what works. We bridge the gap between government and the public, providing robust research and analysis to help clients evaluate what works.
Clients include government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts, charities and NGOs, social enterprises, think-tanks and police forces. We also work with a wide range of multinational organisations on international studies across policy areas. Our work for individual clients covers just about all type of social research, including: policy formulation and testing; citizen and service user satisfaction studies; evaluations of impact; communications and branding work; social marketing research; and stakeholder audits.
Head Office, 79-81 Borough Road, London SE1 1FY, United Kingdom www.ipsos-mori.com
t: +44 (0)20 7347 3000 f: +44 (0)20 7347 3800 Contents
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ 5 Reasons for choice of learning and provider.............................................................................. 5 Reasons for choice of provider ..................................................................................................... 5 How learners found out about the course and referral routes...................................................... 6 Prior assessment .......................................................................................................................... 6 Waiting times................................................................................................................................. 6 The role and effectiveness of information, advice and guidance .................................................. 6 Reasons for non completion/ factors that would have assisted completion................................. 7 Course perceptions ....................................................................................................................... 7 Economic benefits associated with learning ................................................................................. 8 Perceived additionality – would they have achieved the benefits anyway? ................................. 9 The impact of learning on potential progression and further skills acquisition ............................ 9 Wider benefits associated with learning...................................................................................... 10 Satisfaction and well-being ......................................................................................................... 10
Introduction and Terms of reference .......................................................................................... 12 Comparison of the Individual Learner Record and sample information ..................................... 13 Presentation of descriptive statistics relating to population and sample of learners .................... 13 Additional information about sample ............................................................................................ 14 Qualification take up and learners’ prior attainment .................................................................... 15
Results and findings..................................................................................................................... 18 Economic characteristics of learners .......................................................................................... 18 Reasons for choice of training and prior expectations ................................................................. 20 Main reason for choosing provider ............................................................................................ 23 How learners found out about the course and referral ................................................................. 28 Prior assessment .......................................................................................................................... 29 The effectiveness of information, advice and guidance ................................................................. 33 Reasons for non completion/ factors that would have assisted completion .......................... 36 Course perceptions ............................................................................................................. 38 Course ease ..................................................................................................................... 39 Economic benefits associated with learning ................................................................. 40 Employment, job satisfaction and further learning ....................................................... 40 Current economic status ............................................................................................... 47 Perceived additionality – would employment outcomes have been achieved anyway? .... 50 The impact of learning on potential progression and further skills acquisition ............ 53 Wider social benefits associated with learning ............................................................. 55 Satisfaction and wellbeing ............................................................................................. 57 Annex 1 Methodological approach .................................................................................. 60 Survey population and sample frame ............................................................................ 60 Sample size and design ................................................................................................. 60 Questionnaire development and piloting ....................................................................... 60 Response rates ............................................................................................................... 61 Weighting ....................................................................................................................... 62 Annex 2 Additional information on sample .................................................................... 63 Assessment of match and reliability of sample ............................................................. 63 Executive summary
Ipsos MORI and London Economics were commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to undertake a detailed analysis of the benefits associated with Further Education and Skills for learners not in employment. The findings in this report are based on a telephone survey of 1,955 learners not in employment who received or completed their learning in 2011/12. In addition to focusing on the wider benefits associated with learning and qualification attainment, the research also explores learners’ reasons for undertaking the course; the role and effectiveness of information, advice and guidance (IAG); reasons for non-completion; and what might have happened in the absence of publicly funded training. This piece of analysis follows an earlier analysis of a wider population of 4,000 FE learners¹, and many of the results, especially in relation to the economic and social outcomes associated with education, training and skills acquisition are comparable between the studies.
Reasons for choice of learning and provider
Two in five learners (39%) undertook the course to improve their job prospects or raise their income, while a similar proportion (41%) wanted to gain new skills (including 11% who chose the course because it was a stepping stone to further learning). A minority were primarily motivated by wider benefits such as ‘meeting new people’ or ‘building self-confidence’ (cited by 3% each). These patterns mirror the findings observed among FE learners more generally.
Learners undertaking Level 1 and Level 2 qualifications were significantly more likely than those doing Entry Level courses to cite job-related prospects as the primary reason for their decision to undertake learning. Among the latter group, there was greater emphasis on gaining new skills and progression onto further or higher qualifications.
Learners’ motivations were also closely linked to their life-stage. For example, learners aged 25-39 were most likely to cite job-related factors, whilst younger learners (aged 19-24) were most likely to be doing the learning in order to progress to further learning at a higher level. Learners aged 40 plus were most motivated by skills acquisition per se.
Reasons for choice of provider
The main reason for learners’ choice of provider was the convenience of location (cited by 43%). Small minorities of respondents chose the provider because they offered a specific course of interest (8%), offered courses at convenient times (7%), offered good facilities (7%) or had a good reputation (3%). Personal recommendations was also a factor, with 14% choosing the provider as a result of a recommendation from either a Jobcentre Plus or a National Careers Service advisor, while 3% of respondents each mentioned the recommendations of a careers advisor at school or recommendations from parents/family or friends.
As would be expected, learners with caring responsibilities were more likely than average to cite convenient location and times as the main reasons for their choice of provider.
¹ “The impact of Further Education Learning”, BIS Research Report 104, January 2013 (here) Just 3% of learners indicated that they had no choice in the matter because the course was mandatory (Jobcentre Plus or the National Careers Service chose the provider).
**How learners found out about the course and referral routes**
Half of learners (51%) found out about the course themselves (i.e. self-referred). Almost a quarter of learners (22%) were told about it by a Jobcentre Plus adviser and a similar proportion (24%) found out through another organisation or individual. Just 3% reported finding out about the course through the National Careers Service (formerly Next Step(^2)). This figure may underestimate the role of the National Careers Service in encouraging individuals to undertake the learning and training, given that 24% of men and 19% of women who heard about the course from a Jobcentre Plus advisor were also referred to an interview with a National Careers Service advisor(^3).
Among learners who heard about the course through a Jobcentre Plus advisor, a quarter (or 7% of the overall sample) was told that they would risk losing their benefit if they failed to attend an interview with the National Careers Service advisor and/or the learning provider. Younger learners and learners attempting lower qualification levels were more likely to have been informed of the potential benefit sanction.
**Prior assessment**
Three in five learners (61%) indicated that someone had asked them about their prior qualification attainment before commencing the learning or training, and 66% reported that some assessment of their English, Maths or language skills had been undertaken. In only 57% of cases was there any discussion of how the training might help the learner get a job. Younger learners (aged 19-24) were more likely than learners aged 40 plus to recall having been asked about prior qualification attainment, being assessed for their English, Maths and languages skills or having a discussion on how the training will help them find work.
**Waiting times**
Over half of learners (53%) waited less than 2 weeks before starting the learning and an additional 26% waited between 2 and 4 weeks. Younger learners waited longer between being referred and starting their training (44% commenced within 2 weeks compared with 54% of learners aged 25-39 and 61% of learners aged 40 plus). There was a relatively rapid training start for learners attempting Level 1 qualifications - 63% commenced their training within 2 weeks of referral compared with 33% of learners undertaking a Level 3 and 28% of learners undertaking a Level 4.
**The role and effectiveness of information, advice and guidance**
The majority of learners felt well informed about their course (measured in terms of ‘net positives’). Specifically 80% felt well informed about the course content and the subjects that would be covered; 74% and 78% of men and women (respectively) felt well informed
______________________________________________________________________
(^2) Next Step was replaced by the National Careers Service in April 2012, but would have advised many of the learners in this survey. The use of the term NCS covers both Next Step and NCS provision.
(^3) There is no information on whether the National Careers Service advisor provided advice on the training and prompted the referral about the amount and standard of the work required of them. Substantive information on whether to study the course ‘in one go’ or in units appeared less prevalent - 67% felt well informed on this. The areas of information advice and guidance where learners considered themselves to be the least well informed (in relative terms) related to the labour market potential of the learning – just 54% felt well informed on the potential of the course to get them a good job/career and 64% feeling well informed on how the training would help them gain skills to use in a job. These results are very similar those generated in the preceding analysis focusing on the wider population of FE learners.
There is a correlation between the degree to which individuals believed they were well informed and course completion. Learners who had completed their course or training were between 5 and 12 percentage points more likely to recall feeling well informed in relation to the content of the course; the amount of work required; how the course would help them gain job-related skills; and labour market potential.
**Reasons for non completion/ factors that would have assisted completion**
Among learners who failed to complete their course, half stated that the primary reasons were personal or circumstantial, such as family or health related issues (with a greater impact on women than on men). However, this may be somewhat deceptive, as in a quarter of these cases, respondents indicated that the main reason that they did not complete the learning aim was because they found work.
In 18% of cases, the primary reason was course-related (15% for women and 22% for men). Time pressures and workload issues impacted course completion for 20% of men and 19% of women while in only 6% of cases did respondents cite financial concerns as the primary reason for non-completion.
**Course perceptions**
Completers were exceptionally positive about their learning experience: 93% of women and 88% of men were satisfied with their course; only 5% of women and 9% of men were dissatisfied. In aggregate, the results presented here are approximately 3 percentage points more positive compared to the course perception estimates generated in the wider analysis of FE learners.
Younger learners (aged 19-24) were marginally less satisfied with their course although still exceptionally positive. Specifically, 84% of younger learners were ‘fairly satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ compared with 93% and 91% (respectively) of learners aged 25-39 and 40 plus.
Learners undertaking Entry level, Level 1 or Level 2 qualifications were more likely to be satisfied with their course compared with those undertaking Level 4 qualifications (94%, 88% and 92% respectively compared with 81% at Level 4).
______________________________________________________________________
4 The association between the two variables does not imply causation, as it could be the case that those learners failing to complete may have assessed the information, advice and guidance as being not particularly worthwhile as a result of failure to complete. Economic benefits associated with learning
The survey asked respondents to provide some information on the economic benefits that might have been associated with course completion. Completers (only) were asked to indicate their employment status following the conclusion of their learning aim.
There were large and significant economic benefits associated with undertaking and completing learning and training: 15% of men and 13% of women were in full-time paid employment after completion, while 11% of men and 20% of women were in part-time work. A further 4% of men and 2% of women were self-employed. Combining these estimates implies that 30% of men and 35% of women were in employment following the completion of their course. A further 7% of men and 13% of women were in voluntary or unpaid employment.
The information collected also indicates that the position gained was more often than not permanent in nature (58% of cases compared to 39% of employment opportunities that were temporary). In addition, there was some degree of employment persistence - 71% of men and 84% of women were still in the same employment position. However, of the 20% of respondents indicating that the job had actually come to an end, 50% indicated that their job duration was less than 3 months with a further 32% indicating the job duration was between 3 and 6 months.
There were some slight distinctions in the employment outcomes of learners by age. Although 29% of younger completers were in employment immediately post completion, the balance between full-time and part-time work was more uneven. Specifically, only 9% of completers aged 19-24 were in full-time employment (compared with 14% of completers overall), with 20% in part-time employment (compared with 16% of completers overall). The fragility of the employment outcome achieved by younger workers post-completion is also reflected in the proportion of younger respondents indicating that the job was temporary in nature (55%), the proportion stating that the job had ended (31%) or mentioning that the position had lasted for less than 6 months (95%). This compares to estimates of approximately 35%, 18% and 80% respectively for workers aged 25 plus.
The employment opportunities were associated with relatively low levels of earnings, although this is unsurprising given that pre-employment training (through Jobcentre Plus) is primarily aimed at entry level positions. For men, the annual earnings in the job immediately following completion were less than £10,000 per annum in 45% of cases and between £10,000 and £15,000 in a further 25% of cases, while more than 76% of women achieved annual earnings of less than £15,000 per annum (60% below £10,000 and 16% between £10,000 and £15,000). Earnings in excess of £25,000 were achieved by less than 1%.
______________________________________________________________________
5 Although not directly comparable, the main survey of FE learners indicated that following the receipt of education and training, 35% of men and 29% of women indicated that they had got a better job, while 18% of men and 12% of women indicated that they had received a promotion.
6 Note that of those individuals that stated they were engaged in voluntary work or unpaid work prior to the learning aim, the analysis suggests that approximately 31% were still undertaking voluntary or unpaid work. 20% indicated they were working as an employee; 38% were unemployed; 5% were looking after their home or family, while 4% indicated they were not working either because of temporary or long term illness or disability.
7 Information from the LFS indicates that 94% of employees are in permanent positions while 6% in temporary positions (LFS 2012 Q1).
8 In the wider economy, approximately 7.0% of employees have been with their current employer for less than 6 months, with a further 6.4% employed for with their current employer for between 6 months and 1 year (LFS 2012 Q1). However, against these positive outcomes, half of completers were not in employment following the completion of their course or training (57% of men and 45% of women). When asked about the reasons for not being in employment, the responses highlight the extent to which learners are either ‘close’ or ‘distant’ from the active labour market. In particular, of those not actively seeking employment, 21% were waiting for the completion of the course or on the results of a job application. However, 22% were not seeking employment because of childcare of family responsibilities, with a further 33% of these learners citing health reasons for the decision not to actively seek work (42% of men compared to 27% of women). One in seven learners (14%) indicated that they were either retired, in training or faced language barriers. In only 1% of cases do respondents mention that the lack of qualifications or experience affected their job-search activities.
**Perceived additionality – would they have achieved the benefits anyway?**
Completers who were in employment were asked to consider the extent to which the training undertaken had contributed to them finding work. Although the sample sizes are particularly small(^9), the analysis suggests that 44% of completers in employment thought they would have found work anyway. An additional 35% of completers in-work indicated they would have found work though not as quickly, while 21% believed they would either ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ not found employment in the absence of the training. Men were more likely to state that they would have found work anyway in the absence of training (89% compared with 72% of women).
**The impact of learning on potential progression and further skills acquisition**
In addition to the direct economic effect associated with training in the form of enhanced employment and earnings outcomes, the analysis strongly suggests that undertaking training has a strong positive effect on learners’ views in relation to further learning and training. For example, 84% of learners had become more enthusiastic about learning (81% of men and 86% of women), and this compares favourably to the 80% of completers in the main FE learner survey indicating that they had become more positive about learning.
There was also an impact on whether further training and learning might take place, with 86% of women and 83% of men indicating that they were more likely to undertake further learning, as well as an increase in the likelihood that further training would be undertaken at a higher level (80% of women and 78% of men). The findings support the widely held belief that training leads to further training and acts as a stepping stone to higher and more economically productive skills acquisition.
Younger learners (aged 19-24) were 5 percentage points more likely to undertake further learning and training compared with learners aged 40 plus, and 15 percentage points more likely to undertake further learning at a higher level. Learners aged 25-39 were the most enthusiastic about learning (86%), the most likely to undertake further learning and training (89%) and the most likely to undertake further learning at a higher level (84%). These outcomes may reflect the fact that these learners were better informed about the impact of
______________________________________________________________________
(^9) Only 295 individuals responded to the question, which is 15% of the total sample. their learning on their career prospects and the associated economic value associated with skills acquisition.
As would be expected, there were significant differences in perceived outcomes among learners depending on completion status. Completers were 11 percentage points more likely to be more enthusiastic about learning (86% compared with 75% of non-completers); 9 percentage points more likely to consider undertaking further education and training (86% compared with 77% of non-completers); and 20 percentage points more likely to undertake additional learning at a higher level (84% compared with 64% of non-completers). These differences between the views of completers and non-completers are again comparable with the results of the previous survey of FE learners.
**Wider benefits associated with learning**
Learners were also asked for their views on the wider benefits of learning. Four in five (81%) said they had gained self-confidence or self-esteem following the training episode and 72% had made new friends or taken part in voluntary work. Three quarters (76%) said that it had helped them make better use of their spare time and 30% mentioned that the course had enabled them to assist their children with school work. There were some gender differences (especially in relation to the ability to assist children with school work) although in general these are relatively small. Only 5% of learners indicated that the course had had none of the wider economic benefits presented.
Three quarters of learners (75%) indicated that they now had a better idea of what to do with their lives, and 66% stated that their quality of life had improved as a result of undertaking the education and training activity. Training appeared to provide some degree of additional direction to younger learners (aged 19-24) with 83% stating that this was the case, while 73% of younger learners indicated that the learning had improved their quality of life.
As would be expected, differences by completion status persist with completers significantly more likely than non-completers to report wider benefits. For example, completers are 10 percentage points more likely to report gaining self-confidence or self-esteem; 24 percentage points more likely to undertake social or voluntary work; 7 percentage points more likely to indicate that the training has assisted them in helping their children with their studies; 8 percentage points more likely to respond that they now make better use of their spare time; and 6 percentage points less likely to indicate that the training had impacted none of the above. In addition, 78% of completers also mentioned that their quality of life had improved compared to 53% of non-completers.
Again, these results are very similar to those generated as part of the analysis of the wider sample of FE learners, both at an aggregate and disaggregated level.
**Satisfaction and well-being**
In a final element of analysis, information was collected on learners’ general well being. The analysis suggests that there are differences between men and women in response to the question “overall, how satisfied are you with life nowadays?” with women generally being more positive about their circumstances compared to men (a score of 7.26 compared with 6.52 for men), although these general wellbeing measures do lag behind comparable estimates for the population as a whole (7.40\\textsuperscript{10}). The equivalent estimates generated as part of the previous analysis of FE learners stood at 7.57 and 7.40 respectively. In response to the question “overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life area worthwhile?”, women also indicated that they were more content, posting an average score of 7.71 compared with 7.05 for men.
We also considered whether a person's employment status had an impact on general wellbeing measures. We found that learners in employment post-completion of their learning aim were more likely to give high scores compared with those not in employment (8.63 compared with 7.49 among those who were not in employment), which in part explains the differences in the satisfaction measures between the more general population of FE learners and the current analysis of learners not in employment.
\\textsuperscript{10} ONS (2011). The mean measure of subjective well being using the same question as adopted in this survey stood at 7.40. See http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/initial-investigation-of-subjective-well-being---ons-opinions-survey/initial-investigation-of-subjective-well-being---ons-opinions-survey-nr.html for more information (accessed 25 July 2012) Introduction and Terms of reference
Ipsos MORI and London Economics were commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills undertake a detailed exploration of the economic, education and training related and wider benefits associated with Further Education and Skills for learners not in employment.
Ipsos MORI undertook a telephone survey of a representative sample of 1,955 learners from the Individual Learner Record between February – March 2012 (Annex 1 contains full details on the methodology). The analysis in this report assesses the economic outcomes associated with learning and skills acquisition (such as employment and earnings), as well as education and training related outcomes (such as respondents’ appetite for learning and training progression). We also address the wider benefits associated with learning including general well-being levels, but also the extent to which undertaking training and learning impacted on learners’ social well-being (such as improved self-confidence, self-esteem etc). The analysis is presented at both an aggregated and disaggregated level. The report is set out as follows:
In the section “Comparison of the Individual Learner Record and sample information” we present some summary descriptive statistics relating to the composition of the achieved sample and the extent to which the personal and socioeconomic characteristics of this sample match those of the population of learners from the ILR.
In the “Results and findings” section, we provide further information on the economic characteristics of the sample of learners, and in the subsequent sub-sections, provide an analysis of the primary reasons for undertaking training in the first instance and the choice of provider, the role and effectiveness of information, advice and guidance and referral routes. We then provide a more detailed examination of the outcomes associated with learning. First, we consider the extent to which learners completed their learning aim, and the dominant reasons why learners may have failed to complete their course of learning. We also address the perceptions that learners had towards the learning that they undertook in terms of their satisfaction with the course undertaken and the difficulty of the course. In the final sub-sections of the chapter, we assess the core-economic, training and learning related outcomes, as well as the wider social outcomes associated with further education and learning. Comparison of the Individual Learner Record and sample information
Presentation of descriptive statistics relating to population and sample of learners
In Table 1, we present information on some of the basic socioeconomic characteristics of the weighted sample alongside information on the characteristics of the learner body from which the sample was taken. The descriptive statistics indicate that there is strong comparability over many of the variables that were used to sample the learner data, including gender, level of qualification and age of attainment.
| Table 1: Comparison of information from ILR (2011/12) and weighted sample | |-----------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------| | | Population | Sample | | Gender | | | | Male | 19,930 | 874 | | Female | 24,631 | 1081 | | Age | | | | 19-24 | 13,170 | 579 | | 25-39 | 16,922 | 742 | | 40+ | 14,469 | 634 | | Qualification Aim | | | | Entry level | 4,246 | 188 | | Level 1 | 8,948 | 393 | | Level 2 | 23,805 | 1042 | | Level 3 | 7,098 | 313 | | Level 4 | 464 | 20 | | Ethnic Origin | | | | White – British | 27,846 | 1,280 | | White – other | 3,142 | 89 | | Bangladeshi | 547 | 26 | | Indian | 1,169 | 59 | | Pakistani | 1,785 | 82 | | Asian other | 1,290 | 43 | | Black African | 3,310 | 148 | | Black Caribbean | 1,477 | 33 | | Black other | 703 | 33 | | Chinese | 188 | 10 | | Mixed | 1,403 | 62 | | Any other | 1258 | 59 | | Not known/ provided | 443 | 1 | | Attainment | | | | Completed - fully achieved | 12,310 | 865 | | Continuing | 21,880 | 810 | | Failed/withdrawn | 9,366 | 281 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample – 1,955.
The analysis from Table 1 indicates that although there is a close match on a number of the variables, there are some small differences between the sample and the initial source. of learner information. In particular, the sample contains a slightly higher proportion of individuals that indicate they are white-British (65% compared to 62% from the 2011/12 ILR), but also a slightly higher proportion indicating that they are Indian (3.0% compared to 2.6% from the 2011/12 ILR) and a slightly lower proportion of respondents that indicate they are White-other (4% compared to 7% from the 2011/12 ILR). It should be noted that some of these last differences in the sample are driven by the fact that only a very low proportion of the sample refused or did not provide information relating to ethnic origin.
One area where there was some difference in the characteristics of learners related to the extent of learning aim completion. Specifically, although the sample drawn from the 2011/12 ILR indicated that 28% of learners fully achieved their learning aim, the corresponding proportion in the achieved sample of respondents stood at 44%. In contrast, the proportion of learners drawn from the ILR that were classified as having failed or withdrawn from their learning aim stood at 21% compared to 14% in the achieved sample. The differences in attainment outcomes between the sample of respondents and the sample drawn from the ILR may result in providing a more optimistic view of the aggregate impact of qualification attainment as a whole.
Additional information about sample
In terms of the other data collected as part of the survey, Table 2 provides some additional information on the personal and socioeconomic characteristics of learners.
| Table 2: Personal characteristics of learner sample | |-----------------------------------------------| | Male | Female | Total | |------|--------|-------| | **Age** | | | | 19-24 | 351 | 40.1% | 229 | 21.1% | 579 | 29.6% | | 25-39 | 276 | 31.6% | 466 | 43.1% | 742 | 37.9% | | 40+ | 248 | 28.3% | 387 | 35.8% | 634 | 32.4% | | **Marital Status** | | | | Single | 614 | 70.3% | 503 | 46.5% | 1,117 | 57.1% | | Married | 166 | 19.0% | 360 | 33.3% | 527 | 26.9% | | Civil partner | 32 | 3.7% | 30 | 2.8% | 62 | 3.2% | | Separated/Divorced/ Widowed | 61 | 7.0% | 188 | 17.4% | 249 | 12.8% | | **Children** | | | | Yes | 218 | 25.0% | 578 | 53.5% | 796 | 40.7% | | No | 655 | 75.0% | 508 | 46.5% | 1,157 | 59.3% | | **If 'yes', number of children** | | | | One | 79 | 36.1% | 186 | 32.2% | 265 | 33.3% | | Two | 76 | 35.0% | 236 | 40.8% | 312 | 39.2% | | Three | 47 | 21.6% | 113 | 19.5% | 160 | 20.1% | | Four | 11 | 5.1% | 34 | 5.8% | 45 | 5.6% | | Five or more | 5 | 2.2% | 9 | 1.6% | 14 | 1.8% | | **If 'yes', age of youngest child** | | | | up to 5 years | 96 | 35.9% | 186 | 35.4% | 282 | 41.9% | | 6-10 years | 56 | 20.8% | 220 | 42.0% | 275 | 40.9% | | 11-15 years | 93 | 34.5% | 60 | 11.5% | 34 | 5.0% | | 16-18 years | 24 | 8.9% | 57 | 10.8% | 81 | 12.0% | | refused | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 0.3% | 2 | 0.3% | | **Health problems** | | | | Yes | 208 | 23.9% | 184 | 17.0% | 392 | 20.1% | | No | 664 | 76.1% | 897 | 83.0% | 1,561 | 79.9% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample =1,955. The information indicates that although the sample is broadly reflective of the pool of learners contained within the ILR, there are some differences between men and women. In particular, the sample of learners appears to contain a larger proportion of male learners between the ages of 19 and 24 (40% of all male learners compared to 21% amongst female learners), while the largest category of female learners is in the 25-39 age group (43% compared to 32% of men). Possibly reflecting this difference in age structure, there are also differences in the marital status according to gender, with 70% of men being single and 23% being married or in a civil partnership (compared to 46% of women indicating they are single and 36% responding that they are either married or in a civil partnership). Similarly, women are significantly more likely to indicate that they have a dependent child (53% compared to 25%) although there is little difference across genders in the age of the youngest child.
**Qualification take up and learners’ prior attainment**
Between Table 3 and Table 5, we present information on the highest qualification held by respondents at the start of the course and the qualification type (both variables are self-reported by respondents). One point to note is that we collect no information on the length of the qualification, or any information on whether the learning aim was a stand-alone qualification or a unit contributing to a full qualification.
Around one eighth of the sample is in possession of a qualification at level 4 or above, with around 14% and 24% in possession of a qualification at Level 3 and Level 2 respectively. More than 33% of survey participants reported that they have either no formally recognised qualifications or were in possession of qualifications at Level 1. There was limited variation across gender, with one-third of men and women of men in possession of low or no qualifications.
| Qualification Level | Male | Female | Total | |---------------------|------|--------|-------| | No qualifications | 113 | 118 | 231 | | Below level 2 | 177 | 242 | 419 | | level 2 | 233 | 244 | 478 | | level 3 | 135 | 140 | 275 | | level 4 or above | 87 | 154 | 241 | | Other | 79 | 127 | 205 | | Don’t know | 51 | 56 | 107 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample =1,955.
Turning to the disaggregated analysis of the qualifications undertaken, the majority of respondents (34%) identified the qualification aim undertaken as an Award, Certificate or Diploma, followed by National Vocational Qualifications, City & Guilds and BTECs (around 14%, 11% and 10% respectively). Again, there is some variation by gender, with women less likely than men to undertake a BTEC (7% vs. 14%) or a City & Guilds qualification (9% vs. 15%) and more likely to undertake a qualification defined as Award, Certificate or Diploma (36% vs. 31%).
______________________________________________________________________
11 Note that using information from the Labour Force Survey (2012 Q1), the proportion of unemployed individuals in possession of no qualifications stands at 23.4%, while a further 14.8% are in possession of qualifications below Level 2. Approximately 21% of learners have Level 2 qualifications or a trade apprenticeship (compared to 24% in Table 3, while 13% have Level 3 qualification (compared to 14% in Table 3). Therefore, although the aggregate proportion in possession of either low or no qualifications is broadly equivalent, the sample of learners responding to this survey is marginally more qualified. Further details on level of prior achievement and qualification type are presented in Table 5, where we provide a cross-tab of the two variables. Looking at the distribution of qualification type by prior achievement, we can see that almost half of the respondents with no prior qualifications reported to have undertaken an Award, Certificate or Diploma (42%), compared to only 30% of respondents with prior achievement at Level 1 or Entry level. The next most popular qualification across all prior ability levels are National Vocational Qualifications which are undertaken by between 12% and 15% of learners (although with a slight dip in the proportion of learners with prior attainment at Level 2 and Level 3). The next most common vocational qualifications undertaken are City & Guilds and BTEC qualifications, where 15% of learners undertaking City & Guilds qualifications have either low or no formally recognised qualifications (compared to 3% of learners undertaking BTEC qualifications).
As a note of caution, it should be remembered that some categories, such as Awards, Certificates or Diplomas may cover a variety of different courses and also some respondents may be unable to identify a specific aim title and therefore indicate a general term (such as award etc.) For instance “Awards, Certificates and Diplomas” are offered by a number of different awarding bodies, including many of those listed previously, so it is impossible to say, for example, that there were 207 learners on a City & Guilds course (final column, fifth row), as there may have been more learners undertaking City & Guilds qualifications identified within the Awards, Certificates and Diplomas category.
### Table 5: Level of prior achievement and qualifications undertaken
| Qualification | No Quals. | Below level 2 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 or above | Other/ don’t know | Total | |-------------------------------|-----------|---------------|---------|---------|------------------|-------------------|-------| | Advanced award/Cert./Dip. | 0.7% | 2.7% | 3.4% | 6.5% | 3.0% | 4.1% | 64 | | Award/Certificate/Diploma | 42.0% | 29.7% | 32.9% | 29.3% | 42.2% | 34.5% | 623 | | GCSE | 10.5% | 13.6% | 9.2% | 10.4% | 4.4% | 9.5% | 181 | | BTEC | 2.8% | 8.5% | 16.6% | 11.6% | 3.0% | 8.4% | 176 | | City & Guilds | 14.7% | 14.3% | 9.3% | 12.5% | 8.8% | 9.3% | 207 | | RSA | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.2% | 2 | | GNVQ | 2.3% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.7% | 0.2% | 9 | | NVQ | 12.9% | 15.7% | 13.4% | 12.4% | 15.1% | 11.9% | 249 | | GCE A level | 1.5% | 1.4% | 3.5% | 1.1% | 1.3% | 3.7% | 41 | | AS level | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 0.3% | 3 | | Key Skills | 1.7% | 3.2% | 3.1% | 4.6% | 3.3% | 1.7% | 54 | | ECDL | 1.2% | 2.9% | 1.7% | 2.2% | 7.9% | 2.3% | 52 | | ITQ | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.4% | 1.3% | 0.4% | 8 | | OCR | 0.3% | 1.1% | 0.2% | 1.6% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 10 | | BCS | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | 7 | | Other | 3.9% | 2.5% | 2.0% | 4.4% | 5.3% | 6.5% | 69 | | Don’t know/ No answer | 4.6% | 3.7% | 3.7% | 2.0% | 2.0% | 6.1% | 69 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample – 1,822. Results and findings
Economic characteristics of learners
In terms of the economic characteristics of learners, the analysis presented in Table 6 indicates that only 1.5% of learners were in self-employed immediately prior to commencing the qualification, while 3% were undertaking voluntary work or unpaid work; however, this in essence reflects the initial decision to only sample those individuals contained in the ILR indicating that they were not in employment. Given this initial sample selection the largest grouping of learners consisted of those individuals that were unemployed and looking for work (56% of men and 48% of women).
Table 6: Economic characteristics of learners – total and by gender
| Employment status prior to course? | Male | Female | Total | |-----------------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Self-employed | 13 | 16 | 29 | | Undertaking voluntary or unpaid work | 40 | 22 | 62 | | Doing a course/training a college/training provider | 254 | 249 | 503 | | Unemployed and looking for work | 495 | 494 | 989 | | Looking after the family or home | 15 | 203 | 218 | | Sick or injured | 50 | 39 | 89 | | Retired | 7 | 8 | 16 | | Other | 14 | 5 | 19 |
| In receipt of benefits? | Male | Female | Total | |-------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Yes | 582 | 763 | 1345 | | No | 280 | 303 | 584 |
| If “yes”, which benefits | Male | Female | Total | |--------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Jobseekers’ Allowance | 407 | 308 | 715 | | Income support | 54 | 209 | 263 | | Incapacity benefit/ESA | 84 | 62 | 146 | | Housing benefit/council tax | 83 | 130 | 214 | | Child tax credit/working family tax credit | 58 | 323 | 381 | | Disability Living Allowance/carers allowance | 26 | 32 | 58 | | Child Benefit/EMA | 16 | 41 | 57 | | Pension | 1 | 9 | 10 | | Other | 21 | 24 | 45 |
| Working history | Male | Female | Total | |-----------------|------|--------|-------| | Never worked | 156 | 199 | 355 | | Spent most of my time not working | 129 | 167 | 296 | | Spent about as much time working as not working | 116 | 143 | 259 | | Worked solidly with one or two breaks | 305 | 408 | 713 | | Worked solidly without a break | 142 | 139 | 281 |
| Main barrier to employment | Male | Female | Total | |-----------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Lack of qualifications/skills/work experience | 253 | 305 | 558 | | No suitable jobs/vacancies | 214 | 180 | 394 | | Health, disability, age | 141 | 148 | 289 | | Lack of childcare /look after family members | 14 | 152 | 166 | | Language barrier/waiting for VISA | 16 | 35 | 51 | | Not looking for work/working PT | 19 | 29 | 48 | | Local transport/local jobcentre unhelpful | 20 | 9 | 29 | | Criminal record, motivations, pers. circumstances/ other | 37 | 53 | 90 | | No barriers/ don’t know/no answer | 268 | 327 | 595 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955. Questions in relation to the nature of benefit receipt asked of only those respondents indicating that received benefits (n=1,345) In terms of other economic activity, 29% of men and 24% of women were undertaking a course or training at a college or training provider immediately prior to commencing the qualification, while a further 20% of women (and 2% of men) were engaged in home care and family responsibilities. Around 1 in 20 of the sample of respondents indicated that they were sick or disabled (6% of men and 4% of women).
Over two thirds of respondents (66% of men and 71% of women) were in receipt of benefits (69% of the overall sample), with the greatest proportion in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance. There are some large differences between men and women. Of those benefit claimants, 54% of men indicated they were in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance compared to 27% of women. However, a further 7% of male benefit claimants and 18% of female benefit claimants were in receipt of Income Support. The next largest incidence of benefit receipt related to Child Tax credit/Working Family Tax Credits (8% of male benefit claimants and 28% of female benefit claimants). Finally, one in ten learners was in receipt of either Incapacity Benefit or Disability Living Allowance.
In terms of working histories, half (51%) of learners had been in employment (either solidly or with one or two breaks), with little differentiation between the sexes. Just over one in ten (13%) of learners had spent an equal amount of time in employment and out of work, while the remaining 33% indicated that they have either never worked (18%) or spent most of their time not in work (15%).
The survey also asked learners about the extent to which there were barriers preventing them from entering employment. Three-in-ten respondents (30%) indicated that there were no barriers stopping them from returning to work. However, the greatest barrier to employment mentioned was the perceived lack of qualifications or work experience (accounting for 29% of learners). In relation to other barriers to employment, 20% of learners not in employment responded that there were no suitable jobs or vacancies, while a further 15% of respondents indicated that they had a health problem or disability. As with a number of other studies of this nature, the availability of high quality or affordable childcare was perceived as a significant barrier in the return-to-work decision for women with 14% citing this as the primary barrier. Reasons for choice of training and prior expectations
Table 7 provides information on the main reason why individuals undertook learning in the first instance. Two in five learners (39%) were motivated by economic or job related factors – that is to improve their job prospects, gain a new career or to augment their income. Men were marginally more likely to undertake additional learning and training for economic or job related reasons compared to women.
Table 7: Reasons for choice of training – by gender
| Main reason for undertaking course? | Male | Female | Total | |-----------------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Improve my job prospects/get a new job or new career | 340 38.9% | 401 37.1% | 742 37.9% | | To increase my income | 8 0.9% | 14 1.3% | 22 1.1% | | To learn something new/gain new skills | 252 28.8% | 334 30.8% | 586 30.0% | | Personal interest in the course | 1 0.1% | 2 0.1% | 3 0.1% | | To go on to further or higher learning | 108 12.3% | 105 9.7% | 213 10.9% | | To meet new people/build my self confidence | 23 2.6% | 43 3.9% | 65 3.3% | | Because it was at a time/place that suited me | 8 0.9% | 15 1.4% | 24 1.2% | | Because I did not have to pay for it | 8 0.9% | 5 0.5% | 13 0.6% | | National Careers Service or JCP adviser told me about it | 8 0.9% | 10 1.0% | 19 0.9% | | Mandatory | 2 0.2% | - | 2 0.1% | | Recommended by family/friends/employer/tutor | 2 0.2% | - | 2 0.1% | | To help/ support my (grand)children with homework | 0 0.0% | 1 0.1% | 1 0.1% | | Other | 82 12.8% | 128 13.8% | 210 13.3% | | Total | 842 100.0% | 1058 100.0% | 1,902 100.0% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,902
Two in five learners (41%) undertook training to further their skills and training including 30% who wanted to learn something new or to gain new skills, while 11% of respondents indicated that they undertook the additional learning in order to go on and undertake some form of further or higher learning (12% for men and 10% for women). The options relating to wider potential benefits were less important for learners, with less than 3% mentioning ‘meeting new people’ or ‘building self confidence’ as the primary reason for engaging in learning. Reasons relating to convenience, the limited financial contribution or the mandatory nature of the course, were considered most important by less than 1% of learners.
When the equivalent analysis was undertaken by age group (Table 8), qualification level (Table 9) and referral route (Table 11), there were some interesting differences in the rationale for undertaking the learning or training. Specifically, individuals aged 25-39 were the most likely to engage in training for economic reasons (with 45% of these learners indicating that they had undertaken the additional education and training to improve their job prospects or gain a new career compared to 33% of younger learners and 40% of older learners).
Rather than focusing on the explicit economic impact associated with qualification attainment, for younger learners, the education and training undertaken was more often perceived as a stepping stone to further learning at a higher level (26% of 19-24 year olds compared to between 7% and 3% for those aged 25-39 and 40 plus, respectively). However, there may be a gap emerging from the responses of younger learners in the sense that although they are more likely to state that they undertook the specific learning aim to go onto to further of higher learning, they were less likely (compared to older learners) to indicate that they have undertaken the learning aim with the specific objective of learning something new or gaining a new skill. In this sense, younger learners’ appear to be more focussed on the process of undertaking learning (and perceive education and training to be more of a ‘consumption’ good) while older learners are more focused on the ultimate outcomes associated with qualification attainment (skills acquisition) and in this sense perceive qualification attainment to be more of an ‘investment’ good.
Table 8: Reasons for choice of training – by age
| Reason for choice of training | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | Improve job prospects/get a new job or new career | 179 | 319 | 244 | | To increase my income | 6 | 11 | 4 | | To learn something new/gain new skills | 137 | 226 | 223 | | Personal interest in the course | 3 | 0 | 0 | | To go on to further or higher learning | 144 | 52 | 17 | | To meet new people/build my self confidence | 11 | 22 | 35 | | Because it was at a time/place that suited me | 3 | 8 | 13 | | Because I did not have to pay for it | 5 | 4 | 4 | | National Careers Service or JCP adviser told me about it | 2 | 6 | 11 | | Mandatory | 2 | 0 | 0 | | Recommended by family/friends/employer/tutor | 0 | 2 | 0 | | To help/ support my (grand)children with homework | 0 | 1 | 0 | | Other | 58 | 79 | 73 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955.
There is also an increasing relationship between the relative importance of economic factors in determining whether additional learning is undertaken and qualification level. In particular, 27% of learners undertaking an Entry level qualification indicate the primary reason being economic related, compared to 38% of Level 1 learners and 44% of Level 2 learners (although the relationship is not strictly increasing beyond Level 2). Conversely, the need to learn something new, gain new skills and to go on to further or higher learning was considered to be the fundamental rationale for qualification attainment amongst those undertaking the lowest level learning aims. For those undertaking Entry level qualifications, the dominant reason for undertaking the learning aim related to the need or wish to learn something new or gain new skills (35%), while a further 15% indicated that they wanted to use the learning aim to progress onto further or higher qualification attainment (compared to 30% and 10% at Level 2 respectively).
Table 9: Reasons for choice of training – by level
| Reason for choice of training | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |------------------------------|-------|---|---|---|---| | Improve job prospects/get a new job or new career | 26.0% | 37.7% | 42.7% | 37.3% | 24.5% | | To increase my income | 1.2% | 0.6% | 1.1% | 1.7% | 5.1% | | To learn something new/gain new skills | 34.5% | 33.6% | 30.5% | 25.9% | 31.6% | | Personal interest in the course | 0.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.0% | | To go on to further or higher learning | 14.9% | 7.2% | 9.6% | 19.4% | 8.7% | | To meet new people/build my self confidence | 8.2% | 5.3% | 2.8% | 0.5% | 14.3% | | Because it was at a time/place that suited me | 2.0% | 1.6% | 1.2% | 0.7% | 0.0% | | Because I did not have to pay for it | 0.0% | 1.0% | 0.8% | 0.3% | 0.0% | | National Careers Service or JCP adviser told me about it | 0.6% | 2.2% | 0.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Mandatory | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Recommended by family/friends/employer/tutor | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | To help/ support my (grand)children with homework | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Other | 11.8% | 9.5% | 10.5% | 13.7% | 15.8% | | Total | 182 | 375 | 1015 | 308 | 20 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955. We also attempted to understand the extent to which the reasons for choice of training depended on the respondent’s economic status prior to commencing the programme of study. Looking at the categories with the most respondents (those who are unemployed and looking for work or in education and training), the analysis in Table 10 suggests that 44% of unemployed learners undertook the learning aim with the intention of improving their employment prospects (compared to 30% of respondents in education and training prior to commencing the learning aim in question), while approximately 32% of unemployed learners suggested that learning something new or gaining new skills was the main reason (compared to 21% of those in education and training). Only 6% of unemployed learners indicated that the primary reason related to going on to further or higher learning, which is substantially less than the 25% of respondents who are already in education and training. This information is presented in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Reasons for choice of training – by selected pre employment status
| Reason for Undertaking Course | Self-employed | Education / training | Voluntary Work | Unemployed | |-------------------------------|---------------|----------------------|----------------|------------| | Improve job prospects/get a new job or new career | 18.7% | 29.8% | 44.2% | 43.7% | | To increase my income | 3.5% | 2.1% | 0.0% | 0.9% | | To learn something new/gain new skills | 46.0% | 21.5% | 28.5% | 31.7% | | Personal interest in the course | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.1% | | To go on to further or higher learning | 5.9% | 24.7% | 2.6% | 5.8% | | To meet new people/build my self confidence | 5.2% | 2.8% | 3.2% | 3.1% | | Because it was at a time/place that suited me | 1.7% | 1.2% | 3.9% | 0.8% | | Because I did not have to pay for it | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 0.5% | | National Careers Service or JCP adviser told me about it | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 1.5% | | Mandatory | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.1% | | recommended by family/friends/employer/tutor | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | To help/support my (grand)children with homework | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | | Other | 19.0% | 16.3% | 17.6% | 11.6% | | Total | 29 | 496 | 93 | 989 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955.
Presented in Table 11, the variation in the reasons for undertaking additional education or training also depends on the referral route: 40% of individuals who self-refer indicate that they undertake the training for economic reasons, with an equivalent proportion (41%) mentioning that they wish to go onto to further or higher education, learn something new or gain a new qualification. For those individuals that were referred through a National Careers Service advisor, 58% mention that the primary reason for undertaking the learning aim was in order to go on to further or higher education (14%) or to learn something new or gain a new qualification (44%). For those individuals referred through a Jobcentre Plus advisor, 45% mentioned that the primary reasons related to their desire to improve their job prospects or gain a new job or career, compared to 31% of respondents who wished to learn something new or gain new skills.
Table 11: Reasons for choice of training – referral route
| Main reason for undertaking course? | Self-referred | JCP Adviser | National Careers Service | Other | |------------------------------------|---------------|-------------|--------------------------|-------| | Total | 29 | 496 | 93 | 989 | Main reason for choosing provider
We also assessed what factors determined the choice of the training provider. Table 12 presents the information at a disaggregated level allowing for the explicit consideration of all the reasons provided by learners. Note that respondents were able to provide more than one answer to the question, so the column totals exceed the total number of respondents. As can be seen, across the entire sample of learners, the dominant factor for the decision to select a particular provider was that the FE College or training provider offered a convenient location or courses at convenient times (43% and 7% of the total number of responses respectively, with few differences depending on gender), while the provider offering the specific course of interest to the learner was cited by almost 8% of learners. Other factors specifically related to the provider that were commonly cited included the provider’s reputation in terms of pass rates and more general course reputation (3% combined) and the course/training provider’s facilities (7%).
The analysis demonstrates the key range and role of recommendations in determining the choice of provider. The information in Table 12 suggests that 14% of learners chose the provider as a result of a recommendation from either a Jobcentre Plus or a National Careers Service advisor, while 3% of respondents each mentioned the recommendations of a careers advisor at school or the recommendations of parents/family members or friends.
The other reasons provided for the choice of provider were less common. In 3% of cases, respondents indicated that they had no choice in the matter because the course was mandatory (with a Jobcentre Plus advisor or National Careers Service advisor choosing the provider); because the provider was the only provider to accept the applicant (in 2% of cases), or because there were no other providers in the area. In just over 2% of cases was the primary reason was associated with the sight of advertising or leafleting promoting the College or an open day/careers fair at the College/training provider. Very few individuals explicitly stated that they selected the provider solely because they believed that it would assist them seeking employment or find a job.
In terms of potential cost drivers determining the choice of provider, only 3% of learners indicated that their selection of provider was as result of the costs being lower than an alternative provider, while a further 2% mentioned that the course was free at that particular provider. The economic and social benefits associated with Further Education and Skills: Learning for the unemployed
Table 12: Reasons for choice of provider – by gender
| Reason | Male | Female | Total | |---------------------------------------------|--------|---------|--------| | Convenient location/nearest | 389 | 458 | 847 | | Offered course I wanted | 141 | 161 | 302 | | Has best reputation (general) | 53 | 98 | 151 | | Has best reputation for pass rates | 4 | 8 | 12 | | Has best reputation for my course | 29 | 18 | 47 | | Did a course there previously | 48 | 64 | 112 | | Friends were going there/friend recommended | 46 | 76 | 122 | | Recommended by career advisor/school | 21 | 29 | 50 | | Recommended by National Careers Service/JCP| 115 | 156 | 271 | | Recommended by parents/other family member | 21 | 34 | 55 | | Offered a course at convenient times for me | 32 | 106 | 138 | | Had no choice – JCP/National Careers Service chose | 10 | 5 | 15 | | Had no choice – only one that accepted me | 4 | 4 | 8 | | Had no choice – no other providers in this area | 16 | 18 | 34 | | Lower cost compared to other providers | 23 | 30 | 53 | | Could study from home/on the internet/self study | 5 | 36 | 41 | | Good facilities/environment/staff | 19 | 25 | 44 | | Helps secure employment/find a job | 3 | 9 | 12 | | Free | 12 | 18 | 30 | | Needed something to do/occupy myself | 2 | 1 | 3 | | Offered good opportunities/future prospects | 5 | 2 | 7 | | Saw advertising/leaflet/open day | 18 | 25 | 43 | | Wanted to gain more knowledge/qualifications| 12 | 11 | 23 | | Wanted to move away/try a new college | 4 | 1 | 5 | | Other specified recommendation | 18 | 16 | 34 | | Other | 25 | 22 | 47 | | Don’t know | 8 | 12 | 20 | | No answer | 8 | 6 | 14 | | Don’t know | 8 | 6 | 14 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955
The analysis also suggests that ‘provider-related’ factors were more likely to be considered the primary determinant for the decision to undertake a particular course amongst younger learners (for instance, 48% for 19-24 year olds mentioned the convenient location compared to 38% for learners aged 40 plus, while 11% of younger learners mentioned the providers reputation compared to 6% of older learners). However, prior experience of the learning provider also plays an important role, with 11% of younger learners mentioning the fact that they had undertaken a course there previously as being a significant reason for choosing the provider again (compared to 5% of older learners).
Table 13: Reasons for choice of provider – by age
| Reason | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |---------------------------------------------|-------|-------|------| | Convenient location/nearest | 278 | 330 | 239 | | Offered course I wanted | 93 | 110 | 100 | | Has best reputation (general) | 62 | 55 | 35 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955 There were significant differences in the rationale for selecting a particular provider depending on referral route. Self-referred learners were more likely to mention issues relating to the location or convenience of the learning provider (52% compared to 30% of those referred through Jobcentre Plus or 21% referred through the National Careers Service); the fact that the provider offered the specific course of interest to the learner (18% compared to 10% of those referred through Jobcentre Plus); or the general reputation of the provider (11% compared to 3% of those referred through the National Careers Service).
However, these findings are relatively unsurprising given the primary focus of the National Careers Service (in particular) involves the provision of information, advice and guidance to learners. Table 14 indicates that 25% of learners referred through the National Careers Service chose their provider because of a recommendation specifically from a National Careers Service advisor, while 51% of those respondents referred through Jobcentre Plus mentioned that the recommendation from the Jobcentre Plus advisor was the primary reason for their selection of provider.
Table 14: Reasons for choice of provider – by referral route
| Reason | Self-referred | JCP Adviser | National Careers Service | Other | |---------------------------------------|---------------|-------------|--------------------------|-------| | Convenient location/nearest | 52.3% | 30.2% | 20.7% | 39.0% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955 In Table 15, we have presented information on the reasons for choice of provider depending on the labour market characteristics of the learners immediately prior to learning commencement. Understandably, convenience factors were considered to be more important than average by those individuals with homecare responsibilities, with 53% of respondents mentioning the convenient location and 12% mentioning convenient times for study. This compares to 47% of those self-employed or in training, and 40% of those who were unemployed, that mentioned the convenience of the location and between 6% and 8% who mentioned the convenient course times.
Recommendations were again important in the decision to select a particular provider, with between 5% and 8% of learners mentioning a friend’s recommendation; between 2% and 4% mentioning a recommendation from a careers advisor, and between 2% and 8% mentioning a recommendation from a family member. Overlapping with the previous information on the impact of different referral routes on provider selection, the analysis indicates that 21% of learners who were unemployed and looking for work immediately prior to starting their course mentioned a recommendation from a Jobcentre Plus or National Careers Service advisor as being a determinant of the choice of provider, compared to 16% of individuals temporarily sick, injured or disabled and 4% of those already in training. Table 15: Reasons for choice of provider – by prior employment status
| Reason | Self employed | Training | Unemployed | Looking after family etc. | Sick/injured/disabled | Retired | Not eligible to work/other | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|----------|------------|---------------------------|-----------------------|---------|---------------------------| | Convenient location/nearest | 47.4% | 47.3% | 40.1% | 52.7% | 31.1% | 39.1% | 32.6% | | Offered course I wanted | 17.4% | 16.8% | 14.3% | 16.2% | 17.7% | 10.2% | 8.5% | | Has best reputation (general) | 4.2% | 10.5% | 6.8% | 7.5% | 5.7% | 11.7% | 16.0% | | Has best reputation for pass rates | 0.9% | 1.4% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Has best reputation for my course | 2.0% | 4.9% | 1.5% | 1.6% | 1.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Did a course there previously | 3.4% | 11.4% | 4.4% | 1.3% | 1.9% | 6.0% | 7.6% | | Friends were going there/friend recommended | 8.5% | 6.1% | 6.4% | 5.4% | 4.2% | 12.2% | 0.0% | | Recommended by career advisor/school | 3.1% | 3.1% | 2.3% | 2.3% | 3.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Recommended by National Careers Service /JCP | 6.7% | 4.5% | 20.9% | 7.1% | 16.3% | 4.8% | 13.2% | | Recommended by parents/ family member/ carer | 1.8% | 2.9% | 2.3% | 2.9% | 7.7% | 4.1% | 6.4% | | Offered a course at convenient times for me | 7.6% | 6.3% | 6.4% | 12.5% | 6.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | No choice – JCP/National Careers Service chose | 0.7% | 0.0% | 1.3% | 0.3% | 0.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | No choice – only one that accepted me | 0.5% | 0.6% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | No choice – no other providers in this area | 0.8% | 1.6% | 1.5% | 1.8% | 1.8% | 10.5% | 14.6% | | Lower cost compared to other providers | 4.8% | 1.4% | 3.3% | 0.9% | 3.4% | 3.8% | 9.7% | | Could study from home/on the internet/self study | 1.6% | 1.6% | 2.0% | 3.9% | 2.3% | 3.6% | 0.0% | | Good facilities/environment/staff | 0.6% | 3.3% | 2.1% | 1.6% | 1.6% | 6.1% | 0.0% | | Helps secure employment/find a job | 0.5% | 0.6% | 0.8% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Free | 0.4% | 0.5% | 1.8% | 2.1% | 5.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Needed something to do/occupy myself | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Offered good opportunities/future prospects | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Saw advertising/leaflet/open day | 1.3% | 0.9% | 2.8% | 2.6% | 3.1% | 3.6% | 0.0% | | Wanted to gain more knowledge/qualifications | 0.4% | 1.3% | 1.6% | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Wanted to move away/try a new college | 0.8% | 0.6% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Other specified recommendation | 3.3% | 1.2% | 1.6% | 2.1% | 2.9% | 3.9% | 3.7% | | Other | 1.4% | 2.3% | 2.9% | 2.1% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Don’t know | 0.0% | 0.9% | 1.1% | 1.1% | 1.5% | 0.0% | 4.5% | | No answer | 0.0% | 0.3% | 1.0% | 0.0% | 3.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955 How learners found out about the course and referral
When respondents were asked about how they found out about the learning aim, the information in Table 16 shows that 51% of individuals found out about the training by themselves (i.e. self referred), with a slightly larger proportion of women adopting this self-referral route compared to men (54% compared to 48%).
Table 16: Referral – by gender
| How did you find out about the training (all respondents) | Male | Female | Total | |----------------------------------------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Self-referred | 416 | 581 | 997 | | Jobcentre Plus adviser | 213 | 219 | 431 | | National Careers Service adviser | 29 | 35 | 64 | | Other | 218 | 250 | 468 |
For those indicating referral through JCP, were you
| Referred to National Careers Services adviser | 49 | 38 | 87 | | Referred directly to the college/training provider | 143 | 145 | 288 | | Referred to both | 15 | 27 | 42 | | Don't know/can't remember | 22 | 26 | 48 |
For those indicating referral through JCP, did staff at JCP inform you that you had to attend the/both interview(s) with a National Careers Service adviser/college provider or risk losing your benefit?
| Yes | 59 | 52 | 112 | | No | 139 | 145 | 284 | | Don't know/can't remember | 11 | 15 | 26 |
Before the course has anyone (all respondents)
| Asked you about any qualifications you already had? | 513 | 681 | 1,194 | | Assessed your English, maths or language skills? | 559 | 734 | 1,292 | | Assessed you against some or all of the requirement | 492 | 653 | 1,145 | | Discussed how the training will help you get a job | 488 | 631 | 1,119 |
Who carried out the assessment of your skills and qualifications? (all respondents)
| Training Provider/College Staff/Assessor | 659 | 825 | 1,484 | | School/College Careers visor/Connexions Advisor/ | 44 | 51 | 96 | | National Careers Service advisor | 13 | 19 | 33 | | Jobcentre Plus Adviser | 34 | 39 | 72 | | Other | 50 | 79 | 129 |
How long did you have to wait between being referred and actually attending training (all respondents)
| less than 2 weeks | 438 | 591 | 1,030 | | between 2 and 4 weeks | 236 | 263 | 499 | | between 5 and 7 weeks | 48 | 61 | 109 | | between 8 and 10 weeks | 27 | 33 | 60 | | between 10 to 12 weeks | 26 | 32 | 58 | | more than 3 months | 44 | 57 | 101 | | don't know/can't remember | 55 | 43 | 98 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955. The two questions relating to the nature of the referral and the potential to receive a sanction were only asked of those individuals referred through Jobcentre Plus (n=431). A quarter of men (24%) and a fifth of women (20%) found out about the course through a Jobcentre Plus adviser with a relatively limited proportion of men and women finding out through the National Careers Service (3%), however, this might underestimate the role of the National Careers Service encouraging individuals to undertake additional learning and training. Of those learners that were referred through a Jobcentre Plus advisor, 21% of men and 16% of women were referred to an interview with a National Careers Service advisor (compared to 62% of men and 61% of women were referred directly to a training provider only and approximately 10% of respondents who were referred to both the National Careers Service and a training provider)\\textsuperscript{12}.
The analysis also suggests that in a quarter (26%) of those cases where an individual was referred by a Jobcentre Plus advisor, the respondent recalled that the Jobcentre Plus advisor had informed the learner that they would risk losing their benefit if they failed to attend the interview with the National Careers Service advisor and/or the learning provider (although a higher proportion of younger learners and learners attempting lower qualification levels recalled being informed of the potential benefit sanction (see Table 17 and Table 18)).
Presented in Table 17, the analysis also illustrates some variation in the route of referral by age, with younger learners more likely to self-refer compared to the population as a whole (56% compared to 53% of 25-39 year olds and 44% of learners aged 40 plus), while older learners were more likely to be referred through a Jobcentre Plus advisor (34% compared to 22% overall). The analysis (presented in Table 18) also indicates that there is more significant variation in the referral route depending on the level of learning aim. Compared to a self-referral rate of 40% for individuals aiming to achieve a Level 1 qualification, the self-referral rate for those attempting a Level 3 qualification stood at over 75%.
**Prior assessment**
Three in five learners (61%) indicated that someone had asked them about the qualifications they were already in possession of before commencing the learning or training, and 66% of learners responded that some assessment of their English, Maths or language skills had been undertaken (Table 16). In only 57% of cases was there any discussion of how the training might help the learner get a job.
Younger learners were marginally more likely to have been asked about prior qualification attainment and been assessed for their English, Maths and languages skills (63% and 67% in Table 17 respectively compared to 58% and 62% for older learners respectively), although were significantly more likely to have had a discussion in relation to the potential employment outcomes associated with gaining the proposed qualification (66% compared to 47% for older learners). In three-quarters of cases, the assessment was undertaken by the training provider.
\\textsuperscript{12} It is important to note that throughout the remainder of the analysis, there are a relatively small proportion of learners indicating their primary referral route was through the National Careers Service and some caution needs to be exercised when considering the differences between sub-samples. Table 17: Referral – by age
| How did you find out about this training (all respondents) | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |----------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | Self-referred | 324 | 55.9% | 393 | 52.9% | 280 | 44.2% | | Jobcentre Plus adviser | 57 | 9.8% | 159 | 21.5% | 215 | 33.9% | | National Careers Service adviser | 12 | 2.0% | 27 | 3.7% | 23 | 3.7% | | Other | 187 | 32.2% | 162 | 21.9% | 116 | 18.3% |
For those indicating referral through Jobcentre Plus, were you
| Referred to interview with a National Careers Service adviser | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | Referred directly to the college/training provider | 32 | 51.9% | 104 | 60.7% | 152 | 65.5% | | Referred to both | 10 | 15.6% | 11 | 6.5% | 21 | 9.2% | | Don’t know/can’t remember | 5 | 8.6% | 24 | 14.0% | 19 | 8.1% |
Did staff at Jobcentre Plus inform you that you had to attend the/both interview(s) with a National Careers Service adviser/college provider or risk losing your benefit? (For those indicating referral through JCP)
| Yes | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |-----|-------|-------|-----| | | 23 | 39.8% | 34 | 22.4% | 55 | 25.7% | | No | 32 | 55.5% | 103 | 68.7% | 150 | 69.6% | | Don’t know | 3 | 4.9% | 13 | 8.8% | 10 | 4.7% |
Before the course has anyone (all respondents)
| Asked you about any qualifications you already had? | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |-----------------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | | 365 | 63.0% | 459 | 61.9% | 370 | 58.3% | | Assessed your English, maths or language skills? | 389 | 67.2% | 509 | 68.6% | 394 | 62.1% | | Assessed you against some or all of the requirement | 324 | 56.0% | 433 | 58.4% | 388 | 61.2% | | Discussed with you how the training will help you get a job | 381 | 65.7% | 439 | 59.2% | 299 | 47.1% |
Who carried out the assessment of your skills and qualifications? (all respondents)
| Training Provider/College Staff/Assessor | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | | 442 | 76.4% | 574 | 77.4% | 468 | 73.8% | | School/College Careers visor/Connexions Advisor/ | 52 | 9.0% | 29 | 3.9% | 15 | 2.3% | | National Careers Service advisor | 6 | 1.1% | 14 | 1.8% | 13 | 2.0% | | Jobcentre Plus Adviser | 13 | 2.2% | 30 | 4.1% | 29 | 4.6% | | Other | 28 | 4.8% | 53 | 7.2% | 48 | 7.5% |
How long did you have to wait between being referred and actually attending training (all respondents)
| How long did you have to wait | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |-------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | less than 2 weeks | 255 | 44.0% | 387 | 52.2% | 387 | 61.1% | | between 2 and 4 weeks | 156 | 27.0% | 207 | 27.8% | 136 | 21.5% | | between 5 and 7 weeks | 37 | 6.3% | 44 | 5.9% | 28 | 4.5% | | between 8 and 10 weeks | 22 | 3.7% | 23 | 3.0% | 16 | 2.6% | | between 10 to 12 weeks | 25 | 4.4% | 18 | 2.4% | 14 | 2.3% | | more than 3 months | 37 | 6.3% | 34 | 4.6% | 31 | 4.8% | | don’t know | 48 | 8.2% | 29 | 4.0% | 21 | 3.3% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955. The two questions relating to the nature of the referral and the potential to receive a sanction were only asked of those individuals referred through Jobcentre Plus (n=431).
The analysis also suggests that the extent of appraisal of prior attainment in English, Maths and language skills is positively related to the level of learning aim (Table 18), with learners at Entry level and Level 1 being asked about prior qualifications in 49% and 54% of occasions respectively, compared to 63% of cases at Level 3 and 71% at Level 4. An equivalent increasing relationship between receiving an assessment of English, Maths and language skills and learning aim level was also apparent.
The final element of information presented in Table 16 to Table 18 relates to the amount of time that learners had to wait between being referred and actually attending training. Across the entire sample, 53% of learners responded that they had to wait less than 2 weeks before starting learning, with a further 26% responding that the waiting time was between 2 and 4 weeks. The analysis (presented in Table 17) suggests that younger learners waited longer between being referred and actually starting their training (with only 44% commencing within 2 weeks, compared to 54% for learners aged between 25 and 39 and 61% for learners aged above 40).
Table 18: Referral – by level
| How did you find out about this training (all respondents) | Entry | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | |-----------------------------------------------------------|-------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Self-referred | 42.0% | 39.7% | 49.0% | 75.6% | 75.0% | | Job centre plus adviser | 27.2% | 32.3% | 23.5% | 2.9% | 0.0% | | National Careers Service adviser | 4.5% | 3.2% | 3.6% | 1.2% | 0.0% | | Other | 26.4% | 24.9% | 23.9% | 20.3% | 24.5% |
For those indicating referral through Jobcentre Plus, were you
| Referred to interview with National Careers Service adviser | 24.4% | 18.3% | 17.7% | 20.4% | 18.7% | | Referred directly to the college/training provider | 59.3% | 63.9% | 62.7% | 28.6% | 61.9% | | Referred to both | 2.0% | 8.9% | 9.6% | 33.7% | 9.0% | | Don’t know/can’t remember | 14.4% | 8.8% | 10.0% | 17.3% | 10.3% |
Did staff at Jobcentre Plus inform you that you had to attend the/both interview(s) with a National Careers Service adviser/college provider or risk losing your benefit? (For those indicating referral through JCP)
| Yes | 48.2% | 24.8% | 23.5% | 9.8% | 26.4% | | No | 38.6% | 69.9% | 71.5% | 74.4% | 67.4% | | Don’t know | 13.0% | 5.3% | 5.0% | 15.9% | 6.2% |
Before the course has anyone (all respondents)
| Asked you about any qualifications you already had? | 49.0% | 54.2% | 62.3% | 71.8% | 77.0% | | Assessed your English, maths or language skills? | 61.4% | 63.1% | 67.6% | 67.1% | 72.4% | | Assessed you against some or all of the requirement | 46.8% | 53.2% | 61.3% | 61.5% | 87.2% | | Discussed with you how the training will help you get a job | 56.9% | 56.5% | 55.6% | 64.7% | 41.3% |
Who carried out the assessment of your skills and qualifications? (all respondents)
| Training Provider/College Staff/Assessor | 66.7% | 71.1% | 77.0% | 83.2% | 86.7% | | School/College Careers visor/Connexions Advisor/ National Careers Service advisor | 6.6% | 3.2% | 4.1% | 8.3% | 9.7% | | Jobcentre Plus Adviser | 1.3% | 3.5% | 1.5% | 0.2% | 0.0% | | Other | 5.9% | 5.1% | 4.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
How long did you have to wait between being referred and actually attending training (all respondents)
| less than 2 weeks | 43.0% | 62.9% | 56.8% | 33.3% | 28.1% | | between 2 and 4 weeks | 29.6% | 22.6% | 25.4% | 27.2% | 31.1% | | between 5 and 7 weeks | 8.2% | 2.4% | 4.7% | 10.6% | 10.2% | | between 8 and 10 weeks | 1.9% | 1.9% | 2.6% | 6.2% | 17.9% | | between 10 to 12 weeks | 3.1% | 3.0% | 1.9% | 6.0% | 7.7% | | more than 3 months | 7.4% | 2.4% | 4.6% | 9.5% | 2.6% | | don’t know | 6.9% | 5.0% | 4.1% | 7.2% | 2.6% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955. The two questions relating to the nature of the referral and the potential to receive a sanction were only asked of those individuals referred through Jobcentre Plus (n=431).
The analysis also suggests that there is a relatively rapid training start for learners attempting lower levels of qualification (although this does not extend to learners... undertaking Entry Level qualifications). For example, 63% of learners attempting qualifications at Level 1 commenced their training within 2 weeks of referral compared to 33% attempting at Level 3 and 28% at Level 4. Individuals who self-referred were substantially less likely to commence their training as quickly as those who were referred either through Jobcentre Plus or the National Careers Service (47% compared to 64% and 52% respectively (presented in Table 19).
Part of these effects may relate to the fact that the learning aims at lower levels of attainment and those learning aims that respondents were referred to through Jobcentre Plus or the National Careers Service may be of shorter duration and, therefore, operate more frequently compared to learning aims at intermediate of higher levels of attainment, and it might be for this reason that the time between referral and course commencement varies across learners.
| Table 19: Reasons for choice of training – referral route | |----------------------------------------------------------| | **Before the course has anyone** | | *Asked you about any qualifications you already had?* | | Self-referred: 63.9% | | JCP Adviser: 62.6% | | National Careers Service: 58.7% | | Other: 53.8% | | *Assessed your English, maths or language skills?* | | Self-referred: 67.6% | | JCP Adviser: 60.2% | | National Careers Service: 68.5% | | Other: 68.0% | | *Assessed you against some or all of the requirement* | | Self-referred: 59.9% | | JCP Adviser: 53.0% | | National Careers Service: 66.3% | | Other: 59.8% | | *Discussed with you how training will help you get a job*| | Self-referred: 55.1% | | JCP Adviser: 57.5% | | National Careers Service: 53.5% | | Other: 61.9% |
| **Who carried out the assessment of your skills and qualifications?** | |---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Training Provider/College Staff/Assessor: 80.9% | | JCP Adviser: 68.1% | | National Careers Service: 66.9% | | Other: 73.7% | | School/College Careers visor/Connexions Advisor/ | | National Careers Service advisor: 4.6% | | JCP Adviser: 3.3% | | National Careers Service: 4.3% | | Other: 7.0% | | Jobcentre Plus Adviser: 1.3% | | JCP Adviser: 11.5% | | National Careers Service: 0.0% | | Other: 2.1% | | Other: 5.5% | | JCP Adviser: 6.6% | | National Careers Service: 2.4% | | Other: 9.5% |
| **How long did you have to wait between being referred and actually attending training** | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | *less than 2 weeks* | | Self-referred: 47.4% | | JCP Adviser: 64.2% | | National Careers Service: 51.8% | | Other: 53.4% | | *between 2 and 4 weeks* | | Self-referred: 25.2% | | JCP Adviser: 24.3% | | National Careers Service: 29.5% | | Other: 26.9% | | *between 5 and 7 weeks* | | Self-referred: 6.9% | | JCP Adviser: 3.7% | | National Careers Service: 6.4% | | Other: 4.5% | | *between 8 and 10 weeks* | | Self-referred: 4.1% | | JCP Adviser: 1.6% | | National Careers Service: 2.2% | | Other: 2.5% | | *between 10 to 12 weeks* | | Self-referred: 3.8% | | JCP Adviser: 1.7% | | National Careers Service: 1.8% | | Other: 2.5% | | *more than 3 months* | | Self-referred: 7.2% | | JCP Adviser: 2.0% | | National Careers Service: 2.9% | | Other: 4.2% | | *don't know* | | Self-referred: 5.5% | | JCP Adviser: 2.6% | | National Careers Service: 5.3% | | Other: 6.0% |
*Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 1,955.* The effectiveness of information, advice and guidance
Table 20 and Figure 1 show the effectiveness of the information, advice and guidance provided to learners in terms of ‘net positives’, which is the difference between the proportions of learners describing themselves as either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ well informed, and those responding ‘not very well’ or ‘not at all’ informed. The results are uniformly positive, although the extent to which this is the case depends on the topic of the advice and (to a lesser extent) the gender of respondent.
Figure 1: Effectiveness of information, advice and guidance (net informed)
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012)
The analysis indicates that 79% of men and 80% of women (net) considered themselves to have been well informed in relation to the content of the course and the subjects that would be covered, with between 72% and 76% of men (and 76% and 79% of women) well informed in relation to the amount and standard of the work required of them. Effective information on whether to study the course ‘in one go’ or in units appeared to be less forthcoming with 66% of men and 68% of women considering themselves to have been relatively well informed.
Potentially reflecting the fact that learners appeared to receive less information on how their additional learning and training might result in the learner getting a job, the areas of information advice and guidance where learners considered themselves to be the least well informed (in relative terms) related to how the training/course would assist learners in terms of usefulness in an employment context or the extent to which the training might be able to improve labour market potential (though significantly less so for younger learners). Just over half of respondents (54%) believed that they had been relatively well informed in relation to the labour market potential associated with the training, while just under two-thirds (net) indicated that they received useful advice in relation to the relationship between the training undertaken and how skills might be gained for use in a job.
13 These gender differences are qualitatively similar to those relating to previous analysis (BIS Research Report 104, January 2013 (here)) covering all learners (i.e. those in employment, as well as those not in employment); however, the estimates of ‘net’ positives are several percentage points lower on average compared to the net positive satisfaction ratings posted by the sample of learners including both employed learners and those not in employment. Table 20: Effectiveness of information, advice and guidance by gender
| How well informed in relation to | Male | Female | Total | |---------------------------------|------|--------|-------| | **Content of the course and subjects covered** | | | | | very well informed | 527 | 60.3% | 683 | 63.2% | 1,210 | 61.9% | | fairly well informed | 253 | 28.9% | 285 | 26.3% | 538 | 27.5% | | not very well informed | 65 | 7.5% | 79 | 7.3% | 144 | 7.4% | | not at all informed | 21 | 2.4% | 22 | 2.0% | 43 | 2.2% | | don’t know | 8 | 0.9% | 12 | 1.1% | 20 | 1.0% | | **Amount of work expected in your own time** | | | | | very well informed | 454 | 52.0% | 685 | 63.3% | 1,139 | 58.2% | | fairly well informed | 289 | 33.1% | 256 | 23.7% | 546 | 27.9% | | not very well informed | 84 | 9.7% | 87 | 8.1% | 172 | 8.8% | | not at all informed | 33 | 3.8% | 34 | 3.2% | 68 | 3.5% | | don’t know | 12 | 1.4% | 19 | 1.8% | 32 | 1.6% | | **How course would help gain skills used in a job** | | | | | very well informed | 405 | 46.3% | 566 | 52.3% | 970 | 49.6% | | fairly well informed | 288 | 33.0% | 315 | 29.1% | 603 | 30.9% | | not very well informed | 102 | 11.7% | 116 | 10.7% | 218 | 11.2% | | not at all informed | 54 | 6.1% | 58 | 5.4% | 112 | 5.7% | | don’t know | 25 | 2.9% | 26 | 2.4% | 52 | 2.6% | | **The standard of work expected of you** | | | | | very well informed | 475 | 54.4% | 647 | 59.8% | 1,122 | 57.4% | | fairly well informed | 284 | 32.5% | 316 | 29.2% | 600 | 30.7% | | not very well informed | 64 | 7.3% | 65 | 6.0% | 129 | 6.6% | | not at all informed | 31 | 3.5% | 37 | 3.4% | 68 | 3.5% | | don’t know | 20 | 2.2% | 17 | 1.5% | 36 | 1.9% | | **whether to study the course in units or in one go** | | | | | very well informed | 473 | 54.1% | 628 | 58.1% | 1,101 | 56.3% | | fairly well informed | 236 | 27.0% | 260 | 24.0% | 496 | 25.4% | | not very well informed | 85 | 9.8% | 65 | 6.0% | 150 | 7.7% | | not at all informed | 50 | 5.7% | 82 | 7.6% | 132 | 6.7% | | don’t know | 30 | 3.4% | 47 | 4.3% | 77 | 3.9% | | **Labour market potential** | | | | | very well informed | 357 | 40.8% | 471 | 43.5% | 828 | 42.3% | | fairly well informed | 295 | 33.8% | 351 | 32.4% | 646 | 33.0% | | not very well informed | 122 | 14.0% | 122 | 11.3% | 244 | 12.5% | | not at all informed | 67 | 7.7% | 101 | 9.3% | 168 | 8.6% | | don’t know | 32 | 3.7% | 38 | 3.5% | 70 | 3.6% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 1,955.
In many respects, there were few differences in the effectiveness of the information, advice and guidance received by age, with younger people generally feeling that they were either well or very well informed on all aspects of the training, including whether to study the course in one go or in units, as well as the labour market potential associated with the course. The analysis also suggests that although individuals aged 25-39 believed they had received more effective information, advice and guidance in terms of the content and amount of work required (compared to either younger or older learners), the findings also demonstrate that younger learners believed that the information received in relation to labour market potential to be the most effective. Although still significantly positive, learners aged 40 plus believed that they received the least effective information, advice and guidance. There was no clear relationship between the perception of how well learners were informed as the level of training increased, with respondents undertaking qualifications at Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 posting significantly higher ratings compared to those undertaking either Entry Level or Level 4 qualifications.
Table 21: Effectiveness of information, advice and guidance by age and level
| Proportion 'net positives' | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |---------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | Content of the course and subjects covered | 456 | 78.8% | 611 | 82.3% | 493 | 77.8% | | Amount of work expected in your own time | 417 | 72.0% | 554 | 74.7% | 473 | 74.6% | | How the course would help you gain skills used in a job | 368 | 63.5% | 496 | 66.8% | 380 | 60.0% | | The standard of work expected of you | 464 | 80.1% | 596 | 80.3% | 464 | 73.2% | | Whether to study the course in units or in one go | 391 | 67.5% | 503 | 67.9% | 421 | 66.4% | | Labour market potential | 368 | 63.6% | 402 | 54.2% | 292 | 46.0% |
| Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |-------|---|---|---|---| | Content of the course and subjects covered | 71.5% | 73.5% | 84.0% | 79.2% | 70.4% | | Amount of work expected in your own time | 62.9% | 69.5% | 79.3% | 68.7% | 60.7% | | How the course would help you gain skills used in a job | 54.5% | 62.9% | 64.0% | 69.6% | 49.5% | | The standard of work expected of you | 57.8% | 74.1% | 83.1% | 79.1% | 53.6% | | Whether to study the course in units or in one go | 58.6% | 65.5% | 70.1% | 64.3% | 82.7% | | Labour market potential | 53.7% | 54.0% | 52.2% | 63.2% | 33.7% |
| Self-referred | JCP Adviser | National Careers Service | Other | |---------------|-------------|--------------------------|-------| | Content of the course and subjects covered | 84.0% | 78.8% | 70.1% | 72.9% | | Amount of work expected in your own time | 76.6% | 71.0% | 85.1% | 69.2% | | How the course would help you gain skills used in a job | 64.0% | 65.1% | 68.5% | 60.8% | | The standard of work expected of you | 81.0% | 75.1% | 83.0% | 73.5% | | Whether to study the course in units or in one go | 66.5% | 65.4% | 86.5% | 68.1% | | Labour market potential | 54.4% | 55.0% | 61.3% | 52.5% |
| Continuing | Non-completer | Completed | |------------|---------------|-----------| | Content of the course and subjects covered | 623 | 77.0% | 205 | 72.8% | 732 | 84.7% | | Amount of work expected in your own time | 573 | 70.8% | 187 | 66.7% | 684 | 79.1% | | How the course would help you gain skills used in a job | 523 | 64.5% | 127 | 45.1% | 595 | 68.8% | | The standard of work expected of you | 625 | 77.2% | 195 | 69.5% | 704 | 81.4% | | Whether to study the course in units or in one go | 533 | 65.8% | 159 | 56.5% | 623 | 72.1% | | Labour market potential | 483 | 59.7% | 101 | 36.0% | 477 | 55.2% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 1,955
There is a correlation between the degree to which individuals believed they were either well informed or very well informed and course completion (Table 21), however, it is again important to reiterate that the association between the two variables does not imply causation, as it could be the case that those learners failing to complete may have assessed the information, advice and guidance as being not particularly worthwhile as a result of failure to complete. The results presented in Table 21 indicate that those individuals completing their course or training were between 5 and 12 percentage points more likely to indicate they had been well informed in relation to the content of the course; the amount of work necessary; how the course would be of assistance in gaining skills for use in a job; and labour market potential associated with the course. There was a minimal difference in the relative perceptions relating to the standard of the work required and the optimal mode of study. Individuals who self-referred provided more positive feedback in relation to the information, advice and guidance given to them prior to starting their learning: 84% felt well informed about the content of the course (compared to 78% of learners referred by a Jobcentre Plus advisor and 70% referred by a National Careers Service advisor although, again, care needs to be exercised in relation to the sample sizes associated with National Careers Service referral\\textsuperscript{14}. Learners who self-referred also felt better informed on the amount and standard of work expected of them compared to those referred through Jobcentre Plus.
**Reasons for non completion/ factors that would have assisted completion**
For those individuals that failed to complete their course, the survey responses indicate that in just under one half of the cases, the primary reason related to personal or circumstantial considerations, such as family or health related issues (with a greater impact on women than on men). However, this may be somewhat deceptive, as almost 26% of respondents (38) indicated that the reason that they did not complete the learning aim was because they found work.
In 18% of cases, the primary reason was course related (15% for women and 22% for men). Time pressures and workload issues impacted course completion for 20% of men and 19% of women respectively; while in only 6% of cases did respondents mention the fact that financial concerns were the primary reason for their failure to complete.
| Table 22: Main reason for non-completion by gender | |-----------------------------------------------| | **Main reason for non-completion** | Male | Female | Total | | Course related | 27 | 21.6% | 26 | 15.5% | 53 | 18.1% | | Time/workload related | 26 | 20.2% | 32 | 19.5% | 58 | 19.8% | | Personal/ circumstantial | 57 | 45.3% | 85 | 51.6% | 142 | 48.9% | | Financial reasons | 5 | 4.0% | 11 | 6.9% | 16 | 5.6% | | Other | 11 | 8.9% | 11 | 6.7% | 22 | 7.6% |
| What would have enabled you to complete the training | |-----------------------------------------------| | More financial support | 3 | 2.4% | 15 | 9.2% | 18 | 6.3% | | Better guidance/support | 18 | 14.6% | 18 | 11.1% | 36 | 12.6% | | Better course characteristics/ labour market value | 45 | 36.1% | 56 | 34.2% | 101 | 35.0% | | Personal circumstances | 11 | 8.4% | 21 | 12.8% | 32 | 10.9% | | Other | 7 | 5.4% | 12 | 6.6% | 20 | 6.1% | | Don’t know | 12 | 9.1% | 10 | 5.5% | 23 | 7.0% | | No answer | 28 | 20.8% | 31 | 16.6% | 60 | 18.4% |
*Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 291.*
As expected, there is some variation depending on the personal characteristics of learners – though sample sizes are increasingly small – so the results are for indicative purposes only. Younger learners were more likely to indicate course related factors as the primary reason for non-completion, with older learners more likely to cite personal or circumstantial reasons for non-completion. This information relating to the reasons for non-completion by qualification level and referral route are presented in Table 23, while in Table 24, we provide some information on the factors which might have assisted completion by age, level of qualification and referral route.
\\textsuperscript{14} The analysis illustrated that of the 62 respondents referred through the National Careers Service, 53 indicated that they had been well or very well informed.
### Table 23: Main reason for non-completion by age and level of qualification
| Main reason for non-completion | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |-------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | Course related | 13 | 13 | 27 | | Time/workload related | 6 | 28 | 24 | | Personal/ circumstantial | 15 | 59 | 68 | | Financial reasons | 5 | 5 | 6 | | Other | 5 | 11 | 7 |
| Entry | Other | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |-------------------------------|-------|------|------|------|------| | Course related | 23.9% | 17.2%| 15.7%| 31.8%| 0.0% | 23.9%| | Time/workload related | 15.0% | 20.8%| 20.0%| 22.4%| 0.0% | 15.0%| | Personal/ circumstantial | 42.5% | 51.1%| 52.1%| 21.9%| 100.0%| 42.5%| | Financial reasons | 4.7% | 4.7% | 4.7% | 18.8%| 0.0% | 4.7% | | Other | 13.9% | 6.1% | 7.4% | 5.2% | 0.0% | 13.9%|
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample 291
### Table 24: Factors assisting completion - by age, level of qualification and referral route
| 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |-------|-------|-----| | More financial support | 4 | 7 | 7 | | Better guidance/support | 8 | 10 | 19 | | Better course characteristics/ labour market value | 9 | 37 | 55 | | Personal circumstances | 1 | 21 | 10 | | Other | 5 | 9 | 6 | | Don’t know | 7 | 8 | 8 | | No answer | 9 | 24 | 27 |
| Entry | Other | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |-------------------------------|-------|------|------|------|------| | More financial support | 4.7% | 4.9% | 5.7% | 19.2%| 0.0% | 4.7% | | Better guidance/support | 9.7% | 16.6%| 10.4%| 21.2%| 0.0% | 9.7% | | Better course characteristics/ labour market value | 43.4% | 30.1% | 37.9% | 17.6% | 0.0% | 43.4% | | Personal circumstances | 2.9% | 14.8%| 10.9%| 9.3% | 0.0% | 2.9% | | Other | 9.4% | 5.6% | 9.4% | 4.3% | 11.0%| 8.2% | | Don’t know | 2.6% | 19.7%| 2.6% | 7.8% | 8.9% | 5.8% | | No answer | 18.2% | 20.3%| 13.5%| 16.4%| 13.7%|
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 291. Course perceptions
The feedback relating to course perceptions was exceptionally positive. When completers were asked about whether they were satisfied with the course, 93% of women and 88% of men indicated that they were either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘fairly satisfied’; while only 5% of women and 9% of men indicated that they were either ‘fairly’ or ‘very’ dissatisfied.15
Table 25: Course perceptions by gender
| How satisfied were you with course? | Male | Female | Total | |------------------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Very satisfied | 260 | 70.2% | 380 | 73.6% | 639 | 72.2% | | Fairly satisfied | 64 | 17.2% | 99 | 19.2% | 163 | 18.4% | | Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 15 | 4.1% | 10 | 1.9% | 25 | 2.8% | | Fairly dissatisfied | 11 | 3.0% | 12 | 2.4% | 23 | 2.6% | | Very dissatisfied | 21 | 5.6% | 13 | 2.6% | 34 | 3.8% | | Don’t know | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.2% | 1 | 0.1% |
| How easy did you find doing the course? | Male | Female | Total | |-----------------------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Very easy | 52 | 14.0% | 40 | 7.7% | 92 | 10.3% | | Fairly easy | 78 | 21.0% | 111 | 21.5% | 189 | 21.3% | | Neither easy nor challenging | 52 | 14.1% | 75 | 14.5% | 127 | 14.3% | | Fairly challenging | 140 | 37.9% | 215 | 41.7% | 356 | 40.1% | | Very challenging | 48 | 13.0% | 72 | 13.9% | 120 | 13.5% | | Don’t know | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | 0.7% | 4 | 0.4% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 866.
In Table 26, the equivalent information on course satisfaction is presented depending on the learners' age, the level of qualification and the referral route. Again, these questions were only asked of individuals completing the qualification aim. The analysis suggests that younger learners were marginally less satisfied with their course (although still exceptionally positive generally). Specifically, 84% of younger learners were ‘fairly satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’, while the comparable estimates for learners aged 25-39 and 40+ was 93% and 91% respectively. The survey also suggests that learners undertaking Entry level, Level 1 or Level 2 qualifications were more likely to be satisfied with their course provision (94%, 88% and 92% respectively compared to 81% at Level 4).
Although there was little difference in the satisfaction ratings depending on whether the learner self-referred or was referred through a Jobcentre Plus advisor (90% satisfaction ratings), learners referred through the National Careers Service provided lower satisfaction ratings (83%) though again, the very small sample sizes limit the robustness of these results.
15 It is very likely that satisfaction depends to an extent on whether the course was completed – or the reasons for non-completion. However, these course perceptions questions were only asked of individuals completing the learning aim. Table 26: Course perceptions - by age, level of qualification and referral route
| | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |----------------------|-------|-------|------| | **Very satisfied** | 106 | 288 | 245 | | **Fairly satisfied** | 28 | 71 | 64 | | **Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied** | 9 | 5 | 12 | | **Fairly dissatisfied** | 6 | 15 | 3 | | **Very dissatisfied** | 10 | 9 | 16 | | **Don't know** | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |----------------------|-------|------|------|------|------| | **Very satisfied** | 74.9% | 66.9%| 73.8%| 72.3%| 57.0%| | **Fairly satisfied** | 18.9% | 21.0%| 17.7%| 14.5%| 23.7%| | **Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied** | 1.9% | 3.8% | 2.5% | 3.2% | 6.5% | | **Fairly dissatisfied** | 0.0% | 1.7% | 2.9% | 2.9% | 12.9%| | **Very dissatisfied** | 4.3% | 6.2% | 2.9% | 7.1% | 0.0% | | **Don't know** | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| | Self-referred | JCP Adviser | National Careers Service | Other | |----------------------|---------------|-------------|--------------------------|-------| | **Very satisfied** | 74.6% | 70.2% | 75.9% | 69.6% | | **Fairly satisfied** | 16.2% | 20.5% | 6.9% | 21.5% | | **Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied** | 2.7% | 1.5% | 11.7% | 3.6% | | **Fairly dissatisfied** | 3.2% | 3.1% | 0.0% | 1.4% | | **Very dissatisfied** | 3.3% | 4.3% | 5.5% | 4.0% | | **Don't know** | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 866.
Course ease
In terms of whether the course was considered challenging, 51% of men and 56% of women thought that the course or training was either ‘very challenging’ or ‘fairly challenging’; while 35% of men and 29% of women indicated that they thought that the course was either ‘very easy’ or ‘fairly easy’ (Table 25). There was some variation in the extent to which learners perceived the difficulty of the training received, with younger learners less likely to indicate that the course was either fairly or very challenging than average, and older learners generally indicating learning aims being more challenging than average. Compared to 40% of learners aged 19-24 indicating a high degree of challenge from their learning aim, the equivalent estimates for learners aged between 25 and 39 stood at 59% and 65% for learners aged 40 plus.
There was also some variation in the perceived challenge of learning aims undertaken depending on the level of the current learning aim attempted. 43% of learners at Entry level indicated the learning aim was either fairly or very easy, compared to 32% at Level 1 and Level 2, 20% at Level 3 and none at Level 4. Although this is unsurprising, it may suggest that some people on Entry level qualifications were not being adequately assessed. The economic and social benefits associated with Further Education and Skills: Learning for the unemployed
Table 27: Course ease - by age, level of qualification and referral route
| | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |----------------|-------|-------|------| | Very easy | 26 | 37 | 28 | | Fairly easy | 43 | 86 | 59 | | Neither easy nor challenging | 25 | 72 | 29 | | Fairly challenging | 54 | 138 | 164 | | Very challenging | 10 | 53 | 57 | | Don’t know | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| | Entry 1 | Entry 2 | Entry 3 | Entry 4 | |----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Very easy | 20.2% | 14.3% | 8.8% | 3.2% | 0.0% | | Fairly easy | 22.7% | 17.3% | 23.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% | | Neither easy nor challenging | 11.2% | 14.2% | 14.0% | 26.5% | 0.0% | | Fairly challenging | 26.7% | 39.9% | 41.3% | 38.2% | 54.8% | | Very challenging | 19.5% | 13.2% | 12.4% | 15.4% | 45.2% | | Don’t know | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| | Self-referred | JCP Adviser | National Careers Service | Other | |----------------|---------------|-------------|--------------------------|-------| | Very easy | 9.3% | 7.9% | 10.3% | 15.5% | | Fairly easy | 21.2% | 21.4% | 15.8% | 22.0% | | Neither easy nor challenging | 14.8% | 14.1% | 30.9% | 11.3% | | Fairly challenging | 40.0% | 42.2% | 40.9% | 37.6% | | Very challenging | 14.0% | 14.0% | 2.4% | 13.5% | | Don’t know | 0.6% | 0.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 866.
Economic benefits associated with learning
Employment, job satisfaction and further learning
The survey asked respondents to provide some information on the economic benefits that might have been associated with course completion. Completers were also asked their employment status following the conclusion of their learning aim, which are presented in Table 28. The economic and social benefits associated with Further Education and Skills: Learning for the unemployed
Table 28: Labour market outcome post completion by gender
| Labour market outcome post completion | Male | Female | Total | |--------------------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Yes, paid full time employment (16 hours or more p.w.) | 57 | 69 | 126 | | Yes, paid part-time employment (16 hours or less p.w.) | 42 | 100 | 142 | | Yes, self employment | 14 | 12 | 26 | | Yes, unpaid voluntary employment | 27 | 70 | 97 | | No - I have not yet completed the training/support | 15 | 26 | 40 | | No - although I have completed the training/support | 212 | 236 | 447 | | Can’t remember | 5 | 3 | 7 |
Reasons for not seeking paid employment
- Waiting for the end of the course/result of an application: 34 (26.3%) Male, 36 (17.3%) Female, 69 (20.7%) Total
- Children/Family responsibilities: 7 (5.5%) Male, 66 (32.0%) Female, 73 (21.9%) Total
- Financial: 6 (4.9%) Male, 4 (1.8%) Female, 10 (3.0%) Total
- Lack of confidence/qualifications/experience: 1 (0.5%) Male, 3 (1.6%) Female, 4 (1.2%) Total
- Health issues: 53 (41.7%) Male, 56 (27.3%) Female, 110 (32.8%) Total
- Retired/student/language barrier: 16 (12.8%) Male, 30 (14.4%) Female, 46 (13.8%) Total
- Other: 11 (8.3%) Male, 12 (5.6%) Female, 22 (6.6%) Total
Permanent or temporary employment?
- Permanent: 59 (56.8%) Male, 104 (58.3%) Female, 162 (57.8%) Total
- Temporary: 41 (39.2%) Male, 68 (38.2%) Female, 109 (38.6%) Total
- Not sure: 4 (4.0%) Male, 6 (3.4%) Female, 10 (3.6%) Total
Are you still in this job?
- Still in this employment/job: 104 (71.5%) Male, 222 (84.4%) Female, 326 (79.8%) Total
- This job has ended: 42 (28.5%) Male, 41 (15.6%) Female, 82 (20.2%) Total
How long did this employment last?
- less than 3 months: 22 (59.2%) Male, 15 (41.7%) Female, 37 (50.5%) Total
- more than 3 months but less than 6 months: 11 (30.2%) Male, 12 (34.0%) Female, 23 (32.1%) Total
- more than 6 months, but less than 1 year: 3 (9.0%) Male, 7 (19.9%) Female, 11 (14.4%) Total
- more than a year: 1 (1.6%) Male, 1 (2.8%) Female, 2 (2.2%) Total
- can’t remember: 0 (0.0%) Male, 1 (1.7%) Female, 1 (0.8%) Total
Earnings in most recent job after completion
- Under £10,000 per year: 53 (45.5%) Male, 113 (59.8%) Female, 166 (54.4%) Total
- £10,000-£14,999 per year: 29 (24.9%) Male, 31 (16.6%) Female, 61 (19.8%) Total
- £15,000-£19,999 per year: 11 (9.5%) Male, 6 (3.2%) Female, 17 (5.6%) Total
- £20,000-£24,999 per year: 5 (4.0%) Male, 2 (1.0%) Female, 7 (2.2%) Total
- £25,000 or more per year: 1 (1.2%) Male, 1 (0.3%) Female, 2 (0.7%) Total
- Refused/don’t know: 7 (14.8%) Male, 24 (19.0%) Female, 31 (17.4%) Total
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 866. The question in relation to why respondents were not seeking paid employment was only asked to those completers responding that they were neither employed, self employed or unemployed (n=334). The question asking whether the employment position was permanent or temporary was only asked of those completers who indicated that they were either in full time or part time employment or self employed (n=281). Only individuals who stated that their job had ceased responded to the question in relation to how long this employment had lasted (n=74). Earnings include the stated earnings of individuals in full-time, part-time, or self employment.
The sample of learners was drawn from the 2011/12 ILR which covers the academic year 2011/12, so that individuals who were enrolled on a learning aim in 09/2011 were included as potential survey respondents. The survey of learners took place in March/April 2012, and as such some learners had completed their studies, some had failed to complete or had withdrawn, while some learners were continuing with their studies. As such, at the time of survey response, learners who had completed their learning aim were probably completed their learning aim at most 3 to 6 months previously.
There are large and significant economic benefits associated with undertaking and completing learning and training: 15% of men and 13% of women were in full-time paid employment after the completion of their learning aim, while 11% of men and 20% of women were in part-time work. A further 4% of men and 2% of women were self-employed. Combining these estimates implies that 30% of men and 35% of women were in employment following the completion of their course. A further 7% of men and 13% of women were in voluntary or unpaid employment\\textsuperscript{16}. The information in Table 28 also indicates that the position gained was more often than not permanent in nature (58% of cases compared to 39% of employment opportunities that were temporary) \\textsuperscript{17}).
In addition, there was some degree of employment persistence with 71% of male respondents and 84% of female respondents stating they were still in the same employment position. However, of the 20% of respondents indicating that the job had actually come to an end, 50% indicated that their job duration was less than 3 months with a further 32% indicating the job duration was between 3 and 6 months\\textsuperscript{18}.
When considering the average earnings achieved by those achieving employment following the completion of their learning aim, employment opportunities were associated with relatively low levels of earnings. For men, the annual earnings in the job immediately following completion were less than £10,000 per annum in 45% of cases and between £10,000 and £15,000 in a further 25% of cases, while more than 76% of women achieved annual earnings of less than £15,000 per annum (60% below £10,000 and 16% between £10,000 and £15,000). Earnings in excess of £25,000 were achieved on less than 1% of occasions.
However, against these very positive outcomes, half of completers were not in employment following the completion of their course or training (57% of men and 45% of women). When asked about the reasons for not being in employment, the responses highlight the extent to which learners are either ‘close’ or ‘distant’ from the active labour market. In particular, of those not actively seeking employment, 21% were waiting for the completion of the course or on the results of a job application; however 22% were not seeking employment because of childcare of family responsibilities, with a further 33% citing health reasons for the decision not to actively seek work (42% of men compared to 27% of women). One in seven (14%) indicated that they were either retired, a student or face language barriers. In only 1% of cases do respondents mention that the lack of qualifications or experience affected their jobsearch activities.
At a disaggregated level, the economic outcomes following learning completion are presented by age of learner (Table 29), level of learning aim (Table 30) and referral route (Table 31).
\\textbf{Age of learner}
There were some slight distinctions in the employment outcomes of learners depending on age. Compared to the 30% of completers in employment (14% in full-time employment and 16% in part-time employment), although 29% of younger completers were in employment immediately post completion, the balance between full-time and part time work was more uneven. Specifically, only 9% of completers between the ages of 16 and 24 were in full-time employment, with 20% in part-time employment. The fragility of the employment outcome achieved by younger workers post-completion is also reflected in the proportion
\\textsuperscript{16} Note that of those individuals that stated they were engaged in voluntary work or unpaid work prior to the learning aim, the analysis suggests that approximately 31% were still undertaking voluntary or unpaid work, 20% indicated they were working as an employee; 38% were unemployed; 5% were looking after their home or family, while 4% indicated they were not working either because of temporary or long term illness or disability.
\\textsuperscript{17} Information from the LFS indicates that 94% of employees are in permanent positions while 6% in temporary positions (LFS 2012 Q1).
\\textsuperscript{18} In the wider economy, approximately 7.0% of employees have been with their current employer for less than 6 months, with a further 6.4% employed for with their current employer for between 6 months and 1 year (LFS 2012 Q1). of younger respondents indicating that the job was temporary in nature (55%), stating that the job had ended (31%) or the position had lasted for less than 6 months (95%). This compares to estimates of approximately 35%, 18% and 80% respectively for workers aged above 25.
Table 29: Labour market outcome post completion by age
| Labour market outcome post completion | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |--------------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | Yes, paid full time employment (16 hours or more p.w.) | 14 | 8.6% | 57 | 14.6% | 56 | 16.4% | | Yes, paid part-time employment (16 hours or less p.w.) | 33 | 20.5% | 57 | 14.8% | 53 | 15.4% | | Yes, self employment | 1 | 0.9% | 15 | 3.8% | 10 | 2.9% | | Yes, unpaid voluntary employment | 14 | 8.7% | 42 | 10.9% | 41 | 12.0% | | No - I have not yet completed the training/support | 14 | 9.1% | 21 | 5.5% | 5 | 1.4% | | No - although I have completed the training/support | 81 | 50.9% | 191 | 49.4% | 175 | 51.5% | | Can’t remember | 2 | 1.3% | 4 | 1.0% | 1 | 0.4% |
Reasons for not seeking paid employment
| Reason | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |--------|-------|-------|-----| | Waiting for the end of the course/result of an application | 41 | 44.2% | 20 | 14.2% | 9 | 8.2% | | Children/Family | 5 | 5.4% | 55 | 39.8% | 13 | 13.0% | | Financial | 9 | 9.1% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 1.5% | | Lack of confidence/qualifications/experience | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 1.0% | 3 | 2.5% | | Health issues | 14 | 14.7% | 51 | 37.2% | 45 | 43.2% | | Retired/student/language barrier | 19 | 19.9% | 5 | 3.6% | 22 | 21.6% | | Other | 6 | 6.6% | 6 | 4.2% | 10 | 10.0% |
Permanent or temporary employment?
| Employment status | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |-------------------|-------|-------|-----| | Permanent | 21 | 43.3% | 71 | 59.6% | 70 | 62.0% | | Temporary | 26 | 54.7% | 45 | 37.5% | 37 | 33.0% | | Not sure | 1 | 2.1% | 4 | 2.9% | 6 | 5.0% |
Are you still in this job?
| Employment status | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |-------------------|-------|-------|-----| | Still in this employment/job | 44 | 69.3% | 140 | 78.6% | 142 | 85.2% | | This job has ended | 20 | 30.7% | 38 | 21.4% | 25 | 14.8% |
How long did this employment last?
| Duration | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |----------|-------|-------|-----| | less than 3 months | 14 | 78.2% | 11 | 33.1% | 12 | 55.5% | | more than 3 months but less than 6 months | 3 | 17.2% | 14 | 42.3% | 6 | 28.0% | | more than 6 months, but less than 1 year | 1 | 4.6% | 7 | 21.6% | 2 | 10.6% | | more than a year | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 3.0% | 1 | 2.8% | | can’t remember | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 2.8% |
Pay - most recent job after completion
| Pay range | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |-----------|-------|-------|-----| | Under £10,000 per year | 31 | 63.2% | 77 | 57.9% | 58 | 47.0% | | £10,000-£14,999 per year | 11 | 22.7% | 23 | 17.4% | 26 | 21.1% | | £15,000-£19,999 per year | 2 | 3.8% | 4 | 3.3% | 11 | 8.9% | | £20,000-£24,999 per year | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 1.3% | 5 | 3.9% | | £25,000 or more per year | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 1.6% | | Refused/don’t know | 1 | 10.3% | 17 | 20.0% | 12 | 17.4% |
Note: Base sample: 866. The question in relation to why respondents were not seeking paid employment was only asked to those completers responding that they were neither employed, self employed or unemployed (n=334). The question asking whether the employment position was permanent or temporary was only asked of those completers who indicated that they were either in full time or part time employment or self employed (n=281). Only individuals who stated that their job had ceased responded to the question in relation to how long this employment had lasted (n=74). Earnings include the stated earnings of individuals in either full-time, part-time, or self employment.
Reflecting both the higher incidence of part time working and the generally lower hourly wage rates achieved by younger workers, the analysis also indicates that younger workers were more likely to be in a form of employment offering the lowest annual earnings. Compared to completers aged in excess of 40, where 47% of completers earned less than £10,000 per annum, almost two-thirds of younger workers were in this earnings bracket.
There were also some very noticeable differences between completers in terms of their reasons for not actively searching for paid employment. For younger completers, the most common reason for not seeking paid employment was that they were waiting for the results of a job application (44%), while for completers aged between 25 and 39, the most common reason related to either home/domestic responsibilities or health related reasons (40% and 38% respectively). In contrast, for older completers, the most common reason cited was health related reasons (43%).
**Level of learning aim**
Replicating the analysis by level of learning aim shows some interesting variation. As might be expected, for individuals undertaking and completing higher qualification levels, the level of employment increased steadily, both in terms of full-time employment, but also in terms of the probability of being self-employed.
However, interestingly, the analysis appears to demonstrate that completers with lower levels of qualification attainment were as likely (or more likely) than average to be in a permanent position. The analysis also shows that there is some degree of variation in the extent to which learners were still in the employment position achieved immediately post completion, with 85% of completers at Entry level stating they were still in the position, compared to 73% of learners at Level 1 and 81% of learners at Level 2. However, the analysis does demonstrate that for those individuals for whom the employment position had ended, there was a negative relationship between level of learning aim and employment duration. In particular, approximately 90% of Entry Level completers indicated the position had lasted for less than 6 months, compared to 83% at Level 1, 82% at Level 2 and 65% at Level 3.
In terms of earnings, compared to 55% of learners at an aggregate level achieving earnings of less than £10,000 per annum, the analysis suggests that there is minimal variation around the mean, though it does appear to be the case that higher levels of learning attainment are associated with higher earnings outcomes post completion. Specifically, the information contained in Table 30 suggests that compared to the 59% of learners undertaking Level 1 learning aims, 54% of respondents undertaking Level 2 learning aims achieved annual salaries of less than £10,000, while 50% of learners at Level 3 achieved this earnings outcome. Table 30: Labour market outcome post completion by level of qualification
| Labour market outcome post completion | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |--------------------------------------|-------|-----|-----|-----|-----| | Yes, paid full time employment (16 hours or more p.w.) | 10.2% | 15.7% | 14.2% | 12.7% | 18.3% | | Yes, paid part-time employment (16 hours or less p.w.) | 8.5% | 12.5% | 18.0% | 15.9% | 5.4% | | Yes, self employment | 10.8% | 1.2% | 2.5% | 3.9% | 16.1% | | Yes, unpaid voluntary employment | 9.8% | 12.9% | 9.7% | 18.1% | 25.8% | | No - I have not yet completed the training/support | 7.2% | 2.7% | 4.6% | 7.1% | 15.1% | | No - although I have completed the training/support | 49.7% | 54.0% | 50.9% | 35.8% | 20.4% |
Reasons for not seeking paid employment
| Reason | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |--------|-------|-----|-----|-----|-----| | Waiting for the end of the course/result of an application | 13.5% | 10.5% | 16.0% | 50.4% | 0.0% | | Children/Family | 6.1% | 25.8% | 26.1% | 10.8% | 71.4% | | Financial | 8.0% | 0.0% | 2.6% | 4.6% | 0.0% | | Lack of confidence/qualifications/experience | 0.0% | 1.0% | 1.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Health issues | 33.9% | 40.8% | 35.7% | 15.9% | 28.6% | | Retired/student/language barrier | 26.3% | 16.2% | 12.2% | 10.2% | 0.0% | | Other | 12.2% | 5.4% | 5.6% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
Permanent or temporary employment?
| Type | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |------|-------|-----|-----|-----|-----| | Permanent | 59.2% | 60.0% | 59.3% | 31.7% | 0.0% | | Temporary | 40.8% | 33.9% | 38.1% | 59.3% | 78.3% | | Not sure | 0.0% | 6.1% | 2.6% | 8.1% | 26.1% |
Are you still in this job?
| Status | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |--------|-------|-----|-----|-----|-----| | Still in this employment/job | 84.7% | 72.9% | 80.6% | 84.7% | 100.0% | | This job has ended | 15.3% | 27.1% | 19.3% | 14.9% | 0.0% |
How long did this employment last?
| Duration | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |----------|-------|-----|-----|-----|-----| | less than 3 months | 65.5% | 62.5% | 43.6% | 65.5% | 50.5% | | more than 3 months but less than 6 months | 34.5% | 21.0% | 38.6% | 0.0% | 32.1% | | more than 6 months, but less than 1 year | 0.0% | 13.5% | 16.5% | 0.0% | 14.4% | | more than a year | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.3% | 34.5% | 2.2% | | can't remember | 0.0% | 3.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.8% |
Pay - most recent job after completion
| Pay | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |-----|-------|-----|-----|-----|-----| | Under £10,000 per year | 32.3% | 59.4% | 54.5% | 50.0% | 84.2% | | £10,000-£14,999 per year | 21.1% | 19.8% | 20.7% | 8.0% | 0.0% | | £15,000-£19,999 per year | 5.6% | 8.2% | 4.6% | 8.0% | 15.8% | | £20,000-£24,999 per year | 11.2% | 2.6% | 1.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | £25,000 or more per year | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Refused/don't know | 30.4% | 10.1% | 17.6% | 34.1% | 0.0% |
Note: Base sample: 866. The question in relation to why respondents were not seeking paid employment was only asked to those completers responding that they were neither employed, self employed or unemployed (n=334). The question asking whether the employment position was permanent or temporary was only asked of those completers who indicated that they were either in full time or part time employment or self employed (n=281). Only individuals who stated that their job had ceased responded to the question in relation to how long this employment had lasted (n=74). Earnings include the stated earnings of individuals in either full-time, part-time, or self employment.
Referral route
Finally, in terms of referral route, the analysis suggests that the average employment rate post completion amongst individuals who self-referred was marginally below average, while the average employment rate amongst completers referred through the National Careers Service or Jobcentre Plus was marginally above average (34% and 35% respectively compared to 30% overall); however, the incidence of full-time work achieved by learners referred through Jobcentre Plus was substantially greater than for those individuals referred through the National Careers Service.
Although again dependent on very small sample sizes, the analysis suggests that completers referred through the National Careers Service were more likely to be in permanent employment (81% compared to 69% for Jobcentre Plus referred learners and 58% overall) and more likely to be still in the position (91% compared to 79% for Jobcentre Plus referred learners and 80% overall). Re-iterating these relatively positive outcomes, as well as the positive outcomes achieved by Jobcentre Plus referred learners, the analysis in Table 31 also suggests that the employment positions achieved by Jobcentre Plus referred learners have a slightly longer duration (27% of positions lasting more than 6 months compared to 17% overall).
Table 31: Labour market outcome post completion by referral route
| Labour market outcome post completion | Self-referred | JCP Adviser | National Careers Service | Other | |--------------------------------------|--------------|-------------|--------------------------|-------| | Yes, paid full time employment (16 hours or more p.w.) | 12.8% | 20.3% | 15.1% | 9.0% | | Yes, paid part-time employment (16 hours or less p.w.) | 16.0% | 14.8% | 29.2% | 16.1% | | Yes, self employment | 3.5% | 2.8% | 0.0% | 2.5% | | Yes, unpaid voluntary employment | 12.4% | 9.7% | 11.3% | 9.7% | | No - I have not yet completed the training/support | 5.3% | 1.3% | 4.8% | 7.1% | | No - although I have completed the training/support | 49.4% | 50.0% | 39.9% | 54.7% |
Reasons for not seeking paid employment
- Waiting for the end of the course/result of an application: 23.9% JCP, 8.0% Self-referred, 10.3% National Careers Service, 21.1% Other
- Children/Family: 22.3% JCP, 21.2% Self-referred, 21.5% National Careers Service, 21.6% Other
- Financial: 2.4% JCP, 0.0% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 5.8% Other
- Lack of confidence/qualifications/experience: 1.7% JCP, 1.7% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 0.0% Other
- Health issues: 28.0% JCP, 56.6% Self-referred, 53.3% National Careers Service, 30.0% Other
- Retired/student/language barrier: 13.9% JCP, 7.7% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 17.6% Other
- Other: 7.8% JCP, 5.2% Self-referred, 15.0% National Careers Service, 3.9% Other
Permanent or temporary employment?
- Permanent: 47.5% JCP, 68.8% Self-referred, 81.5% National Careers Service, 54.1% Other
- Temporary: 50.6% JCP, 26.0% Self-referred, 18.5% National Careers Service, 40.6% Other
- Not sure: 2.0% JCP, 5.1% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 5.2% Other
Are you still in this job?
- Still in this employment/job: 81.2% JCP, 79.4% Self-referred, 91.1% National Careers Service, 74.9% Other
- This job has ended: 18.8% JCP, 20.6% Self-referred, 8.9% National Careers Service, 25.1% Other
How long did this employment last?
- less than 3 months: 53.2% JCP, 45.2% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 57.4% Other
- more than 3 months but less than 6 months: 30.9% JCP, 28.6% Self-referred, 100.0% National Careers Service, 33.5% Other
- more than 6 months, but less than 1 year: 15.9% JCP, 20.7% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 3.4% Other
- more than a year: 0.0% JCP, 2.5% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 5.7% Other
- can't remember: 0.0% JCP, 2.5% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 0.0% Other
Pay - most recent job after completion
- Under £10,000 per year: 59.5% JCP, 49.3% Self-referred, 65.7% National Careers Service, 49.7% Other
- £10,000-£14,999 per year: 17.9% JCP, 21.6% Self-referred, 29.9% National Careers Service, 18.4% Other
- £15,000-£19,999 per year: 5.2% JCP, 6.8% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 5.8% Other
- £20,000-£24,999 per year: 1.5% JCP, 2.1% Self-referred, 4.5% National Careers Service, 3.1% Other
- £25,000 or more per year: 0.5% JCP, 0.6% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 1.2% Other
- Refused/don't know: 15.4% JCP, 19.6% Self-referred, 0.0% National Careers Service, 21.8% Other
Note: Base sample: 866. The question in relation to why respondents were not seeking paid employment was only asked to those completers responding that they were neither employed, self employed or unemployed (n=334). The question asking whether the employment position was permanent or temporary was only asked of those completers who indicated that they were either in full time or part time employment or self employed (n=281). Only individuals who stated that their job had ceased responded to the question in relation to how long this employment had lasted (n=74). Earnings include the stated earnings of individuals in either full-time, part-time, or self employment.
One final point emerging from the data analysis is the prevalence of health issues apparently preventing learners referred through Jobcentre Plus or the National Careers Service from seeking paid employment. Compared to the 28% of self-referred completers indicating that health issues prevented them from seeking paid employment, for completers referred through Jobcentre Plus or the National Careers Service, the equivalent proportions were almost double (56% and 53% respectively).
**Current economic status**
Respondents were also asked to indicate their current economic status(^{19}). The information in Table 32 indicates that at the time of the survey, 21% of learners were in employment, with a further 3% being self employed and 4% engaged in voluntary activity. 46% of respondents were currently unemployed and actively seeking work, with the remaining 27% of respondents indicating that they were economically inactive (11% in training; 5% looking after family; 5% either sick, injured or disabled, while a further 1% had retired).
| Current employment status | Male | Female | Total | |---------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Employed | 163 | 176 | 339 | | Self employed | 26 | 19 | 45 | | Undertaking voluntary work| 25 | 46 | 71 | | Training | 85 | 99 | 185 | | Unemployed and looking for work | 387 | 353 | 740 | | Looking after family etc. | 8 | 75 | 83 | | Sick/injured/disabled | 38 | 45 | 83 | | Retired | 9 | 14 | 23 | | Something else (incl. unemployed not looking for work) | 21 | 31 | 52 |
**Table 32: Current employment status by gender**
The analysis presented in Table 33 provides some indication of the employment outcomes of learners prior to the commencement of the learning aim alongside their current economic status(^{20}).
| Current employment status | (EMP) | (SE) | (VOL) | (E/T) | (U) | (LAF) | (S/I/D) | (RET) | (OTH) | |---------------------------|-------|------|-------|-------|-----|-------|---------|-------|-------| | Self employed | 12.7% | 65.5%| 5.5% | 0.0% | 11.4%| 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.5% | 0.0% | | Voluntary Work | 20.0% | 2.2% | 30.8% | 0.0% | 37.9%| 5.3% | 3.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Education/Training | 25.9% | 1.0% | 2.9% | 24.5% | 37.3%| 1.9% | 1.4% | 0.7% | 4.4% | | Unemployed | 22.2% | 2.8% | 2.4% | 4.9% | 59.4%| 2.1% | 3.1% | 0.4% | 2.8% | | Looking after family etc. | 9.3% | 1.8% | 8.0% | 13.6% | 30.6%| 32.1% | 0.4% | 1.0% | 3.2% | | Sick/injured/disabled | 8.5% | 0.0% | 2.0% | 4.6% | 19.8%| 0.0% | 61.6% | 1.5% | 2.0% | | Retired | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.4% | 0.0% | 4.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 92.0% | 0.0% | | Other | 12.7% | 65.5%| 5.5% | 0.0% | 11.4%| 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
**Table 33: Previous and current employment status**
(^{19}) A high proportion of respondents are still in the same employment position as when competing the course, there will be some degree of overlap between the results presented here and in the previous section; however, completers and non-completers, as well as individuals still continuing their learning aim were asked this series of questions, thereby increasing the potential sample and the robustness of the findings.
(^{20}) See footnote Error! Bookmark not defined. for a detailed description of the time between learning aim completion and response to survey. The analysis indicates that of those that were self-employed, 65% were still in this position, 11% were currently unemployed and looking for work and 12% are now employed. Of those that were training, 25% are currently in training; 26% are in employment and 37% are unemployed and looking for work. Of those that were unemployed and looking for work prior to commencing their learning aim, 59% were currently unemployed; with 22% moving from unemployment to employment; 3% moving to self-employment and 5% in training.
In terms of the occupational nature of the employment achieved, 24% of men and 15% of women indicated that they were in elementary occupations, with a further 9% of men and 2% of women stating that they were process, plant and machine operatives. The largest proportions of learners in employment were engaged in care and leisure occupations (18%), sales and customer service roles (16%) and administrative and secretarial positions (15%). Only 4% of respondents (predominantly men) stated that they were employed in skilled trades’ occupations.
| Table 34: Occupation of employment gender – most recent job | |-----------------------------------------------------------| | Male | Female | Total | | Elementary occupations | 28 | 29 | 56 | 18.4% | | Process, plant and machine operatives | 10.6 | 4 | 15 | 4.9% | | Sales and customer service occupations | 15.6 | 33 | 48 | 15.8% | | Caring, leisure and other service occupations | 10.3 | 46 | 56 | 18.2% | | Skilled trades occupations | 9.9 | 1 | 11 | 3.6% | | Administrative and secretarial occupations | 5.3 | 42 | 47 | 15.4% | | Associate professional and technical occupations | 5.4 | 5 | 11 | 3.5% | | Professional occupations | 2.6 | 15 | 18 | 5.8% | | Managers, directors and senior officials | 1.4 | 5 | 6 | 1.9% | | Other | 27.6 | 10 | 38 | 12.4% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 306.
There were some differences in the economic outcomes achieved by respondents depending on the age of the learner. As presented in Table 35, younger learners are more likely than average to be currently in employment (27% compared to 21% overall), while also less likely to be unemployed (39% compared to 45% overall).
| Table 35: Current employment status by age | |-------------------------------------------| | Current employment status | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | | Employed | 141 | 110 | 89 | 18.1% | | Self employed | 5 | 14 | 26 | 5.2% | | Undertaking voluntary work | 13 | 43 | 15 | 3.0% | | Training | 121 | 46 | 18 | 3.6% | | Unemployed and looking for work | 206 | 289 | 245 | 49.7% | | Looking after family etc. | 5 | 51 | 27 | 5.5% | | Sick/injured/disabled | 10 | 33 | 41 | 8.3% | | Retired | 1 | 0 | 22 | 4.4% | | Something else (incl. unemployed not looking for work) | 25 | 16 | 11 | 2.2% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 1,620
In addition, there were significantly higher proportions of younger people less distant from the labour market in the sense that only 2% indicated that they were either temporarily or permanently sick or disabled (compared to 5% more generally). The other main category accounting for the activities of younger people related to the 23% currently undertaking additional qualifications or training, which is approximately three times as high as those aged between 25 and 39.
The level of qualification studied was a key determinant of the economic outcomes of learners. Individuals studying Entry level qualifications achieved a 19% employment rate (including the self-employed), compared to an employment rate of 31% for those studying Level 3 qualifications and 41% for those respondents studying Level 4 qualifications. As expected, the level of being unemployed and looking for work appears to be decreasing with the level of qualification, with respondents studying Level 3 qualifications more than 21 percentage points less likely to be currently unemployed and looking for work than those studying an Entry level qualification and 11 percentage points more likely to be both in employment or undertaking further training.
Table 36: Current employment status by level of qualification
| Current employment status | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |-------------------------------------------|-------|-----|-----|-----|-----| | Employed | 16.9% | 19.9% | 19.4% | 28.7% | 23.1% | | Self employed | 2.4% | 2.1% | 2.9% | 2.6% | 17.9% | | Undertaking voluntary work | 1.9% | 3.0% | 6.0% | 2.7% | 9.0% | | Training | 10.7% | 7.3% | 9.6% | 22.0% | 0.0% | | Unemployed and looking for work | 55.0% | 50.6% | 46.2% | 33.6% | 38.8% | | Looking after family etc. | 3.5% | 5.1% | 6.1% | 3.3% | 3.7% | | Sick/injured/disabled | 4.0% | 6.7% | 5.9% | 1.7% | 7.5% | | Retired | 3.0% | 1.6% | 1.4% | 0.7% | 0.0% | | Something else (incl. unemployed not looking for work) | 2.6% | 3.6% | 2.6% | 4.8% | 0.0% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 1,620.
Respondents who indicated that they had self-referred were in employment in 25% of cases and unemployed in 42% of cases. This compares to estimates of employment and unemployment of 21% and 62% respectively for those referred through Jobcentre Plus (probably reflecting the lower job readiness of those learners referred through Jobcentre Plus and the greater level of prior attainment and employment experience of those who self-referred).
Table 37: Current employment status by referral route
| Current employment status | Self-referred | JCP Adviser | National Careers Service adviser | Other | |-------------------------------------------|---------------|-------------|----------------------------------|-------| | Employed | 22.6% | 18.7% | 24.2% | 18.9% | | Self employed | 2.9% | 2.0% | 9.1% | 2.5% | | Undertaking voluntary work | 3.7% | 3.1% | 5.1% | 6.6% | | Training | 12.7% | 3.9% | 10.4% | 14.9% | | Unemployed and looking for work | 42.2% | 62.0% | 33.3% | 41.0% | | Looking after family etc. | 6.4% | 2.6% | 1.3% | 4.9% | | Sick/injured/disabled | 4.1% | 4.9% | 11.0% | 6.8% | | Retired | 1.7% | 0.3% | 2.1% | 1.7% | | Other | 3.8% | 2.4% | 3.4% | 2.6% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 1,620. However, the analysis also suggests that there are relatively positive outcomes associated with referral through National Careers Service (though again significant caution needs to be exercised as a result of the small sample sizes). These respondents indicate that they were in employment in 24% of cases; self employed in 9% of cases; engaged in training in 10% of cases; and unemployed and looking for work in 33% of cases.
We have also presented the employment outcomes of learners depending on whether they had completed the learning aim, withdrawn or were currently continuing with the learning aim. The analysis in Table 38 illustrates that 34% of non-completers were either in employment of self employed, compared to 28% who were still continuing their learning aim and 35% who had completed the course. The level of being unemployed and looking for work did not differ substantially across the three groups (between 37% and 39%), although there was a significantly higher proportion of non-completers indicating that they were economically inactive because of childcare responsibilities and sickness or disabilities (6% and 10% respectively) compared to those learners that had completed (4% in each category).
Table 38: Current employment status by completion status
| Current employment status | Continuing | Non-completer | Completer | |-------------------------------------------|------------|---------------|-----------| | Employed | 201 | 85 | 268 | | Self employed | 24 | 11 | 32 | | Undertaking voluntary work | 42 | 10 | 95 | | Training | 132 | 11 | 45 | | Unemployed and looking for work | 314 | 105 | 334 | | Looking after family etc. | 37 | 16 | 31 | | Sick/injured/disabled | 24 | 27 | 33 | | Retired | 6 | 5 | 12 | | Something else (incl. unemployed not looking for work) | 29 | 10 | 14 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: Base sample: 1,620.
Perceived additionality – would employment outcomes have been achieved anyway?
What is meant by deadweight loss and additionality?
In general economic terms, deadweight loss is a reduction in net economic benefits resulting from an inefficient allocation of resources and is a common concept when assessing government interventions and programmes. In the context of Further Education and Skills, deadweight loss might occur following the introduction of a particular government policy aimed at raising the skills profile of the population, where the intended outcome (i.e. increased training) might have occurred (at least to some extent) in the absence of the government intervention. Deadweight loss occurs as a result of individuals or employers no longer privately financing their own skills acquisition, or those of their workforce, and substituting publicly financed training in its place. Additionality refers to the concept where the government policy specifically induces the desired outcome that would not have occurred in the absence of such intervention.
______________________________________________________________________
21 Although, as presented in the section relating to the reasons for non-completion, 38 respondents indicated that they had not completed the learning aim in question specifically to undertake a position of employment, which is approximately 36% of those non-completers who were in employment at the time of the survey. The analysis presented here asks slightly different questions to learners who are in employment following the completion of their learning aim. Specifically, the survey asked individuals who had completed their qualification aim and who were in employment, whether the training undertaken had had any impact on the likelihood of finding employment. Again, although the sample sizes are particularly small, the analysis suggests that 44% of learners in employment thought that they would have found employment anyway; 35% of eligible respondents indicated that they would have found employment, though not as quickly; while 21% of respondents believe that they would either ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ not found employment in the absence of the training. The analysis suggests that men were more convinced of their own abilities for finding employment in the absence of training completion (89% compared to 72% of women).
Table 39 also provides information on learners’ perceptions of their employment prospects. Almost 88% of learners (84% of men and 90% of women) indicated that having undertaken training had improved their employment prospects to a greater extent than if they had not completed the training, while the equivalent proportion of respondents recognising the positive impact of training on earnings stood at 66% (60% for men and 71% for women).
Table 39: Deadweight Loss/ Alternatives by gender
| Proportion of completers responding ‘yes’ | Male | Female | Total | |------------------------------------------|------|--------|-------| | I would have found employment anyway | 53 | 77 | 130 | 44.1% | | I would have found employment but not as quickly | 47 | 56 | 103 | 34.8% | | I would probably not have found employment | 6 | 27 | 33 | 11.3% | | I definitely would not have found employment | 6 | 23 | 29 | 9.8% |
Do you feel that having done your training/qualification that it has improved your employment prospects more than if you had not done the training/qualification?
Do you feel that having done your training/qualification it has given you a level of earnings or earnings potential which you wouldn’t have got if you hadn’t done the training/qualification?
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: For the question relating to whether the individual would have achieved employment in the absence of the training, the base sample stands at 295. The total number of respondents to the question on the potential improvement to employment prospects was 849 (excluding “don’t knows”), while there were 827 respondents (excluding don’t knows) to the question on enhanced earnings potential.
Although generally comparable results are presented depending on the age of the learner, Table 40 indicates that learners aged 19-24 were more positive in relation to the impact that their training may have had on their employment and earnings prospects (91% and 78% answering positively compared to 85% and 56% of learners aged 40 plus respectively). Similar outcomes are associated with individuals completing Entry Level
______________________________________________________________________
Note that in this survey we asked respondents who had completed their learning and were in employment about whether they would have been as likely (or as quickly) to gain employment in the absence of the training received. In our previous report (BIS Research Report 104, January 2013 (here)), we asked learners who had either not paid for their training or contributed only a proportion to the full costs whether their decision to undertake training would have been affected by paying the full amount. As such, the assessment of ‘deadweight’ is not comparable between the two studies.
The employment outcome question is a new question that was not asked in previous survey of FE learners. In the previous FE survey we asked learners who did not make a contribution to course fees/made some contribution only whether they would have undertaken the training if they had to pay the full fees. This question was not asked in this survey because the hypothesis was that a significant proportion of unemployed learners were compelled to attend the training. The economic and social benefits associated with Further Education and Skills: Learning for the unemployed qualifications (Table 41); however, the sample available for these learners (as well as learners at Level 3 and Level 4 are particularly small). Despite this, it is interesting to note that learners attempting Level 1 and Level 2 qualifications were more pessimistic about the impact of their training and qualification attainment compared to the population of respondents in general. Although there appears to be an increase in the proportion of respondents indicating that they would definitely have not found employment at Level 3, this is based off an exceptionally small sample(^{23}) and should be treated with some caution.
Table 40: Deadweight Loss/ Alternatives by age
| Proportion of completers responding 'yes' | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | I would have found employment anyway | 18 | 39.8% | 50 | 39.0% | 62 | 51.1% | | I would have found employment but not as quickly | 19 | 42.9% | 46 | 35.6% | 38 | 31.0% | | I would probably not have found employment | 7 | 15.6% | 18 | 13.7% | 9 | 7.1% | | I definitely would not have found employment | 1 | 1.8% | 15 | 11.5% | 13 | 10.9% |
Do you feel that having done your training/qualification that it has improved your employment prospects more than if you had not done the training/qualification?
| Proportion of completers responding 'yes' | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |------------------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | Do you feel that having done your training/qualification it has given you a level of earnings or earnings potential which you wouldn't have got if you hadn't done the training/qualification? | 141 | 91.2% | 329 | 89.4% | 277 | 84.6% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: For the question relating to whether the individual would have achieved employment in the absence of the training, the base sample stands at 295. The total number of respondents to the question on the potential improvement to employment prospects was 849 (excluding “don’t knows”), while there were 827 respondents (excluding don’t knows) to the question on enhanced earnings potential.
Table 41: Deadweight Loss/ Alternatives by level of qualification
| Proportion of completers responding 'yes' | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |------------------------------------------|-------|---|---|---|---| | I would have found employment anyway | 50.3% | 40.2% | 45.6% | 25.4% | 53.8% | | I would have found employment but not as quickly | 43.6% | 39.8% | 34.3% | 23.8% | 0.0% | | I would probably not have found employment | 0.0% | 6.7% | 12.8% | 8.5% | 46.2% | | I definitely would not have found employment | 6.7% | 13.4% | 7.3% | 42.3% | 0.0% |
Do you feel that having done your training/qualification that it has improved your employment prospects more than if you had not done the training/qualification?
| Proportion of completers responding 'yes' | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |------------------------------------------|-------|---|---|---|---| | Do you feel that having done your training/qualification it has given you a level of earnings or earnings potential which you wouldn't have got if you hadn't done the training/qualification? | 93.4% | 81.4% | 84.1% | 82.4% | 100.0% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: For the question relating to whether the individual would have achieved employment in the absence of the training, the base sample stands at 295. The total number of respondents to the question on the potential improvement to employment prospects was 849 (excluding “don’t knows”), while there were 827 respondents (excluding don’t knows) to the question on enhanced earnings potential.
Finally, turning to Table 42, there are limited differences depending on referral route. Respondents who were referred through Jobcentre Plus were marginally more likely to indicate that they would have achieved their employment outcome in the absence of training compared to self-referred learners (or the sample more generally), but were substantially less positive in relation to the potential earnings impact of the training that
(^{23}) There were 53 respondents to this question at Entry Level, 179 at Level 1, 569 at Level 2, 38 at Level 3 and 9 at level 4 (excluding don’t knows). they had received (59% compared to 69% for those self-referring). Respondents that were referred through National Careers Service appeared as likely to indicate that their employment and earnings prospects had improved as a result of the training received (89% and 77% in the case employment and earnings, compared to 84% and 67% for the sample of learners as a whole).
Table 42: Deadweight Loss/ Alternatives by referral route
| Proportion of completers responding ‘yes’ | Self-referred | JCP Adviser | National Careers Service adviser | Other | |------------------------------------------|---------------|-------------|----------------------------------|-------| | I would have found employment anyway | 39.9% | 53.0% | 38.5% | 39.2% | | I would have found employment but not as quickly | 36.4% | 29.4% | 40.0% | 40.1% | | I would probably not have found employment | 14.5% | 9.5% | 22.2% | 4.8% | | I definitely would not have found employment | 9.3% | 8.2% | 0.0% | 16.1% |
Do you feel that having done your training/qualification that it has improved your employment prospects more than if you had not done the training/qualification?
Do you feel that having done your training/qualification it has given you a level of earnings or earnings potential which you wouldn’t have got if you hadn’t done the training/qualification?
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Note: For the question relating to whether the individual would have achieved employment in the absence of the training, the base sample stands at 295. The total number of respondents to the question on the potential improvement to employment prospects was 849 (excluding “don’t knows”), while there were 827 respondents (excluding don’t knows) to the question on enhanced earnings potential.
The impact of learning on potential progression and further skills acquisition
In addition to the direct economic effect associated with training in the form of enhanced employment and earnings outcomes, the analysis strongly suggests that undertaking training appeared to have a greater positive effect on learners’ views in relation to further learning and training. Specifically, the analysis presented in Table 43 indicates that almost 84% of learners had become more enthusiastic about learning (81% of men and 86% of women). There was also an impact on whether further training and learning might take place (86% of women and 83% of men), as well as an increase in the likelihood that further training would be undertaken to a higher level (80% of women and 78% of men). The aggregate findings support the widely held belief that training leads to further training and acts as a stepping stone to higher and more economically productive skills acquisition.
Although there were relatively limited differences depending on the age of learner, the analysis suggests that younger learners were 5 percentage point more likely to undertake further learning and training and 15 percentage points more likely to undertake further learning at a higher level. Although there was a decline in the positive perceptions across the age spectrum, it was not uniformly the case. Specifically, learners aged between 25 and 39 were the most enthusiastic about learning (86%), the most likely to undertake further learning and training (89%) and the most likely to undertake further learning at a higher level (84%). These outcomes may reflect the fact that these learners were better informed about the impact of their learning on their career prospects and the associated economic value associated with skills acquisition. The economic and social benefits associated with Further Education and Skills: Learning for the unemployed
Table 43: Impact of training on learner training progression
| | Male | Female | Total | |--------------------------------|------------|------------|------------| | Become more enthusiastic about learning | 705 80.7% | 929 85.9% | 1634 83.6% | | More likely to undertake further learning and training | 726 83.1% | 929 85.9% | 1655 84.7% | | More likely to undertake further learning at a higher level | 678 77.6% | 863 79.8% | 1541 78.8% |
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total | |-----------|------------|------------|------------| | 19-24 | 479 82.7% | 641 86.3% | 514 81.1% | | 25-39 | 488 84.2% | 664 89.4% | 504 79.5% | | 40+ | 482 83.2% | 624 84.1% | 436 68.7% |
| Level | Male | Female | Total | |-----------|------------|------------|------------| | Entry | 85.0% | 82.6% | 82.5% | | Level 1 | 86.0% | 85.0% | 85.1% | | Level 2 | 86.0% | 85.0% | 80.9% | | Level 3 | 81.6% | 72.1% | 81.2% | | Level 4 | 81.6% | 72.1% | 81.2% |
| Referral Route | Male | Female | Total | |----------------|------------|------------|------------| | Self-referred | 85.1% | 83.8% | 83.3% | | JCP Adviser | 86.2% | 82.7% | 86.4% | | NCS adviser | 81.6% | 72.1% | 81.2% | | Other | 81.6% | 72.1% | 81.2% |
| Completion Status | Male | Female | Total | |-------------------|------------|------------|------------| | Completers | 700 86.5% | 212 75.5% | 75.5% | | Non-completers | 698 86.3% | 216 76.7% | 76.7% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Base sample: 1,955.
Looking at the information on how the impact of learning on further skills acquisition depends on the level of learning, the findings do not show any clear pattern (especially given the fact that less emphasis should be placed on learners at Level 4 because of small sample sizes). In terms of the probability of undertaking further education and training, or undertaking further education and training at a higher level, there appears to be a diminishing marginal effect, in the sense that the likelihood of undertaking further education decreases as the level of qualification increases (excluding Level 4); however, there is a slightly lower probability of learners at Entry level, Level 1 and Level 2 indicating that they would undertake further education leading to a higher level of qualification compared to learners at Level 3. Fundamentally, the analysis is inconclusive when disaggregated by level of learning aim.
We also considered whether the impact of educational attainment on learning progression was dependent on the referral route. The information in Table 43 suggests that individuals who self referred were more enthusiastic about learning (compared to the average across all learners), while individuals referred through either a Jobcentre Plus advisor or a National Careers Service advisor were as likely to be enthusiastic about learning (83%-84%). There was some divergence between those referred through Jobcentre Plus and National Careers Service in terms of undertaking further of higher learning and training. In particular, individuals referred through the National Careers Service were 3 percentage points more likely to consider undertaking further learning and training (86% compared to 83%), and 10 percentage points more likely to undertake further training at a higher level (82% compared to 72%); however, care should be exercised as a result of the particularly small sample sizes associated with referral through the National Careers Service. Finally, the analysis demonstrates that there were significant differences in the outcomes achieved by learners depending on their completion status. Completers were 11 percentage points more likely to be more enthusiastic about learning (86% compared to 75%), 9 percentage points more likely to consider undertaking further education and training (86% compared to 77%) and 20 percentage points more likely to undertake additional learning at a higher level (84% compared to 64%).
**Wider social benefits associated with learning**
When respondents who had completed their learning aim were asked about a number of issues that were wider in scope than the purely economic, in addition to the very substantial wider social benefits stated by learners as a whole, there were some clear distinctions depending on respondents’ personal characteristics. Table 44 provides information on learners’ responses in aggregate and by gender and suggests that 81% of learners stated that they had gained self-confidence or self-esteem following the training episode, while almost 72% would take on more social work or voluntary work. More than three-in-four learners suggested that the learning aim had helped them make better use of their spare time, while three in ten learners mentioned that the course had enabled them to assist their children with school work. There were some gender differences (especially in relation to the ability to assist children with school work), although in general these are relatively small. Only 5% of learners indicated that the course had had none of the wider economic benefits presented. Three quarters of respondents indicated that they now had a better idea of what to do with their lives, and 66% indicated that their quality of life had improved as a result of undertaking the education and training activity.
| Table 44: Wider economic benefits by gender | Male | Female | Total | |--------------------------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Gained confidence/self esteem as a result of the course | 672 | 76.9% | 910 | 84.2% | 1582 | 80.9% | | More social activities/voluntary work | 610 | 69.8% | 791 | 73.1% | 1401 | 71.6% | | Course enabled to help children with school work | 156 | 17.9% | 439 | 40.6% | 595 | 30.4% | | Better use of spare time/kept active as a result of the course | 645 | 73.9% | 849 | 78.5% | 1494 | 76.4% | | Course helped with health problems/disability | 107 | 12.3% | 98 | 9.0% | 205 | 10.5% | | None of the above | 50 | 5.7% | 46 | 4.2% | 95 | 4.9% | | Got a better idea about what you want to do in your life | 652 | 74.6% | 819 | 75.8% | 1471 | 75.2% | | Improved your quality of life | 559 | 63.9% | 732 | 67.7% | 1291 | 66.0% |
*Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Base sample: 1,955.*
Training appeared to provide some degree of additional direction to younger learners. Compared to the aggregate estimate of 75%, 83% of respondents aged between 19-24 stated that this was the case, while 73% of younger learners indicated that the learning had improved their quality of life (compared with 66% overall).
| Table 45: Wider economic benefits by age | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | |-----------------------------------------|-------|-------|-----| | Gained confidence/self esteem as a result of the course | 458 | 79.1% | 622 | 83.8% | 502 | 79.2% | | More social activities/voluntary work | 441 | 76.1% | 530 | 71.5% | 430 | 67.8% | | Course enabled to help children with school work | 91 | 15.7% | 326 | 43.9% | 179 | 28.1% | | Better use of spare time/kept active as a result of course | 430 | 74.3% | 571 | 76.9% | 493 | 77.8% | The economic and social benefits associated with Further Education and Skills: Learning for the unemployed
Course helped with health problems/disability
| Level | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |-------|-------|---|---|---|---| | None of the above | 33 | 5.7% | 22 | 3.0% | 40 | 6.3% |
Got a better idea about what you want to do in your life
| Level | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |-------|-------|---|---|---|---| | None of the above | 33 | 5.7% | 22 | 3.0% | 40 | 6.3% |
Improved your quality of life
| Level | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |-------|-------|---|---|---|---| | None of the above | 33 | 5.7% | 22 | 3.0% | 40 | 6.3% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Base sample: 1,955.
Although there is some degree of uniformity in the results depending on the level of qualification attempted, the analysis presented in Table 46 highlights the views of learners at Level 1 and Level 2 compared to learners at other levels of qualification attainment. Specifically, learners at these levels were less likely than average to engage in social/voluntary work; less likely to have a better idea of what to do in life; and less likely to respond that the training had improved their quality of life.
Table 46: Wider economic benefits by level of qualification
| Benefit | Level | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |---------|-------|-------|---|---|---|---| | Gained confidence/self esteem as a result of the course | Entry | 82.0% | 80.3% | 81.7% | 77.2% | 100.0% | | More social activities/voluntary work | Level 1 | 78.7% | 68.1% | 67.0% | 85.8% | 95.9% | | Course enabled to help children with school work | Level 2 | 29.7% | 30.2% | 31.9% | 26.7% | 24.5% | | Better use of spare time/kept active as a result of course | Level 3 | 77.7% | 74.4% | 76.0% | 79.1% | 83.2% | | Course helped with health problems/disability | Level 4 | 18.5% | 13.2% | 8.8% | 7.7% | 10.2% | | None of the above | Level 5 | 2.3% | 6.8% | 5.0% | 3.9% | 0.0% |
Got a better idea about what you want to do in your life
| Benefit | Level | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |---------|-------|-------|---|---|---|---| | None of the above | 33 | 5.7% | 22 | 3.0% | 40 | 6.3% |
Improved your quality of life
| Benefit | Level | Entry | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |---------|-------|-------|---|---|---|---| | None of the above | 33 | 5.7% | 22 | 3.0% | 40 | 6.3% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Base sample: 1,955.
The analysis in Table 47 suggests that referral route is associated with the wider benefits achieved by learners, though again this may be due to the characteristics of the learners being referred along the different routes, and not the specific referral process, and the results need to be tempered by the relatively few learners referred through the National Careers Service route. Compared to an average of 81% across all learners, the analysis indicates that for those individuals referred through Jobcentre Plus, the proportion indicating that they had gained self-confidence or self-esteem stood at 78%, compared to 82% who self-referred and 88% for those referred through the National Careers Service.
Self-referred learners were 11 percentage points more likely than JCP referred learners to engage in social/voluntary work; 9 percentage point more likely than JCP referred learners to indicate that they made better use of their spare time; but 3 percentage points less likely to indicate that the course had helped them mange their health problems. They were more likely to suggest that the training or course had had some wider social benefit with just 3% stating that it had had no effect (compared to 7% for Jobcentre Plus referred learners but just 1% of National Careers Service referred learners).
In addition, the analysis indicates that self referred learners were 15 percentage points more likely than JCP referred learners to state that the course had given them a better idea of what to do in their life and improved their quality of life by 9 percentage points more than JCP referred learners.24
24 It is not possible to consider the wider economic benefits of learners depending on whether the individual was mandated, as the numbers of respondents is insufficient (8 respondents) The economic and social benefits associated with Further Education and Skills: Learning for the unemployed
Table 47: Wider social benefits by referral route
| Referral route | Self-referred | JCP Adviser | National Careers Service | Other | |--------------------------------|---------------|-------------|--------------------------|-------| | Gained confidence/self esteem as a result of the course | 82.3% | 78.5% | 88.4% | 79.2% | | More social activities/voluntary work | 74.3% | 63.3% | 70.8% | 73.7% | | Course enabled to help children with school work | 32.4% | 30.2% | 28.3% | 26.8% | | Better use of spare time/kept active as a result of the course | 79.4% | 70.5% | 80.9% | 74.8% | | Course helped with health problems/disability | 8.7% | 10.5% | 13.5% | 13.8% | | None of the above | 3.1% | 7.3% | 1.0% | 7.1% | | Got a better idea about what you want to do in your life | 80.6% | 65.6% | 83.9% | 71.5% | | Improved your quality of life | 68.6% | 59.8% | 63.4% | 66.6% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Base sample: 1,955.
Completion of the qualification aim also impacts the wider social benefits associated with learning and training. Presented in Table 48, completers are 10 percentage points more likely than non-completers to respond that they have gained self-confidence or self-esteem; 24 percentage points more likely to undertake social or voluntary work; 7 percentage points more likely to indicate that the training has assisted them in helping their children with their studies; 8 percentage points more likely to respond that they make better use of their spare time; and 6 percentage points less likely to indicate that the training had impacted none of these outcomes. In addition, 78% of completers also mentioned that their quality of life had improved compared to just 53% of non-completers.
Table 48: Wider economic benefits by completion status
| | Completers | Non-completers | Total | |----------------------|------------|----------------|-------| | Gained confidence/self esteem as a result of the course | 666 82.2% | 205 72.9% | 711 82.3% | | More social activities/voluntary work | 644 79.5% | 156 55.4% | 601 69.5% | | Course enabled to help children with school work | 238 29.4% | 64 22.9% | 293 33.9% | | Better use of spare time/kept active as a result of the course | 632 78.1% | 197 70.0% | 665 76.9% | | Course helped with health problems/disability | 88 10.8% | 25 8.8% | 92 10.7% | | None of the above | 31 3.8% | 27 9.5% | 38 4.3% | | Got a better idea about what you want to do in your life | 691 85.4% | 181 64.5% | 599 69.3% | | Improved your quality of life | 631 77.9% | 148 52.8% | 512 59.2% |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Base sample: 1,955.
Satisfaction and wellbeing
In a final element of analysis, information was collected on learners' general wellbeing which is reported in Table 49. These questions were asked to half of respondents at random.
The analysis suggests that there are differences between men and women in response to the question “overall, how satisfied are you with life nowadays?” with women generally being more positive about their circumstances compared to men (7.26 compared to 6.52 for completers), although these general wellbeing measures do lag behind the comparable estimates for the general population(^{25}). In response to the question “overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life area worthwhile?”, women also indicated that they were more content, posting an average score of 7.71 compared to 7.05 posted by men (also for completers only).
| Table 49: Wellbeing scores by gender, age level of qualification and referral route | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | How satisfied are you with your life nowadays? | How happy did you feel yesterday? | Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? | Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? | | Male | 6.52 | 6.59 | 4.14 | 7.05 | | Female | 7.26 | 6.96 | 4.12 | 7.71 | | 19-24 | 7.40 | 7.23 | 3.90 | 7.86 | | 25-39 | 6.93 | 6.74 | 4.11 | 7.24 | | 40+ | 6.48 | 6.44 | 4.35 | 7.21 | | Entry level | 7.54 | 7.63 | 4.55 | 7.84 | | Level 1 | 6.44 | 6.46 | 4.27 | 7.25 | | Level 2 | 6.83 | 6.68 | 3.90 | 7.29 | | Level 3 | 7.51 | 7.13 | 4.46 | 7.79 | | Level 4 | 7.37 | 6.44 | 4.76 | 7.99 | | Self referred | 6.97 | 6.84 | 4.13 | 7.37 | | JCP Advisor | 6.86 | 6.67 | 4.02 | 7.34 | | National Careers Service Advisor | 6.44 | 6.20 | 3.46 | 7.13 | | Other | 6.98 | 6.87 | 4.30 | 7.63 | | Employed/ Self employed | 8.63 | 8.41 | 4.86 | 8.85 | | Unemployed | 7.49 | 7.51 | 5.32 | 8.18 | | Total | 6.93 | 6.79 | 4.13 | 7.42 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012). Base sample: 965. Note that we have presented the wellbeing scores of just those individuals that are in employment or unemployed. We have not presented information on the scores posted by other groups including those that are sick, disables, in training, looking after family home etc or retired.
The analysis also indicates that younger learners have higher levels of general wellbeing and lower levels of anxiety compared to older learners (7.40 compared to 6.48 in the case of general wellbeing, and 3.90 compared to 4.35 in relation to anxiety levels). Re-iterating a number of previous results relating to the relatively low level of perceived benefits associated with Level 1 and Level 2 qualifications, the results presented in Table 49 suggest that learners completing these levels of qualification have lower than average general wellbeing scores (compared to individuals in possession of Entry level and Level 3 qualifications). Similarly, the extent to which these learners felt the things they did in their lives were worthwhile were amongst the lowest indicated.
(^{25}) In a relatively recent survey administered by the ONS, the mean measure of subjective well being using the same question as adopted in this survey stood at 7.40. See [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rele/mro/news-release/initial-investigation-of-subjective-well-being---ons-opinions-survey/initial-investigation-of-subjective-well-being---ons-opinions-survey-nr.html](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rele/mro/news-release/initial-investigation-of-subjective-well-being---ons-opinions-survey/initial-investigation-of-subjective-well-being---ons-opinions-survey-nr.html) for more information (accessed 16 May 2012) We also considered whether a person's employment status had an impact on general wellbeing measures. We found that learners that were in employment were more likely to provide high scores compared to individuals that are unemployed and looking for work. Specifically, learners that were currently in employment have an average satisfaction score of 8.63 compared to a score of 7.49 for those that were unemployed and looking for work. Similarly, learners that were employed also indicated that they believed that the things that they did in their life were worthwhile (8.85) compared to those learners that were unemployed and looking for work (8.18).
There were more limited differences depending on the route of referral with those respondents self-referring into learning and training posting higher general wellbeing measures compared to those referred through either Jobcentre Plus or the National Careers Service. Similar findings are demonstrated for the other wellbeing measures, although respondents referred to learning by a National Careers Service advisor do post amongst the lowest anxiety measures. Annex 1 Methodological approach
This section provides details on the design and administration of the learner survey.
Survey population and sample frame
The survey population comprised learners who received and/or completed training (irrespective of outcome) but were not in paid employment prior to the learning. The Individual Learner Record (ILR) was used as the sample frame.
Sample size and design
The target sample size was 2,000 interviews. Preparatory work on the sample frame comprised of removing learners who did not give consent to take part in research, duplicate entries, learners identified as deceased and learners without a telephone number.
A stratified random sample was drawn. The stratification variables were: completion status (completed; withdrawn; still studying); funding status (in receipt of YPLA/Skills Funding Agency DLF Funding; no funding); and qualification levels (Entry; Level 1; Level 2; Level 3 or higher).
Questionnaire development and piloting
The questionnaire was designed by Ipsos MORI and London Economics in collaboration with BIS. The questionnaire content was informed by a literature review undertaken as part of a research study into the impact of Further Education learning and a review of previous surveys (BIS Research Report 104, January 2013). The following topic areas (standardised questions were used where possible to enable comparisons with relevant studies commissioned by BIS):
- Learner characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, English as a first language, disability, learning difficulties, marital and parental status, religion, sexual orientation and highest qualification;
- Prior economic status and perceived barriers to work;
- Current economic activity including employment status, income and benefits status;
- Reasons for choice of course and provider and initial expectations on outcomes of the learning;
- Experience of JobCentre Plus programmes/initiatives and experience of Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) in relation to the course;
- Reasons for non-completion;
- Outcomes of the learning and perceived benefits (employment-related and wider outcomes including social benefits).
______________________________________________________________________
26 Individuals were identified using variable I37 "Employment status on first day of learning" (all those "Not Employed") were included. The following exclusions were applied: Qualifications at L5 or above; Apprenticeships; Offender learning; Learners aged 16-18 or 65 plus; Funding streams other than "YPLA/Skills Funding Agency DLF Funding" and No Funding; and Non-English residents.
27 Originally, it was thought it would be interesting to look at unfunded learners; however, only 89 responses were achieved so limited the potential for analysis. The questionnaire was piloted with 26 learners. Feedback from the pilot was very positive; participants generally found the survey straightforward and were happy to take part. The average interview length was 21 minutes.
The telephone survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI Telephone Surveys using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Fieldwork took place between 20 February and 30 March 2012.
Ipsos MORI Telephone Surveys is a member of the Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) and has Market Research Quality Standards Association (MRQSA) quality accreditation. A minimum of ten percent of interviews were monitored by supervisors listening-in to the interviews and checking interviewers’ coding of responses.
Response rates
The adjusted response rate was 52%. The co-operation rate was 65%. There was some variation in response rate by age and Aims Level with lower than average response rate among learners aged 19-39 and those undertaking Entry and Level 1 qualifications.
| Final sample status | Total sample used (N) | Total sample used (%) | Valid sample (%) | |--------------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|------------------| | **Valid sample** | | | | | Achieved interviews | 1,958 | 35 | 52 | | Respondent quit interview | 139 | 2 | 4 | | Refusal | 886 | 16 | 23 | | Leads tried max times/no reply | 631 | 11 | 17 | | Not available during fieldwork | 84 | 1 | 2 | | Wrong language | 77 | 1 | 2 | | **Total valid sample** | 3,774 | 67 | 100 | | **Invalid sample** | | | | | Bad number | 1,184 | 21 | | | Respondent no longer at address | 48 | 1 | | | Duplicate | 4 | 0 | | | Ineligible | 641 | 11 | | | **Total invalid sample** | 1,877 | 33 | | | **Total sample used** | 5,651 | 100 | |
Unadjusted response rate 35 Adjusted response rate 52 Weighting
There was a good match between the sample and population in terms of completion level and funding. Corrective weights were applied for Qualification Level and age (interlocking weights) as well gender and ethnicity. Annex 2 Additional information on sample
Assessment of match and reliability of sample
The comparison of the basic personal characteristics between the sample and the ILR appears positive, with good comparability between the data sources. In the next section, we present some more detail on the socioeconomic characteristics of the sample; however, it is important to note that there are some discrepancies between the sample and the ILR, especially in relation to the information contained in the ILR in respect of completion and achievement, as well as the information relating to the qualification undertaken.
Specifically, although the sample indicates that 558 learners achieved their learning aim, information on these learners from the ILR indicates that 35 learners decided not to continue with their learning aim and did not complete their qualification. In addition, of the 587 learners who failed or withdrew from the designated qualification (from the ILR), 341 responded that they had completed the qualification. The number of learners where there appears to be mismatch in relation to achievement status stands at 376, which is approximately 33% of the sample (excluding those still continuing their qualification).
| Failed/ withdrawn | Achieved | Total | |-------------------|----------|-------| | Decided not to continue | 246 | 35 | 281 | | Completed qualification | 341 | 523 | 864 | | Total | 587 | 558 | 1,145 |
Source: Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012): s2 - how far have you got with this training/qualification? Note: Base sample – 1,145.
One of the reasons why there may be a degree of mismatch relates to the qualification under consideration. There is often some degree of either recollection error, where learners simply state they completed the learning aim when this was not the case, or learner may not recognise the formal title of their learning aim or if the ILR contains information that is out of date, whereby the learner has completed a specific qualification and gone on to further learning and training (which they respond about in the survey).
The existence of mismatch between the self-reported qualification type and the qualification level reported in the ILR is also suggested by a cross-tab of the two variables, presented in Error! Reference source not found.. Self-reported qualification is reported along the rows, while information on the ILR is available along the columns. Results suggest that in some cases respondents may not be able to accurately identify their qualification, or the fact that they may be referring to a different qualification. The full extent of the mismatch is not readily identifiable, given that for vocational qualifications respondents were also asked to report their qualification type, but not the level. When assessing the nature of the mismatch, it should be remembered that course title from the ILR was clearly stated at the beginning of the interview and all questions were referred to that specific course and qualification. In this respect the mismatch is likely to be mainly explained by the misperception element (with respondents unable to identify their qualification type).
Although this potential mismatch is of importance for analyses based on the ILR, it is of less importance in terms of the current analysis. Data collected from learners will always contain some degree of mismatch from the original data from which the sample is drawn; however, throughout the subsequent analysis, we use the information from the sample of learners only and do not use information from the ILR to supplement the analysis if equivalent information is already available through the survey. We have no reason to believe that there is any methodological weakness associated with this approach.
Table 51: Unemployed learner participation by aggregated qualification level (ILR 2011/12)
| Male | Female | Total | |------|--------|-------| | Entry Level | 1,925 | 2,321 | 4,246 | 100.0% | | Level 1 | 4,202 | 4,746 | 8,948 | 100.0% | | Level 2 | 10,199 | 13,606 | 23,805 | 100.0% | | Level 3 | 3,475 | 3,623 | 7,098 | 100.0% | | Level 4 | 129 | 335 | 464 | 100.0% | | Total | 19,930 | 24,631 | 44,561 | 100.0% |
Sample 874 44.7% 1,081 55.3% 1,955 100.0%
Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012)
Table 52: Unemployed learner participation by disaggregated qualification level (ILR 2011/12)
| Male | Female | Total | |------|--------|-------| | Entry Level or Other | 1,221 | 1,470 | 2,691 | 100.0% | | SFL Entry Level or Other | 704 | 851 | 1,555 | 100.0% | | SFL L1 | 2,060 | 2,684 | 4,744 | 100.0% | | Award L1 | 1,037 | 1,255 | 2,292 | 100.0% | | Certificate L1 | 524 | 418 | 942 | 100.0% | | Diploma L1 | 170 | 23 | 193 | 100.0% | | BTEC L1 | 88 | 49 | 137 | 100.0% | | NVQ L1 | 18 | 45 | 63 | 100.0% | | Other L1 | 305 | 272 | 577 | 100.0% | | SFL L2 | 3,608 | 5,523 | 9,131 | 100.0% | | Award L2 | 120 | 134 | 254 | 100.0% | | Certificate L2 | 3,720 | 5,851 | 9,571 | 100.0% | | Diploma L2 | 646 | 638 | 1,284 | 100.0% | | BTEC L2 | 39 | 34 | 73 | 100.0% | | NVQ L2 | 526 | 926 | 1,452 | 100.0% | | GCSEs | 180 | 260 | 440 | 100.0% | | Other qualifications at L2 | 1,360 | 240 | 1,600 | 100.0% | | Award L3 | 63 | 47 | 110 | 100.0% | | Certificate L3 | 179 | 372 | 551 | 100.0% | | Diploma L3 | 1,493 | 1,805 | 3,298 | 100.0% | | BTEC L 3 | 984 | 636 | 1,620 | 100.0% | | NVQ L 3 | 94 | 356 | 450 | 100.0% | | GCE A/AS/A2 level | 53 | 60 | 113 | 100.0% | | Other qualifications at L3 | 609 | 347 | 956 | 100.0% | | Level 4 qualifications | 129 | 335 | 464 | 100.0% | | Total | 19,930 | 24,631 | 44,561 | 100.0% |
Sample 874 44.7% 1,081 55.3% 1,955 100.0%
Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012) Table 53: Unemployed learner participation by aggregated qualification level by region (ILR 2011/12)
| Level | North East | North West | Yorkshire/ Humber | East Midlands | West Midlands | East of England | London | South East | South West | |-------|------------|------------|-------------------|---------------|---------------|----------------|--------|------------|------------| | Entry | 6.6% | 16.6% | 11.1% | 5.2% | 9.2% | 11.4% | 22.4% | 7.8% | 9.8% | | Level 1 | 7.5% | 11.1% | 9.2% | 6.6% | 12.8% | 12.8% | 18.2% | 11.8% | 10.2% | | Level 2 | 5.5% | 12.0% | 10.6% | 5.2% | 11.9% | 11.7% | 18.3% | 13.6% | 11.2% | | Level 3 | 4.8% | 15.5% | 14.2% | 8.0% | 11.3% | 11.6% | 13.6% | 8.9% | 12.0% | | Level 4 | 2.4% | 24.8% | 7.8% | 9.1% | 14.4% | 5.6% | 9.5% | 8.4% | 18.1% | | Total | 5.9% | 12.9% | 10.9% | 6.0% | 11.7% | 11.8% | 17.8% | 11.9% | 11.0% | | Sample | 6.3% | 12.4% | 12.1% | 4.8% | 12.2% | 13.2% | 12.9% | 13.2% | 12.9% |
*Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012)* Table 54: Unemployed learner participation by disaggregated qualification level by region (ILR 2011/12)
| Qualification Level | North East | North West | Yorkshire/Humber | East Midlands | West Midlands | East of England | London | South East | South West | |---------------------|------------|------------|------------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|--------|------------|------------| | Entry Level or Other| 6.7% | 19.7% | 11.9% | 5.7% | 8.4% | 11.1% | 20.8% | 5.5% | 10.2% | | SFL Entry Level or Other| 6.6% | 11.1% | 9.7% | 4.2% | 10.4% | 11.8% | 25.3% | 11.9% | 9.0% | | SFL L1 | 5.2% | 9.9% | 8.3% | 5.0% | 13.2% | 11.3% | 23.1% | 13.9% | 10.1% | | Award L1 | 5.7% | 13.5% | 9.1% | 9.0% | 11.2% | 14.8% | 11.3% | 13.3% | 12.1% | | Certificate L1 | 25.1% | 9.4% | 11.7% | 9.4% | 12.5% | 13.2% | 4.0% | 3.1% | 11.6% | | Diploma L1 | 3.6% | 5.7% | 11.9% | 7.3% | 26.4% | 0.5% | 33.2% | 4.1% | 7.3% | | BTEC L1 | 0.0% | 16.8% | 7.3% | 3.6% | 2.2% | 46.0% | 19.7% | 3.6% | 0.7% | | NVQ L1 | 22.2% | 20.6% | 3.2% | 1.6% | 1.6% | 0.0% | 30.2% | 20.6% | 0.0% | | Other L1 | 5.5% | 13.0% | 13.0% | 6.6% | 15.6% | 13.9% | 21.3% | 5.9% | 5.2% | | SFL L2 | 5.0% | 10.8% | 8.1% | 4.3% | 11.3% | 13.6% | 22.3% | 14.9% | 9.8% | | Award L2 | 4.7% | 25.6% | 13.8% | 9.1% | 3.5% | 16.5% | 7.1% | 6.7% | 13.0% | | Certificate L2 | 5.9% | 12.3% | 11.6% | 5.1% | 11.5% | 10.6% | 15.4% | 15.7% | 12.0% | | Diploma L2 | 8.5% | 11.4% | 16.0% | 5.2% | 12.9% | 6.6% | 18.1% | 5.5% | 15.7% | | BTEC L2 | 4.1% | 1.4% | 39.7% | 0.0% | 4.1% | 21.9% | 17.8% | 1.4% | 9.6% | | NVQ L2 | 7.0% | 13.3% | 9.4% | 8.2% | 13.8% | 11.0% | 15.4% | 10.3% | 11.7% | | GCSEs | 3.0% | 20.2% | 23.4% | 5.9% | 14.5% | 7.5% | 13.6% | 6.1% | 5.7% | | Other qualifications at L2 | 3.5% | 12.1% | 11.3% | 8.1% | 15.4% | 13.1% | 18.2% | 7.1% | 11.2% | | Award L3 | 9.1% | 7.3% | 26.4% | 2.7% | 2.7% | 14.5% | 5.5% | 6.4% | 25.5% | | Certificate L3 | 4.7% | 19.2% | 18.7% | 9.1% | 10.0% | 15.4% | 6.4% | 7.3% | 9.3% | | Diploma L3 | 5.2% | 15.4% | 14.3% | 7.9% | 11.1% | 11.5% | 13.5% | 10.1% | 11.0% | | BTEC L3 | 2.8% | 16.6% | 12.5% | 8.3% | 14.2% | 11.9% | 15.4% | 7.4% | 10.9% | | NVQ L3 | 6.9% | 12.7% | 10.4% | 9.8% | 14.7% | 12.4% | 16.2% | 6.0% | 10.9% | | GCE A/AS/A2 level | 9.7% | 5.3% | 9.7% | 1.8% | 4.4% | 13.3% | 23.0% | 16.8% | 15.9% | | Other qualifications at L3 | 4.8% | 15.4% | 15.4% | 7.7% | 8.2% | 8.4% | 13.8% | 9.2% | 17.2% | | Level 4 qualifications| 2.4% | 24.8% | 7.8% | 9.1% | 14.4% | 5.6% | 9.5% | 8.4% | 18.1% | | Total | 5.9% | 12.9% | 10.9% | 6.0% | 11.7% | 11.8% | 17.8% | 11.9% | 11.0% |
Sample 6.3% 12.4% 12.1% 4.8% 12.2% 13.2% 12.9% 13.2% 12.9%
Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012)
### Table 55: Unemployed learner participation by aggregated qualification level by ethnic origin (ILR 2011/12)
| Ethnic Origin | Entry Level | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Total | Sample | |---------------|-------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|-------|--------| | White - British | 48.4% | 60.8% | 64.0% | 67.4% | 69.8% | 62.5% | 65.5% | | White - other | 8.2% | 7.2% | 7.4% | 5.1% | 6.5% | 7.1% | 4.5% | | Bangladeshi | 2.4% | 1.3% | 1.1% | 0.8% | 1.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | | Indian | 2.9% | 2.5% | 2.9% | 1.9% | 2.4% | 2.6% | 3.0% | | Pakistani | 6.4% | 3.9% | 3.5% | 4.5% | 3.4% | 4.0% | 4.2% | | Asian - other | 6.1% | 3.7% | 2.3% | 2.1% | 1.3% | 2.9% | 2.2% | | Black - African | 9.2% | 7.7% | 7.5% | 6.1% | 4.7% | 7.4% | 7.6% | | Black - Caribbean | 2.5% | 3.7% | 3.6% | 2.5% | 2.2% | 3.3% | 3.2% | | Black - other | 1.7% | 1.9% | 1.6% | 1.2% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 1.7% | | Chinese | 1.1% | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.9% | 0.4% | 0.5% | | Mixed | 3.8% | 3.2% | 2.8% | 3.8% | 3.4% | 3.1% | 3.2% | | Any other | 6.4% | 2.9% | 2.2% | 2.6% | 3.4% | 2.8% | 3.0% | | Unknown/Provided | 1.1% | 0.9% | 0.9% | 1.4% | 0.6% | 1.0% | 0.0% |
*Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012)* Table 56: Unemployed learner participation by disaggregated qualification level by ethnic origin (ILR 2011/12)
| Qualification Level | White - British | White - other | Bangladeshi | Indian | Pakistani | Asian other | Black African | Black Caribbean | Black other | Chinese | Mixed | Any other | Unknown/Provided | |---------------------|-----------------|---------------|-------------|--------|-----------|-------------|---------------|----------------|-------------|---------|-------|---------|-----------------| | Entry Level/ Other | 49.8% | 7.2% | 2.6% | 2.2% | 6.4% | 6.8% | 8.0% | 1.4% | 1.5% | 1.3% | 4.0% | 7.8% | 1.0% | | SFL Entry Level | 45.9% | 10.0% | 2.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | 5.0% | 11.2% | 4.4% | 1.9% | 0.6% | 3.4% | 3.8% | 1.1% | | SFL L1 | 52.0% | 9.4% | 1.6% | 3.0% | 5.3% | 5.1% | 9.6% | 4.3% | 2.0% | 0.3% | 3.6% | 3.1% | 0.8% | | Award L1 | 73.0% | 4.5% | 0.8% | 2.2% | 2.9% | 1.8% | 5.8% | 2.4% | 1.3% | 0.3% | 2.1% | 1.7% | 1.1% | | Certificate L1 | 82.0% | 2.5% | 0.2% | 0.7% | 0.7% | 1.1% | 4.4% | 2.4% | 0.8% | 0.2% | 2.3% | 1.5% | 1.1% | | Diploma L1 | 58.0% | 4.1% | 1.6% | 1.0% | 1.6% | 0.0% | 6.2% | 14.0% | 2.6% | 0.5% | 7.3% | 1.6% | 1.6% | | BTEC L1 | 54.7% | 5.1% | 0.0% | 2.9% | 5.1% | 0.7% | 8.8% | 0.7% | 10.9% | 0.0% | 5.1% | 5.8% | 0.0% | | NVQ L1 | 66.7% | 4.8% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 1.6% | 4.8% | 9.5% | 7.9% | 1.6% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Other L1 | 51.6% | 9.0% | 2.3% | 2.3% | 2.3% | 6.1% | 5.9% | 2.8% | 2.1% | 1.2% | 3.8% | 9.0% | 1.7% | | SFL L2 | 54.6% | 9.2% | 1.6% | 3.5% | 4.4% | 3.3% | 10.2% | 3.9% | 2.1% | 0.2% | 3.3% | 2.7% | 1.0% | | Award L2 | 77.2% | 3.5% | 1.6% | 0.0% | 3.5% | 2.0% | 3.5% | 2.0% | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.8% | 0.8% | 2.0% | | Certificate L2 | 70.1% | 7.2% | 0.9% | 2.7% | 2.5% | 1.7% | 5.5% | 2.7% | 1.3% | 0.3% | 2.1% | 2.0% | 0.9% | | Diploma L2 | 71.9% | 3.5% | 0.5% | 1.4% | 2.2% | 0.5% | 8.3% | 6.4% | 0.7% | 0.2% | 2.6% | 1.3% | 0.3% | | BTEC L2 | 61.6% | 5.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.5% | 2.7% | 9.6% | 2.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.7% | 8.2% | 1.4% | | NVQ L2 | 75.4% | 6.5% | 0.4% | 1.8% | 3.0% | 0.6% | 3.8% | 2.3% | 1.2% | 0.1% | 2.7% | 1.5% | 0.7% | | GCSEs | 48.6% | 3.9% | 2.0% | 4.3% | 12.7% | 4.1% | 11.6% | 2.0% | 0.9% | 0.9% | 4.1% | 3.6% | 1.1% | | Other quals. at L2 | 67.1% | 3.8% | 0.8% | 2.2% | 3.1% | 1.9% | 5.6% | 6.0% | 1.8% | 0.5% | 4.4% | 2.1% | 0.6% | | Award L3 | 71.8% | 3.6% | 1.8% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.7% | 0.9% | 0.9% | 4.5% | 1.8% | 0.0% | | Certificate L3 | 76.2% | 4.4% | 0.5% | 1.6% | 5.1% | 0.5% | 1.8% | 2.2% | 1.1% | 0.2% | 2.4% | 1.1% | 2.9% | | Diploma L3 | 67.6% | 5.2% | 0.6% | 1.6% | 3.8% | 2.1% | 6.9% | 2.4% | 1.3% | 0.5% | 3.8% | 2.9% | 1.3% | | BTEC L 3 | 61.5% | 5.7% | 1.0% | 2.2% | 5.5% | 2.9% | 8.1% | 2.9% | 1.2% | 0.7% | 4.4% | 2.5% | 1.4% | | NVQ L 3 | 66.2% | 5.1% | 0.7% | 4.2% | 2.4% | 2.7% | 3.3% | 2.2% | 1.1% | 0.4% | 5.3% | 4.7% | 1.6% | | GCE A/AS/A2 level | 67.3% | 2.7% | 0.9% | 1.8% | 5.3% | 5.3% | 4.4% | 1.8% | 2.7% | 1.8% | 4.4% | 1.8% | 0.0% | | Other quals. at L3 | 72.0% | 4.9% | 1.3% | 1.5% | 5.0% | 1.7% | 4.2% | 2.7% | 0.6% | 0.4% | 2.9% | 1.5% | 1.4% | | Level 4 quals | 69.8% | 6.5% | 1.3% | 2.4% | 3.4% | 1.3% | 4.7% | 2.2% | 0.0% | 0.9% | 3.4% | 3.4% | 0.6% | | Total | 62.5% | 7.1% | 1.2% | 2.6% | 4.0% | 2.9% | 7.4% | 3.3% | 1.6% | 0.4% | 3.1% | 2.8% | 1.0% | | Sample | 65.5% | 4.5% | 1.4% | 3.0% | 4.2% | 2.2% | 7.6% | 3.2% | 1.7% | 0.5% | 3.2% | 3.0% | 0.0% | |--------|-------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
*Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012)*
### Table 57: Unemployed learner participation by aggregated qualification level by outcome (ILR 2011/12)
| Qualification Level | Completed and achieved | Did not complete (withdrawal or failed assessment) | Total | |---------------------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------| | Entry Level | 842 47.9% | 914 52.1% | 1,756 100.0% | | Level 1 | 2,652 48.0% | 2,869 52.0% | 5,521 100.0% | | Level 2 | 8,567 62.1% | 5,232 37.9% | 13,799 100.0% | | Level 3 | 242 42.4% | 329 57.6% | 571 100.0% | | Level 4 | 7 24.1% | 22 75.9% | 29 100.0% | | **Total** | **12,310 56.8%** | **9,366 52.1%** | **21,676 100.0%** | | **Sample** | **281 24.5%** | **865 75.5%** | **1,145 100.0%** |
*Ipsos MORI and London Economics (2012)*
### Table 58: Unemployed learner participation by disaggregated qualification level by outcome (ILR 2010/11)
| Qualification Level | Completed and achieved | Did not complete (withdrawal or failed assessment) | Total | |---------------------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------| | Entry Level/ Other | 421 60.8% | 272 39.2% | 693 100.0% | | SFL Entry Level | 421 39.6% | 642 60.4% | 1,063 100.0% | | SFL L1 | 1,454 41.9% | 2,019 58.1% | 3,473 100.0% | | Award L1 | 638 49.3% | 656 50.7% | 1,294 100.0% | | Certificate L1 | 329 74.4% | 113 25.6% | 442 100.0% | | Diploma L1 | 28 44.4% | 35 55.6% | 63 100.0% | | BTEC L1 | 46 78.0% | 13 22.0% | 59 100.0% | | NVQ L1 | 13 65.0% | 7 35.0% | 20 100.0% | | Other L1 | 144 84.7% | 26 15.3% | 170 100.0% | | SFL L2 | 4,250 61.8% | 2,630 38.2% | 6,880 100.0% | | Award L2 | 25 89.3% | 3 10.7% | 28 100.0% | | Certificate L2 | 3,617 61.1% | 2,299 38.9% | 5,916 100.0% | | Diploma L2 | 111 50.9% | 107 49.1% | 218 100.0% | | BTEC L2 | 0 0.0% | 5 100.0% | 5 100.0% | | NVQ L2 | 449 83.5% | 89 16.5% | 538 100.0% | | GCSEs | 1 10.0% | 9 90.0% | 10 100.0% | | Other quals. at L2 | 114 55.9% | 90 44.1% | 204 100.0% | | Award L3 | 14 87.5% | 2 12.5% | 16 100.0% | | Certificate L3 | 46 46.5% | 53 53.5% | 99 100.0% | | Diploma L3 | 38 20.5% | 147 79.5% | 185 100.0% | | BTEC L 3 | 4 6.3% | 59 93.7% | 63 100.0% | | NVQ L 3 | 111 84.1% | 21 15.9% | 132 100.0% | | GCE A/AS/A2 level | 0 0.0% | 2 100.0% | 2 100.0% | | Other quals. at L3 | 29 39.2% | 45 60.8% | 74 100.0% | | Level 4 quals | 7 24.1% | 22 75.9% | 29 100.0% | | **Total** | **12,310 56.8%** | **9,366 43.2%** | **21,676 100.0%** | | **Sample** | **281 24.5%** | **865 75.5%** | **1,145 100.0%** |
*London Economics (2012)*
### Table 59: Unemployed learner participation by aggregated qualification level by age (ILR 2010/11)
| | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | Total | |----------|-------|-------|------|-------| | Entry Level | 1,366 | 1499 | 1381 | 4246 | | Level 1 | 2,155 | 3462 | 3331 | 8948 | | Level 2 | 5,255 | 9899 | 8651 | 23805 | | Level 3 | 4,320 | 1862 | 916 | 7098 | | Level 4 | 74 | 200 | 190 | 464 | | Total | 13,170| 16,922| 14,469| 44,561| | Sample | 579 | 742 | 634 | 1,955 |
*London Economics (2012)*
### Table 60: Unemployed learner participation by aggregated qualification level by age (ILR 2011/12)
| | 19-24 | 25-39 | 40+ | Total | |----------|-------|-------|------|-------| | Entry Level/ Other | 1,075 | 816 | 800 | 2691 | | SFL Entry Level | 291 | 683 | 581 | 1555 | | SFL L1 | 1,103 | 2126 | 1515 | 4744 | | Award L1 | 422 | 682 | 1188 | 2292 | | Certificate L1 | 341 | 275 | 326 | 942 | | Diploma L1 | 59 | 85 | 49 | 193 | | BTEC L1 | 34 | 56 | 47 | 137 | | NVQ L1 | 23 | 23 | 17 | 63 | | Other L1 | 173 | 215 | 189 | 577 | | SFL L2 | 1,997 | 4005 | 3129 | 9131 | | Award L2 | 221 | 18 | 15 | 254 | | Certificate L2 | 1,381 | 3776 | 4414 | 9571 | | Diploma L2 | 359 | 573 | 352 | 1284 | | BTEC L2 | 35 | 26 | 12 | 73 | | NVQ L2 | 396 | 688 | 368 | 1452 | | GCSEs | 343 | 72 | 25 | 440 | | Other quals. at L2 | 523 | 741 | 336 | 1600 | | Award L3 | 64 | 22 | 24 | 110 | | Certificate L3 | 129 | 228 | 194 | 551 | | Diploma L3 | 2,037 | 880 | 381 | 3298 | | BTEC L 3 | 1,365 | 211 | 44 | 1620 | | NVQ L 3 | 104 | 225 | 121 | 450 | | GCE A/AS/A2 level | 106 | 2 | 5 | 113 | | Other quals. at L3 | 515 | 294 | 147 | 956 | | Level 4 quals | 74 | 200 | 190 | 464 | | Total | 13,170| 16,922| 14,469| 44,561| | Sample | 579 | 742 | 634 | 1,955 |
*London Economics (2012)*
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0079-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 73,
"total-input-tokens": 177812,
"total-output-tokens": 70717,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
162,
1
],
[
162,
2193,
2
],
[
2193,
5500,
3
],
[
5500,
7587,
4
],
[
7587,
10746,
5
],
[
10746,
13996,
6
],
[
13996,
17043,
7
],
[
17043,
20945,
8
],
[
20945,
24364,
9
],
[
24364,
27641,
10
],
[
27641,
29027,
11
],
[
29027,
31500,
12
],
[
31500,
35438,
13
],
[
35438,
38526,
14
],
[
38526,
42150,
15
],
[
42150,
43845,
16
],
[
43845,
46444,
17
],
[
46444,
49940,
18
],
[
49940,
52327,
19
],
[
52327,
55877,
20
],
[
55877,
59669,
21
],
[
59669,
63215,
22
],
[
63215,
65773,
23
],
[
65773,
69507,
24
],
[
69507,
71156,
25
],
[
71156,
72578,
26
],
[
72578,
79053,
27
],
[
79053,
82672,
28
],
[
82672,
86000,
29
],
[
86000,
90600,
30
],
[
90600,
94482,
31
],
[
94482,
101799,
32
],
[
101799,
104370,
33
],
[
104370,
107735,
34
],
[
107735,
111619,
35
],
[
111619,
115077,
36
],
[
115077,
117471,
37
],
[
117471,
120690,
38
],
[
120690,
123687,
39
],
[
123687,
125755,
40
],
[
125755,
130361,
41
],
[
130361,
134304,
42
],
[
134304,
138730,
43
],
[
138730,
140918,
44
],
[
140918,
145191,
45
],
[
145191,
149932,
46
],
[
149932,
153236,
47
],
[
153236,
156477,
48
],
[
156477,
160313,
49
],
[
160313,
164010,
50
],
[
164010,
168166,
51
],
[
168166,
172568,
52
],
[
172568,
176333,
53
],
[
176333,
180219,
54
],
[
180219,
183957,
55
],
[
183957,
188153,
56
],
[
188153,
191666,
57
],
[
191666,
194893,
58
],
[
194893,
196007,
59
],
[
196007,
198744,
60
],
[
198744,
201632,
61
],
[
201632,
201859,
62
],
[
201859,
204844,
63
],
[
204844,
207553,
64
],
[
207553,
208968,
65
],
[
208968,
213327,
66
],
[
213327,
214518,
67
],
[
214518,
220234,
68
],
[
220234,
220482,
69
],
[
220482,
225073,
70
],
[
225073,
227164,
71
],
[
227164,
227164,
72
],
[
227164,
227164,
73
]
]
} |
688f21e8d56a984c77dbdcf9c9df608a13eb38e6 | Contents
Use and users of Trade Union Membership Statistics ................................................................. 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
About the data ............................................................................................................................... 3
Known users of the Trade Union Membership Statistics .............................................................. 3
Valid uses of the Trade Union Membership Statistics ............................................................... 5
Areas of unmet need ..................................................................................................................... 6
How to comment and get involved ............................................................................................ 6 Use and users of Trade Union Membership Statistics
Introduction
The BIS Statistics on Trade Union Membership publication is published on an annual basis (towards the end of April). It provides estimates on:
a) Number and percentages of trade union members b) the percentage of workers who work at places where trade unions have a presence c) the percentage of workers whose pay is affected by collective agreement d) median income of trade union members
The statistics are used to inform government decision making about policies and programmes, informing trade union, business representative groups’ and think tank activities (for instance union focusing their priorities on organising and recruitment, and think tanks formulation of policy on employment relations) and facilitating academic research, among other things.
About the data
The trade union membership figures presented are taken from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), except for one data series, taken from the Certification Office, which provides long run trade union membership figures. The LFS based statistics are largely for UK employees, and mainly relate to trade union membership density. The tables contained in the release provide estimates (generally covering recent years) of trade union density by high level industry and occupation, devolved country and region, age, sex and other personal and job characteristics. The tables are also provided online in excel form alongside the release, with some additional data providing some of the more detailed figures by devolved country and region for the latest year. The data are provided to the International Labour Organisation and the OECD to form part of their databases on trade union statistics.
Known users of the Trade Union Membership Statistics
The statistics form a key part of BIS’s evidence base on trade unions, along with data on trade union activities. We work closely with policy colleagues to explain the statistics and guide their use and interpretation. Internal (and external) users have been involved in shaping the publication of the statistics. The trade union membership statistics inform government decision making about policies and programmes. Particular BIS uses of the trade union membership statistics include:
- Briefing ministers on trade union issues
- Development of employment policies that might impact on trade unions
- Informing and educating policy colleagues on aspects of trade union membership
- Informing press office and departmental briefing on trade union membership
- Monitoring possible impacts of trade union membership on labour markets
Specific examples of where the membership statistics have helped inform government decision making in BIS (and its previous incarnations) are:
- The 2010 regulations prohibiting the blacklisting of trade union membership – the trade union membership statistics were used in the assessment of the impact of the policy, including impacts on small businesses and equality impacts.
- The Union Modernisation Fund, established in 2005 (concluding in 2010) – the trade union membership statistics were used to identify where impacts were most likely to be felt.
- The Employment Relations Act 2004, introducing changes to the Employment Relations Act 2004, for instance related to the procedures for recognition of unions by employers – the trade union membership statistics were used in the impact assessment of the changes.
Outside BIS, the Statistics on Trade Union Membership release are used by a variety of organisations and individuals, ranging from government, trade unions, businesses and their representative groups, including the TUC and CBI, the media, labour market researchers and academia (university professors and students) and international organisations. The statistics are used to inform government decision making, the activities of trade unions, business representative groups and think tanks, and for facilitating academic research.
Specific examples of where the trade union membership statistics have been used to inform and support the above users and activities are described below:
- Birmingham City Council used the data to provide a wider context on trade union membership for their review of the working relationship between the city council and its recognised trade unions.
- The statistics were used to inform a discussion of the TUC Executive Committee in 2011, which led to an agreement to focus on organising and recruitment as part of the broad All Togetherness Campaign.
- The statistics were used to inform an 2012 analysis, *Collectively agreed wages in the UK 1995-2010*, by the Labour Research Department, as part of the Collectively Agreed Wages In Europe (CAWIE) project funded by the EU. It flags up that UK data on collectively agreed wages are available, and suggests that the range should be extended with publication of existing data, eg in ASHE. • Policy Exchange used the statistics to inform a 2010 research note *Reforming Industrial Relations*, which argued for reform of ballots for industrial action and rules around union recognition. • Catherine Barnard (Trinity College, Cambridge) used the statistics to inform a 2005 report, *Worker Representation in the UK*. • The trade union membership statistics were used in a number of the papers produced as part of the *Future of Unions in Modern Britain* research programme funded by the Leverhulme Trust. • The Work Foundation used the statistics to inform its paper *British Unions: Resurgence or Perdition?*, which argued that unions would need to balance provision of services to existing members while developing organising to retain and build membership. The unions could use their promoting of workplace safety and family friendly and equal opportunity policies as a way to recruit. • The statistics were used to compare trade union membership trends in the UK with those in other member states in the European Foundation’s *Industrial Relations and working conditions development in Europe 2011* report.
Users have also informed us that the statistics are used for the following purposes:
• Profiling trade union membership, and identifying where specific challenges exist in attracting trade union membership • To help provide a basis for student research • Material for teaching on employment relations issues • Information for union bargaining
**Valid uses of the Trade Union Membership Statistics**
The Statistics on Trade Union Membership can be be used for:
• Obtaining an estimate of the number of and density (proportion of employees/workforce comprising) of trade union members: o in the UK, devolved nations and English regions o by gender, o by public/private sector o by broad industry group o by broad occupation group o by other personal and job related characteristics (age group, ethnicity, length of service, size of workplace full-time/part-time, disability, nationality, country of birth, highest qualification) • Trends over time for the above information (potentially back to 1995, depending on which variable is being considered, and the consistency of the LFS questionnaire over time). • Estimates for the above breakdowns for the density of workers with a trade union presence in their workplace • Estimates for the above breakdowns for the density of workers whose pay and employment conditions are affected by a collective agreement • Estimates by characteristic at the regional level. However, in some cases, the sample is too small to produce reliable statistics, in which case the figures are not published. • Obtaining UK estimates of median hourly earnings by trade union members and non-members, and estimates of the trade union premium, by: o Age group o Gender o Industry o Public/private sector o occupation
The information released as part of the annual publication forms a sub-set of the information potentially available. BIS are happy to discuss requests for additional trade union membership information, and where we are able to help, will look to provide the information or facilitate the requester in obtaining the information making use of the relevant LFS datasets obtainable from the UK data archive.
Areas of unmet need
Customers sometimes request the following:
• Sub-regional estimates. The LFS is a sample survey, and the sample sizes would be too small to allow statistically robust sub-regional data. • Longer time series. LFS data on trade union membership only goes back to 1995 for the UK, and 1992 for Great Britain. We are not aware of other data sources that would enable some longer time series for some of the breakdowns, in addition to the Certification Office overall membership numbers series. • Quarterly data on trade union membership. While the LFS datasets are produced on a quarterly basis, the questions relating to trade union membership only appear on the 4th quarter questionnaire. There would need to be widespread demand for such data to justify considering a request to have the questions placed on each quarterly questionnaire, given the existing pressure on the size of the questionnaire. BIS does not believe that such a move would provide enough added value to justify such an approach. • Information on those who had been members of trade unions, but no longer were. In recent years ONS has made available 5-quarter longitudinal datasets, so some analysis in this area may be possible, and BIS will look to investigate in time for the next release.
How to comment and get involved
Users of the Statistics on Trade Union Membership release will have different needs and requirements.
We regularly meet with users within BIS to discuss their needs for trade union related statistics. We are looking to engage with external users, and the mechanism for doing this is primarily through the GOV.UK website where:
- We invite users with any comments or queries to contact us.
- We have asked users to complete a user survey, asking for their views on the release, information on what they use the data for, and what statistics they would additionally like included.
- We have asked users interested in being kept informed on developments to join a contact list
Additionally, we will look to offer users expressing an interest the chance to attend a presentation of the results of the release, on an annual basis.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0080-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 12866,
"total-output-tokens": 2397,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
930,
2
],
[
930,
3025,
3
],
[
3025,
5840,
4
],
[
5840,
8331,
5
],
[
8331,
10651,
6
],
[
10651,
11278,
7
],
[
11278,
11278,
8
]
]
} |
74bc243655e5390b9136221f6048b6758bc32743 | Contents
Sampling variance in the Trade Union Membership Statistics ................................................... 3
Introduction on sampling variation ................................................................................................ 3
Method used to calculate confidence intervals for the Trade Union Membership Statistics ....... 3
Table 1 95% Confidence intervals for trade union membership by gender and sector ...... 5
Table 2 95% confidence intervals for trade union membership by nation and region, 2011 6
Table 3 95% confidence intervals for average (mean) employee wages, 2011, by gender and sector 7
Table 4 95% confidence intervals for trade union membership density by industry and workplace size, 2011 ................................................................................................................. 8
Table 5 95% confidence intervals for trade union membership density by occupation and age, 2011 9
Table 6 95% confidence intervals for employees with trade union presence in the workplace by sector and industry, 2011 ................................................................................................................. 10
Table 7 95% confidence intervals for employees with trade union presence in the workplace by workplace size, nation and region, 2011 ................................................................................................................. 11
Table 8 95% confidence intervals for employees whose pay and conditions are affected by a collective agreement, by sector and industry, 2011 ................................................................................................................. 12
Table 9 95% confidence intervals for employees whose pay and conditions are affected by a collective agreement, by workplace size, nation and region, 2011 ................................................................................................................. 13 Sampling variance in the Trade Union Membership Statistics
Introduction on sampling variation
The labour force survey (LFS) is a sample survey, which provides estimates of various measures of the population that reflect the particular sample selected. As any valid sample from the population is likely to produce different estimates for the population than other valid samples, there is uncertainty around the population estimates resulting from the selection of a particular sample (as opposed to any other valid sample). This is known as the sampling error. As the LFS uses random sampling of households it is possible to provide estimates of the sampling error (measured as the standard error), which forms the basis of the confidence interval placed around estimate. Normally a 95% confidence interval would be used, which means that in 19 out of 20 different samples we would expect the true (population) level or rate considered to be within the 95% confidence interval for the sample estimate. Where a simple random sample is used, the 95% confidence interval for an estimate is set at ±1.96 standard errors around the sample estimate.
Any estimate of the range of sampling variability should take into account the sampling approach, as this will affect the probability of selection of individuals within the population, and therefore the extent of the variability around the survey estimate relative to that obtained from a simple random sample. The design factor measures the ratio of the standard error produced by a complex sample design relative to the standard error that would result from simple random sampling. To take account of the sampling design, the 95% confidence interval can be calculated as:
[ \\pm 1.96 \\times \\text{design factor} \\times \\text{SE (standard error)} ]
Method used to calculate confidence intervals for the Trade Union Membership Statistics
The LFS sample design has two additional elements: implicit stratification by geography (from the use of a systematic sample of addresses based on postcode area), and clustering, based on collecting results for individuals based on a sample of addresses (as individuals within a household are more likely to share some characteristics). Some calculated design factors for headline measures are presented in ONS’s LFS User Guide, Volume 1 – LFS Background and Methodology 2011(^1). However, these do not directly relate to the estimates of trade union membership.
(^1) [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/labour-market-statistics/volume-1---2011.pdf](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/labour-market-statistics/volume-1---2011.pdf) In the methodology user guide, ONS advise that users can calculate their own confidence intervals by estimating their own design factors by applying a ‘complex samples’ analysis in a statistical package. These will be ‘conservative’ because while such an approach will take account of the LFS’s design, it won’t take account of the calibration weighting that ONS undertakes to ensure estimates are consistent across those groups calibrated on, thus reducing the standard errors.
We have estimated standard errors and confidence intervals for the 2011 estimates of trade union membership using a complex samples approach in SPSS. The address variable, ADD, has been used as the cluster variable, in line with ONS’s suggestion, and UALA, representing unitary and local authorities, has been used as a stratum variable.
The calculated 95% confidence intervals for the key trade union membership levels and density estimates for 2011 presented in the latest trade union membership publication (for 2011). The tables present the estimate, and the upper and lower bounds of the estimate at 95% confidence. If the confidence intervals of two estimated values do not overlap then they are considered statistically significantly different at the 5% significance level. Confidence intervals will be provided for all the 2012 figures provided in this year’s bulletin when it is published in April.
If you have any comments or would like further information, please contact us at:
[email protected] Table 1 95% Confidence intervals for trade union membership by gender and sector
| Trade union membership, 2011 | 95% confidence interval | |-----------------------------|-------------------------| | | population estimate | lower bound | Upper bound | | in employment, UK | | | | | whole economy | numbers (000s) | | | | all | 6,665 | 6,282 | 7,048 | | men | 3,089 | 2,897 | 3,281 | | women | 3,577 | 3,365 | 3,789 | | whole economy | density % | | | | all | 23.2% | 22.7% | 23.7% | | men | 20.2% | 19.5% | 20.9% | | women | 26.8% | 26.1% | 27.5% | | employees, UK | | | | | whole economy | numbers (000s) | | | | all | 6,389 | 6,022 | 6,756 | | men | 2,913 | 2,731 | 3,096 | | women | 3,476 | 3,270 | 3,681 | | public sector | | | | | all | 3,882 | 3,654 | 4,110 | | men | 1,299 | 1,209 | 1,389 | | women | 2,583 | 2,427 | 2,739 | | private sector | | | | | all | 2,507 | 2,343 | 2,671 | | men | 1,614 | 1,499 | 1,729 | | women | 893 | 824 | 962 | | whole economy | density % | | | | all | 26.0% | 25.4% | 26.6% | | men | 23.4% | 22.6% | 24.2% | | women | 28.7% | 28.0% | 29.4% | | public sector | | | | | all | 56.5% | 55.5% | 57.6% | | men | 55.4% | 53.6% | 57.2% | | women | 57.1% | 55.8% | 58.4% | | private sector | | | | | all | 14.1% | 13.6% | 14.7% | | men | 15.9% | 15.2% | 16.7% | | women | 11.8% | 11.2% | 12.4% | Table 2 95% confidence intervals for trade union membership by nation and region, 2011
| Trade union membership, 2011 | 95% confidence interval | |-----------------------------|-------------------------| | | population estimate | lower bound | upper bound | | | numbers (000s) | | | | Employees | | | | | Nation | | | | | England | 5,125 | 4,784 | 5,466 | | Wales | 400 | 302 | 499 | | Scotland | 638 | 548 | 728 | | Northern Ireland | 226 | 190 | 262 | | Regions | | | | | North East | 341 | 257 | 425 | | North West | 825 | 668 | 983 | | Yorkshire & Humberside | 555 | 463 | 647 | | East Midlands | 456 | 342 | 569 | | West Midlands | 550 | 443 | 656 | | East of England | 535 | 404 | 666 | | London | 636 | 568 | 705 | | South East | 719 | 581 | 856 | | South West | 509 | 407 | 610 | | density % | | | | | Nation | | | | | England | 24.8% | 24.2% | 25.4% | | Wales | 34.9% | 32.3% | 37.6% | | Scotland | 29.8% | 28.0% | 31.7% | | Northern Ireland | 33.6% | 31.4% | 35.9% | | Regions | | | | | North East | 34.2% | 31.6% | 36.8% | | North West | 30.3% | 28.7% | 31.9% | | Yorkshire & Humberside | 27.0% | 25.3% | 28.7% | | East Midlands | 25.4% | 23.4% | 27.5% | | West Midlands | 26.6% | 24.9% | 28.4% | | East of England | 22.4% | 20.9% | 23.9% | | London | 20.6% | 19.1% | 22.1% | | South East | 20.7% | 19.4% | 22.2% | | South West | 24.7% | 22.9% | 26.6% | Table 3 95% confidence intervals for average (mean) employee wages, 2011, by gender and sector
Mean hourly earnings (£), 2011
| UK employees | 95% confidence interval | |--------------|-------------------------| | | Estimate | lower bound | higher bound | | whole economy | | | | | all employees | £12.60 | £12.39 | £12.81 | | trade union members | £14.18 | £13.92 | £14.44 | | non-members | £12.01 | £11.75 | £12.27 |
by sector
public sector
| all employees | £14.11 | £13.83 | £14.38 | | trade union members | £15.06 | £14.74 | £15.39 | | non-members | £12.76 | £12.30 | £13.22 |
private sector
| all employees | £12.03 | £11.77 | £12.29 | | trade union members | £12.83 | £12.42 | £13.25 | | non-members | £11.88 | £11.58 | £12.18 |
by gender
male
| all employees | £13.74 | £13.44 | £14.04 | | trade union members | £14.72 | £14.32 | £15.12 | | non-members | £13.40 | £13.03 | £13.77 |
female
| all employees | £11.43 | £11.23 | £11.64 | | trade union members | £13.73 | £13.43 | £14.03 | | non-members | £10.50 | £10.25 | £10.76 | Table 4 95% confidence intervals for trade union membership density by industry and workplace size, 2011
| Trade union membership, 2011 | UK employees | 95% confidence interval | |-----------------------------|--------------|-------------------------| | | population estimate | lower bound | upper bound | | by industry | density, % | | | | Agriculture, forestry & fishing | * | * | * | | Mining & quarrying | 23.5% | 16.8% | 31.9% | | Manufacturing | 18.7% | 17.2% | 20.2% | | Electricity, gas, steam & air conditioning supply | 43.2% | 37.1% | 49.6% | | Water supply, sewerage, waste & remediation activities | 28.7% | 23.7% | 34.3% | | Construction | 14.8% | 13.1% | 16.6% | | Wholesale, retail trade and motor repair | 11.9% | 10.9% | 12.9% | | Transport and storage | 38.9% | 36.3% | 41.5% | | Accommodation & food service | 3.6% | 2.8% | 4.6% | | Information & communication | 11.7% | 9.9% | 13.8% | | Financial & insurance activities | 16.7% | 14.8% | 18.9% | | Real estate activities | 12.8% | 9.0% | 18.0% | | Professional & administrative services | 10.4% | 9.3% | 11.5% | | Public administration and defence | 53.4% | 51.2% | 55.5% | | Education | 51.5% | 49.8% | 53.1% | | Human health & social work | 41.4% | 40.0% | 42.9% | | Other services | 13.6% | 11.9% | 15.6% | | by workplace size | | | | | Less than 50 | 16.3% | 15.7% | 17.0% | | 50 or more | 34.9% | 34.1% | 35.8% | Table 5 95% confidence intervals for trade union membership density by occupation and age, 2011
| Trade union membership, 2011 | population estimate | 95% confidence interval | |-----------------------------|---------------------|-------------------------| | | density, % | lower bound | upper bound | | by occupation | | | | | Managers and senior officials| 13.8% | 12.6% | 15.1% | | Professional occupations | 45.4% | 44.0% | 46.7% | | Associate professional and technical occupations | 25.7% | 24.4% | 27.1% | | Administrative and secretarial occupations | 21.2% | 19.9% | 22.5% | | Skilled trade occupations | 20.1% | 18.5% | 21.7% | | Personal service occupations | 28.0% | 26.5% | 29.5% | | Sales and customer service occupations | 15.5% | 14.2% | 16.9% | | Process, plant and machine operatives | 28.6% | 26.5% | 30.7% | | Elementary occupations | 16.7% | 15.5% | 17.9% | | by age | | | | | 16-19 | 3.1% | 2.2% | 4.3% | | 20-24 | 11.4% | 10.2% | 12.7% | | 25-29 | 18.2% | 16.9% | 19.6% | | 30 to 34 | 24.0% | 22.5% | 25.5% | | 35 to 39 | 26.7% | 25.3% | 28.2% | | 40 to 44 | 29.4% | 28.1% | 30.8% | | 45 to 49 | 33.6% | 32.1% | 35.2% | | 50 to 54 | 36.2% | 34.6% | 37.8% | | 55 to 59 | 35.3% | 33.6% | 37.0% | | 60 to 64 | 29.1% | 27.0% | 31.3% | | 65-69 | 14.1% | 11.7% | 17.0% | | Over 70 | 13.5% | 8.4% | 21.0% | Table 6 95% confidence intervals for employees with trade union presence in the workplace by sector and industry, 2011
Employees with trade union presence in the workplace, 2011
| UK employees, % | Estimate | lower bound | higher bound | |-----------------|----------|-------------|--------------| | all | 44.8% | 44.1% | 45.5% | | public sector | 87.1% | 86.3% | 87.8% | | private sector | 28.5% | 27.8% | 29.2% |
by industry
| Industry | Estimate | lower bound | higher bound | |-----------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|--------------| | Agriculture, forestry and fishing | * | * | * | | Mining and quarrying | 39.3% | 31.8% | 47.4% | | Manufacturing | 38.1% | 36.2% | 40.0% | | Electricity, gas and steam & air conditioning supply | 65.6% | 59.3% | 71.5% | | Water supply, sewerage, waste & remediation activities | 56.4% | 50.7% | 62.0% | | Construction | 27.3% | 25.2% | 29.5% | | Wholesale, retail and motor trade | 26.9% | 25.5% | 28.3% | | Transport, storage | 58.7% | 56.0% | 61.4% | | accommodation and food services | 7.6% | 6.4% | 8.9% | | information and communications | 23.8% | 21.2% | 26.5% | | Financial and insurance activities | 39.7% | 36.9% | 42.6% | | Real estate services | 35.6% | 29.9% | 41.7% | | Professional & administrative services | 21.0% | 19.6% | 22.5% | | Public admin and defence | 84.0% | 82.3% | 85.6% | | Education | 82.1% | 80.8% | 83.3% | | Health and social work | 63.3% | 61.9% | 64.8% | | Other services | 27.2% | 24.8% | 29.7% |
Note: this table provides estimates for industry based on SIC 2007, and so is slightly different for some industries than in table 3.8 in the 2011 publication. Table 7 95% confidence intervals for employees with trade union presence in the workplace by workplace size, nation and region, 2011
Employees with trade union presence in the workplace, 2011
| by workplace size | UK employees, % | 95% confidence interval | |-------------------|-----------------|-------------------------| | Less than 50 | 26.7% | 26.0% 27.5% | | 50 or more | 61.6% | 60.7% 62.5% |
| Nation | | | |-------------------|------------------|-------------------------| | England | 44.0% | 43.3% 44.7% | | Wales | 55.8% | 52.4% 59.2% | | Scotland | 48.1% | 46.1% 50.0% | | Northern Ireland | 41.8% | 38.8% 44.8% |
| Region | | | |-------------------|------------------|-------------------------| | North East | 53.5% | 50.5% 56.4% | | North West | 48.9% | 47.1% 50.6% | | Yorkshire and the Humber | 47.5% | 45.5% 49.5% | | East Midlands | 44.7% | 42.6% 46.9% | | West Midlands | 45.4% | 43.8% 47.0% | | East of England | 41.0% | 39.4% 42.7% | | London | 38.0% | 36.1% 40.0% | | South East | 40.4% | 38.7% 42.2% | | South West | 45.7% | 43.8% 47.6% | Table 8 95% confidence intervals for employees whose pay and conditions are affected by a collective agreement, by sector and industry, 2011
Employees whose pay and conditions are affected by a collective agreement, 2011
| UK employees, % | 95% confidence interval | |-----------------|-------------------------| | | Estimate | lower bound | higher bound | | all | 31.2% | 30.6% | 31.8% | | public sector | 67.8% | 66.7% | 68.8% | | private sector | 16.9% | 16.4% | 17.5% |
by industry
| Industry | Estimate | lower bound | higher bound | |-----------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|--------------| | Agriculture, forestry and fishing | * | * | * | | Mining and quarrying | 22.0% | 15.5% | 30.3% | | Manufacturing | 23.2% | 21.6% | 25.0% | | Electricity, gas and steam & air conditioning supply | 50.9% | 43.8% | 58.1% | | Water supply, sewerage, waste & remediation activities | 39.6% | 34.0% | 45.4% | | Construction | 18.0% | 16.0% | 20.2% | | Wholesale, retail and motor trade | 16.0% | 14.9% | 17.3% | | Transport, storage | 47.3% | 44.5% | 50.2% | | accommodation and food services | 4.6% | 3.7% | 5.9% | | information and communications | 13.9% | 11.9% | 16.2% | | Financial and insurance activities | 25.0% | 22.4% | 27.8% | | Real estate services | 19.0% | 14.1% | 25.2% | | Professional & administrative services | 11.6% | 10.5% | 12.9% | | Public admin and defence | 71.1% | 68.9% | 73.1% | | Education | 59.0% | 57.2% | 60.8% | | Health and social work | 43.8% | 42.2% | 45.4% | | Other services | 17.5% | 15.4% | 19.7% |
Note: this table provides estimates for industry based on SIC 2007, and so is slightly different for some industries than in tables 3.8 and 3.9 in the 2011 publication. Table 9 95% confidence intervals for employees whose pay and conditions are affected by a collective agreement, by workplace size, nation and region, 2011
Employees whose pay and conditions are affected by a collective agreement, 2011
| UK employees, % | 95% confidence interval | |-----------------|-------------------------| | | Estimate | lower bound | higher bound | | **by workplace size** | | | | | Less than 50 | 17.3% | 16.6% | 18.0% | | 50 or more | 44.1% | 43.2% | 45.0% | | **Nation** | | | | | England | 30.0% | 29.3% | 30.7% | | Wales | 39.2% | 35.6% | 43.0% | | Scotland | 34.7% | 32.8% | 36.5% | | Northern Ireland| 40.6% | 37.4% | 43.9% | | **Region** | | | | | North East | 35.8% | 32.8% | 38.8% | | North West | 34.6% | 33.0% | 36.2% | | Yorkshire and the Humber | 31.8% | 29.9% | 33.8% | | East Midlands | 31.1% | 29.2% | 33.0% | | West Midlands | 33.3% | 31.3% | 35.5% | | East of England | 28.1% | 26.1% | 30.2% | | London | 24.2% | 22.6% | 26.0% | | South East | 26.6% | 24.8% | 28.5% | | South West | 31.3% | 29.7% | 32.9% | | **by gender** | | | | | Male | 28.4% | 27.6% | 29.3% | | Female | 34.0% | 33.2% | 34.8% | | **by union membership** | | | | | Member | 73.2% | 72.2% | 74.2% | | Non-member | 15.5% | 15.0% | 16.1% |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0081-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 14,
"total-input-tokens": 28135,
"total-output-tokens": 8230,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
1977,
2
],
[
1977,
4685,
3
],
[
4685,
6195,
4
],
[
6195,
9405,
5
],
[
9405,
12536,
6
],
[
12536,
13837,
7
],
[
13837,
15737,
8
],
[
15737,
17919,
9
],
[
17919,
20287,
10
],
[
20287,
21869,
11
],
[
21869,
24321,
12
],
[
24321,
26124,
13
],
[
26124,
26124,
14
]
]
} |
cdf35774970e2dac3458a5640154f1a54bf76632 | Contents
Measuring bias in the Labour Force Survey for the Trade Union Membership Statistics .... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
Proxy response ......................................................................................................................... 3
Whether pay and conditions are affected by collective agreements ........................................ 5
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Measuring bias in the Labour Force Survey for the Trade Union Membership Statistics
Introduction
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has identified that there are uncertainties around the estimates derived from data collected in sample surveys, such as the Labour force Survey (LFS). The ONS’s LFS User Guide, Volume 1 – LFS Background and Methodology 2011, considers, in Section 7, the potential impact of non-sampling errors affecting the accuracy of LFS estimates. These include things like non-response bias (where responders to a survey differ from non-responders), non-sampling variance (for instance where different interviewers may cause respondents to answer questions differently) and, for the LFS, potential respondent bias (where proxy respondents, providing answers for someone else, may consistently under- or over-estimate information about respondents). ONS sets out how the LFS at the survey level tackles these areas of potential non-sampling error, to help keep any uncertainties around population estimates to a minimum.
This note looks at specific areas of uncertainty relating to the trade union membership statistics resulting from potential non-sampling error.
In the annex to Trade Union Membership Statistics 2011, the technical note specified two potential areas of non-sampling error which may mean there is some bias impacting on the published TUM results. These are:
1. Proxy response
2. collective agreements – some employees, especially those in small workplaces within larger organisations, may not be aware that their wages and terms and conditions are subject to collective agreement negotiated by trade unions or staff associations at the organisation level.
Proxy response
Trade Union Membership statistics are calculated from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Respondents to the LFS can respond either in person, or through a family member responding on their behalf, called “proxy” respondents. Proxy respondents account for approximately one third of all respondents. As the trade union membership questions are only asked in one quarter a year, there is less opportunity to correct any inaccurate information provided by proxy respondents in future interview waves (each household – identified by address – is interviewed for five consecutive quarters). However, In section
1 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/labour-market-statistics/volume-1---2011.pdf 11 of the *LFS User Guide*, ONS identify that there is some uncertainty due to respondent bias affecting a number of LFS variables.
Annex 1 of the Trade Union Membership release states that there may be bias in the number of union members reported, as it appeared that a smaller proportion of proxy responses were members of Trade Unions than responses in person. Analysis shows that in 2010 19.6% of proxy respondents are members of Trade Unions compared with 26.0% of respondents in person.
However, the likelihood of being a proxy respondent is affected by a person’s characteristics, for example their occupation, age and sex. A younger male working in the skilled trade occupations is the most likely of all categories to be a proxy response. The likelihood of being a member of a trade union is also affected by these same variables. Therefore it is not possible to measure the level of bias by comparing the totals (19.6% and 26.0%) alone. The observed difference may be due to the difference in the underlying characteristics of the proxy respondents and not affected by the fact that they are a proxy response at all.
In order to work out whether there is a bias in the data, and to assign a numerical value to the bias, a logistic regression was conducted on the weighted values of the respondents who responded in person. The regression modelled Trade Union Membership (albeit with a small $R^2$) for all non proxy responses using variables: age, sex, employment status and occupation. These variables were chosen empirically and both significant and insignificant variables were kept in the equation for this task. It may be possible that other LFS variables correlate both with the proxy and trade union membership, but it was not possible to include everything in the regression.
The regression equation(^2) was then applied to the weighted dataset for proxy respondents to produce a predicted probability of being a member of a trade union based on their age, sex, employment status and occupation alone.
The results show that we would expect proxy respondents to have lower trade union membership that responses in person due to the demographic differences, however, these taken into account, we would expect union membership of proxy respondents to be 22.1%. However, only 19.6% of proxy respondents are reported to be members of trade unions. Therefore, bias in the proxy respondents for the 2010 Trade Union statistics can be estimated to be 2.5%. It is important to note that there may be other factors that also explain some of this bias; only 4 variables were tested in this analysis.
In total, if we assume that there is a bias of 2.5% in the proxy respondents, this would increase the final proportion of trade union members in the population from 23.8% to 24.7%, an increase of almost 1%.
______________________________________________________________________
(^2)For 2010 data: The probability of being a trade union member for a respondent in person (non proxy) is $22.187[\\text{Constant}] - 0.023\*\\text{AGE} + 0.308[\\text{IF MALE}] - 19.951[\\text{IF EMPLOYED}] - 18.202[\\text{IF SELF EMPLOYED}] +/- coefficient depending on the occupation of the respondent (coefficients range between -1.215 and 0.332) It is unrealistic to attempt to remove this bias from the results as each of the LFS variables would have to be included in a regression analysis, which would also have to be carried out for the complete time series of TUM statistics. **However, users should note that the respondent bias due to the use of proxy respondents in the LFS causes uncertainty in the published numbers of trade union members:** In 2010, analysis showed that the published figures were potentially as much as 1% low due to the bias from proxy respondents.
**Whether pay and conditions are affected by collective agreements**
A second area of potential bias in the TUM statistics is found in the area of Collective Agreements. The LFS asks household members whether their pay and conditions are affected by collective agreements. However, there is an alternative annual source of information on collective agreements determining pay: the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) also collects information on collective agreements, this time from employers. The two sources produce different results:
For 2011, the LFS reports that 31.2% of UK employees had their wages and conditions of employment affected by collective agreements between their employer and a trade union/staff association. This rose to 67.8% in the public sector, compared to only 16.9% in the private sector.
In contrast, ASHE reports that 46.9% of employees had their pay set with reference to a collective agreement. This comprised 91.9% of public sector employees, and 27.0% of private sector employees.
Therefore, there seems to be a difference between the LFS and ASHE data that jointly affects both the public and the private sectors.
Two factors are likely to account for much of the differences.
Firstly, the surveys ask different questions in relation to collective agreements:
After a series of 2 other questions specifically about trade unions, the LFS asks respondents (household members):
> Are your pay and conditions of employment directly affected by agreements between your employer and any trade union(s) or staff association(s)?
On the other hand, with no previous mention of trade unions, ASHE asks employers:
> Was the employee's pay set with reference to an agreement affecting more than one employee? For example, pay may be agreed collectively by a trade union or workers’ committee.
ASHE then goes on to ask those employers answering yes what type of agreement was made, offering five categories: national or industry, sub-national, organisational, workplace, national or industry supplemented by sub-national/organisational/workplace. The more detailed ASHE question underlies the complexity of information on collective agreements. The different questions may potentially suggest different interpretations, such that it may not be clear that some national agreements, for instance those determined by pay review bodies, were agreed between the employer and trade union/staff association. The LFS collective agreements question, which follows questions related to trade union membership and union presence in the workplace, may suggest to respondents that the question is asking about situations where unions are negotiating directly with the employer. ASHE, meanwhile, is focusing on those situations where employees pay is made with reference to a collective agreement – which may include situations where the employer itself does not negotiate with unions or staff association. This seemingly wider definition is likely to account for at least some of the difference.
Another potential factor is that while the LFS is asking respondents about their pay (ie from the employee’s perspective), ASHE is asking employers about whether the pay their employees receive is referenced to a collective agreement. Employers are more likely to know whether this is the case than employees – it is possible that a proportion of employees will not know how their pay is determined, especially where employers reference outside agreements (agreed at higher levels than the workplace, or organisation, or where firms make use of agreements where they haven’t been involved in negotiation to provide a standard for their own pay agreements).
Therefore, the different questions suggest that the LFS and ASHE provide differently defined indicators of whether employees have their pay affected by collective agreements, with the LFS definition more tightly focused, and the ASHE definition broader:
- The LFS specifically asks employees about whether their pay and conditions of employment are affected by a collective agreement between employers and trade unions/staff associations
- ASHE asks whether an employee’s pay is set with reference to an agreement affecting more than one employee – so this is much broader, to the extent that it could include agreements not involving trade unions or staff associations directly.
The complexity of how to define collective agreements is demonstrated by the recent Workplace Employment Relations Survey (2011), which reports that in 2011 16% of private sector employees had their pay set by collective bargaining, compared to 44% of public sector workers. The reason given for the relatively low public sector figure was because an independent pay review body had taken responsibility for pay in the health industry following the Agenda for Change negotiations. If pay review body awards are included within the collective agreement definition, which may be shown in a further WERS publication later in the year, then the percentage of employees covered by collective agreements will rise. Essentially this emphasises that ASHE and the LFS are producing different indicators of collective agreement coverage, and therefore the different results should not be unexpected.
______________________________________________________________________
3 B. van Wanrooy et al, The 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study: First Findings, January 2013. However, it is important to note that the LFS measure reflects the employees’ perceptions of whether their pay or conditions are affected by a collective agreement between their employer and a trade union/staff association, and this will be affected partly by the employee’s awareness, as well as the coverage of collective agreements across the UK workforce.
**Summary**
In summary, the 2011 Statistics on Trade Union Membership publication identified two potential non-sampling errors which may have caused bias in the TUM statistics.
Firstly, our analysis of 2010 data suggests that our estimates of the total number of union members may be low by almost 1% due to proxy respondents being less likely to be TU members than respondents in person.
Secondly, we have determined that the ASHE survey provides a different measure of collective agreement coverage than the LFS, and that the different definitions (reflecting questionnaire design) are likely to account for much of the difference in their results on this issue (as suggested by the WERS results). The LFS definition is narrower than that for ASHE, so that should be taken account of when making use of the trade union membership statistics. It should also be emphasised that the LFS measure reflects employees’ perceptions as to whether their pay and conditions are affected by collective agreements between their employer and trade unions/staff associations.
We do not intend to change the trade union membership statistics methodology on the basis of this analysis and therefore there will be no break in the time series. However, we will continue to monitor these two areas, and will consider this approach in light of emerging evidence.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0082-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 13250,
"total-output-tokens": 3046,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
645,
2
],
[
645,
3094,
3
],
[
3094,
6270,
4
],
[
6270,
8891,
5
],
[
8891,
12165,
6
],
[
12165,
13874,
7
],
[
13874,
13874,
8
]
]
} |
a49e01d62b8f45337213c905ad9e52d71ef2aff8 | Car Parking 2015-16 City of York Council Internal Audit Report
Business Unit: Parking Services Responsible Officer: Asst. Director - Communities, Culture & Public Realm Service Manager: Head of Parking Services Date Issued: 25th May 2016 Status: Final Reference: 10610/002
| Actions | P1 | P2 | P3 | |---------|----|----|----| | Overall Audit Opinion | Reasonable Assurance | Summary and Overall Conclusions
Introduction The Council is responsible for enforcing parking regulations within its area under the decriminalised parking scheme introduced by the Traffic Management Act 2004. Regulations cover both on-street parking (such as yellow line restrictions and residents’ priority parking zones) and council car parks. Drivers are issued with penalty charge notices (PCNs) for any contravention of the regulations.
The council has 15 car parks with 57 residential parking zones, 11 on-street parking areas and all single and double yellow lined public highway streets with the council raising around £7m of car park income each year from them. The council also collects around £0.5m from PCNs that are issued across the city.
Objectives and Scope of the Audit The purpose of this audit is to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls within the system will ensure that:
- the cash paid into machines in car parks is banked correctly and promptly,
- all income from penalty charge notices and parking permits are collected and effective recovery action is taken to recover unpaid income,
- debts are written off appropriately and according to Council financial regulations.
Key Findings A significant issue has been identified, in that the Parking Gateway system which is used to record details of Parking permits and Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) is not compatible with the council’s Financial Management System (FMS). Therefore it is not possible to confirm whether the full price has been paid for Parking permits and PCNs as amounts paid are manually entered onto the Parking Gateway system with no electronic or manual reconciliation to FMS being carried out. However, it was confirmed that all money that is paid for Parking permits and PCNs appears correctly on FMS because this forms part of the council’s daily cashing up process to confirm that all money received by the council has been banked.
The process for responding to appeals and collecting outstanding PCNs was found to be working well with appropriate recovery action being taken where necessary. However, an issue was noted in that unrecoverable PCNs are being written off on the Parking Gateway system once they had been returned by the bailiff as uncollectable even though no approval had been obtained from a Chief Officer. This is a breach of the council's Financial Regulations. Overall Conclusions
It was found that the arrangements for managing risk were satisfactory with a number of weaknesses identified. There is an acceptable control environment in place but a number of improvements can be made. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided Reasonable Assurance. 1 Reconciling Parking Gateway to FMS
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Cash received for Parking Permits or Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) are not reconciled between FMS and the Parking Gateway system. | Parking Permits or PCNs could be paid for at reduced rates or ‘free’ of charge. |
Findings
The Parking Gateway system, which is used to record details relating to Parking Permits and PCNs, is not compatible to FMS. Money paid for Parking Permits and PCNs are correctly accounted for on FMS in the same way as other cash income with a daily cashing up process being done at the end of the day to confirm that the daily cash figure on the bank account was correct. Records are created on Parking Gateway for Parking Permits and PCNs with amounts being coded to these accounts when they are paid, however, this has to be done manually because FMS cannot transfer data to Parking Gateway because the system is stand alone and not compatible. Therefore there is no automatic reconciliation to confirm that the cash received for Parking Permits or PCNs was the correct amount. The council is budgeting to receive approximately £0.3m for Parking Permits and £0.5m for PCNs each year.
Additional work was carried out and transaction reports were run from Parking Gateway and FMS which showed that it would be possible to confirm that there are no material variances between the money that has been recorded on both systems. It would be possible to investigate variances between the systems due to the date, amount and narrative, however, because this would need to be done on a line by line basis the process would be time consuming and could only be justified if there was a material variance.
Agreed Action 1.1
A decision will be taken with the Finance team as to how often the reconciliation between FMS and the Parking Gateway system should take place, the level of variations that need to be investigated and the person responsible for doing this reconciliation.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 2 | Head of Parking Services | 30/06/2016 |
## 2 Writing off unrecoverable Penalty Charge Notices
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) are written off on the Parking Gateway system without authorisation from a Chief Officer. | PCNs are written off when they could still be collected. |
### Findings
Once debts are returned from the bailiff as unrecoverable they are written off on the Parking Gateway system without any authorisation from a Chief Officer. The Financial Regulations state that amounts up to and not exceeding £5,000 should be written off by any Chief Officer in consultation with the CFO, who shall maintain a record of all such write-offs showing attempted recovery action taken and the justification for non-recovery. Approximately £60k of PCNs are written off each year on the Parking Gateway system without the required authorisation, which is a breach of the council’s Financial Regulations.
### Agreed Action 2.1
The bailiff reports that list PCNs which are unrecoverable will be submitted to a named Chief Officer so that authorisation can be given before they are written off on the Parking Gateway system.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 2 | Head of Parking Services | 30/06/2016 | Audit Opinions and Priorities for Actions
Audit Opinions
Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit.
Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below.
| Opinion | Assessment of internal control | |--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | High Assurance | Overall, very good management of risk. An effective control environment appears to be in operation. | | Substantial Assurance | Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. | | Reasonable Assurance | Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. | | Limited Assurance | Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. | | No Assurance | Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. |
Priorities for Actions
| Priority | Description | |----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Priority 1 | A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. | | Priority 2 | A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. | | Priority 3 | The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management. | Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0083-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 12216,
"total-output-tokens": 2129,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
378,
1
],
[
378,
2784,
2
],
[
2784,
3134,
3
],
[
3134,
5542,
4
],
[
5542,
6845,
5
],
[
6845,
9039,
6
],
[
9039,
9639,
7
]
]
} |
dc06294ab9bbb05af2b840fac8c12dd3539f0ffe | MINUTES
Meeting: Planning Committee Date: Friday 13 February 2015 at 10.00 am Venue: Board Room, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell Chair: Mr P Ancell Present: Cllr D Birkinshaw, Cllr P Brady, Cllr C Carr, Cllr D Chapman, Cllr A R Favell, Cllr Mrs N Hawkins, Cllr H Laws, Cllr A McCloy, Ms S McGuire, Mr G Nickolds, Cllr Mrs K Potter, Cllr Mrs L C Roberts, Cllr Mrs J A Twigg, Cllr S Wattam and Cllr D Williams
Apologies for absence: Cllr Mrs H Gaddum
1/15 MINUTES
The minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 16 January 2015 were approved as a correct record subject to an amendment to the introductory text in minute 179/14 to add the words “and have an unacceptable impact on relationship with the landscape.”.
2/15 MEMBERS DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Item 7 Cllr D Chapman, personal interest as a friend of the applicant.
Item 8 Cllr D Chapman, personal interest as he knows the applicant.
Item 13 It was noted that all members had received correspondence from Hartington Parish Council, Keith Broadbent, John Youatt and Andrew Wood.
Cllr A McCloy, personal interest as a former member and Chair of the Hartington Community Liaison Group.
Cllr D Chapman, personal prejudicial interest in this item, as the District Councillor representing Hartington village he had supported villagers through the process and previously declared his objections to the proposals. He confirmed that he would address the Committee during public participation and then leave the room. Cllr Mrs K Potter, it was noted that she had contacted the Archaeologist to clarify the location of land associated with this application.
3/15 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Chair reported that 25 members of the public were present to make representations to the Committee.
4/15 FULL APPLICATION - RETROSPECTIVE CHANGE OF USE OF LAND FROM AGRICULTURE TO A YARD/STORAGE AREA FOR THE ADJACENT STEEL FABRICATION BUSINESS GRANTED UNDER CLEUD NP/SM/0712/0783 AND LANDSCAPING SCHEME, PITCHINGS FARM, WHITEFIELDS LANE, WATERHOUSES
Consideration of this item was deferred to a future meeting of the Committee.
5/15 FULL APPLICATION - ERECTION OF AFFORDABLE DWELLING ON LAND OFF BUXTON ROAD, HIGHFIELD FARM, ASHFORD
It was noted that, John Scott, Director of Planning, knew the applicant through a Member of his family. He confirmed that although it was not a close personal relationship he had not been involved in processing this application.
It was noted that Members had visited the site on the previous day.
The following spoke under the public participation scheme:
- Mr Roger Ryder, Agent
The officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED:
To refuse the application for the following reasons:
1. By virtue of its siting in an elevated position, above the existing residential properties that front on to Buxton Road, the proposed dwelling would be a prominent and incongruous addition to the street scene that would fail to reflect or respect the existing pattern of built development within the local area, would be unneighbourly, and would detract from the valued characteristics of the local area. Therefore, the proposals are contrary to national planning policies in the Framework, and do not accord with policies GSP1, GSP2, GSP3 and L1 of the Core Strategy or saved Local Plan policies LC4 and LH1.
2. The proposed dwelling would fail to preserve the special qualities of the designated Ashford in the Water Conservation Area and would detract from the significance of this heritage asset because the newly-built house and associated track would be constructed on an important open green space in the Conservation Area but the proposed development would not be sensitive to the special qualities of the open space including its positive contribution to the setting of the village. Therefore, the proposals conflict with core planning principles in the Framework and do not accord with policy L3 of the Core Strategy or saved Local Plan policy LC5.
3. By virtue of the orientation of the access track, its overall length, its poor relationship with existing landscape features, and a section that would be especially visible from public vantage points, the access track would detract significantly from the character of the surrounding landscape and the setting of the Conservation Area in its own right, and the adverse visual impact associated with the track would be exacerbated by the prominent and elevated location of parking provision for the proposed dwelling. Furthermore, a demonstrably safe and convenient access to the property for emergency vehicles, service vehicles such as bin lorries and for future occupants of the property could not be achieved without further adverse impacts on the environmental quality of the local area. Therefore, the proposals conflict with core planning principles in the Framework and do not accord with policies T1 and T3 of the Core Strategy or saved Local Plan policies LT11 and LT18.
Cllr A R Favell joined the meeting at 10.33am following consideration of this item.
6/15 PLANNING APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF POWDERS TANKERS DELIVERING OVERNIGHT AND THE CESSATION OF NIGHT TIME DELIVERIES OF COATED MACADAMS. VARIATION OF CONDITION 10 (III) OF PLANNING CONSENT NP/DDD/0803/419, BALLIDON QUARRY
As the Committee was slightly ahead of schedule the Chair agreed to bring forward item 10 to allow time for registered public speakers to attend.
In introducing the report it was noted that page 3 had been amended to remove duplicate paragraphs in the officer recommendation. Following Member suggestions that the Committee would benefit from a visit to this site, it was confirmed that officers were expecting the applicants to submit an application for a land exchange in the near future and a Committee site visit would be arranged before determining the application.
The Committee noted the Parish Council comments relating to the speed of vehicles travelling to and from the site and asked officers to contact the operator to highlight these concerns.
The officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED:
To APPROVE the application, reference NP/DDD/0214/0210, to vary condition 10(a)(iii), subject to:
1. Condition 10 being revised to read:
The total number of dry aggregate, industrial and coated roadstone lorry movements per day shall not exceed a maximum of 800 (i.e. 400 in and 400 out). Within the total number of vehicle movements the following restrictions shall apply:
(i) No more than 240 (120 in, 120 out) dry aggregate vehicle movements shall take place per day subject to the restrictions specified in condition 17 of this permission;
(ii) Out of the 240 movements, no more than 40 movements (20 in, 20 out) of dry aggregate lorries shall take place between 0500 hours and 0600 hours Monday to Saturday; (iii) No more than 24 movements (12 in, 12 out) of industrial powders shall take place between 1900 hours and 0600 hours Monday to Saturday.
From the date of this permission the operators shall maintain records of their lorry movements, specifying types of vehicles, products carried, and time in and out of the site, and shall make them available to the MPA at any time upon request. All records shall be kept for at least 36 months.
2. The remaining conditions on permission NP/DDD/0803/419 being re-imposed on the grant of a new permission, subject to any necessary minor updates, to be agreed with the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee and the Director of Planning; and
3. The signing of a deed of variation to the existing section 106 to reflect the new planning permission.
7/15 S.73 APPLICATION - PROPOSED VARIATIONS TO CONDITION 2 (COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS) AND CONDITION 3 (HEIGHT OF HEDGE) ATTACHED TO PLANNING DECISION NOTICE NP/SM/1213/1146 FOR INSTALLATION OF 30 KW (96 PANELS) GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PV PANELS, UPPER HURST FARM, HULME END
It was noted that Members had visited the site on the previous day.
The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:
- Mrs Susan Green, Applicant
The officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED:
TO APPROVE the application subject to the following conditions/modifications:
1. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted plans and specifications subject to the following conditions / modifications:
2. No development shall take place until a landscape management plan and a schedule for its implementation has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Authority. Thereafter, the development hereby permitted shall be dismantled and permanently removed from the land within six months of the date of the failure to comply with the requirements of any part of the management plan.
3. At the time of their installation, the external finishes of the ground mounted modules shall be matt black and the individual solar panels shall not be installed other than with matt black surrounds and an anti-reflective finish. Thereafter, the ground mounted solar array shall be permanently so maintained throughout the lifetime of the development hereby permitted.
4. Once the solar panels are no longer required for the purposes of energy generation, the ground mounted solar array shall be completely removed from the land, and the ground shall be reinstated to its original ground within three months of the solar panels being decommissioned.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.15am for a short break and reconvened at 11.25am.
8/15 FULL APPLICATION - TEMPORARY CHANGE OF USE FROM INDUSTRIAL UNIT TO A PERSONAL TRAINING STUDIO AT UNIT 2B, STATION YARD, BAKEWELL
Cllr Mrs J Twigg declared a personal interest as she knew the parents of the applicant.
In introducing the report the Planning Officer confirmed that in the current economic climate the supply of business units in the Bakewell area exceeded demand.
The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:
- Mr Ed Eley, Applicant
Before speaking the applicant passed to the Chair a 300 name petition supporting the application.
Following the discussion the Committee asked Officers to contact the Town Council to address their concerns about the loss of business units.
The officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED:
To APPROVE the application subject to the following conditions/modifications:
1. Statutory 3 year time limit for implementation.
2. The use hereby permitted shall be temporary for 5 years.
3. Use shall be limited to a ‘gymnasium’ and for no other purposes within a D2 use class.
4. The use hereby permitted shall be limited to within the building.
5. Visiting members of the public (including customers/members/clients) shall be limited to no more than 4 at any one time.
9/15 FULL APPLICATION - CONSTRUCTION OF NEW AGRICULTURAL DWELLING, ELIZABETHASH FARM, HAYFIELD ROAD, CHINLEY
The Planning Officer reported that, following sight of the agenda report, the objectors had confirmed that they were satisfied that their concerns had been addressed and therefore had withdrawn their objections. The Planning Officer also updated the recommendation to insert into the Section 106 agreement an Agricultural occupancy restriction.
The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:
- Holly Frost, Applicant
The officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried. RESOLVED:
To APPROVE the application subject to prior entry into a legal agreement to restrict occupancy of the dwelling to an agricultural worker and to prevent the separate sale of land in ownership, the new house, and existing buildings and subject to the following conditions / modifications.
01. Statutory 3 year time limit for implementation.
02. Development not to be carried out otherwise than in accordance with specified amended plans.
03. The residential caravan on site shall be removed and the land restored to its previous condition within 1 month of the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.
04. Removal of permitted development rights for external alterations, extensions, outbuildings, hard standing, walls, fences and other means of enclosure to the approved dwelling.
05. No development shall take place until a detailed scheme showing the finished ground levels within the site has been submitted and approved. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
06. No development shall take place until a detailed scheme of landscaping (including planting, earth mounding, re-seeding, walls, gates and hard standings) has been submitted and approved. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and maintained in perpetuity.
07. Any new services to be placed underground.
08. Foul sewerage to be dealt with by a package treatment plan. Prior to the installation of the package treatment plant, full details of which shall have first been submitted and approved. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
09. Development shall be built to a minimum of the Government's Code Level for Sustainable Homes Level (or its successor) required of Registered Social Landlords at the time of commencement of the building works.
10. No development shall take place until a design stage assessment (under the Code for Sustainable Homes or its successor) has been carried out and a copy of the summary score sheet and Interim Code Certificate indicating that the development can achieve the stipulated final Code Level (or any such national mechanism that replaces this) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority.
11. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a copy of the summary score sheet and Post Construction Review Certificate (under the Code for Sustainable Homes or its successor) shall be submitted to the Authority verifying that the agreed standards have been met.
12. Conditions to specify or require prior approval of architectural and design details for the dwelling including, stonework, roof materials, roof verges, rainwater goods, chimneys, window and door design and finish and solar panels.
13. Prior approval of space within the site for accommodation, storage of plant, materials and parking for site operative’s vehicles during construction works.
14. Parking and turning areas to be laid and constructed prior to first occupation of the dwelling and maintained in perpetuity.
15. Details of bin storage space and dwell area for use on refuse collection days to be submitted and approved. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
10/15 FULL APPLICATION - CHANGE OF USE OF PUBLIC HOUSE TO TWO RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND AMENITY SPACE AT STANHOPE ARMS, DUNFORD BRIDGE, SHEFFIELD,
The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:
- Mr Andrew Keeling, Agent
The Committee were of the view that, although the loss of a public house was regrettable, they were satisfied that the viability report demonstrated that the current owner had fully explored alternative options before submitting the application.
The officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED:
To APPROVE the application subject to the following conditions:
1. 3 year time limit for commencement of development
2. Adopt amended plans
3. Removal of PD rights for external appearance, extensions, etc.
4. Minor building design details.
5. Submit scheme of environmental management measures to reduce energy use and lower carbon footprint.
11/15 DESIGNATION OF HOLME VALLEY NEIGHBOURHOOD AREA (AM)
As the Committee was slightly ahead of schedule the Chair agreed to bring forward item 16 to allow time for registered public speakers to attend.
The officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to vote and carried. In moving the recommendation the Committee acknowledged the valuable support and advice given to Parishes by Adele Metcalfe, Village & Communities Officer, to progress their proposals.
RESOLVED: To designate that part of the Holme Valley parish that is within the National Park as part of the Holme Valley Neighbourhood Area (the shaded area within the parish boundary on the map in Appendix 1), under the Localism Act 2011 Schedule 9, section 61G.
At 12.20pm, following consideration of this item, Cllr H Laws and Cllr Mrs N Hawkins left the meeting.
12/15 HEAD OF LAW
As the Committee was slightly ahead of schedule the Chair agreed to bring forward item 17 to allow time for registered public speakers to attend.
Members noted the appeals lodged and decided during the month. It was noted that since the report had been published NP/DDD/1014/1051 had been determined and the appeal had been dismissed.
RESOLVED:
To note the report.
At 12.25pm, following consideration of this item Cllr H Laws and Cllr Mrs N Hawkins returned to the meeting.
13/15 APPLICATION TO REMOVE/VARY CONDITIONS ON APPLICATION NP/DDD/0212/0153 (CONVERSION OF CHURCH TO TWO DWELLINGS WITH ACCESS AND PARKING) - VARIATION OF APPROVED ROOFLIGHT SIZES AND POSITIONS - FORMER URC CHURCH, PARKE ROAD, TIDESWELL.
With the consent of the Committee the Chair agreed to vary the order of business so that item 15 was considered before item 14.
In introducing the report it was noted that condition 1 in the officer recommendation had been amended to “Statutory 3 year time limit for implementation.”
It was noted that a further 4 letters had been receive expressing support for the two applications.
The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme.
- Mr Neal Richmond, Objector
- Mr Richard Brown, Supporter
- Mr Robin Brown, Applicant
During discussion Members expressed concern that the two applications had been submitted retrospectively.
The amended officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED:
To APPROVE the application subject to the following conditions:
1 Statutory 3 year time limit for implementation. 2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with submitted plans
3 Maintenance of storage of plant area throughout works.
4 Maintain access visibility and sightlines.
5 Agree details of lowered section of walling to the north of the access track.
6 Nest boxes to be installed as previously approved.
7 The ridge tile access points for bats and their positioning to be installed as previously approved.
8 Two bat boxes shall be mounted internally within each gable end of the building.
9 Vehicular access, access road and car parking/manoeuvring facilities to be completed.
10 Two car parking spaces to be permanently maintained for each dwelling and car parking spaces and associated manoeuvring areas shall remain unobstructed for use at all times.
11 Drainage and surfacing materials for the access road and car parking/manoeuvring areas to be installed as previously approved.
12 Environmental Management measures shall be undertaken as previously approved.
13 Ground levels of the access road and car parking/manoeuvring areas to be established and permanently maintained as previously approved.
14 External lighting shall be installed as previously approved.
15 Matching materials new for timber and stonework.
16 New door frame to be recessed from the external face of the wall the same depth as the adjacent window frames.
17 Doors shall be vertically boarded timber with no external framing or glazing.
18 Rooflights to the west facing roof slope to be fitted flush with the roof slope.
19 All pipework to be completely internal within the building.
20 No additional or replacement guttering or downpipes to be installed without the prior approval of the Authority.
21 The design and positioning of external meter boxes shall be as previously approved.
22 Remove permitted development rights. 23 The northern boundary wall to be maintained at its present height, subject to the reduction in height required by Condition 5.
24 Access for birds and bats via the existing louvred openings in the gable ends of the church shall be permanently retained.
25 Maintain internal layout as approved.
At 1.00pm following consideration of this item Cllr P Brady joined the meeting.
14/15 APPLICATION TO REMOVE/VARY CONDITIONS ON APPLICATION NP/DDD/0212/0153 (CONVERSION OF CHURCH TO TWO DWELLINGS WITH ACCESS AND PARKING) - VARIATION OF APPROVED ROOFLIGHT SIZES AND POSITIONS, AND ADDITION OF ROOFLIGHT TO FACILITATE ADDITION OF 4TH BEDROOM - FORMER URC CHURCH, PARKE ROAD, TIDESWELL.
In introducing the report it was noted that condition 1 in the officer recommendation had been amended to “Statutory 3 year time limit for implementation.” The Officer also stated that the conditions would clarify that the louvred opening in the north gable would only be blocked internally.
The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:
- Mr Neal Richmond, Objector
- Mr Robin Brown, Applicant
The amended officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED:
To APPROVE the application subject to the following conditions:
1 Statutory 3 year time limit for implementation.
2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with submitted plans.
3 Maintenance of storage of plant area throughout works.
4 Maintain access visibility and sightlines.
5 Agree details of lowered section of walling to the north of the access track.
6 Nest boxes to be installed as previously approved.
7 The ridge tile access points for bats and their positioning to be installed as previously approved.
8 Two bat boxes shall be mounted internally within the roof void of the southern half of the building.
9 Vehicular access, access road and car parking/manoeuvring facilities to be completed. 10 Two car parking spaces to be permanently maintained for each dwelling and car parking spaces and associated manoeuvring areas shall remain unobstructed for use at all times.
11 Drainage and surfacing materials for the access road and car parking/manoeuvring areas to be installed as previously approved.
12 Environmental Management measures shall be undertaken as previously approved.
13 Ground levels of the access road and car parking/manoeuvring areas to be established and permanently maintained as previously approved.
14 External lighting shall be installed as previously approved.
15 Matching materials new for timber and stonework.
16 New door frame to be recessed from the external face of the wall the same depth as the adjacent window frames.
17 Doors shall be vertically boarded timber with no external framing or glazing.
18 Rooflights to the west facing roof slope to be fitted flush with the roof slope.
19 All pipework to be completely internal within the building.
20 No additional or replacement guttering or downpipes to be installed without the prior approval of the Authority.
21 The design and positioning of external meter boxes shall be as previously approved.
22 Remove permitted development rights.
23 The northern boundary wall to be maintained at its present height, subject to the reduction in height required by Condition 5.
24 The external appearance of the louvred openings in both gable ends of the church to be retained with only the north opening being blocked internally.
25 Access for birds and bats to the roof void in the southern half of the building via the existing louvered opening in the southern gable end to be retained.
26 Maintain internal layout as approved.
Cllr P Brady did not participate in the discussion and voting on this application.
The meeting adjourned at 1.10pm for lunch and reconvened at 1.40pm
Chair: Mr P Ancell
Present: Cllr D Birkinshaw, Cllr P Brady, Cllr C Carr, Cllr D Chapman, Cllr A R Favell, Cllr Mrs N Hawkins, Cllr H Laws, Cllr A McCloy, Ms S McGuire, Mr G Nickolds, In accordance with Standing Orders, Members agreed to continue the Committee meeting beyond 3 hours.
15/15 MAJOR FULL APPLICATION: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FACTORY BUILDING AND THE SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OF A TOTAL OF 26 DWELLINGS INCLUDING 4 'AFFORDABLE' AND CONVERSION OF FORMER FACTORY BUILDINGS TO TWO DWELLINGS AT DOVE DAIRY, STONEWELL LANE, HARTINGTON
The Head of Law reminded the Committee that as Cllr D Chapman had declared a personal, prejudicial interest in this application he would address the Committee as the first speaker under public participation and then leave the meeting.
Councillor P Brady declared a personal interest as he was a friend of one of the speakers and an acquaintance of two others.
It was noted that Members had visited the site on the previous day.
The Director Planning highlighted the policy issues relating to the application and the Planning Officer introduced aspects of the application. The introduction included details of the Viability Statement provided by the developer in support of the application. It was noted that, due to the flooding measures required by the Environment Agency, if approved the permission could not be implemented until the developer had received and implemented planning approval for a swale.
The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:
- Cllr David Chapman, Authority Member and Derbyshire Dales District Councillor (As he had declared a personal, prejudicial interest he left the meeting immediately after speaking)
- Mr Richard Gregory, Objector
- Mr Ron Critchlow, Objector
- Mr Geoff Howden, Objector
- Liz Broomhead, MBE, Objector
- Robert Gregory, Objector
- Mr John Dean, Objector
- Mr C R Dullage, Objector
- Mrs Julie Critchlow, Objector
- Cllr David Annat, Chair of Hartington Parish Council, Objector
- Mr Andrew Wood, Friends of the Peak District, Objector
- Alison Clamp, Peak District Rural Housing Association
- Isabel Frenzel, DDDC Rural Housing Enabler
- Rob Cogings, DDDC Head of Housing
- Mr Teifion Salisbury on behalf of the Applicant
Following the public speakers Cllr Mrs K Potter declared a personal interest as a supporter of CPRE/Friends of the Peak District.
During questions and debate the Committee discussed in detail issues relating to viability, community benefit and the provision of affordable housing. As part of the discussion it was suggested that further information on issues relating to affordable housing should be considered at the 2015 Parishes Day later in the year. A motion to refuse the application was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED:
To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:
1. The public benefits of allowing permission for the current application would not amount to the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify a major development in the National Park.
2. By virtue of its size and scale and by virtue of the design, siting layout and landscape design for the development, the proposed development would not be in keeping with local building traditions and would be insensitive to the locally distinctive character landscape setting and the settlements overall pattern of development and would therefore be contrary to a range of development policies.
3. The development does not fully take into account the energy hierarchy by reducing the need for energy and lack of energy saving measures and renewables and therefore it will not achieve the highest possible standards of carbon reductions or sustainable development contrary to CC1 of the core strategy.
The meeting ended at 3.55 pm
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0084-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 13,
"total-input-tokens": 24909,
"total-output-tokens": 6734,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1497,
1
],
[
1497,
3995,
2
],
[
3995,
6877,
3
],
[
6877,
9394,
4
],
[
9394,
11527,
5
],
[
11527,
14086,
6
],
[
14086,
16240,
7
],
[
16240,
18202,
8
],
[
18202,
20077,
9
],
[
20077,
22053,
10
],
[
22053,
24118,
11
],
[
24118,
26636,
12
],
[
26636,
27710,
13
]
]
} |
50531cf57c313c193c3200892d80229c984040e7 | Business Rates Retention (NNDR)
http://bit.ly/PASNNDR
Information for Local Authorities: http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/info4LAs.html
Business Rates Collected
The amount of Business Rates payable by shops, offices, warehouses, etc is currently calculated as follows:
[(\\text{Rateable Value of the property}) \\times \\text{NNDR Multiplier}]
where,
- RV is set by the Valuation Office based on the individual characteristics of the property. The current rateable values were set in 2010, with the next valuation in 2017 and every 5 years thereafter, and;
- The NNDR multiplier for 2013/14 is 0.471 (0.462 for small businesses)
The Business Rates Baseline
Business Rates Aggregate for England
The Secretary of State has estimated that the total business rates to be collected by all billing authorities in England for the year 2013/2014 (“the Estimated Business Rates Aggregate”) is £21,797,108,887.
For each billing authority in England:
- their central share for 2013/2014 will be 50%;
- their local share for 2013/2014 will be 50%; thus The local share amount for 2012/13 is: £10,898,554,444
In order to determine tariff and top up amounts for every relevant authority it is necessary to establish individual authority business rates baselines for each authority. The Business Rates Baseline is calculated by the following formula:
[(\\text{Individual Proportional Share}) \\times (\\text{Local share of the Estimated Business Rates Aggregate}), \\text{ minus (share to be paid to upper tier authority)},]
where,
- the Individual Proportional Share is calculated based on each authority’s contribution to the pool, increases/reductions in rate yield due to transitional arrangements, relief schemes, and schedules of payments.
- 40% of charging authority’s local share must go to the Upper Tier authority.
A relevant authority will receive a payment (a “top up”) from the Secretary of State if its Individual Authority Business Rates Baseline is less than or equal to its Baseline Funding Level.
The top up or tariff amount is calculated by the following formula:
[(\\text{Baseline funding level}) – (\\text{Individual Authority’s Business Rates Baseline})] How to model Business Rates
STEP 1
- Calculate the number of square metres that will pay business rates. Remember to separate these by use!
Remember... Residential uses DO NOT pay business rates!
STEP 2
- Make appropriate assumptions of the approximate rateable value (RV) per square metre that new development is likely to get. You can do this by taking a sampling of the surrounding area. You need to do this for every use that the new development will deliver.
Remember... Different uses get different RV rates. RVs are set by the VOA, and are reviewed every 5 years.
STEP 3
- Multiply the square metres of each use by the appropriate Rateable Values per square metre to get the potential rateable value of the property.
- For example: In a certain area, the average RV for retail uses is £50 per sqm. A new development of 100 sqm of retail is being delivered in the area. Therefore, the rateable value of the whole development will be £5000.
STEP 4
- Multiply the Rateable Value of the property by the NNDR multiplier. This will give you the total annual Business Rates payable.
- For example: £5000 x 0.471 = £2355 payable in Business Rates
Remember... If you’re modelling business rates over time, remember that this is an annual charge, therefore, once a development is built it will continue to pay business rates over time!
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
http://bit.ly/PAS-CIL
The community infrastructure levy is a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. In areas where a community infrastructure levy is in force, land owners and developers must pay the levy to the local council. The charges are set by the local council, based on the size and type of the new development. The money raised from the community infrastructure levy must be used to support the development of the area by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods want. A proportion of the income must be spent in the area where the development is taking place (15% or 25% depending on whether a neighbourhood plan is in place).
**How to model CIL income**
**STEP 1**
- Filter your development trajectory by removing the types of development that are not liable to pay CIL in your area.
- Your charging schedule will tell you this.
**Remember...** Developments that were already permitted when your charging schedule went live and affordable housing DO NOT pay CIL!
**STEP 2**
- Calculate the total amount of additional floorspace, in square metres, that is being delivered by the development. You can use design standards to estimate the total area of housing, for example.
**Remember...** CIL is payable only on Gross Internal Area! Also, replacement floorspace does not pay CIL!
**STEP 3**
- Multiply the number of square metres by the appropriate CIL rate for that specific use type.
- For example:
3,000 sqm of new retail floorspace X £100 per sqm (your CIL rate for retail) = £300,000 CIL!
**New Homes Bonus (NHB)**
[http://bit.ly/PASNHB](http://bit.ly/PASNHB)
The New Homes Bonus is a grant paid by central government to local councils for increasing the number of homes and their use. The New Homes Bonus is paid each year for 6 years. It is based on the amount of extra Council Tax revenue raised for new-build homes, conversions and long-term empty homes brought back into use. There is also an extra payment for providing affordable homes. There are no restrictions on how the money can be spent. The baseline for each local authority is set every year and is based on the previous year’s collection of Council Tax. The grant is calculated by multiplying the annual net change in housing stock (adjusted for Band D equivalency) by the average Band D Council tax in England for the previous year. For 2013/14, this is £1,444.13, with a £350 supplement for affordable homes. To estimate future income for NHB the 2013/14 calculation is applied to the council’s housing trajectory and project specific housing growth data.
There is currently a proposed top slice to LEP of approximately 35%.
**How to model New Homes Bonus**
**STEP 1**
- Filter your development trajectory by separating the number of homes that are private housing and the number of homes that are affordable.
**Remember…** New Homes Bonus guidance, on the gov.uk website, will tell you what is considered “affordable”
**STEP 2**
- Find out what the national average Band D Council tax rate is. The current rate is £1,444 per dwelling. This changes every year.
**Remember…** You can also find this in the New Homes Bonus section of the GOV.UK website
**STEP 3**
- Multiply the number of **private** homes by the national avg. Band D Council Tax rate.
- Multiply the number of **affordable** homes by the Band D rate **PLUS** £350.
- For example:
1 private homes x £1444 = £1444 1 affordable homes x (£1444 + £350) = £1794
**Remember…** New homes bonus is received by local authorities for 6 years!
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0085-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 7765,
"total-output-tokens": 1945,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2177,
1
],
[
2177,
3743,
2
],
[
3743,
5376,
3
],
[
5376,
7170,
4
]
]
} |
9a799f96f2b5f724e84f814335169bdda8db4590 | Application for a non-material amendment following a grant of planning permission.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Publication of applications on planning authority websites
Please note that the information provided on this application form and in supporting documents may be published on the Authority’s website. If you require any further clarification, please contact the Authority’s planning department.
Please complete using block capitals and black ink. It is important that you read the accompanying guidance notes as incorrect completion will delay the processing of your application.
| 1. Applicant Name and Address | 2. Agent Name and Address | |-------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Title:** Mrs | **Title:** Mr | | **First name:** | **First name:** John | | **Last name:** Middleton | **Last name:** Mc Garry | | **Company (optional):** | **Company (optional):** Entrust | | **Unit:** | **Unit:** | | **House number:** | **House number:** | | **House suffix:** | **House suffix:** | | **House name:** Middletown Farm | **House name:** Daresbury Innovation Centre | | **Address 1:** Back Lane | **Address 1:** Keckwick Lane | | **Address 2:** | **Address 2:** Daresbury | | **Address 3:** | **Address 3:** Cheshire | | **Town:** Calton | **Town:** | | **County:** Staffordshire | **County:** | | **Country:** United Kingdom | **Country:** United Kingdom | | **Postcode:** ST10 3SX | **Postcode:** WA4 4FS | 3. Site Address Details Please provide the full postal address of the application site.
Unit: [ ] House number: [ ] House suffix: [ ]
House name: MIDDLETOWN FARM Address 1: BACK LANE Address 2: CALTON Address 3: STOKE-ON-TRENT Town: [ ] County: [ ] Postcode (optional): ST10 3JX Description of location or a grid reference. (must be completed if postcode is not known): Easting: 410297 Northing: 350166 Description:
4. Pre-application Advice Has assistance or prior advice been sought from the local authority about this application? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If Yes, please complete the following information about the advice you were given. (This will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently). Please tick if the full contact details are not known, and then complete as much as possible: [ ]
Officer name: [ ] Reference: [ ] Date of advice (DD/MM/YYYY): [ ] Details of pre-application advice received: [ ]
5. Eligibility Do you, or the person on whose behalf you are making this application, have an interest in the part of the land to which this amendment relates? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If you have answered No to this question, you cannot apply to make a non-material amendment.
If you are not the sole owner, has notification under article 9 of the DMPO been given? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Not Applicable
If you have answered No to this question, you cannot apply to make a non-material amendment.
If you have answered Yes to this question, please give details of persons notified:
| Person Notified | Address | Date of Notification | |-----------------|---------|----------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
6. Authority Employee / Member With respect to the Authority, I am: [ ] (a) a member of staff (b) an elected member (c) related to a member of staff (d) related to an elected member
Do any of these statements apply to you? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes please provide details of the name, relationship and role
[ ] 7. Description Of Your Proposal
Please provide a description of the approved development as shown on the decision letter, including application reference number and date of decision in the sections below. Please also provide the original application type:
**DESCRIPTION:** INSTALLATION OF 21 X 190W SOLAR PANELS TO THE SOUTH FACING ROOF PLANE OF THE DOMESTIC GARAGE.
Reference number: NP/SM/0811/0789
Date of decision (DD/MM/YYYY): 5/10/2011
What was the original application type?: (e.g. 'Full', 'Householder and Listed Building', 'Outline')
**FULL**
For the purpose of calculating fees, which of the following best describes the original application type?
- Householder development: development to an existing dwelling-house or development within its curtilage
Other: anything not covered by the above category
8. Non-Material Amendment(s) Sought
Please describe the non-material amendment(s) you are seeking to make:
**CHANGE OF POSITIONING OF SOLAR PANELS ON ROOF TO 700MM FROM EDGE OF ROOF.**
Are you intending to substitute amended plans or drawings?
- Yes
- No
If Yes, please complete the following:
Old plan/drawing number(s):
**NO NUMBERS INCLUDED.**
New plan/drawing number(s):
001, 002
Please state why you wish to make this amendment:
**TO AVOID PANELS BEING LOCATED IN SHADE OF SUNLIGHT. MAXIMISING THE PANELS PRODUCTIVITY + CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTIONS.** 9. Application Requirements - Checklist Please read the following checklist to make sure you have sent all the information in support of your proposal. Failure to submit all information required will result in your application not being accepted. It will not be accepted until all information required by the Local Planning Authority has been submitted.
The original and 3 copies of a completed and dated application form: ☑
The original and 3 copies of other plans and drawings or information necessary to describe the subject of the application: ☑
The correct fee: ☑
10. Declaration I/we hereby apply for planning permission/consent as described in this form and the accompanying plans/drawings and additional information. Signed - Applicant: [Signature] Or signed - Agent: [Signature] Date (DD/MM/YYYY): 20/10/2011
11. Applicant Contact Details Telephone numbers Country code: [ ] National number: [ ] Extension number: [ ] Country code: [ ] Mobile number (optional): [ ] Country code: [ ] Fax number (optional): [ ] Email address (optional): [ ]
12. Agent Contact Details Telephone numbers Country code: [ ] National number: [ ] Extension number: [ ] Country code: [ ] Mobile number (optional): [ ] Country code: [ ] Fax number (optional): [ ] Email address (optional): [[email protected]]
13. Site Visit Can the site be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land? ☐ Yes ☑ No If the planning authority needs to make an appointment to carry out a site visit, whom should they contact? (Please select only one) ☐ Agent ☐ Applicant ☐ Other (if different from the agent/applicant's details) If Other has been selected, please provide: Contact name: [ ] Telephone number: [ ] Address: [ ]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0086-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 4276,
"total-output-tokens": 1858,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1453,
1
],
[
1453,
3636,
2
],
[
3636,
5026,
3
],
[
5026,
6752,
4
]
]
} |
18f8f5d54398e5b879178af76f31db46150de81c | Householder Application for Planning Permission to build or extension to a dwelling.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Publication of planning applications on council websites
Please note that with the exception of applicant contact details and Certificates of Ownership, the information provided on this application form and in supporting documents may be published on the council's website.
If you have provided any other information as part of your application which falls within the definition of personal data under the Data Protection Act which you do not wish to be published on the council's website, please contact the council's planning department.
Please complete using block capitals and black ink.
It is important that you read the accompanying guidance notes as incorrect completion will delay the processing of your application.
| 1. Applicant Name and Address | 2. Agent Name and Address | |-------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Title:** | **Title:** John F. Lomas, M.R.I.C.S., M.B.Eng | | **First name:** Mr I and Mrs M | **Last name:** | | **Last name:** Long | **Company (optional):** | | **Company (optional):** | **Company (optional):** | | **Unit:** | **Unit:** | | **House number:** | **House number:** | | **House suffix:** | **House suffix:** | | **House name:** Gnathole Farm | **House name:** | | **Address 1:** Macclesfield Road | **Address 1:** Chapel Road | | **Address 2:** Kettleshulme | **Address 2:** Hayfield | | **Address 3:** High Peak | **Address 3:** | | **Town:** | **Town:** | | **County:** | **County:** | | **Country:** Cheshire | **Country:** | | **Postcode:** SK23 7RE | **Postcode:** |
3. Description of Proposed Works
Please describe the proposed works:
Increase height of existing garage and alterations to form kitchen. 3. Description of Proposed Works (continued):
| Has the work already started? | Yes | No | |------------------------------|-----|----| | If Yes, please state when the work was started (DD/MM/YYYY): | | | | Has the work already been completed? | Yes | No | | If Yes, please state when the work was completed (DD/MM/YYYY): | | |
4. Site Address Details
| Please provide the full postal address of the application site, | |-------------------------------------------------------------| | Unit: | House number: | House suffix: | | House name: | Gnarthole Farm, | | Address 1: | Macclesfield Road, | | Address 2: | Kettleshulme, | | Address 3: | High Peak | | Town: | | | County: | chester | | Postcode (optional): | SK23 7RE |
5. Pedestrian and Vehicle Access, Roads and Rights of Way
| Is a new or altered vehicle access proposed to or from the public highway? | Yes | No | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|----| | Is a new or altered pedestrian access proposed to or from the public highway? | Yes | No | | Do the proposals require any diversions, extinguishments and/or creation of public rights of way? | Yes | No | | If Yes to any questions, please show details on your plans or drawings and state the reference number(s) of the plan(s)/drawing(s): | |
6. Pre-application Advice
| Has assistance or prior advice been sought from the local authority about this application? | Yes | No | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|----| | If Yes, please complete the following information about the advice you were given. (This will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently). Please tick if the full contact details are not known, and then complete as much possible: | | | Officer name: | Mr. Chris Smith | | Reference: | | | Date (DD MM YYYY): | 18/1/12 | | (must be pre-application submission) | | | Details of the pre-application advice received: | See enclosed letter dated 18/1/12 |
7. Trees and Hedges
| Are there any trees or hedges on your own property or on adjoining properties which are within falling distance of your boundary? | Yes | No | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|----| | If Yes, please mark their position on a scaled plan and state the reference number of any plans or drawings: | | | Will any trees or hedges need to be removed or pruned in order to carry out your proposal? | Yes | No | | If Yes, please show on your plans which trees by giving them numbers e.g. T1, T2 etc, state the reference number of the plan(s)/drawing(s) and indicate the scale. | |
8. Parking
| Will the proposed works affect existing car parking arrangements? | Yes | No | |-----------------------------------------------------------------|-----|----| | If Yes, please describe: | |
9. Council Employee / Member
| Is the applicant or agent related to any member of staff or elected member of the council? | Yes | No | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|----| | If Yes, please provide details: | |
90cm. 2007/05/01 10:52:45 Version 1.5a
### 10. Materials
If applicable, please state what materials are to be used externally. Include type, colour and name for each material:
| | Existing (where applicable) | Proposed | Not applicable | Don't Know | Drawing references if applicable | |----------------|-----------------------------|----------|----------------|------------|---------------------------------| | **Walls** | Natural gritstone | Natural gritstone to match existing | ☐ | ☐ | | | **Roof** | Natural Stone: Slate | Natural Stone Slate to match existing (existing slates to be re-used) | ☐ | ☐ | | | **Windows** | All windows in existing house are White u.p.v.c | White u.p.v.c to match existing | ☐ | ☐ | | | **Doors** | Blue Finish u.p.v.c (this to be replaced with oak timber door) | Blue Finish u.p.v.c (re-fixed from existing external doorway) | ☐ | ☐ | | | **Boundary treatments** (e.g. fences, walls) | | | ☑ | ☐ | | | **Vehicle access and hard-standing** | | | ☑ | ☐ | | | **Lighting** | | | ☑ | ☐ | | | **Others** (please specify) | | | ☐ | ☐ | |
Are you supplying additional information on submitted plan(s)/drawing(s)/design and access statement? ☑ Yes ☐ No
If Yes, please state references for the plan(s)/drawing(s)/design and access statement:
drg no 11.12/1, 11.12/2, 11.12/3, 11.12/4 and 11.12/5, Location plan. 11. Certificates
One Certificate A, B, C, or D, must be completed, together with the Agricultural Holdings Certificate with this application form.
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP - CERTIFICATE A
Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 Certificate under Article 7
I certify: The applicant certifies that on the day 21 days before the date of this application nobody except myself/the applicant was the owner (owner is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run) of any part of the land or building to which the application relates.
Signed - Applicant: [Signature]
Or signed - Agent: [Signature]
Date (DD/MM/YYYY): 29/1/12
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP - CERTIFICATE B
Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 Certificate under Article 7
I certify: The applicant certifies that I have/the applicant has given the requisite notice to everyone else (as listed below) who, on the day 21 days before the date of this application, was the owner (owner is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run) of any part of the land or building to which this application relates.
| Name of Owner | Address | Date Notice Served | |---------------|---------|--------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Signed - Applicant: [Signature]
Or signed - Agent: [Signature]
Date (DD/MM/YYYY): [Blank]
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP - CERTIFICATE C
Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 Certificate under Article 7
I certify: The applicant certifies that:
- Neither Certificate A or B can be issued for this application.
- All reasonable steps have been taken to find out the names and addresses of the other owners (owner is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run) of the land or building, or of a part of it, but I have/the applicant has been unable to do so.
The steps taken were:
Signed - Applicant: [Signature]
Or signed - Agent: [Signature]
Date (DD/MM/YYYY): [Blank]
Notice of the application has been published in the following newspaper (circulating in the area where the land is situated):
Signed - Applicant: [Signature]
Or signed - Agent: [Signature]
Date (DD/MM/YYYY): [Blank] 11. Certificates (continued)
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP - CERTIFICATED
Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 Certificate under Article 7
I certify that the applicant certifies that:
- Certificate A cannot be issued for this application
- All reasonable steps have been taken to find out the names, and addresses of everyone else who, on the day 21 days before the date of this application, was the owner (owner is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run) of any part of the land to which this application relates, but I have/ the applicant has been unable to do so.
The steps taken were:
Notice of the application has been published in the following newspaper:
On the following date (which must not be earlier than 21 days before the date of the application):
Signed - Applicant: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Or signed - Agent: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Date (DD/MM/YYYY): \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS CERTIFICATE
Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 Certificate under Article 7
Agricultural Land Declaration - You Must Complete Either A or B
(A) None of the land to which the application relates is, or is part of, an agricultural holding.
Signed - Applicant: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Or signed - Agent: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Date (DD/MM/YYYY): \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
B) I have/ The applicant has given the requisite notice to every person other than myself/ the applicant who, on the day 21 days before the date of this application, was a tenant of an agricultural holding on all or part of the land to which this application relates, as listed below:
| Name of Tenant | Address | Date Notice Served | |----------------|---------|--------------------| | None | | |
Signed - Applicant: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Or signed - Agent: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Date (DD/MM/YYYY): 29/1/12
12. Planning Application Requirements Checklist:
Please read the following checklist to make sure you have sent all the information in support of your proposal. Failure to submit all information required will result in your application being deemed invalid. It will not be considered valid until all information required by the Local Planning Authority has been submitted.
- 3 copies of a completed and dated application form:
- 3 copies of a design and access statement where proposed works fall within one of the following designated areas:
- National Park
- Site of special scientific interest
- Conservation area
- Area of outstanding natural beauty
- World Heritage Site
- The Broads
The correct fee:
- 3 copies of the completed, dated Article 7 Certificate (Agricultural Holdings):
- 3 copies of the completed, dated Ownership Certificate (A, B, C or D - as applicable):
13. Declaration
We hereby apply for planning permission/consent as described in this form and the accompanying plans/drawings and additional information.
Signed - Applicant: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Or signed - Agent: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Date (DD/MM/YYYY): 29/1/12
(date cannot be pre-application)
### 14. Applicant Contact Details
| Country code | National number | Extension number | |--------------|-----------------|------------------| | | | |
| Country code | Mobile number (optional): | |--------------|--------------------------| | | |
| Country code | Fax number (optional): | |--------------|-----------------------| | | |
Email address (optional):
### 15. Agent Contact Details
| Country code | National number | Extension number | |--------------|-----------------|------------------| | | 01663 745186 | |
| Country code | Mobile number (optional): | |--------------|--------------------------| | | |
| Country code | Fax number (optional): | |--------------|-----------------------| | | |
Email address (optional):
### 16. Site Visit
Can the site be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No
If the planning authority needs to make an appointment to carry out a site visit, whom should they contact? (Please select only one)
- [x] Agent
- [ ] Applicant
- [ ] Other (if different from the agent/applicant's details)
If Other has been selected, please provide:
- Contact name:
- Telephone number:
- Email address:
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0088-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 6420,
"total-output-tokens": 3498,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1807,
1
],
[
1807,
5053,
2
],
[
5053,
6611,
3
],
[
6611,
9136,
4
],
[
9136,
12350,
5
],
[
12350,
13770,
6
]
]
} |
535b9f2c4257a137940ffc66f40b5dfbb3990d80 | Application for Planning Permission. Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Publication of applications on planning authority websites. Please note that the information provided on this application form and in supporting documents may be published on the Authority's website. If you require any further clarification, please contact the Authority's planning department.
1. Applicant Name, Address and Contact Details
| Title: Mr | First name: Richard | Surname: Sutton | | Company name: | | | | Street address: Mill Dam House | Great Hucklow | | | Town/City: Buxton | County: Derbyshire | | | Country: UK | Postcode: SK17 8RF | |
Are you an agent acting on behalf of the applicant? ☐ Yes ☐ No
2. Agent Name, Address and Contact Details
| Title: Mr | First Name: Simon | Surname: Jones | | Company name: SJ Design Ltd | | | | Street address: The Old Co-Op Building | Church Street | | | Town/City: Hayfield | County: Derbyshire | | | Country: United Kingdom | Postcode: SK22 2JE | |
| Country Code | National Number | Extension Number | | Telephone number: | | | | Mobile number: | | | | Fax number: | | | | Email address: [email protected] | | |
3. Description of the Proposal
Please describe the proposed development including any change of use: Conversion of The Winding House to form a holiday let
Has the building, work or change of use already started? ☐ Yes ☐ No 4. Site Address Details
Full postal address of the site (including full postcode where available)
House: [ ] Suffix: [ ] House name: MILL DAM HOUSE Street address: [ ] Town/City: BUXTON County: [ ] Postcode: SK17 8RF
Description of location or a grid reference (must be completed if postcode is not known):
Easting: 417651 Northing: 378012
5. Pre-application Advice
Has assistance or prior advice been sought from the local authority about this application?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
If Yes, please complete the following information about the advice you were given (this will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently):
Officer name: [ ] Title: Mr First name: Steve Surname: Coombes Reference: [ ] Date (DD/MM/YYYY): 25/01/2012 (Must be pre-application submission)
Details of the pre-application advice received:
Full planning application required
6. Pedestrian and Vehicle Access, Roads and Rights of Way
Is a new or altered vehicle access proposed to or from the public highway?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
Is a new or altered pedestrian access proposed to or from the public highway?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
Are there any new public roads to be provided within the site?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
Are there any new public rights of way to be provided within or adjacent to the site?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
Do the proposals require any diversions/extinguishments and/or creation of rights of way?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
7. Waste Storage and Collection
Do the plans incorporate areas to store and aid the collection of waste?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
Have arrangements been made for the separate storage and collection of recyclable waste?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
If Yes, please provide details:
Current Local Authority arrangements
8. Authority Employee/Member
With respect to the Authority, I am: (a) a member of staff (b) an elected member (c) related to a member of staff (d) related to an elected member
Do any of these statements apply to you?\
☐ Yes ☐ No
9. Materials
Please state what materials (including type, colour and name) are to be used externally (if applicable):
Walls - description: Description of existing materials and finishes: N/A no new work anticipated
Description of proposed materials and finishes: N/A no new work anticipated 9. (Materials continued)
Roof - description: Description of existing materials and finishes: Blue Slate Description of proposed materials and finishes: Blue Slate
Windows - description: Description of existing materials and finishes: Timber framed Description of proposed materials and finishes: Timber framed
Doors - description: Description of existing materials and finishes: Timber framed Description of proposed materials and finishes: Timber framed
Boundary treatments - description: Description of existing materials and finishes: N/A Description of proposed materials and finishes: N/A
Vehicle access and hard standing - description: Description of existing materials and finishes: Crushed stone Description of proposed materials and finishes: Crushed stone
Are you supplying additional information on submitted plan(s)/drawing(s)/design and access statement?\
☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, please state references for the plan(s)/drawing(s)/design and access statement: Drawings 100, 103, 105, 203 and 205. Design and access a character appraisal. Protected species form. Structural Survey.
10. Vehicle Parking
Please provide information on the existing and proposed number of on-site parking spaces:
| Type of vehicle | Existing number of spaces | Total proposed (including spaces retained) | Difference in spaces | |----------------------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------|----------------------| | Cars | 4 | 5 | 1 | | Light goods vehicles/public carrier vehicles | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Motorcycles | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Disability spaces | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Cycle spaces | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Other (e.g. Bus) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Short description of Other
11. Foul Sewage
Please state how foul sewage is to be disposed of:
- Mains sewer ☒
- Package treatment plant ☐
- Unknown ☐
- Septic tank ☐
- Cess pit ☐
- Other ☐
Are you proposing to connect to the existing drainage system?\
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown 12. Assessment of Flood Risk
Is the site within an area at risk of flooding? (Refer to the Environment Agency's Flood Map showing flood zones 2 and 3 and consult Environment Agency standing advice and your local planning authority requirements for information as necessary.)
- Yes
- No
If Yes, you will need to submit an appropriate flood risk assessment to consider the risk to the proposed site.
Is your proposal within 20 metres of a watercourse (e.g. river, stream or beck)?
- Yes
- No
Will the proposal increase the flood risk elsewhere?
- Yes
- No
How will surface water be disposed of?
- Sustainable drainage system
- Main sewer
- Pond/lake
- Soakaway
- Existing watercourse
13. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
To assist in answering the following questions refer to the guidance notes for further information on when there is a reasonable likelihood that any important biodiversity or geological conservation features may be present or nearby and whether they are likely to be affected by your proposals.
Having referred to the guidance notes, is there a reasonable likelihood of the following being affected adversely or conserved and enhanced within the application site, OR on land adjacent to or near the application site:
a) Protected and priority species
- Yes, on the development site
- Yes, on land adjacent to or near the proposed development
- No
b) Designated sites, important habitats or other biodiversity features
- Yes, on the development site
- Yes, on land adjacent to or near the proposed development
- No
c) Features of geological conservation importance
- Yes, on the development site
- Yes, on land adjacent to or near the proposed development
- No
14. Existing Use
Please describe the current use of the site:
- Dwelling House
Is the site currently vacant?
- Yes
- No
Does the proposal involve any of the following?
If yes, you will need to submit an appropriate contamination assessment with your application.
- Land which is known to be contaminated?
- No
- Yes
- Land where contamination is suspected for all or part of the site?
- No
- Yes
A proposed use that would be particularly vulnerable to the presence of contamination?
- Yes
- No
15. Trees and Hedges
Are there trees or hedges on the proposed development site?
- Yes
- No
And/or: Are there trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character?
- Yes
- No
If Yes to either or both of the above, you may need to provide a full Tree Survey, at the discretion of your local planning authority. If a Tree Survey is required, this and the accompanying plan should be submitted alongside your application. Your local planning authority should make clear on its website what the survey should contain, in accordance with the current ‘BS5837: Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations’.
16. Trade Effluent
Does the proposal involve the need to dispose of trade effluents or waste?
- Yes
- No
17. Residential Units
Does your proposal include the gain or loss of residential units?
- Yes
- No
18. All Types of Development: Non-residential Floorspace
Does your proposal involve the loss, gain or change of use of non-residential floorspace?
- Yes
- No
19. Employment
If known, please complete the following information regarding employees:
| | Full-time | Part-time | Equivalent number of full-time | |----------------------|-----------|-----------|-------------------------------| | Existing employees | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Proposed employees | 0 | 0 | 0 |
20. Hours of Opening
If known, please state the hours of opening for each non-residential use proposed:
| Use | Monday to Friday | Saturday | Sunday and Bank Holidays | |----------------------|-------------------|----------|--------------------------| | | Start Time | End Time | Start Time | End Time | Not Known | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
21. Site Area
What is the site area? 0.48 hectares
22. Industrial or Commercial Processes and Machinery
Please describe the activities and processes which would be carried out on the site and the end products including plant, ventilation or air conditioning. Please include the type of machinery which may be installed on site:
N/A
Is the proposal for a waste management development? ☐ Yes ☐ No
23. Hazardous Substances
Is any hazardous waste involved in the proposal? ☐ Yes ☐ No
24. Site Visit
Can the site be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land? ☐ Yes ☐ No
If the planning authority needs to make an appointment to carry out a site visit, whom should they contact? (Please select only one)
☐ The agent ☐ The applicant ☐ Other person
25. Certificates (Certificate A)
Certificate of Ownership - Certificate A
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 Certificate under Article 12
I certify/The applicant certifies that on the day 21 days before the date of this application nobody except myself/the applicant was the owner (owner is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run) of any part of the land or building to which the application relates.
Title: Mr First name: S Surname: Jones
Person role: Agent Declaration date: 31/01/2012 ☒ Declaration made
25. Certificates (Agricultural Land Declaration)
Agricultural Land Declaration
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 Certificate under Article 12
(A) None of the land to which the application relates is, or is part of an agricultural holding.
(B) I have/The applicant has given the requisite notice to every person other than myself/the applicant who, on the day 21 days before the date of this application, was a tenant of an agricultural holding on all or part of the land to which this application relates, as listed below:
If any part of the land is an agricultural holding, of which the applicant is the sole tenant, the applicant should complete part (B) of the form by writing ‘sole tenant - not applicable’ in the first column of the table below.
Title: Mr First name: S Surname: Jones
Person role: Agent Declaration date: 31/01/2012 ☒ Declaration Made
26. Declaration
I/we hereby apply for planning permission/consent as described in this form and the accompanying plans/drawings and additional information.
Date 31/01/2012
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0089-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 10924,
"total-output-tokens": 3254,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1375,
1
],
[
1375,
3597,
2
],
[
3597,
6212,
3
],
[
6212,
9520,
4
],
[
9520,
13113,
5
]
]
} |
f13c1f493eccc36d2850c92dc86b94e8b96a6a2c | Re Planning Application Reference NP/HPK/0112/0012
There was an old, asbestos cement detached garage within the Church car park, on the site it is proposed will form the parking area for Chapel Barn.
This was in a poor condition and so it was decided that, prior to negotiating with the owner of Chapel Barn, the Church would have the garage removed at their expense. Accordingly, in December 2009 an HSE licenced asbestos contractor attended the site, removed the garage and supplied the attached paperwork.
As far as the Church Council are concerned the asbestos issue has therefore been dealt with to the best of their ability and there is no longer a contamination issue.
It is understood however that the owner of Chapel Barn has the opinion that there are still asbestos fibres contaminating the site, possibly pre-dating the removal of the garage.
Yours Sincerely
R H Shelton FRICS Survey and Energy Solutions RICS Registered Valuer Regulated by RICS
e-mail to [email protected]
telephone 07792 797836 **The Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005: Consignment Note**
**PART A Notification details**
1. Consignment note code: NTE2444/09/09/2
2. The waste described below is to be removed from (name, address, postcode, telephone, e-mail, facsimile):
- Hope Methodist Church
- Edale Road, Hope
- S33 6ZF
3. Premises code (where applicable): NTE2444
**PART B Description of the waste**
1. The process giving rise to the waste(s) was: [X]
2. SIC for the process giving rise to the waste: 45.25
3. WASTE DETAILS (where more than one waste type is collected all of the information given below must be completed for each EWC identified)
| Description of waste | List of wastes (EWC code)(6 digits) | Quantity (kg) | The chemical/biological components of the waste and their concentrations are: | Physical form (gas, liquid, solid, powder, sludge or mixed) | Hazard code(s) | Container type, number and size | |----------------------|-------------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------------------------| | ASS5105 | 170605700 | | Component | Concentration (% or mg/kg) | Hazard code(s) | Container type, number and size | | | | | ASS5105 | 1500% solid | | |
The information given below is to be completed for each EWC identified
| EWC code | Packing group(s) | UN identification number(s) | Proper shipping name(s) | UN class(es) | Special handling requirements | |----------|------------------|----------------------------|-------------------------|--------------|------------------------------| | 170605 | 1 | 2590 | WASTE ASS5105 | 9 | CUB + W28 |
**PART C Carrier's certificate**
1. Carrier name: P. Noble
2. Carrier registration no./reason for exemption: CB/GN5514YM
3. Vehicle registration no. (or mode of transport if not road):
**PART D Consignor's certificate**
1. Consignor name: Mr. G. Randles
2. On behalf of (name, address, postcode, telephone, e-mail, facsimile):
**PART E Consignee's certificate**
1. I received this waste at the address given in A4 on: Date 17/12/2009 Time 13:10
2. Vehicle registration no. (or mode of transport if not road):
3. Where waste is rejected please provide details:
**Individual EWC code(s) received**
| EWC code(s) received | Quantity of each EWC code received (kg) | EWC code accepted/rejected | Waste management operation (R or D code) | |----------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------------------| | 170605 | 700 KGS | ACCEPTED | D.S. |
1. I certify that waste management licence/premi/authorised exemption no(s).
2. Authorises the management of the waste described in B at the address given in A4.
**Signature**
Date 17/12/2009 Time 13:10 Licence number 1000904348
The Health and Safety Executive, in pursuance of the powers conferred on it by the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, licences
DMD UK (Powerprojection Limited T/A) 126 Holme Lane Hillsborough Sheffield South Yorkshire S6 4JW
("the licensee")
to undertake work with asbestos subject to the conditions below. The licence is granted from 5 August 2009 and shall remain valid until 4 August 2010 unless revoked in writing by an authorised Person.
CONDITIONS
1. This licence or a copy thereof, should be made available on request by the licensee for inspection by any person to whom the licensee submits a tender or quotation for work with asbestos and shall be available for inspection at all worksites. A copy of the licence shall accompany each notification required by Condition 2.
2. The licensee shall give notice in writing of the work to the appropriate HSE or local authority office at least 14 days before the work is commenced, or such other period as the authority will allow. The notice shall specify the type of work to be carried out, the likely duration of the work, the address of the premises at which the work is to be carried out and the date of commencement of the work activity. The enforcing authority must be informed in writing as soon as possible if this information changes. This condition will not apply for any work carried out with asbestos, which is subject to the exemptions specified in Regulation 3(2) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 or when the licensee hires out employees (at operative level) to other licensees.
3. (a) Prior to submitting the notice of work required by Condition 2 the following documents shall be prepared by the licence holder:
i) a suitable and sufficient written statement of the method of work to be used; ii) a suitable and sufficient written specification for the equipment for the protection and decontamination of those engaged in asbestos work and also for the protection of other persons, as appropriate to the work.
(b) The licensee shall, on request by HSE and/or the local authority provide copies of the documents referred to in 3(a) and/or allow inspection of those documents as required.
The method of work and written specification must be provided on request and be available at the time of notification.
Signature
A person authorised by the Health and Safety Executive to act in that capacity
Name: G Haywood Date: 5 August 2009
Head of Asbestos Licensing Unit **Weighbridge ticket**
**Ticket:** R 930282\
**Date:** 17/12/2009 13:14\
**Incoming**
| Registration | Vehicle Type | Carrier | Customer | Charge Cat. | Origin | Transfer Notes | LFT Exempt | Order Number | Comments | Driver | |--------------|--------------|---------|----------|-------------|--------|----------------|------------|--------------|----------|--------| | SA03CZL | Van | SHE035 | VIRIDOR WASTE SHEFFIELD LTD | 150103 Wooden Packaging | R5SHE - Sheffield | SHE035 VIRIDOR WASTE SHEFFIELD LTD | dmd | 002082 | 000744 |
**FIRST WEIGHT** 17/12/2009 13:14\
**SECOND WEIGHT** 17/12/2009 13:43\
**NET WEIGHT**\
2960 kg 002082\
2340 kg 000744\
620 kg
This waste meets all appropriate regulatory pre-treatment requirements to allow it to be legally landfilled.
______________________________________________________________________
A tallyroll copy of this transaction is available for inspection for six months.
Viridor Waste Management is the trading name of Viridor Waste Management Ltd.
______________________________________________________________________
I have read and understand the Safety instructions for Visiting Drivers (Customers) and will abide by the rules set out therein.
**SIGNED**
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0090-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 9141,
"total-output-tokens": 2122,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1036,
1
],
[
1036,
4245,
2
],
[
4245,
6741,
3
],
[
6741,
7846,
4
]
]
} |
3bad3f6872babba31ed885aaaff9fa8f678eef99 | Electrical Supply & Installation
01. The required supply capacity for EE Microwave sites is 7.4kW, Single Phase.
02. For exact details of required electrical switchgear and associated connections, refer to site-specific electrical schematic and construction details.
03. The contractor is to ensure that a suitably protected distribution board is the exact location of any proposed circuit breaker is to be clearly identified on the relevant site plan.
04. It is the responsibility of the principal contractor to inform the designer of any changes that are deemed necessary prior to commencement of works.
05. The electrical contractor must bring to the designer's attention any discrepancies or omissions from the electrical design that are in accordance with BS7671:2018 Requirements for Electrical Installations.
06. The sub-main cable shall be clearly labelled throughout its route at 5-metre intervals, or at every floor level. The cable shall be clearly identified 'EE' Microsoft supply.
07. Every electrical joint and connection shall be of proper construction as regards conductance, insulation, mechanical strength and protection.
08. All conductors shall be clearly identified in accordance with section 514 of BS7671:2018 (Requirements for Electrical Installations).
09. Cable entry into enclosures shall be in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and recommendations, otherwise cable entry shall be from below. All holes shall be sealed to prevent dust and moisture ingress. All armoured cables shall be fitted with a correctly fitting cable gland sleeve.
10. All electric cables are to be clipped direct unless otherwise stated on the relevant drawing. Clamps are to be installed at 375mm vertical (vertically) and 350mm centres (horizontally).
11. All holes are to be sealed and made good upon installation of waterproofer cables. All floor voids shall be filled with an approved intumescent material or product.
Cable Management
1. Where necessary, bends in cable management, are to be installed in accordance with the feeder cable manufacturer's minimum bend radius recommendations. For details of feeder cable type, refer to the specific 'Feeder Map'.
Lightning Protection & Earthing
1. All earthing is to comply with the following British Standards: BS7671:2018 (Code of practice for earthing), BS7671:2018 (Requirements for electrical installations).
2. In each installation main equipotential bonding conductors complying with section 517 of BS7671 shall connect to the main earthing terminal, external and conductive parts of that installation including the following:
- Water service pipes
- Gas installation pipes
- Other service pipes and ducting
- Heating and air-conditioning systems
- External metallic structural parts of the building
- The lightning protective system
3. All sections of metallic cable management are to be earthed at every joint using copper braid bonds (fixed using manufacturer's pre-fabricated straps and wire fittings).
4. The cable management is to be tested at the wall and centre for a resistance not exceeding 1 ohm or less.
General Installation Notes
1. The main contractor is to supply and install all those items of new works and alterations shown on the contract drawings as being in his supply, including 'free issue' items from the client, as described and listed within the contract.
2. All permanent and temporary safety works are to be in place prior to the commencement of the proposed construction works.
3. The main contractor is responsible for the design, maintenance and removal of all temporary works.
4. The site is to be left in a clean and workmanlike manner upon completion of the works and is to be suitably maintained during the progress of the works. All surplus or redundant materials and waste shall be removed from site and disposed of at approved waste management centres.
5. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with Shire Consulting electrical and structural detailed design drawings.
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
For Reference Drawing List, See Doc. No. SP/DBY7571/R/101
LEGEND
EE Equipment Feeder Cables Radiating Feeder Cables Cable Management Electrical Cables Earthing BT Equipment/Cabling Electrical Switchgear CAT 5/6 type cable Fibre Optic cable Photograph Direction Equipment Elevation Direction
(Colours on this drawing represent proposed equipment)
SECTION 2-2
SG001A SWIVEL MOUNT PANEL ANTENNA FIXING DETAILS (1 No. REQUIRED)
Scale: 1:10
AL03008 PANEL ANTENNA C/W PAN AND TILT BRACKET FIXING DETAILS (ANTENNAE A3, A4 & A5)
Scale: 1:10
JB0002A DOME ANTENNA FIXED TO CEILING (1 No. REQUIRED)
Scale: 1:5
APPROVAL / CONSTRUCTION ISSUE
ELECTRICAL NOTES/ ANTENNAE FIXING DETAILS
3G/3G ROLLOUT IN-BUILDING MICROCELL MARSHALLS NATLOCK
SP/DBY7571/R/111
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/0091-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1260,
"total-output-tokens": 1169,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
4780,
1
]
]
} |
58b3ceb8cc2004f82d05ad13d212e033b5ac6ce0 | | Department Family | Entity | Date Paid | Expense Type | Expense Area | Supplier | Transaction Reference | Amount | |-------------------|--------|-----------|--------------|--------------|----------|-----------------------|--------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/08/2018 | AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | QX LIMITED | 006223 | 314,143.12 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 08/08/2018 | AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | QX LIMITED | 006219 | 255,572.04 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NON- NHS TRADE CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | CSL BEHRING UK LTD | 000268 | 32,175.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/08/2018 | MHTT LOSSES AND COMPS | CNST CONTRIBUTIONS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 006214 | 2,007,515.30 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/08/2018 | AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | QX LIMITED | 006215 | 38,971.10 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | FINISHED PROCESSED GOODS | LLDSYS PHARMACY LTD | 006184 | 537,171.62 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | FINISHED PROCESSED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 000053 | 80,136.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NON- NHS TRADE CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 000243 | 40,469.28 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NON- NHS TRADE CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | HEALTHCARE AT HOME LTD | 0001170 | 40,680.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NHS CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 0000032 | 136,723.98 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NHS CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 0000033 | 38,304.44 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | FINISHED PROCESSED GOODS | HEALTHCARE AT HOME LTD | 0011239 | 40,680.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NON- NHS TRADE CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 0000029 | 145,605.42 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/08/2018 | AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | QX LIMITED | 006222 | 231,176.72 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | CLARITY WORKFORCE TECHNOLOGY LTD | 0011802 | 106,841.33 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | CLARITY WORKFORCE TECHNOLOGY LTD | 0011802 | 7,429.83 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | CLARITY WORKFORCE TECHNOLOGY LTD | 0011791 | 37,149.13 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | CLARITY WORKFORCE TECHNOLOGY LTD | 0011792 | 5,811.93 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | CLARITY WORKFORCE TECHNOLOGY LTD | 0011792 | 20,059.63 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NON- NHS TRADE CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | CSL BEHRING UK LTD | 0000013 | 32,012.50 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | GASTROENTEROLOGY TRUSTWIDE | HEALTHCARE FROM COMMERCIAL SECTOR | FOUNTAIN DIAGNOSTICS LTD | 006224 | 27,645.73 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | GASTROENTEROLOGY TRUSTWIDE | HEALTHCARE FROM COMMERCIAL SECTOR | FOUNTAIN DIAGNOSTICS LTD | 0011798 | 26,741.74 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NON- NHS TRADE CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 0000379 | 136,068.04 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NON- NHS TRADE CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 0000392 | 162,913.98 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NHS CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 0000027 | 45,322.84 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NHS CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 0000030 | 183,488.54 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NHS CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 0000070 | 129,865.03 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | NON- NHS TRADE CREDITORS < ONE YEAR | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 000518 | 80,219.14 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | ORTHOPAEDIC LLP | HEALTHCARE FROM COMMERCIAL SECTOR | YORKSHIRE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES | 0011743 | 165,405.01 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/08/2018 | AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | QX LIMITED | 0062220 | 231,346.69 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31/08/2018 | PFI ACCOUNTING | CONTRACT : OTHER EXTERNAL | CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD | 0021001 | 4,375,054.08 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31/08/2018 | BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DEBTORS N/S < 1YR | EDEN RED | 0000000 | 43,950.52 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4498-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 4404,
"total-output-tokens": 2696,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
6321,
1
]
]
} |
c214b526fc8619ef23dbeeeb996b5bfb5154a83d | THE OFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD MINUTES OF THE 120th BOARD MEETING 09:00-15:45, TUESDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2015 ONE KEMBLE STREET, LONDON, WC2B 4AN
Non-executive directors: Anna Walker (Chair), Tracey Barlow, Mark Fairbairn, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Stephen Glaister; Justin McCracken, Ray O’Toole
Executive directors: Richard Price (Chief Executive), Ian Prosser (Director, Railway Safety), Joanna Whittington (Director Railway Markets and Economics), Alan Price (Director of Railway Planning and Performance)
In attendance, all items: Juliet Lazarus (Director, Legal Services), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary), ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text.
ITEM 1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 1 There were no apologies.
ITEM 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 2 Bob Holland reminded the Board of his previously declared interest in ECML¹ – he would absent himself for that item.
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES 3 The minutes were approved subject to any further corrections.
ITEM 4 ACTIONS OUTSTANDING 4 The report was noted.
ITEM 5 MONTHLY SAFETY REPORT Johnny Schute, Deputy Director Policy, Strategy and Planning attended the next four items
5 Ian Prosser drew out some headlines from his report. 6 A key area of activity was meetings with NR to review the models they used to underpin their business planning choices to help NR understand ORR’s concerns. He wanted to see evidence that supporting maintenance is being planned and delivered to manage delayed renewals. 7 We understood that NR propose to re-write their asset policies at a high level to reflect the decision that they would not do as much on earthworks and other asset groups as previously anticipated. This would require them to operate a more interventionist regime in maintenance and the two activities needed to be linked. We will review these documents when they are produced to ensure safety and asset sustainability are not compromised. 8 We talked about the degree to which a constrained budget might reduce our expectations of what was reasonably practicable for NR. In this circumstance, our shared view was that NR was choosing to reduce current spending on renewals
¹ East Coast Main Line and maintenance in favour of enhancement spending. NR could choose to revisit asset policies because of constrained budget - but must demonstrate that safety was maintained if we were to approve revised asset policies. Ian said that next year inspectors would look at the list of deferrals and the mitigation NR has put in place to assure continuing standards of safety.
9 We talked about the way our two regulatory regimes overlapped. The licence on the economic side required NR to sustain or improve the network condition. The safety regime was concerned with immediate and future threats. Both regimes might bear on a single incident but it was our job to be sure we knew where the boundaries were and how our specific concerns needed to be addressed.
10 We noted that changes to NR’s asset policies would require ORR agreement. To give agreement we would need to be clear about what the changes were and where NR thought the risks had changed and why our decision on agreements would be influenced by those factors.
11 We noted that our role was to protect the long term life of the assets, but that some decisions could be made with the short term in mind. We agreed that we needed to make this difference and any concerns we had clear publicly.
12 Ian reported that NR’s planning for delivering their safe work program had been paused as a result of technological and operational problems. The exercise had particularly highlighted the cultural issues around planning in delivery units.
13 Ian highlighted two other points: • The annual TU safety representatives conference had been successful; • He had just heard that West Coast Railways were about to get a prohibition notice on their steam engines as they had again interfered with the TPS(^2). Investigations continued for the prosecution associated with the SPAD(^3) at Wooton Basset in March.
ITEM 6 SIX MONTHLY INDUSTRY SAFETY REPORT
14 Ian reported that the last six months had reported the lowest harm ever. There had been no workforce or level crossing fatalities and the one passenger fatality seemed to be related to intoxication. He welcomed the results but was concerned that they might reinforce complacency in operators and the industry. Workforce safety was also beginning to improve. The main focus of the report was around asset issues like drainage (where a national improvement notice was still in place) and planned maintenance. He was particularly anxious about the medium term impact on earthworks of pausing renewals.
15 He drew attention to the data on track twist faults where detection was dependent on local human oversight and knowledge. NR needed to improve their own assurance and help people use the new systems to do the job better but there had been some improvement in repeat faults and improved measurement of twist faults at crossings.
16 Ian reported that the new road vehicle incursion powers were giving inspectors extra clout with local authorities and helping control the risk on this.
17 There had been a record low number of collisions at level crossings with other vehicles. NR had been considering a reduction in their level crossing fund but he understood this was now less likely.
(^2) Train protection system (^3) Signal passed at danger The main focus recently for ORR had been passive crossings where night time curfews of whistles were sometimes being applied with no mitigation. Some of these crossings saw increased use in the early morning (ie still in the dark in winter) and NR needed to recognise and address this risk. One way NR currently responded was to apply a temporary speed restriction, but those apply for 24 hours, not just at night, and impact badly on performance.
Ian said he had received the latest report on SPADs from RSSB the day before. The reported increase was not statistically significant but it remained an area for concern – the figure was relatively static, but higher than 2012-13. RSSB aimed to finish their SPAD strategy for industry in the new year: he remained concerned that the volume of traffic on the network meant that safety would come down to human inputs.
Other issues covered included:
- The team had worked hard with NR to help them focus on addressing the outstanding RAIB recommendation with a panel to set priorities.
- LUL was focusing more on their assurance processes - particularly on their invisible places.
- Mick Cash, RMT, had written to Ian about BTP prosecuting a guard on Merseyrail.
- The Scotland team were keeping a close eye on the Alliance in Scotland to be sure that they did not conflate the duty holders’ responsibilities.
We noted that this continued to be a success story – but that it carried a risk of complacency.
We noted that failure to keep ahead of vegetation control would impact on performance as well as safety.
We talked about the challenges that NR faced in improving its safety culture. In other places, such as LUL, successful change had been delivered quickly: we asked if there was anything we could do to support NR in this important field. We understood that the senior management recognised management of safety culture as an issue. We needed to be sure that DfT did not inadvertently undermine that drive to improvement.
We were reminded that we had sought an NR capability improvement plan which included cultural change. This work had been crowded out by the Hendy review but now needed to be revived.
We recognised the importance of giving NR appropriate credit for their current safety record but we were concerned that the organisational culture was poor and that the new management had a difficult, medium term challenge to address.
We reminded Ian that NR’s chair had asked for a safety escalator so that his board could keep abreast of what ORR’s board was concerned about. [Action: Ian Prosser]
Justin commented that he had been surprised at some of the RAG ratings in the report, given what we had heard about the poor state of NR’s asset knowledge and on Safety by design and occupational health and road safety. Ian would take these up off line. [Action: Ian Prosser]
The chair reported on a meeting with the RSSB board – where they now recognised the need to work in partnership with us on their review. Their chair had suggested we both meet with RAIB to make more of the partnership. [Action: Board Secretariat] ITEM 7 SAFETY BY DESIGN
Dawn Russell (RSD safety policy) and Olivia Bingley (senior legal adviser) joined the meeting for the next two items
29 We discussed this extension of our powers into the area of safety by design. We needed to get the balance right between being available with proportionate advice and the risk of creating a dependency in NR. The team were clear that this was not introducing a new or earlier gateway – that would continue to be the authorisation processes before commissioning could take place. The team were, for example, working with HS2 to help them get their authorisation strategy right.
30 We asked about whether there was a risk that staff might insist on unreasonably expensive solutions and were reassured that the SFAIRP principle applied. The main issue was enabling NR to balance short term vs long term costs.
31 We agreed that the team should seek Secretary of State’s authority to enter into the proposed agency agreement with HSE to deliver enforcement functions in relation to the design of railway infrastructure projects. The new enforcement functions should be delivered in accordance with our existing enforcement policy. The Board delegated to the chief executive the authority to sign this agreement. [Action: Richard Price]
ITEM 8 MOU with ONR
32 We agreed that the ORR should enter an MOU with ONR and delegated to the chief executive the authority to sign this MOU. [Action: Richard Price]
ITEM 9 FREIGHT UPDATE
33 Alan Price updated us on some of the current challenges for the freight sector such as Channel Tunnel security issues, the shrinking coal market, etc.
34 The new Freight Measure on freight corridors was running well ahead of targets and this was being used in marketing for the industry: right time depot departure performance was working well – and overall this was a good news story.
35 The industry had been working together to hand back unused paths and this had made a significant contribution to increasing capacity. This improvement was being delivered in a private sector market.
36 Although the overall story was positive, we were reminded that under PR13, freight charges would increase in years 3-5. So it would be very important that delivery on time and quality of service were maintained.
37 Alan said the sector was concerned about the impact of HS2 during its construction (eg waste removal issues at Euston). There was also concern about the impact that our PR18 structure of charges work might have, as well as the level of charges that might be introduced. There was a desire to see more improvements on the network for freight customers and a sense that NR did not give sufficient attention to customers in the sector. There was also the question of the level of subsidy for the sector. The RFG were in discussion with the DfT on this issue.
38 The chair said that these issues were all raised at the recent freight event.
39 We talked about how the government’s approach to freight in relation to network grant was developing. They continued to be in discussion with RDG on this and the structure of charges. The freight sector expected to benefit from a system operator approach and were engaging actively on this subject. They wanted reassurance that in a route-led network their ‘overall’ network interests would not be overlooked. Alan reported that it was a very tough environment and the sector was under pressure. Although the broad picture policy debates were positive, the small changes to charges and other issues might become difficult.
The sector and cross country services shared access and other concerns which might be addressed in part by a better system operator function. It would be important to demonstrate that we understood their wider concerns and were considering these as we develop PR18. The freight panel had suggested a separate consultation chapter on freight issues, and though we did not plan to use the same approach to that document or the process, we did need to retain their confidence that we recognised their concerns and would take these into account [Action Point].
We noted that the whole industry needed to have clarity in the HLOS and a clear indication from government on what treatment (in terms of subsidy) freight could expect in PR18. The structure of the cost of charging would also be very important.
ITEM 10 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND (HE)
Jim O’Sullivan and Mark Bottomley of Highways England joined the meeting for this item.
The Chair welcomed the visitors and made introductions. Jim O’Sullivan gave a short presentation setting out progress to date and key issues for the future. He particularly focused on safety issues, describing worker safety as ‘unacceptable’ and explaining the challenge of meeting an absolute KSI4 target in the face of growth in traffic.
This was our first meeting and we spent some time talking about issues around:
- The first RIS5 and the need to make preparations for the second in good time; use of the network was growing quickly so future investments would be crucial to the network’s success.
- Challenges on the current RIS construction programme, including the level of uncertainty about projects due to begin in the final year and the potential knock on effect on funding for RIS2;
- Forthcoming changes in funding when the vehicle excise duty is hypothecated to roads;
- Regional growth and financial pressures on authorities who maintain the local connections to the national network;
- The risk that local anti-roads opposition became more vocal and more active;
- The opportunity for data to improve the user experience of the network;
- The impact that more traffic will have on safety, traffic flow and consumer attitudes;
- Ways to improve the consumer experience where HE were working with a user panel and developing use of digital channels for customer information. HE were clear that understood what customers wanted and had to deliver this.
HE planned to use the same data for all reporting – its own board, ORR and DfT - so differences of views would not be caused by differences in data. Jim said that HE was expected to manage its budget by deferring schemes if necessary.
______________________________________________________________________
4 Numbers of people killed or seriously injured on the network 5 Roads investment strategy We talked at some length about how to improve road safety: vehicle design improvements and safe road design would make significant contributions but individual user behaviour was probably the most important. It was also a major contributor to others’ experience of the network and therefore to customer satisfaction.
Jim welcomed the opportunity to meet and discuss the issues with the board. The regulatory relationship was clear, and he was committed to a constructive approach that would give HE the best possible chance of success. Both HE and ORR were committed to a ‘no surprises’ approach and to sorting issues out before they became significant problems.
ITEM 11 HIGHWAYS MONITOR Richard Coates, Head of Performance and Ian Ritchie, Performance analyst, joined the meeting for this item
We agreed we had found the previous session very helpful and Peter Antolik confirmed that it reflected generally good relationships with HE. Peter thought that Jim O’Sullivan was making an impact but the old Highways Agency culture would take time to change. Importantly, Jim recognised the capacity for the Monitor to act in the interests of the nation.
We recognised that the scope for improving road user behaviour was enormous and initiatives to support it should be encouraged. Managing speed in key places improved safety but it was also important for efficient flow. We also agreed that HE’s open-data approach would make it easier to share data with app developers.
We talked about the importance of recognising the ambition of the construction programme. We discussed the genesis and breadth of the KPIs and the other measures mostly focused on outcomes.
We thought it likely that HE would come under pressure in due course on some parts of its development programme, particularly if parts of it were delayed.
We reviewed the Monitor, acknowledging that the detail had been updated in some places. HE and DfT had both seen an earlier version and generally welcomed it.
We recognised the contribution of the whole team – this was a good document and set us up well for future years.
ITEM 12 NR CP5 TRACKER
Alan Price drew out some headlines from the report: in spite of a benign autumn so far performance had been poor. When the team looked at the top 50 incidents in delay minutes terms, 40 of those were NR caused – not TOC caused.
He reported progress on the introduction of ROCs which had the effect that intelligent local signallers (who know their own areas) had been replaced by centralised systems which could not react quickly to issues. He believed reactionary delay had gone up as a result.
Alan was particularly concerned that the number of very small ppm misses had increased substantially. He continued to believe that NR could deliver the ppm trajectory set out in CP5 if they focused on removing these small misses, but he did not think they shared this view.
______________________________________________________________________
6 regional operations centres We noted that NR’s approach would save money, but it seemed an ineffective way of managing local traffic. In the initial plans, new traffic management systems would have delivered improvements alongside the ROCs. Credible plans had now been replaced with some that are not.
Data on impacts was still being examined, but the three biggest incidents in terms of delay minutes in period 8 did not have an attributed cause – so it could not be known what had caused the delay.
Alan said there would be a significant timetable change in December and they were continuing to press NR to improve their planning and preparations to make sure this went smoothly.
We discussed the degree to which our view might be shared by the NR board – and particularly their new chair.
NR was a large sprawling network and central control was difficult to effect. They were learning from their experience in regionalisation.
Alan said that the enhancements programme improvement plan had not been delivered because of pressure on their resources. Juliet reminded us that we had agreed not to impose an order on condition that an improvement plan was delivered. Staff would keep this under review in case it became necessary to re-open that issue.
Alan said he would review their progress after the Hendy review was finalised. He would put it on the escalator and talk to them about what they needed to do to get it taken off and the timing of those conditions. Alan observed that Malcolm Brinded was also pushing for this plan. [Action: Alan Price]
Alan had been alarmed at the very low productivity targets set for the re-scoped GWEP – though he had not seen the underpinning figures for this yet.
Alan had been observing NR’s reviews of the preparations for Christmas engineering including doing deep dives into high risk projects. We asked Alan to offer to brief ministers. [Action: Alan Price]
ITEM 13 PERFORMANCE PENALTY
Sam McClelland Hodgson, Manager Network Regulation, and Nigel Fisher, Head of Operations and Network Regulation joined the meeting for this item.
Alan introduced the paper and rehearsed the history of this penalty.
The Board considered all representations received in response to the notice and ORR’s regulatory policies and statutory duties and determined that NR’s offer to fund a package of performance improvements schemes costing a total of at least £4.1million complies with our reparations criteria. The package includes:
- Station management and Incident response
- Customer management
- Tactical workstream to improve incident management service recovery
- Strategic workstream to implement Incident Management System
Having reached this decision the Board then went on to consider if the proposed penalty sum should be mitigated in light of its acceptance of the reparation fund. ORR reparations criteria sets out a reparation offer will be judged against whether it is: genuinely additional, appropriately targeted and proportionate to the harm done (as far as practicable); deliverable. Given that the range of schemes proposed target both immediate performance improvements and long term benefits for passengers (and the level of funding NR will provide to deliver these) the Board agreed to accept NR’s offer in lieu of the proposed penalty of £2million because it did not believe that imposing the penalty would further incentivise NR to comply with its licence.
70 We talked about the importance of ensuring that whatever the fund was spent on offered value for money. It was not enough that the money was being spent, it had to deliver benefits. It was also important that whatever had been trimmed elsewhere to fund the reparations was sensible and offered fewer benefits than the new solution. In all this, we had to ensure that we did not second guess or over-specify the solution for NR.
71 These issues should also be considered when we came to consider the new enforcement policies later in the meeting.
72 We asked the team to let the board know the timetabling and handling plan for the announcement of this positive outcome. [Action: Network regulation team].
ITEM 14 ORR’S APPROACH TO RAIL REGULATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND Gerry Leighton, Head of stations and depots and network code, and John Larkinson, Director Economic Regulation and Consumers joined the meeting for this item
73 The paper proposed that ORR pursue the minimum European model for rail regulation in NI. This is not what we do with NR or for some of the other infrastructure managers that we regulate. The chair was concerned that we reflect on the proposed resourcing and charging level, which she thought low.
74 John said that the budget proposal was for some foreseeable work and some reactive work: currently a total of around 65 days. He suggested altering that figure to reflect a wider range – say £25k-£50k. He knew that there was a risk that many regimes could begin simply but quickly generate difficult or complex issues. He proposed to add a time limit for a review of sensible scope and cost after a couple of years.
75 We agreed the broad approach.
76 We had found Annex B of the paper, which set out a comparison of the different regimes we run, enormously helpful. It would be helpful to be able to see who did have a power if we do not. [Action: John Larkinson]
lunch
ITEM 15 DFT REVIEW OF ORR Dan Brown joined the meeting for this item This item (paragraphs 77-88) to be redacted as it involves policy development.
ITEM 15 ENFORCEMENT POLICIES FOR RAIL AND HIGHWAYS Olivia Bingley, Senior Legal Adviser, Nigel Fisher, David Hunt, Head of Highways Economics, Gary Taylor, Senior Executive Network Regulation, Peter Antolik, Director Highways Monitor joined the meeting for this item.
88 The draft policies had both been revised following the Board’s discussion last month. There were four specific items for consideration in the paper. Essentially both policies aligned except where it was not possible to do so.
Paragraphs 89-94 have been redacted from the published version as containing policy development The Board agreed the two draft policies subject to final editing and corrections.
**ITEM 16 HEATHROW AIRPORT CHARGING PROPOSAL**
John Larkinson, Director Economic Regulation and Consumers, Laura Majithia, senior legal adviser and Rob Plaskitt, Head of access and licensing joined the meeting for this item
*This item has been redacted in its entirety (paragraphs 96-100) as it contains discussion of a current regulatory decision*
**ITEM 17 ECML TIMEFRAME**
John told us only that the two major reports which would enable the Board to determine the applications were running late (the CH2MHiIl analysis and the capacity analysis work). A decision date of the February board was most likely.
The remaining items were taken as read:
**ITEM 18 BOARD FORWARD PROGRAMME**
**ITEM 19 CHAIR’S REPORT**
**ITEM 20 CE’S REPORT**
**ITEM 21 COMMITTEE FEEDBACK**
**ITEM 22 ANY OTHER BUSINESS**
There was no other business and the meeting was closed.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4395-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 18993,
"total-output-tokens": 5524,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2160,
1
],
[
2160,
5431,
2
],
[
5431,
8523,
3
],
[
8523,
11764,
4
],
[
11764,
14802,
5
],
[
14802,
17729,
6
],
[
17729,
20848,
7
],
[
20848,
23781,
8
],
[
23781,
24735,
9
]
]
} |
a03e06e1bf82bec25c9f6181c5ba9eb3e33d36a9 | THE OFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD MINUTES OF THE 119TH BOARD MEETING 09:00-15:45, TUESDAY 27 OCTOBER 2015 ONE KEMBLE STREET, LONDON, WC2B 4AN
Non-executive directors: Anna Walker (Chair), Tracey Barlow, Mark Fairbairn, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Stephen Glaister; Justin McCracken,
Executive directors: Richard Price (Chief Executive), Ian Prosser (Director, Railway Safety), Joanna Whittington (Director Railway Markets and Economics),
In attendance, all items: Juliet Lazarus (Director, Legal Services), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary),
ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text.
Apologies: Ray O'Toole (NED), Alan Price (Director of Railway Planning and Performance)
ITEM 1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1 Ray O'Toole and Alan Price were out of the country and had sent apologies.
ITEM 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2 Bob Holland reminded the Board of his previously declared interest in ECML(^1) – he would absent himself for that item.
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES
3 The board secretary apologised that the wrong version had been circulated – some of the corrections made by the executive had not been captured. A further set would need to be produced and agreed in November. [Action A: Secretariat]
ITEM 4 ACTIONS OUTSTANDING NOT TAKEN ELSEWHERE ON THE AGENDA
4 The report was noted. There were four red-flagged items which the Chair would pursue with the board secretary. [Action B: Chair]
ITEM 5 MONTHLY SAFETY REPORT
5 Ian Prosser drew out some headlines from his report. He was pleased to report that there had only been one passenger fatality this year (which was not industry related). There had been no level crossing deaths in the last six months – this was the first time that had been recorded. He also thought it was possible to see green shoots in improving workforce safety and there had been no fatalities this year.
6 He picked out some other headlines:
- The *Industry Safety Strategy* was closer to publication.
- The ORR had held a successful industry seminar on issues with passenger crowding.
(^1) East Coast Main Line • Testing of PDSW\\textsuperscript{2} had showed up some early problems and Network Rail (NR) need to do the roll out carefully – our executive believed this programme was worth pursuing and would aid good safety mapping. • Ian talked about passive level crossings where NR had concerns that local curfews for whistles were working against risk reduction. • The SPAD\\textsuperscript{3} risk last month had spiked although overall it was generally steady. Ian thought it possible that the system had reached the limit of what risk reduction could be achieved by signalling (because of the reliance on the driver’s response)
7 Track twist faults still contributed the largest part of the risk model. NR was using improved technology to establish the geometry at crossings following ORR’s work with the industry on freight train derailments. We understood that this meant that the increase in the number of track faults was a result of more accurate measurement and reporting, rather than an increase in actual faults.
8 Ian said that he would be seeking agreement at the November board to a revised MOU with the HSE\\textsuperscript{4} to accommodate a bigger role for ORR in securing safety by design. [Action C: Ian Prosser]
9 Stephen commented on the note in the report on rail driver distraction by mobile phone technology – which reflected similar research and concerns about the impact on road safety. Bob Holland said it was understood and monitored by TOCs. While CCTV would help reduce the incidence, it was important that education for drivers was put in place to understand the risks and dangers. Ian noted that there was high turnover among drivers in some companies and this carried training and cultural risks.
10 Justin commented that the level crossing item was particularly good news – and he hoped it continues. At HSRC\\textsuperscript{5} the previous day, the committee had noted good progress with RAIB\\textsuperscript{6} recommendations and generally an improved relationship. [The Chair] reminded Ian to ensure that recommendations by RAIB which RSD\\textsuperscript{7} disputes needed to be escalated to director level and receive appropriate attention in advance of any publication in RAIB’s annual report.
11 Justin asked about accountability for safety in the deep alliance between Abellio Scotrail and Scotrail. He thought there was real potential for confusion about safety responsibility and this should be clarified urgently. [Action D: Ian Prosser]
12 Ian noted that NR had pleaded guilty in a case in respect of a charge of failing to comply with an improvement notice in November 2013 on electrical safety and compliance with the Electricity at Work Regulations, 1989. This may result in a ‘Newton Hearing’ - where a judge assesses two side’s conflicting evidence to decide culpability. The NR Board was now asking for more information and showing more engagement with the issue.
\\textsuperscript{2} Planning and Delivery of Safe Work program \\textsuperscript{3} Signal passed at danger \\textsuperscript{4} Health and Safety Executive \\textsuperscript{5} ORR’s Health and Safety Regulatory Committee \\textsuperscript{6} Rail Accident Investigation Board \\textsuperscript{7} ORR’s Rail Safety Directorate ITEM 6 NR CP5 TRACKER Graham Richards and John Larkinson joined the meeting
13 Graham Richards reported that the team had escalated, for close attention by NR, ppm(^8) performance on four TOCs.
14 The team were observing at NR planning reviews for this year’s Christmas working – ORR staff believed NR had discharged the findings from the Christmas review 2015. While the reviews focus on NR’s role, the teams recognised that TOCs also have a role to play in passenger experience and options in these circumstances. The ORR team had reminded Department of Transport (DfT) officials of DfT’s scope for influence over TOCs at this time as the franchising authority. ORR should also remind Paul Plummer (in his new role at RDG(^9)) that TOCs needed to plan for passenger impact as well.
[Action E: John Larkinson]
15 John touched briefly on the financial situation of NR. They will spend more than they thought they would need this year but would deliver less than planned. Missed outputs would add more to future funding pressures and the overall underperformance was likely to be in the region of £750m.
16 The team said there was no sign of any improvement in financial performance.
17 We asked when the response on mitigations instead of a performance fine was due - this was 13th November.
ITEM 7 PR18 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Chris Hemsley joined the meeting for the next three items
18 Joanna Whittington explained that this discussion followed on from the September debate about aims and objectives for PR18. These now included content on passengers/customers as requested by the Board. In particular the presentation now tried to set out what would look different after PR18.
Paragraphs 19-25 have been redacted as relating to policy development.
26 We thought that communicating this programme would be very important. We should particularly find ways to express how things would be different for passengers and freight users.
27 We supported this direction of travel and Joanna should now start sharing this thinking outside ORR (ie with DfT and NR, possibly the Rail Delivery Group).
[Action F: Joanna Whittington]
ITEM 8 PR18 PROGRAMME DELIVERY
28 JW explained her plans for running the programme and proposals for how to engage with the board.
Paragraphs 29-40 have been redacted as relating to policy development.
ITEM 9 PR18 STRUCTURE OF CHARGES INITIAL CONSULTATION
41 Chris Hemsley introduced the paper which followed board discussions in February and June.
Paragraphs 42-56 have been redacted as relating to policy development.
ITEM 10 CMA REPORT ON ON-RAIL COMPETITION Chris Hemsley joined the meeting.
______________________________________________________________________
(^8) Passenger performance measure
(^9) Rail Delivery Group The draft CMA report as published is very long and, as ORR had plenty of chances to comment, any response would be short and have the objective of taking the public debate forward.
Paragraphs 58 to 67 have been redacted as relating to policy development
Richard would pick up the issue with BIS at UKRN next week. [Action G: Richard Price]
ITEM 11 ENFORCEMENT POLICIES. Nigel Fisher, Sam McClelland-Hodgson, David Hunt and Peter Antolik joined the meeting.
Peter introduced the two draft policies: the guiding principles underpinning each were consistent with each other and our powers in each area.
Paragraphs 70-76 have been redacted as relating to policy development.
We agreed to revisit the policies in two years’ time as this would enable us to take into account the European recast and other developments.
ITEM 12 NR BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE FROM MARK CARNE John Larkinson and Mark Morris joined the meeting Mark Carne (Chief Executive), Denise Wetton (PS to MC) and Gary White attended from Network Rail.
Mark Carne began with some statistics about the UK railway: it was the fastest growing, safest, and had the highest customer satisfaction of comparable railways in Europe. Nearly half of the EU’s congested railways are in the UK, but it was seventh out of twenty in terms of punctuality.
Mark reflected on the current high level of external scrutiny. He described himself as relentlessly pursuing safety and performance hand in hand.
Mark described his approach to the medium and long term change that was needed in how NR worked. He reflected on successes so far and the remaining challenges in this long term project.
Paragraph 82-84 are redacted as relating to regulatory considerations
The Board asked how far NR had considered the implications for CP6 of the decisions that were being taken now.
The Board asked whether Mark was confident that his organisation could deliver the challenges before it. The meeting discussed some of the regulatory targets for CP5 and whether they would be met.
Anna thanked Mark for attending. These were significant issues of concern to the ORR board and they would need to reflect on these. She undertook to respond to NR and, in the light of this discussion, to flag immediate concerns with the Department.
LUNCH
ITEM 12 continued REFLECTING ON NR BUSINESS PLAN John Larkinon and Mark Morris attended this item.
The Board reviewed the list of issues with the business plan which John Larkinon proposed be flagged to NR and Dft. The Board discussed what they had heard from Mark Carne and how it affected their views of the issues. John Larkinson would draft a letter based on the conversation to go to Mark Carne and be copied to DfT and Transport Scotland.
*Paragraphs 91-101 have been redacted as relating to regulatory considerations (s.31)*
**ITEM 13 FOI DETERMINATION: NR REPRESENTATIONS**
102 At dinner the night before the Board had discussed their approach in response to NR’s representations about the proposed release of details of Board to Board conversations and other documents. The ORR Board considered each document in turn and sought to establish a coherent approach to NR’s expressed concerns and the associated risk to the regulatory relationship.
103 Agendas provide a minimal level of detail about planned discussion and attendees and contribute significantly to transparency: both agendas will be released.
104 The Business plan paper, the ORR timetable for dealing with NR’s business plan and the CP5 Tracker are documents created by ORR for internal use and will be released as originally proposed, except that all the additional redactions requested by NR should be reviewed individually to assess whether the specific redaction requested was reasonable under s.31. This was necessary because some of the redactions proposed were re-statements of facts either appearing elsewhere in the same document or which had subsequently been put in the public domain in another medium (for example some financial and performance information has been published in the ORR’s Monitor). In those cases where the comments attributed some sentiment or action to NR and NR had asked for it to be withheld, the Board agreed those items should be exempted under s.31.
105 The Board paused over NR’s request to redact two tables from the CP5 Tracker: the Regulatory Escalator and ORR’s Confidence Index of the 20 highest risk projects.
- The regulatory escalator is produced by the ORR's IDRG(^\\text{10}), and is shared with NR and NR’s Board. It records and tracks areas where ORR has concerns that may lead to regulatory action. When concerns become sufficient to trigger regulatory intervention that fact is made public. ORR is content that until regulatory action is triggered, this table is an important part of a private conversation about the regulator’s developing concerns.
- The confidence index table gives ORR’s RAG status against schedule, cost, output and impact (combining to give a numerical value of the confidence index) for the 20 projects where ORR is least confident. There is no opportunity for challenge from NR. The Board were content that this table should be protected as part of the private conversation about the regulator’s developing concerns.
106 The Board agreed that the notes of these meetings should not be released in any form (s.31 applies). NR’s representations about the nature and intent of the notes were credible and echoed some comments by ORR board
(^{10}) IDRG – Industry delivery review group members about the high level of detail that we include. In future, however, the Board committed to a formal exchange of letters between the Chairs following each Board to Board meeting, setting out the issues discussed and key concerns—with the intent of publishing this exchange immediately. Full notes of the meetings will also continue to be kept but with the expectation that s.31 exemptions would be considered in response to any further FOI request.
107 In all cases, the agreed grounds for exemption are s.31(1)(g) and (2)(c) – that is in the view of the ORR Board, disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by ORR of its functions for the purpose of ascertaining whether regulatory action may be needed by reducing NR’s frankness with ORR and thereby reducing ORR’s ability to put early pressure on the company to comply with its regulatory outputs and licence requirements set for CP5 under the statutory regulatory framework.
108 The revised pack for release is to be shared with NR and DfT in advance, but with a clear deadline for it to be sent to the applicant. [Action I: Tess Sanford]
ITEM 13 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT, SCHEDULE 8
109 The report was taken as read, except that John Larkinson gave an oral update on the Schedule 8 error issue. Most consultees had responded and all responses agreed with the proposal that the Board had accepted. The team would now move to implement as all parties were keen on a swift resolution. [Action H: John Larkinson]
ITEM 14 ECML UPDATE
Bob Holland left the meeting.
This item has been redacted as relating to current regulatory considerations.
[ends]
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4396-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 12348,
"total-output-tokens": 3653,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2063,
1
],
[
2063,
5302,
2
],
[
5302,
8017,
3
],
[
8017,
10511,
4
],
[
10511,
13539,
5
],
[
13539,
15174,
6
]
]
} |
bd8213ee5cf83b4f9c7c72fc93fa24ba9fc97675 | ## Current ORR Board members’ declarations of interest – for publication
| Name | Position at ORR | Other remunerated employment, Office or Profession | Other regular sources of remuneration | Directorships | Memberships of public bodies /trusteeships / office holder of other bodies | ORR appointment | |---------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Declan Collier | Chair | | | Non-Executive Director, Schipol Airports Group | Health and Safety Regulatory Committee | Board member from 17 November 2018 | | | | | | Chair TCR International NV | Chair from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023 | | | | | | Past-President, World Association of Airports, Airports Council International (ACI) | | | | | | | Senior Adviser, Oaktree Transport Infrastructure Fund | |
## Current ORR Board members’ declarations of interest – for publication
| Name | Position at ORR | Other remunerated employment, Office or Profession | Other regular sources of remuneration | Directorships | Memberships of public bodies /trusteeships / office holder of other bodies | ORR appointment | |--------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Stephen Glaister | NED (Board Member) | None | University teachers’ pension (USS) | None | | Chair from 1 January 2016 until 31/12/18 | | | | | | | | Appointed to the board from 1/4/2015 – 30/03/20 and reappointed to 30/03/2022 | | Madeleine Hallward | Non-Executive Director (Board member) | M Hallward Consulting Ltd – CN 1249151 Group Head of Strategic Communications for Associated British Ports (from July 2020) CN ZC000195 | N/A | Director and Trustee: Baker Dearing Educational Trust | Director, domestic property management co 45 | Highways Committee member | | | | | | | | Appointed on 13 April 2020 until 12 April 2025 | | Name | Role (Board member) | Current Position | Previous Positions | Other Positions | |---------------|---------------------|------------------|--------------------|-----------------| | Anne Heal | NED | Bank of England | Member of the Enforcement Decision Making Committee (from 1/8/18) | Member, FCA Regulatory Decisions Committee (from 1 July 2019) | | | | | | Chair, Volunteering Matters (CH - 01435877 and CC 291222) | | | | | | Board member of ELEXON/ELEXON Clear (from August 2017) (CH nos–03782949/04027298) | | | | | | Lay member, General Dental Council (1/10/17 to 30/09/21) | | | | | | Anne Heal & Associates (from July 2016) | | | | | | Charities Aid Foundation – trustee from 18 Sept 2019 (CC 268369) | | | | | | Non-Exec director, MOSL (from Jan 2020) (CH – 09276929) | | | | | | NCVO trustee/Chair (from 17 Nov 19) 00198344 CH - 225922 CC | | | | | | Ballet Boyz trustee 04109324 CH – 1088336 CC | | | | | | Governor, London Design and Engineering University Technical College (from August 2018) (CH: 08283657) | | | | | | Director, domestic properly management co. | | Bob Holland | NED | None | Pensions: Arriva (00347103) and First Group (SC157176) | None | | | | | | None | | | | | | None | | | | | | Audit and risk committee chair Health and Safety Regulatory committee |
Update Issued for publication on 10 June 2020 - | Name | Position at ORR | Other remunerated employment, Office or Profession | Other regular sources of remuneration | Directorships | Memberships of public bodies /trusteeships / office holder of other bodies | ORR appointment | |--------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Michael Luger | NED (Board Member) | President, Majelan Ltd. Occasional business advising (CH: 09195881) | Pension benefits from University Superannuation Scheme (USS) and US Social Security | Professor Emeritus, Manchester University | Remuneration and Nominations Committee chair, Audit and Risk Committee | Appointed from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019 Reappointed to 31 December 2024 |
(both from December 2015) | Name | Position at ORR | Other remunerated employment, Office or Profession | Other regular sources of remuneration | Directorships | Memberships of public bodies /trusteeships / office holder of other bodies | ORR appointment | |--------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Justin McCracken | NED (Board Member) | None | NHS Pension ICI pension | NED, ENTRUST (a not-for-profit company that regulates the Landfill Communities Fund: (CH:03221000) | None | Deputy Chair from 2017 | | | | | | | | Health and Safety Regulatory committee chair | | | | | | | | Remuneration and nominations committee | | | | | | | | Appointed from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2019 | | | | | | | | Reappointed to 31 July 2024 | | Name | Position at ORR | Other remunerated employment, Office or Profession | Other regular sources of remuneration | Directorships | Memberships of public bodies /trusteeships / office holder of other bodies | ORR appointment | |--------------------|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Graham Mather | NED (Board member) | President, European Policy Forum Limited (includes the Infrastructure Forum). (CH: 02683041) Elliott Advisers (UK) Ltd. (CH: 02989338) | Foliat Company – non-conflicting consultancy (CH: 10393008) | Greenham Trust Ltd (CH: 03340350) Pelican Cancer Foundation (CH: 07264864) Shalbourne Company (from April 2017) (CH: 10613877) | Non-Executive Board member, Ofcom World Free Zone Convention | Appointed from 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2021 | | John Larkinson | Executive Director, CEO | None | None | None | None | Appointed on 28 March 2017 | | Ian Prosser | Executive Director, Director of Railway Safety | None | None | None | None | Appointed to the board 26/9/2008. Reappointed in 2013 and again in 2018 |
## Current ORR Board members’ declarations of interest – for publication
| Name | Position at ORR | Other remunerated employment, Office or Profession | Other regular sources of remuneration | Directorships | Memberships of public bodies /trusteeships / office holder of other bodies | ORR appointment | |--------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Graham Richards | Executive Director Director Planning and Performance | None | None | None | None | Appointed on 1 December 2016 | | Rodney Norman | Independent non-executive Member of the Audit and Risk Committee | Independent member of the Audit Committee of the UK Debt Management Office (“the DMO”). Senior Advisor to the Bank of England (to May 2020) | Non-Executive Director, Pension Protection Fund (from 1/9/19) | | | Appointed from 1 October 2018 for three years | | Russell Grossman | Director of Communications | None | None | Non Executive Director, Engage For Success (not for profit) | | None | | Name | Position at ORR | Other remunerated employment, Office or Profession | Other regular sources of remuneration | Directorships | Memberships of public bodies /trusteeships / office holder of other bodies | ORR appointment | |--------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Daniel Brown | Director, Economics, Markets and Strategy | None | None | All board level positions, whether executive or non-executive and in commercial, public or not for profit organisations (CH = Companies House no. CC = Charity Commission no) | Unremunerated roles of responsibility | None | | Freya Guinness | Director Corporate Operations and Organisational Development | None | None | Non Executive Director, Independent Schools Inspectorate School Governor, Heathmere Primary School | | None | | Juliet Lazarus | General Counsel and Director of Competition | Independent member of Provider Risk Committee at Office for Students | None | Director ReVision Limited – a non-profit educational company. Company number 2789040 | Trustee of ReVision – charity providing counselling and psychotherapy training and low cost counselling | |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4397-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 17571,
"total-output-tokens": 2638,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1477,
1
],
[
1477,
3243,
2
],
[
3243,
5557,
3
],
[
5557,
6461,
4
],
[
6461,
8433,
5
],
[
8433,
9686,
6
],
[
9686,
10868,
7
],
[
10868,
12734,
8
]
]
} |
4de68dada89b1af774d48e3fff15c780031e813b | Our procedures
Enabling legislation
1 We were established under the provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (RTSA). This provided for the functions, property, rights and liabilities of the then rail regulator to be transferred to us. Our economic functions are rooted in the Railways Act 1993 which set up that regulator. Schedule 1 of RTSA sets out arrangements for our constitution, staffing, proceedings, money and conflicts of interest.
2 The Railways Act 2005 transferred to us safety functions for the railways in Britain. Regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 made us responsible for railway related enforcement of health and safety. The Infrastructure Act 2015 made us the Monitor of how Highways England’s exercises its functions. The Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 amended section 17 of the RTSA to extend ORR’s remit to Northern Ireland, thereby giving us economic regulatory responsibilities for the railways in Northern Ireland.1 We also have economic regulatory responsibilities for the northern half of the Channel Tunnel pursuant to the Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) (Charging Framework and Transfer of Economic Regulation Functions) Order 2015.2
3 We are required by the RTSA to agree and make public our procedures. This document meets that requirement.
Constitution
4 The Secretary of State for Transport appoints our chair and board members. The minimum number of members is four (currently we have twelve members, four of whom are executives). We can establish board committees and appoint independent members to them.
5 The chair will appoint a non-executive deputy chair to assist them in their work and to act as meeting chair in their absence. Should our chair become incapacitated, the executive should refer to the deputy chair for
______________________________________________________________________
1 Our economic functions for Northern Ireland are set out in the Railways Infrastructure (Access, Management and Licensing of Railways Undertakings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016.
2 This Order gave effect to the bi-national regulation of the Intergovernmental Commission of 23rd March 2015 transferring economic rail regulation competence from the Intergovernmental Commission to the national regulatory bodies. Our economic functions in respect of the Channel Tunnel are set out in the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016. immediate guidance (notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s responsibility for appointing our permanent Chair).
6 We are required to appoint a chief executive and we choose to appoint a director of railway safety. We ask the Secretary of State to appoint these individuals to the board but as we cannot make these appointments ourselves we grant both post holders free and unfettered access to the Chair and the board.
7 The board expects that our chief executive will be designated Accounting Officer for the ORR by HM Treasury. Such an appointment carries additional responsibilities which on rare occasions will not align entirely with those of board membership. The chief executive may then ask the board to direct them in writing to implement a particular decision. This mechanism triggers Parliamentary scrutiny which is an important part of the system of checks and balances that we work within.
8 All our employees are members of the civil service and we rely on the values and standards for that service set out in the Civil Service Code.
9 The purpose of our board is to set ORR’s strategic direction and our priorities and oversee our executive’s delivery of our business. In doing so, our board takes decisions on the matters set out below and in annex A.
10 In performing our functions we will comply with the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance and good regulation. All our members accept collective responsibility for all decisions made by our board.
11 These procedures set out how we will carry out our functions including how we deal with conflicts of interest and the delegations of any functions we have made to our committees, board members, our chief executive or another of our employees.
12 Our board, our employees and our committee members (who may or may not be employees) are all subject to a general duty of confidentiality in relation to the conduct of our affairs as regulator of Britain’s railways. Similarly, our code of conduct (annex C) applies.
| Our board meetings and decisions | |---------------------------------| | 13 Meetings. Our board secretary will propose by the end of each calendar year a schedule of board meetings for the next year. Our current practice is to hold ten meetings a year. | | 14 Our chair may call an additional meeting. Further, any two members may call an additional meeting, by making a written request to the chair (or, in their absence, to the chief executive) and the additional meeting shall be held within 15 working days of the request. | 15 **Notice of meetings.** Meetings will normally be convened with a minimum of five working days’ notice. In exceptional circumstances a shorter period might be necessary but such shorter notice will only be valid if ratified at the meeting. Notice of a meeting shall be in writing or electronic mail and failure of a member to receive the notice does not invalidate that meeting or any business transacted at it.
16 Our board may invite any person to attend all or part of one of the meetings and any such invitation will be included in the notice for the meeting.
17 **Agenda & papers.** Normally the agenda and any papers will be circulated five working days in advance of a meeting. The non-receipt of agenda or papers by a member shall not invalidate the meeting or any business transacted at that meeting. Papers may be tabled at a meeting only with the permission of our chair.
18 **Quorum.** Meetings will be quorate if five members are present and remain present and at least three are non-executive (our chair is non-executive). In determining a quorum in relation to particular items, only those members who are entitled to vote on the item shall be counted. If our chair agrees then a member can participate fully in a meeting by telephone or video-conferencing. All attendances and absences will be recorded in the minutes.
19 Only in exceptional circumstances may board members be absent from meetings without the prior agreement of our chair or in their absence our chief executive.
20 **Procedure at meetings.** Subject to these rules, our board may meet together for the despatch of our business, adjourn and otherwise regulate meetings as it thinks fit.
21 If our chair is present at a meeting they will preside. If they are unable to be present then the deputy chair will preside.
22 If a member who is not present submits written comments on an agenda item(s) then these will be circulated at the meeting or read out by the meeting chair at the appropriate point in the meeting.
23 Our meeting chair will:
- preserve order
- ensure that each member has sufficient opportunity to express his/her views on all matters under discussion;
- determine all matters of order, competency and relevancy;
- determine in which order those present should speak; and
- determine whether or not a vote is required and how it is carried out in accordance with the rules below. 24 **Decisions.** Decisions of our board will normally be made by consensus rather than by formal vote. Failing consensus, decisions will be reached by a simple majority vote when:
- the meeting chair feels that no clear consensus has emerged or is likely to; or
- a member who is present requests a vote to be taken and this is supported by at least one other member; or
- any other circumstances have arisen where the meeting chair feels that a vote should be taken.
25 In these circumstances each member has a single vote exercised either orally or by a show of hands. Only members present (including by phone) may vote. In the case of an equality of votes ORR’s Chair has a second casting vote. The meeting chair shall not have a second casting vote. The meeting chair will declare the result and the minutes will record only the numerical results of the vote including any abstentions without any attributions.
26 **Deferred decisions.** Our board may defer a scheduled decision for any reason. A decision to defer, together with the reasons for doing so, will be recorded in the minutes.
27 **Decisions outside meetings.** Any matter capable of being decided by our board may instead be decided by written or email confirmation given by a majority of the members of the board with ORR’s Chair having the power to cast a second casting vote as provided for in the voting rule.
28 **Urgent matters.** Our Chair (or, in their absence, any other member) after advice from our chief executive (or, in their absence, another executive board member), may decide that a matter requires approval by the board before the next scheduled meeting. In these circumstances, the appropriate papers to inform the decision will be circulated to members for a decision by email or by telephone.
29 **Expedited decisions.** Our chair, or in their absence our chief executive or another executive board member, may trigger an expedited process if the matter is extremely urgent.
30 This process enables a decision to be taken by a minimum of two members participating in a meeting called for the purpose (one of whom must be our Chair so long as they can be contacted and can participate within the necessary timescale for the decision). Attempts must be made to contact all other members with an indication of the issue that needs resolution, and the time and place of the meeting, and they must be given the opportunity to participate in it in person or by telephone or video-conference as appropriate. Any decision made or approval given under this expedited process must be minuted and reported to the board at its next meeting. 31 Minutes. Minutes will be kept of all meetings and these should be reviewed and approved, as amended at the next scheduled meeting. The minutes will record the key points of discussions, unless a member specifically requests that his/her comments be recorded. Minutes (or a version redacted as appropriate) will be lodged on our website within one month of their approval.
Our committees
32 Our board can establish standing or ad hoc committees in either an advisory role or with delegated powers. For every committee our board shall agree its terms of reference. These rules shall govern the proceedings of a committee so far as they are capable of applying [except for a Competition Case Decision Group appointed under Rule 34]. To the extent that our board has not done so, a committee shall be free to set its own rules of procedure.
33 We have four standing committees:
- our audit and risk committee – its terms of reference are set out at annex D
- our remuneration and nominations committee – see annex E
- our safety regulation committee – see annex F
- our highways committee – see annex G
34 Our Board will from time to time appoint a Competition Case Decision Group (CCDG) as an ad hoc committee under these rules to make all decisions involved in any case under the Competition Act 1998, following the issue of a statement of objections, and to supervise the investigation. The CCDG shall set its own rules of procedure.
Reserved matters and delegations
35 Reserved matters. The matters listed at annex A are reserved to our board unless our board delegates them to an employee or a committee. The list of matters reserved for decision by our board does not preclude other matters being referred to the board for decision by our chief executive.
36 Delegations. Any delegation made by our board may be made subject to conditions and the delegation or conditions may be revoked or altered by our board. The nature and scope of single issue delegations will be recorded in the minutes. Our board may decide to discharge a function even though it has previously delegated the discharge of that function to a committee or employee; when our board does discharge such a delegated-function, this will be recorded in the minutes.
37 Chief executive. Our board delegates to our chief executive the discharge of all our functions other than:
- any matter reserved to our board
- any matter delegated to a committee, and • the health and safety enforcement matters delegated to our director of railway safety set out below (para 38 and 39).
38 The Board is required to make adequate arrangements for the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions under the Health and Safety at Work Act(^3). Our board delegates the performance of these enforcement functions to our director of railway safety on the condition that this delegation will be carried out in full compliance with our board approved **health and safety enforcement policy**.
39 Our director of railway safety may authorise in writing appropriate employees to perform these functions on his behalf. Delegations will be subject to the same condition and the director of railway safety will maintain a list of delegations lodged with our board secretary. We also delegate to our director of railway safety approval of the appointment of suitably qualified safety inspectors and to specify which of the powers conferred on inspectors by the relevant statutory provisions are to be exercisable by that inspector in line with our health and safety enforcement policy. The process for assessing and appointing inspectors shall be reported to the board.
40 **Committee delegations.** The terms of reference for each committee set out any permanent powers or functions that our board has delegated to it. The board may choose to make additional, single issue delegations to a committee without amending its terms of reference.
41 Our chief executive may delegate the discharge of their functions (and, if they choose, the authority to make further delegations) to appropriate employees. They will maintain a list of all such delegations lodged with our board secretary.
42 In particular, the Chief Executive shall delegate the making of the decisions involved in each case under the Competition Act 1998, up to and including the issue of a statement of objections and the supervision of the conduct of the investigation to one or more suitably qualified SCS or Grade A members of ORR staff (except that the Chief Executive may not appoint themself). The Chief Executive may not delegate this function (except in circumstances where they are not available for a period) or allow the SCS or Grade A member of staff to delegate further.
43 An executive should not exercise a delegation from the chief executive on a matter which is novel or contentious or where the reputational risk to the organisation is such that the chief executive judges board participation to be prudent. The board shall receive reports and information from our executive in a form as to allow such matters to be identified.
44 **Contracts or other documents.** Our chair and chief executive are both authorised to sign contracts or other documents on our behalf, and our board authorises either of them to delegate this authority to one or more of our employees as he/she thinks appropriate.
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) Schedule 18, He
*Agreed by the board on 28 March 2017 and updated with amendments to committee TORs in July 2020* Conflicts of interest
45 Disclosure. If a member of our board or committee member knowingly has any interest or duty which is material and relevant or the possibility of such an interest or duty, whether direct or indirect and whether pecuniary or not, that in the opinion of a fair-minded and informed observer would suggest a real possibility of bias in relation to any matter that is brought up for consideration at a meeting of the board or any committee he/she shall disclose the nature of the interest or duty.
46 The declaration of interest or duty may be made at the meeting at the start of the discussion of the item to which it relates or in advance in writing to the chairman of that meeting. If an interest or duty has been declared in advance of the meeting this will be made known by the chairman of the meeting prior to the discussion of the relevant agenda item. In the event of the member not appreciating at the beginning of the discussion that an interest or duty exists, he/she should declare such an interest or duty as soon as he/she becomes aware of it.
47 Our employees in attendance at a board or committee meeting should declare interests as set out above.
48 The board members present at the meeting will decide whether the interest or duty is one that is likely to influence the member’s or employee’s performance of his/her function or whether it is one that is relevant to that function. If it is decided that the former is the case, the member or employee shall withdraw from all further participation on the issue leaving the meeting until the next item is called. If it is decided that the latter is the case, the member or employee shall withdraw unless the other board members present decide the member or employee may participate to the extent those board members consider appropriate; if the board members present decide that the member or employee should leave the meeting, the chairman of the meeting may allow that member or employee to make a statement on the item under discussion.
49 A member of the board, committee member or ORR employee in attendance at meetings of the board or a committee shall be subject to the procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest set out at annex B.
50 All the above matters will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting together with any additional information that our board considers appropriate (including the extent to which the member or employee had access to papers prior to withdrawal).
Other matters
51 Public statements. Our members agree to obtain the approval of our chair or our chief executive (or in both their absences our director of external affairs) before making statements to Parliament or the media, submitting papers/articles in published media and making formal presentations/speeches on any matter relevant to ORR or the discharge of our functions.
52 **Performance reviews.** Our board and committees will review their performance on an annual basis and provide details of these reviews in our annual report and accounts.
53 **Procedural reviews.** These procedures will be reviewed as and when required by our board, but at least every other year and may be varied by the consent of the majority of the members of our board present at a meeting. No procedure may contravene a statutory provision. Annex A - reserved matters
A1 Our board will take the decisions on the matters set out below.
A2 Our corporate strategy. The approval of our corporate strategy and any revisions to it.
A3 Our annual plans and budgets. Approval of the priorities for forthcoming annual plans and approval of our published plan and budget allocations prior to start of the year in question.
A4 Our annual report and accounts. Approval of the annual report and accounts that we submit to Parliament. Also the approval of significant changes in our accounting policies and the appointment or removal of our auditors.
A5 Major items of regulatory policy, including but not limited to:
- periodic reviews – overall process, frameworks and draft and final determinations
- our enforcement policies – including the use of our health & safety, licence, competition and consumer powers
- all statutory enforcement action (except that related to health & safety, which is delegated to our director of railway safety in accordance with rule 38 and 39 of our rules of procedure and that related to cases under the Competition Act 1998, which is delegated under rules 34 and 42)
- reviewing final reports produced from investigations under paragraph 4 of schedule 3 of the Railways Act 2005 prior to publication
- establishing or changing regulatory policy relating to the exercise of any of our functions;
- our response to any consultation affecting our role, powers or constitution conducted by government.
A6 Competition matters: notwithstanding Rule 34, the Board retains strategic oversight of the exercise by ORR (through a competition case decision group) of its functions under the Competition Act 1998 and the executive shall provide the board with appropriate information and updates to enable it to discharge this function.
A7 Litigation other than statutory enforcement Oversight of any major legal dispute in which we are involved, including approving the start by ORR of any significant litigation, any decision to appeal any significant judgment that has been given against us and the defence of any litigation started against us. A8 **Our governance.** Approval of our policy on conflicts of interest and any changes to our procedural rules. Also approval of any new memorandum of understanding or formal agreement that we may enter into with a third party including with a government department or other UK regulatory body and any material changes to any existing memorandum of understanding or formal agreement.
A9 **Our committees.** Approval of the terms of reference of our committees.
A10 **Our organisation.** Approval of our overall structure, oversight of our people strategy including our strategy on reward (within the constraints of wider civil service rules);
A11 **Our executive.** Approval of the appointment of our chief executive and the terms of employment. Approval of our executive remuneration policy and the pay of our senior civil service employees.
A12 **Contracts.** Approval to enter into any contracts not in the ordinary course of business and any capital projects above £500k.
**Note.** In an emergency situation where significant additional expenditure is urgently required to safeguard any of our operations or to protect our assets, our Accounting Officer (usually the Chief executive) may approve unbudgeted expenditure. Such approval should be submitted at the earliest opportunity to our board for ratification.
A13 **General.** Approval to anything that by law is reserved to our board (including deciding, as a qualified person for the purposes of section 36(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, whether information that has been requested should be treated as exempt information under that section of that act).
A14 Anything not covered in these reserved matters may be determined by the Chief Executive or delegated by them except that no executive should exercise such a delegation on a matter which is novel or contentious or which carries a reputational risk to the organisation such that the chief executive judges board engagement to be prudent. Annex B - conflicts of interest
Introduction B1 Members must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and private interests – financial or otherwise.
B2 Members must declare publicly any private interests which may, or may be perceived to, conflict with their duties as members. Statute requires members to withdraw from the discussion or determination of matters in which they have a financial interest. In matters in which they have a non-financial interest, members should not participate in the discussion or determination of a matter where the interest might suggest a danger of bias.
B3 Any member or committee member who has a financial or other personal interest which is relevant to any of our functions is obliged to declare that interest. In addition:
(a) if that interest is likely to influence that member’s performance of a particular function, he/she is obliged to withdraw from the performance of the function
(b) if that interest is not likely to influence that member’s performance of that particular function, he/she must still withdraw from the performance of the function to the relevant extent unless our board directs otherwise.
B4 Our employees must comply with our general policy regulating financial or other interests. Any employee who attends our board or committee meetings must comply with these rules.
B5 Every member should avoid situations in which his/her duties and private interests may conflict or where there would be a suspicion of conflict and ensure that, before he/she becomes involved in taking a decision or participating in a discussion, there are no conflicts of interest that, in the opinion of a fair-minded and informed observer, would suggest a real possibility of bias.
B6 Where a member comes into possession of confidential information in the course of his/her duties, he/she must not use or disclose that information in order to benefit himself or herself or any other person.
B7 A member should consult our chair before accepting a new appointment whether or not this may lead to a conflict of interest.
______________________________________________________________________
4 In general, all financial interests should be declared. When considering what non-financial interests should be declared, you should ask yourself whether a member of the public, acting reasonably, would consider that the interest in question might influence your words, actions or decisions.
5 These are common law provisions. B8 Each member is responsible for his/her own compliance with these procedural arrangements and with the law.
B9 **Register of Interests** - our board secretary will keep a register of interests. This register is published on our website.
B10 Each member must register all interests that are capable of being interests that might conflict with his/her duties. Each member is responsible for keeping his/her register entry up to date and should notify our board secretary as soon as possible of any changes which need to be made.
B11 Every year our board secretary will confirm with every member that his/her interests have been registered. Our board secretary may from time to time ask each member to confirm that his/her registered interests are up to date and that he/she has complied with these procedural arrangements.
B12 **Registering Interests** – On appointment, members should include in the register brief details of past employers in the road or rail industries, with dates and job titles. Case law demonstrates that the seniority of such roles and their duration may lead to a perceived interest or bias in relation to that organization. The board will decide on a case by case basis whether such an interest should be treated as likely to influence the member (as set out in B3(a)) and for how long it should be considered relevant.
B13 Our members should register the following interests:
- relevant securities which are not placed in a blind trust (as defined below);
- remunerated employment, office or profession other than with us;
- other regular sources of remuneration;
- directorships, whether remunerated or not; and
- membership of public bodies (hospital trusts, governing bodies of universities, colleges and schools, and local authorities), trusteeships (of museums, galleries and similar bodies) and acting as an office holder or trustee for pressure groups, trade unions and voluntary or not-for-profit organisations.
B14 For these purposes, “relevant securities” means any financial interest (such as shares or debt securities including debentures, bonds, options, rights or future rights to shares or other securities but not including units in a unit trust or equivalent managed fund and not including gilts, government bonds or other financial instruments issued by or on behalf of HM Government) in the bodies referred to in paragraph B15 held by a person, their spouses or dependent children which are not placed in a blind trust. “Blind trust” means an arrangement by which a person gives a stockbroker or other professional investment manager absolute discretion to manage investments in relevant securities and under which that person: • is not consulted before any dealing takes place; • does not instruct the investment manager with regard to any specific securities; and • is not informed of changes in specific investments or the state of the portfolio other than in an aggregated form or as required for tax returns.
B15 The bodies referred to in paragraph B12 and B13 are bodies having an interest in the rail or highways industries in Britain which includes:
(a) persons who operate trains, networks or other railways or highways assets or who are parties to access agreements; (b) persons applying for licences or approval or direction of access agreements on the railways; (c) persons who supply any material equipment or services to the railway industry including rolling stock leasing companies; (d) construction contractors active in UK highways or railways; (e) funders; and (f) bodies which are part of the same group as a person falling within any of the above sub-paragraphs.
B16 Disclosing interests - from time to time a member may have or become aware of interests which might conflict with his/her ORR duties. As well as keeping his/her entry on the register of interests up to date, a member must disclose to our board secretary such interests as soon as he/she becomes aware that they may cause a conflict, for example, on receipt of an agenda or board meeting papers.
B17 Such interests must be disclosed whether or not they are entered on the register.
B18 The minutes of any board or committee meeting will note the disclosure of any such conflicts and our board’s decision in relation to that member’s continued participation or withdrawal from discussions and decisions.
B19 In considering whether to disclose such an interest, a member should ask whether, in the opinion of a fair-minded and informed observer, the interest would suggest a real possibility of conflict on that member’s part. The following questions may be useful:
Does he/she have any material financial or other business relationship with a stakeholder?
Does he/she have any other relationships with another party, the existence of which might suggest a real possibility of bias on his/her part? Has he/she taken a public position that might be seen as compromising his/her ability to deal objectively with a matter that is relevant to ORR?
In the opinion of a fair-minded and informed observer, would the interests of close family members suggest a real possibility of bias on the part of that member?
B20 In particular, a material financial interest held by a member, other than through a blind trust, in a body referred to in paragraph B15 should be considered to have such a wide ranging potential influence in relation to our decisions that it creates a strong presumption that it is not practicable for that member to serve on the board or committee. This presumption should be rebuttable only in exceptional circumstances. For the purposes of this paragraph, a material financial interest in a funder is not to be interpreted as covering the holding of gilts, government bonds or any other financial instruments issued by or on behalf of HM Government.
B21 Advisory interests in the bodies referred to in paragraph B15 may in certain cases be likely to influence a member’s functions within the meaning of paragraph B3(a) above. An assessment can be made in each instance whether they preclude membership or can be dealt with on a case by case basis in accordance with the procedures set out below.
B22 Such an assessment should have regard to how directly the interests of the person with whom the member has such an advisory link would be influenced by our decision making. The greater the extent of the person’s involvement in Britain’s rail industry as regulated by ORR the more problematic the interest is likely to be. Advisory interests in businesses whose underlying value could be materially impacted by our decisions are likely to be unacceptable. Other relevant factors include:
- the subject matter and scope of the advice the member would be likely to be asked to give; and
- the duration of the relationship.
B23 It will be important to weigh up the extent to which there could be any perception that the member has access to confidential information that could benefit a third party. Consultancy or advisory interests are more likely to raise problems where the advice to be given by a member to a third party could be expected to be materially affected by our decisions.
B24 Some interests will not raise such serious concerns and may only be relevant to one or more of a member’s or Committee Member’s functions (for the purposes of paragraph B3(b) above).
B25 Each member also needs to consider any financial or advisory interests held by his/her spouse or dependent children. In certain situations he/she may also need to consider the interests of other close family members. B26 The presumption should always be in favour of a member declaring any interest that could be relevant to the performance of his/her functions.
B27 **Procedures for handling interests** - if a member receives a written paper on a matter in relation to which he/she has a conflict of interest, he/she must immediately return the paper to our board secretary with an indication of the extent to which he/she has read the paper.
B28 If a member becomes aware of a conflict during the course of any discussion, he/she should immediately disclose his/her interest and he/she should, if appropriate, withdraw from the discussion and any decision relating to the matter. However, in some circumstances he/she may, if the board or committee permits, participate in such discussions and decisions in accordance with rules 45-50 of our rules of procedure.
B29 Before trading relevant securities or exercising options, a member should disclose his/her intention to our chair giving their sufficient time (at least one working day) to veto any such trading. The board secretary will record the disclosure of such intention to trade by any member together with our chair’s decision.
B30 **Confidential information** - it is a criminal offence for an individual who has information as an insider to deal in securities (including shares, debentures, warrants and options) on a regulated market. A member who gains access to price-sensitive information through his/her duties will be considered an “insider”. A member will be committing an offence if he/she has unpublished price-sensitive information on any company, and deals in the securities himself/herself, or arranges for someone to deal in the securities on his/her behalf, or passes the information on to someone, or encourages someone else to deal.
B31 Every member must take particular care to avoid disclosing to any person (or otherwise acting on) any discussion relating to decisions which have not yet been made public.
B32 Even where disclosure would not breach the insider dealing rules, a member must ensure that he/she does not disclose to any person information received during the course of his/her duties where such information has been provided on a confidential basis. Annex C - code of conduct
C1 Our chair, members of our board and committee members (together “members”) must comply at all times with the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies and act in good faith and in ORR’s best interests. Our employees must comply with the civil service code and ORR’s code of conduct.
C2 Public service values - in our activities and actions we will have regard to the seven principles of public life and the principles of good regulation: proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and proper targeting of regulation to achieved defined goals.
C3 Our members must maintain the highest standards of propriety, involving integrity, impartiality and objectivity in relation to the stewardship of public funds and our management. Our members must not seek to gain material benefits for themselves, their families or their friends through the performance of their duties.
C4 Our members must comply with the conflicts of interest arrangements set out in annex B.
C5 Our members are required to take all appropriate steps to ensure we operate in the most efficient and economical way, within available resources, and with independent validation of our performance wherever practicable.
C6 Gifts and hospitality - our members (including those who are not our employees) must comply with the policy on accepting gifts and hospitality which we publish for all staff, as updated from time to time.
C7 Expenses - a member may only recover his/her expenses if the expenditure is reasonably and necessarily incurred on our behalf. A member must submit receipts with his/her claim form, save in exceptional circumstances. Claims should be submitted to our Board Secretary as soon as possible after they have been incurred.
C8 Our members must comply with the policy on travel and subsistence which we publish for all staff, as updated from time to time.
C9 Leaving ORR - on termination of office, our chair, members and committee members must return all of our property.
C10 Data Protection - our members give their consent for all purposes to the holding, processing and accessing by us of personal data about them. We hold all such data in accordance with ORR’s data protection policy.
C11 Our members who are not our employees must also hold data in accordance with our data protection policy. Annex D – audit and risk committee terms of reference
D1 The Board has established an audit and risk committee as a committee of the Board, to support them in their responsibilities for issues of risk, control and governance and associated assurance by:
- Reviewing the comprehensiveness of assurances in meeting the Board and accounting officer’s assurance needs;
- Reviewing the reliability and integrity of these assurances;
- Providing an opinion on how well the Board and accounting officer are supported in decision taking and in discharging their accountability obligations (particularly in respect of financial reporting and risk management).
D2 Membership - the Board made appointments to the committee, including the committee chair. The committee would comprise at least two non-executive members of the Board and at least one independent member with relevant experience. Membership would be reviewed every three years.
D3 Reporting - the chair of the audit and risk committee will report back to the Board after each meeting. Minutes of each committee meeting will be circulated to members of the Board for noting once they have been approved.
D4 The audit and risk committee will provide the Board and accounting officer with an annual report, timed to support finalisation of the accounts and annual report, summarising its conclusions from the work it has done during the year, with particular reference to the organisation’s risk, governance and internal control framework.
D5 Responsibilities - the audit and risk committee will advise the Board and accounting officer on, and where appropriate make recommendations for changes to:
- ORR’s strategic processes for risk, control and governance and the annual Governance Statement.
- Encourage the ORR Board to take a proactive approach in the ownership of organisational risk;
- The effectiveness of ORR’s internal processes, ensuring that timely and focused reviews of any internal process failures take place and are discussed by the committee to share lessons learned;
- ORR’s accounting policies, accounts, and financial annual report, This should include accounting policies and practice, compliance with laws and accounting standards and major matters of judgement. It will also cover the process for review of the accounts prior to submission for audit, levels of error identified, and management’s letter of representation to the external auditors; • the planned activity and results of both internal and external audit, promoting internal audits as a driver for continuous improvement of our existing systems; • the effectiveness of the internal audit function; • adequacy of management response to issues identified by audit activity, including external audit’s management letter; • assurances relating to the corporate governance requirements for ORR; • the adequacy of anti-fraud and corruption policies and whistle-blowing processes; • (where appropriate) proposals for tendering for either internal or external audit services or for purchase of non-audit services from contractors who provide audit services; • the appointment or dismissal of any external organisation appointed to provide internal audit services; • the effectiveness of the internal audit function including the internal audit strategy and plan including the nature and scope of their audit programme covering the planning, undertaking and management of the internal audit process; • the fees and annual costs of internal and external audit. • any other matters referred to it by the Board • the lessons learned from each meeting will be discussed at each meeting.
D6 The audit and risk committee will also annually review its own effectiveness and terms of reference and report the results of that review to the Board, including any recommendations for change.
D7 Rights - the audit and risk committee may • co-opt additional members for a period not exceeding a year to provide specialist skills, knowledge and experience; • ask the Health and Safety Regulatory Committee to oversee studies where ARC considers that the HSRC’s competency is better suited to the content; • procure specialist ad-hoc legal or other professional advice at the expense of the organisation, subject to budgets agreed by the Board and where the use of ORR’s internal resources is inappropriate. • investigate any activity within its terms of reference, and seek through the accounting officer any information it requires from ORR employees. All such employees are directed to co-operate with any reasonable request made by the committee in the conduct of its enquiries. D8 **Access** - the representatives of internal and external audit will have free and confidential access to the Chair of the audit and risk committee between meetings and the committee if required at each meeting.
D9 The Director of Railway Safety will have free and confidential access to the audit and risk committee and its Chair.
D10 **Meetings** - the audit and risk committee will meet at least three times a year. The Chair of the committee may convene additional meetings, as he/she deems necessary;
D11 A minimum of two members of the audit and risk committee will be present for the meeting to be deemed quorate;
D12 Audit and risk committee meetings will normally be attended by the accounting officer, the director of corporate operations, the associate director of finance and corporate governance, a representative of internal audit, and a representative of external audit;
D13 The audit and risk committee may instruct any other officials of the organisation to attend to assist it with its discussions on any particular matter;
D14 The audit and risk committee may instruct any or all of those who normally attend but who are not members to withdraw to facilitate open and frank discussion of particular matters;
D15 The Board, accounting officer, internal audit or external audit may ask the audit and risk committee to convene further meetings to discuss particular issues on which they want the committee’s advice.
D16 An outline agenda programme will be agreed by the committee at its first meeting following the beginning of each financial year and reported to the board.
D17 **Information requirements** - for each meeting the audit and risk committee will be provided with:
- A report summarising any significant changes to the organisation’s risk register;
- A progress report from internal audit summarising:
- work performed (and a comparison with work planned);
- key issues emerging from internal audit work;
- management response to audit recommendations;
- changes to the periodic plan;
- any resourcing issues affecting the delivery of internal audit objectives.
- A progress report from the external audit representative summarising work done and emerging findings;
- Notice of any incidents of financial irregularity or fraud;
- Internal and external audit will have an opportunity at each meeting to raise any issues with the committee without ORR staff being present.
D18 As and when appropriate the committee will also be provided with:
- External audit’s audit strategy
- The internal audit strategy; • Proposals for the terms of reference of internal audits; • Full reports and follow up reports from internal audit investigations • The internal audit’s annual opinion and report; quality assurance reports on the internal audit function; • ORR’s draft accounts; • ORR’s draft statement on governance; • A report on any changes to accounting policies; • External audit’s management letter; • A report on any proposals to tender for audit functions; • A report on co-operation between Internal and external audit.
Any other material that the committee reasonably requires in order to fulfil its responsibilities Annex E – remuneration and nominations committee terms of reference
TERMS OF REFERENCE
E1 Authority
This is an advisory committee of the ORR Board.
E2 The committee’s functions vary for different groups of people:
A For non executive roles:
- Advise on recruitment process and criteria;
- Agree induction plans for new members and keep these under review;
- Consider succession planning for board committees and advise the chair.
B For the chief executive (SCS3):
- Advise the Chair on CEO recruitment;
- Annually consider performance and reward (in line with wider civil service rules) and make recommendations to the board;
- Review succession options for the CEO role and advise the chair in the light of any short term need.
C For SCS1 and SCS2 roles:
- With the chief executive consider annual performance and reward (in line with wider civil service rules) and make recommendations to the board;
- Review succession plans and consider emerging risks;
- Advise the CEO on additional requirements for recruitment of roles which are expected to include board appointments.
- Oversight of SCS Recruitment: A non-executive board member will sit on the selection panel for all SCS2 recruitments: the chief executive will agree with the chair which member that should be. The chief executive will agree with the recruiting director the composition of the panel for any SCS1 recruitment.
D For non-SCS roles:
- Oversight of our people strategy including our strategy on reward (within the constraints of wider civil service rules);
- Consider the outcome of the annual staff survey and executive plans for addressing any issues; and
______________________________________________________________________
6 This committee combines the functions of the former remuneration committee with the nominations committee. The TOR was reviewed by the committee in October 2019 and approved by the board in February 2020. • Annually meet with the staff council in advance of reviewing the reward strategy and executive performance.
In addition, the Committee as a whole or its individual members may be asked to hear appeals or grievances, including fulfilling reciprocal commitments to other civil service bodies including the CMA.
E3 Membership
The committee will consist of three non-executive members of the ORR Board. The quorum will be two members with the most senior HR professional (currently the Associate Director of HR).
E4 Attendees and resources
Meetings of the committee will be attended by the Chief Executive, the Director of Corporate Operations, the most senior HR professional (currently the Associate Director of HR), and the Board Secretary.
Other secretarial support may be called on as necessary.
The committee may obtain independent legal or other professional advice where the use of ORR’s internal resources is inappropriate.
E5 Meeting procedures
Three Committee meetings each year will be scheduled to enable regular decisions and reports to be dealt with in a timely way. These meetings will normally be held around scheduled board meetings.
Additional meetings may be called by the committee to deal with emerging or urgent issues.
E6 Reporting
The committee chair will report headlines to the board orally at its next meeting (usually the next day).
Once agreed by the committee, minutes of the meetings will be circulated to board members with the next board paper pack (except where the content is sensitive).
The committee will review these terms of reference each year and advise the board of the outcome. Annex F – Health and safety regulation committee terms of reference
Health and safety regulation committee terms of reference
F1. **Authority** – this is an advisory committee established by the Board.
F2. **Purpose** - a Board / senior team forum:
- To assist with ORR’s regulation of health and safety by retaining oversight of certain areas on behalf of the Board and by helping shape the strategic health and safety issues to be put to the Board for consideration. This includes oversight of:
- the overall risk picture, and the strategic work of ORR in relation to health and safety:
- the development of health and safety related policy; and
- the overview of the performance of the industry.
- To consider what other health and safety related bodies, including relevant bodies outside the UK, are doing and ensure ORR adopts relevant examples of good practice.
- To safeguard relationships with HSE, RAIB and RSSB.
- To oversee, on behalf of the ORR Board, reviews of RSSB’s effectiveness.
- To examine such matters as requested by, and report its findings to, the Board.
- To oversee studies for the audit and risk committee where that committee considers that the HSRC’s competency is better suited to the content;
- To make such recommendations to the Board as it sees fit from time to time.
F3. **Membership** - the committee will consist of a mix of executive and at least two non-executive directors appointed by the Board from time to time.
**Meeting arrangements**
F4. **Quorum** - the quorum for meetings is three members: one of whom must be a non-executive director and another of whom must be the Director of Railway Safety or a deputy Director of Railway Safety.
F5. **Chairing meetings** - the committee will be chaired by the appointed chair or in their absence the ORR Chair. If neither is in attendance then the committee will appoint one of the attending non-executive directors as the chair for the meeting.
F6. **Frequency of meetings** - the committee will usually meet quarterly. The ORR chair or committee chair may call special meetings at any time.
______________________________________________________________________
7 Updated by the Committee in June 2020 and agreed by the ORR Board on 28 July 2020
Agreed by the board on 28 March 2017 and updated with amendments to committee TORs in July 2020 F7. **Attendance** – experts (including staff) and external stakeholders will be invited to attend and contribute to specific committee discussions in order to support the committee’s oversight of the health and safety performance of the industry.
F8. **Agendas** - the secretary will agree the agenda with the chair, following discussion with the Director of Railway Safety. The committee will at each meeting consider its forward agenda. The agenda and any papers will be circulated, where practicable, one week in advance of the meeting.
F9. **Papers and presentations** – these would normally be expected in order to aid the informed discussion of the topic on the agenda.
F10. **Reporting and follow up** - the chair will report orally to the ORR Board at its next meeting and will provide general feedback on matters discussed to the Railway Health and Safety Advisory Committee (RIHSAC) at its next meeting. Once approved, the HSRC minutes will be circulated to the ORR Board.
Where external stakeholders attend the committee and the committee agrees it is appropriate (following consideration of the discussion), the chair of the committee will formally record any unanswered concerns in writing with the stakeholder. The minutes should record whether or not any follow up is to be made, on each occasion that an external stakeholder appears.
F11. The committee will review these terms of reference each year and advise the Board of the outcome. Previous versions of amended terms of reference will be retained in ORR’s document management system, in order to provide an audit trail.
**Date of last review: June 2020**
**Next review due: June 2021** Annex G – Highways Committee
Highways Committee
TERMS OF REFERENCE
G1 Authority
This committee is a sub-committee of the ORR Board. Except when given a delegation to act in a specific matter, its purpose is to advise the board.
The existence of this committee is a requirement of a 2015 memorandum of understanding between the Department for Transport and ORR as the Highways Monitor. Changes to these terms of reference and committee membership must continue to meet the requirements of the MOU and confirmation of this should be obtained from the Department.
G2 Functions
- advise the ORR Board in developing an appropriate and effective monitoring framework and internal decision making framework for roads, and keep these under review;
- receive and scrutinise outputs from the monitoring framework;
- advise the ORR Board if the strategic highways company [Highways England] appears to be failing to comply with the road investment strategy or the Secretary of State’s directions and guidance;
- oversee the planning, resourcing and delivery of any special report commissioned by the Secretary of State;
- make recommendations to the ORR Board as to what any advice or report to the Secretary of State should contain, including advice on the objectives for a future road investment strategy;
- oversee the creation and regular meetings of a roads expert panel; and
- advise the ORR Board of opportunities for synergies with ORR’s rail functions.
G3 Membership
The committee will consist of up to seven members:
- two non-executive members of the ORR Board including one with relevant specialism who will chair the committee;
______________________________________________________________________
8 Section 6, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411801/mou-orr.pdf
Agreed by the board on 28 March 2017 and updated with amendments to committee TORs in July 2020 • up to two co-opted independent members to supplement the other members’ skills and experience or to represent the views of wider stakeholders • up to two executive directors including one with economic regulatory or asset management experience; and • ORR’s highways director.
The quorum will be 50% of members as long as the executive members are not in a majority.
G4 Attendees and resources
Meetings of the committee will be attended by members of staff appropriate to the agenda.
Secretariat will be provided by the Roads Directorate with the support of the Board Secretary.
G5 Meeting procedures
At least four committee meetings each year will be scheduled to enable regular decisions and reports to be dealt with in a timely way. These meetings will normally be held around scheduled ORR board meetings.
Meetings may be called by the committee to deal with emerging or urgent issues (such as sudden changes in HE’s performance).
G6 Reporting
The committee chair will report headlines to the board orally at its next meeting (usually the next day) or if necessary by a direct report to the ORR chair.
Once agreed by the committee, minutes of the meetings will be circulated with the next ORR board pack.
The committee will review these terms of reference each year and advise the board of the outcome.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Railways Act 2005, Schedule 3, Paragraph 4 4(1) The Office of Rail Regulation may authorise a person to investigate and make a special report on any accident, occurrence, situation or other matter of any sort which that Office thinks it necessary or expedient to investigate—(a) for any of the railway safety purposes; or (b) with a view to the making of regulations for any of those purposes. (2) The Office of Rail Regulation may cause— (a) the contents of a special report made under this paragraph, or (b) so much of them as it considers appropriate, to be made public at such time, and in such manner, as it thinks fit. (3) Where a person who is not a member, officer or employee of the Office of Rail Regulation carries out an investigation and makes a special report under this paragraph, that Office may pay him such remuneration and expenses as the Secretary of State determines.
1. (4) The Office of Rail Regulation may, to such extent as the Secretary of State may determine, defray the other costs (if any) of—
2. (a) an investigation under this paragraph; or
3. (b) the making of a special report following such an investigation.
4. (5) In section 14(1) of the 1974 Act (matters about which investigations etc. may be required or authorised by the HSC), for “it is” substitute—
5. “(a) those general purposes shall be treated as not including the railway safety purposes; but
6. (b) it is otherwise”.
Agreed by the board on 28 March 2017 and updated with amendments to committee TORs in July 2020
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4398-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 27,
"total-input-tokens": 51966,
"total-output-tokens": 12666,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2466,
1
],
[
2466,
5010,
2
],
[
5010,
7401,
3
],
[
7401,
10026,
4
],
[
10026,
12462,
5
],
[
12462,
15500,
6
],
[
15500,
18151,
7
],
[
18151,
18817,
8
],
[
18817,
20941,
9
],
[
20941,
22914,
10
],
[
22914,
25380,
11
],
[
25380,
28061,
12
],
[
28061,
30225,
13
],
[
30225,
32939,
14
],
[
32939,
35174,
15
],
[
35174,
37521,
16
],
[
37521,
39951,
17
],
[
39951,
42128,
18
],
[
42128,
44693,
19
],
[
44693,
45305,
20
],
[
45305,
47157,
21
],
[
47157,
48791,
22
],
[
48791,
51074,
23
],
[
51074,
52739,
24
],
[
52739,
54588,
25
],
[
54588,
56540,
26
],
[
56540,
57432,
27
]
]
} |
a210dc51c68714e46f3ef97df5e4b074ea9047f7 | Dear Paul,
As you will be aware, we were concerned about Hull Trains’ failure to comply with Condition 6 (Complaints Handling) regarding the requirement to make a full response to 95% of complaints within 20 working days. In our correspondence we asked Hull Trains to set out its plans to both meet and remain within the required timescales, and to provide weekly updates on performance until we were satisfied that these issues had been resolved.
In your responses you set out the measures Hull Trains is taking to meet its regulatory requirements. Our complaints monitoring indicates that Hull Trains has now met and remains within the complaint handling requirement for the last three consecutive periods. As a result, we are content to discontinue with the weekly reporting and return to the standard monthly monitoring arrangement.
We are keen to continue the constructive dialogue we have developed with you in the course of this process. Therefore it would be helpful if you could proactively alert us to any further problems of this nature which may arise in future. As with previous correspondence, we may publish this letter on our website.
Yours sincerely
Marcus Clements
Head of Consumer Policy Directorate of Railway Markets & Economics
22 July 2019
Paul Jackson Head of Business Development First Group
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4399-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1801,
"total-output-tokens": 305,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1324,
1
]
]
} |
9500a6ae46fbf9d173ca217782ae342fcdf30ee0 | 22 November 2018
Paul Jackson Head of Business Development First Group
Dear Paul
Hull Trains
Compliance with Condition 6 of your Station Licence and GB Statement of National Regulatory Provisions: Passenger
I am writing to you regarding the performance of Hull Trains and compliance with its complaints handling obligations.
As you will be aware, The 2015 ‘Guidance on Complaints Handling Procedures for Licence Holders’ (the Guidance) sets out that licence holders must respond to 95% of complaints within 20 working days. Our compliance monitoring data indicates that Hull Trains have now failed to meet this obligation since rail period 1 2018-19. In response to our previous request, you provided information to show how you intended to return to compliance and agreed to provide weekly reports on your progress in doing so.
Your most recent report of performance for rail period 7 shows that 14% of complaints were responded to within 20 working days, and your weekly reports indicate that there has been no improvement in performance. This demonstrates that the measures taken to date have not been successful in achieving the necessary compliance with the requirements.
Therefore, we ask that you provide a detailed, clear and achievable plan for improvement to swiftly meet and remain within the required timescale for responding to complaints.
In addition, there have been a number of issues with the accuracy of both the periodic and weekly data submissions throughout 2018-19. Data submitted to ORR should adhere to the published guidance for ORR Core Data compliance monitoring¹. I shall be grateful if you
¹ http://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0006/27618/reference_guide_for_2018-19_orr_core_data_compliance_monitoring.pdf will supply details of the quality assurance measures you have in place which will ensure that in the future your data submissions are accurate.
Next steps
I shall be grateful if you will provide me with your plan to achieve compliance with the complaints handling requirements by **Friday 30 November 2018**.
Please note that this letter and your reply will be published on our website.
Yours sincerely
Marcus Clements
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4400-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4279,
"total-output-tokens": 548,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1751,
1
],
[
1751,
2175,
2
]
]
} |
e4ebf554f2ca4e2f5bb988c3d030f4a5c0d57ed4 | Reviewing Highways England’s evaluation of its capital investment programme’s benefits: Final Report
ORR/CT/19-20
Hyperion Infrastructure Consultancy Ltd
May 2020 Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3
Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 4
1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 History and purpose of post-opening project evaluation .................................................... 7
1.2 Benefits Management within Highways England ................................................................. 7
1.3 Benefits Management Manual ............................................................................................ 9
2 Project Methodology .................................................................................................................. 11
3 Highways England’s Evaluation of Benefits ............................................................................ 12
3.1 Evaluation process for Major Projects .............................................................................. 12
3.2 Application of evaluation process to different programmes ............................................. 16
3.3 Changes to evaluation process ............................................................................................ 17
4 Specific Lines of Enquiry .......................................................................................................... 20
4.1 Resources and capabilities ............................................................................................... 20
4.2 Governance and assurance .............................................................................................. 21
4.3 Evaluation data ................................................................................................................ 22
4.4 Evaluation of outturn costs .............................................................................................. 22
4.5 Publication of evaluation reports ..................................................................................... 23
4.6 Feedback for future investment decisions ........................................................................ 25
4.7 Future developments ....................................................................................................... 25
5 Scheme Review ........................................................................................................................ 26
5.1 Overview of the evaluation of RIS1 schemes .................................................................... 26
5.2 Detailed review of sample schemes .................................................................................. 27
5.3 Findings from scheme review ........................................................................................... 28
6 Comparison with other organisations ...................................................................................... 29
6.1 UK Public Sector ............................................................................................................... 29
6.2 International practice ....................................................................................................... 29 Executive Summary
Evaluation of capital investment programmes is an important mechanism in assuring the investment and assessing whether the expected costs and benefits have been achieved, and to learn lessons for future investment decisions.
In 2019, Hyperion Infrastructure Consultancy Ltd (Hyperion) - working with associates Elliott Asset Management Ltd, Infrata Ltd and Pragmatex Ltd - was commissioned by ORR to carry out a review of Highways England’s processes for evaluating and assessing the benefits realised from its capital investment, and how these processes are being implemented, including the publication of the post-opening project evaluation (POPE) reports.
The review covered three strands of Highways England’s capital portfolio:
- Major projects, including large-scale complex infrastructure projects (CIP), regional investment programme (RIP) and the smart motorway programme (SMP);
- Smaller scale enhancements such as those delivered through its congestion relief programme; and
- Ring-fenced or ‘designated’ investment funds.
The review found that Highways England has a well-established approach to evaluating the benefits delivered by major schemes through the post-opening project evaluation, or POPE, process. The purpose of the POPE process is to:
1. Assess whether schemes have delivered the anticipated value for money;
2. Validate the accuracy of the estimated scheme costs, impacts and benefits which were agreed as part of the business case for investment, and use this to improve future scheme appraisals; and
3. Promote transparency and accountability to Highways England’s stakeholders through the publication of POPE reports.
The POPE process compares well with other organisations in the UK and internationally and Highways England are considered “best in class” by DfT when it comes to evaluation.
There have been three significant changes that have impacted on Highways England’s evaluation approach during RIS1:
**Evaluation was brought in-house during 2017** having formerly been carried out by an external consultant acting on behalf of Highways England. This required Highways England to create, resource and upskill an internal evaluation team but should enhance internal capabilities and improve knowledge retention, allowing Highways England to take a wider view of evaluation.
**Introduction of a benefits management approach in 2018** has provided a common framework for benefits management and evaluation across all projects, programmes and portfolios and, ultimately, will contribute to a benefits management culture across the organisation. The aim of benefits management is to help projects to deliver the intended outcomes by focussing on the identified benefits, then ensuring the solution is designed and implemented to realise these benefits. Highways England is introducing a new process for approving and publishing POPE reports in line with the Company’s transparency policy, which should reduce the time between the completion of an evaluation and publication.
Overall, the evaluation of benefits from its capital programme is something that Highways England does well. The evaluation process is well considered and appears to be working well across both Major Projects (MP) and Operations Directorate (OD). Highways England’s approach compares well with other organisations. The various changes that have occurred during RIS 1 should improve the evaluation process further but the transition led to an interruption to the publication of POPE reports which Highways England is working hard to address.
Going forward, a wider, more sophisticated approach to evaluation is being taken with bespoke studies, thematic reviews and programme-level analysis being used, proportionately, to build the evidence base to support future investment decisions across the whole portfolio. The challenge will be to evolve the process, while ensuring consistency with previous evaluations.
Findings and Recommendations The key findings of the project are summarised below.
- In line with many public sector organisations, Highways England is in the process of increasing the focus on benefits as part of project delivery. Partly due to its long-established POPE evaluation process, Highways England compares well with other organisations and is considered "best in class" by DfT and others. The challenge now will be to continue to evolve the evaluation process going forward while ensuring consistency.
- The evaluation process is intended to (i) identify whether schemes, programmes or portfolios have had the expected impacts and whether there are any lessons that could inform future investment decisions, and (ii) to provide transparency and accountability through the publication of the POPE reports and meta-analyses.
- There has been a significant amount of change in how Highways England carries out evaluation during RIS1. This has included the bringing in-house of the evaluation process and subsequent creation and building of the Evaluation Group, introducing a new process for approving and publishing POPE reports, and introducing the new benefits management manual and processes. There is evidence that Highways England is moving out of this transition period.
- Bringing the POPE process in house has enabled Highways England to retain knowledge and allow longer-term, thematic and programme-level evaluations to be undertaken. Amongst other things, this will also allow Highways England to take a wider view of benefits and focus evaluation resources proportionately, for example where they provide most value in terms of future learning.
- The move from Highways Agency to Highways England and the associated governance changes, interrupted the publication of POPE reports. Highways England is working hard to catch-up and remain committed to providing transparency through the continued timely publication of POPE reports going forward.
- The review found that, since 2017, the average time between completion and publication of POPE reports is 27 months. Now that Highways England has ownership of the sign-off and publication process, there should be a significant improvement in the time taken to publish POPE reports going forward.
- In terms of the major schemes in RIS1, at the time of this study, 37 had been opened to traffic, of which 20 had have been opened to traffic for more than one year. Six POPEs had been completed for these schemes and two reports published. Three evaluations were either on hold or had been combined with other schemes, and evaluation of the remaining 11 schemes was in progress.
- The new benefits management process as set out in the Benefits Management Manual is aligned with Infrastructure Projects Authority (IPA) best practice and takes a much wider view of benefits than the previous method which was more narrowly focussed on transport impacts (journey times, accidents, etc.) and aims to introduce flexibility whilst at the same time ensuring consistency.
- The new benefits management process, which includes evaluation, appears to be an improvement on the previous process in terms of scope, governance and assurance. The early identification of evaluation evidence requirements and inclusion of appraisal data in the new Benefits Realisation and Evaluation Plan (BREP) streamlines evaluation planning. However, the long lead-in time for schemes means that only one has followed the new BREP process within the timeframe of this study, but it is planned to retrofit the BREP process to schemes on a case by case basis.
- A proportionate approach is taken to the evaluation of small-scale improvements which builds on the sample-based approach adopted for the former Pinch Point Programme. A similar approach is being adopted for similar small-scale improvements in the future, as well as Designated Funds.
- Due to their scale and impact, Complex Infrastructure Projects (CIPs) provide significant opportunities for learning and process improvements, but may present a challenge in terms of scope of benefits, management of change and extended lifecycle. There may be a case for a multi-year evaluation programme which provides and early assessment of outcomes as well as monitoring benefits over a longer timeframe.
- Highways England is considering the most effective way to disseminate the findings from evaluation within the organisation and in the published POPE reports to ensure transparency.
There are a number of recommendations that are made for Highways England’s consideration, these have been grouped into themes.
**Resourcing and capabilities**
| R1 | Highways England should ensure that project teams have received adequate training about the importance of benefits management and their role in the evaluation process as it continues to evolve. | | R5 | Highways England should ensure that the Evaluation Group remains fully resourced and skilled to meet the requirements of RIS2, and beyond, and the evolving evaluation process. |
### Evaluation process
| R2 | Highways England should continue to develop the evaluation process to make sure it is sufficiently flexible and scalable to cover the wide range of schemes and programmes whilst ensuring consistency and comparability. | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | R10 | Highways England should continue to use BREP in preference to SEP and monitor its effectiveness and further improve the evaluation process as required. | | R3 | Highways England should consider whether there are ways to provide an early assessment of scheme outcomes, as well as monitoring benefits over the longer term, so that lessons can be identified and shared in a timely way. | | R4 | Highways England should ensure that the requirements for benefits realisation and evaluation remain consistent and up to date in the respective processes and products across all projects and programmes. | | R8 | Highways England should continue to develop the evaluation methodologies to consider a broader range of other scheme impacts including impact on the wider economy and customer satisfaction. |
### Publication and awareness
| R9 | POPE reports contain a lot of useful information and should be published in a timely manner in order to maximise their value. Highways England should consider what steps it can reasonably take to improve the time taken between report completion and publication without compromising quality. | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | R6 | As part of the review of future reporting formats for scheme and programme evaluations that better meet the needs of their respective audiences, Highways England could consider what information this will generate that may be of use to the ORR. | | R7 | Given the potential value of the information they include, Highways England should consider how to raise awareness of the POPE and other evaluation reports amongst the full range of potential audiences. | 1 Background
1.1 History and purpose of post-opening project evaluation
The post opening project evaluation or ‘POPE’ is a long-established process that has been carried out by Highways England, and Highways Agency before that, for 15-years. POPEs are analytical reviews to evaluate the impact that infrastructure schemes or programmes have had, carried out one and five years after opening to traffic. POPEs are carried out for every major scheme. For small-scale improvement programmes such as the previous Local Network Management Schemes (LNMS) or Pinch Point Programme, POPEs are carried out on a sample basis and a meta-analysis carried out for the programme as a whole.
Over the years, POPE of major projects has developed to monitor key impacts which have been identified within the scheme’s business case. It provides a consistent evaluation methodology, applied to schemes which enables thematic or portfolio level meta-analysis to be undertaken.
The POPE process aims to:
1. Assess whether schemes have delivered the anticipated value for money;
2. Validate the accuracy of the estimated scheme costs, impacts and benefits which were agreed as part of the business case for investment, and use this to improve future scheme appraisals; and
3. Promote transparency and accountability to Highways England’s stakeholders.
Independent reviews have cited the impact of POPE as an example of good practice.
“POPE has had a much greater impact through its standardisation and clear focus ... Evaluation of Roads now follows a standardised procedure which feeds back into pre-project appraisal in a transparent way”. Institute for Government 2017 ‘What’s wrong with infrastructure decision making?’
“Highways England routinely publish outturn project evaluations of major investments. This system has led to more accurate estimates of the likely costs of future projects”. National Infrastructure Commission 2018, National infrastructure Assessment
1.2 Benefits Management within Highways England
In common with many public sector organisations, Highways England is in the process of implementing a benefits management approach as recommended by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) which sets out a five-stage lifecycle for benefits management consisting of: identify, value, plan, realise and review. Benefits management is therefore a continuous activity that runs throughout a scheme’s lifecycle and the POPE relates to stage 5 ‘Review’ as illustrated in Figure 1.
Benefits management encompasses all of Highways England’s imperatives of safety, customer service and delivery, making benefits management a fundamental activity for Highways England.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Major schemes cover improvements to the strategic road network costing more than £10m and includes Complex Infrastructure Projects (CIPs), the Regional Investment Programme (RIP) and the Smart Motorway Programme (SMP). The objective of benefits management is to help schemes to deliver the intended outcomes through providing focus on the identified benefits required, then ensuring the solution is designed and implemented to realise these benefits.
It is widely accepted that successful benefits management should be an integral element of good project and programme management practices throughout the whole project lifecycle. As a practice it standardises the approach and tools used to document the benefits, plan for their realisation, measure and track their successful delivery throughout the lifecycle of a project.
In addition, for Highways England it is expected that a proactive focus on benefits management will:
- Enable efficiency of resource and effort
- Remove non ‘value added’ or non ‘benefit focused’ expenditure
- Enhance the value for money of projects and programmes
- Ensure a clear and transparent identification and management of benefits
- Enhance outcomes and experiences for customers
- Ensure the legacy of a project are clear to see after delivery
- Enable portfolio management decisions to be benefit led as the link to outcomes and benefits are clearly aligned
- Ensure a clear and transparent identification and effective mitigation of dis-benefits
This approach focusses on the delivery and realisation of benefits throughout the scheme lifecycle, and post-opening evaluation naturally forms part of this new benefits management process. Both benefit management and evaluation are key elements of Highways England’s Benefit and Value for Money framework as illustrated below. The evaluation process generates evidence to demonstrate accountability for investment in major projects and benefits realisation, and POPE is a requirement of the Major Project’s (MP) programme and project governance processes.
However, evaluation is wider than just the production of POPE reports, and evaluation questions are now being designed to look at wider/longer-term benefits through case studies and themed meta-analysis. In particular, Highways England recognises that wider evidence is needed about the impact of schemes on the wider economy and customer experience.
As its approach to benefits management matures, Highways England is intending to take a wider and more sophisticated view of benefits and focus evaluation resources proportionately, for example, where they provide most value in terms of future learning. The aim is to introduce flexibility and scalability whilst at the same time ensuring consistency of analysis.
More generally, benefits management will allow Highways England to better develop and track the benefits case through the scheme lifecycle. The new approach can be applied to schemes, programmes and portfolios.
1.3 Benefits Management Manual Highways England produced its Benefits Management Manual (BMM) in 2018 which sets out the approach to benefits management to be used across all our portfolios, programmes and projects.
The BMM describes:
- How the different stages of benefits management map onto the PCF stages
- Roles and responsibilities for benefits management activities
It also provides templates for key benefit management products (benefit maps, benefit register and Benefits Realisation and Evaluation Plans). Highways England’s benefit categories are also described including primary and secondary benefits and dis-benefits. Primary benefits encompass all benefits in the original scheme appraisal and are therefore covered by the POPE report.
Secondary (dis)benefits are additional indirect (dis)benefit on scheme(s) that either
- Stems from a primary benefit; or
- Is a softer (dis)benefit that is not perceived to significantly impact the scheme(s) or the success of the benefit category objective.
The purpose of the BMM is to ensure there is a common purpose, structure and delivery of project benefits across Highways England; whilst ensuring flexibility to allow management of diverse projects. 2 Project Methodology
The six-month project comprised four steps:
1. Review documentation
- Review of Highways England documentation describing the evaluation and benefits management processes, reports from scoping studies and wider contextual documentation, as well as management information about the current evaluation programme.
2. Stakeholder interviews
- Interviews with Highways England stakeholders involved in the evaluation and benefits management processes, including:
- Members of the Evaluation Group within the Chief Analysts Office in Strategy & Planning Directorate
- Benefits leads responsible for:
- Complex infrastructure projects and regional investment programme (both fall within Major Projects Directorate)
- Ring-fenced investment funds (Safety, Engineering and Standards Directorate)
- Small-scale improvements (Operations Directorate)
- Interviews with stakeholders at DfT responsible for evaluation across the department and within the strategic roads team.
3. Sample scheme review
- High-level review of evaluation status of all RIS1 schemes opened to traffic
- Detailed review of a sample of RIS1 schemes that have gone through, or are currently going through, the evaluation process
4. Comparison with other organisations
- Discussions with other publicly funded UK organisations about how they manage and evaluate the delivery of benefits, including:
- DfT Rail Group
- Transport for London
- NHS
- West Midlands Police
- Comparison with international practice
Acknowledgements
Hyperion would like to thank Highways England, and the other organisations, for taking part in this review and providing evidence openly and collaboratively. We would also like to thank the ORR and Highways England Project Managers for their valuable support in facilitating this review.
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared by Hyperion on the basis of the Form of Agreement with ORR dated 7th October 2019, in relation to contract CT/19-20. This report is for the benefit and information of ORR. All surveys, observations, analysis and forecasts contained in the report have been made on the basis of the information available at the time of the study. In preparing the report, Hyperion has relied upon, and assumed the accuracy of, information obtained from a variety of sources. Hyperion accepts no responsibility and will not be liable in the event that information provided during the course of the project is subsequently found to be inaccurate. 3 Highways England’s Evaluation of Benefits
3.1 Evaluation process for Major Projects
POPE for major projects has typically been carried out one and five years after the scheme has opened for traffic, followed by periodic meta-analyses. The process evaluates whether the scheme, or programme, has delivered the anticipated benefits and focuses on monitoring the following metrics over time:
- Safety
- Journey times and reliability
- Environment, including biodiversity, landscape, air quality and noise
- Delivery efficiency and cost effectiveness, including outturn costs and outturn value for money
This is an established process that was inherited by the Evaluation Group when it was created in 2017. Initially the new group looked to replicate the existing process but will be reviewing the most efficient and effective way of delivering evaluation as the team matures.
Alignment to scheme lifecycle
The Project Control Framework (PCF) was developed by Highways England to standardise the way projects are developed, managed and governed within Major Projects.
For Major Projects the PCF is based on a scheme lifecycle and consists of 8 (0 to 7) stages within 4 phases:
Each stage has a suite of accompanying products which cover all aspects of governance and accountability and are designed to build on each other towards scheme construction, handover to Operations Directorate (OD) and closeout. They also provide the evidence for a project’s evaluation. A product matrix defines when products are produced, updated, refined, and reviewed. In order to progress between phases Highways England carries out a Stage Gate Assessment Review (SGAR) with key stakeholders. A similar process is carried out under the OD PCF framework for capital renewals.
Evaluation planning for POPE has traditionally formed part of the PCF; with the introduction of the Benefits Management Manual the requirements have been widened to include the consideration of benefits realisation management. The following diagram shows how benefits management and evaluation activities and products align with the PCF stages, the key products and activities relating to evaluation are shown in red. As the purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether capital investments are delivering the outcomes identified in the original appraisal, there are two mandatory benefits products that must be produced for each scheme;
- Appraisal Summary Table (AST) and benefits register; and
- Benefits Realisation and Evaluation Plan (BREP).
In addition, depending on the scale, complexity and value of investment, there are a number of optional products that may be produced including; benefits maps – which show the relationship between outcomes, benefits and outputs - benefits management strategy, benefit reports, etc.
**Scheme appraisal**
Once benefits have been identified and categorised using benefit maps, where applicable, and registers, they must be valued and appraised. These activities are typically completed within Highways England as part of other VfM framework activities including appraisal methods and analytical assurance work. Value and appraisal is an iterative process during development and refinement of a project’s business case and, in PCF terms, happens continuously throughout PCF Stages 1-5.
For an outline business case a selection of the most important benefits identified will need to be valued, to ensure the project is justified on economic grounds. Scheme appraisal is undertaken using DfT’s Transport Appraisal Guidance which, in turn, is based on the HM Treasury Green Book. Schemes are appraised to realise benefits over 60 years. The results of the scheme appraisal are summarised in the Appraisal Summary Table (AST).
For projects that are part of the PCF process, the analytical work that is required to appraise (quantify) the impacts from a scheme is identified in the Analytical Requirements Report (ARR) which sets out the analytical requirements throughout the project lifecycle, including Evaluation. The ARR is prepared by the project manager in consultation with the business partner from the Transport Planning Group. The Transport Planning Group will advise on the extent of modelling required which is usually proportionate to the size, importance and sensitivity of the project and benefit.
When the final business case (PCF Stage 5) is completed, a plan for benefits realisation and evaluation is developed and aligned to these documents.
**Benefits Realisation and Evaluation Plan**
The benefits realisation and evaluation plan (BREP) is a collation of benefit details and is intended to be a short document signposting to other benefit related products and documents. It is not intended to repeat detail from benefit registers and profiles for a given project. It will summarise outputs from elsewhere. It will summarise the resulting plan and set out how success will be tracked and evaluated throughout project delivery and benefit realisation.
For Major Projects, BREPs are produced at PCF stage 5: Construction Preparation, based on benefits mapping and registers produced and updated through the earlier PCF stages. The BREP sets out the scope and objectives of the scheme, assures data availability for evaluation, and identifies any additional data that must be collected (e.g. traffic counts on local roads). As mentioned above, the ARR also sets out the analytical requirements for each stage of the scheme, and the section of evaluation must be signed off by the Evaluation Group.
BREPs are produced by the Project Teams responsible for delivery of the scheme with support from the Evaluation Group. The role of the Evaluation Group is to set standards, provide advice and assurance, as well as carry out the evaluation itself.
| Description | Collation of benefit details in single, signposting document | |-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | Purpose | To ensure all data is available for post-opening benefit monitoring and evaluation. | | Applies to | MP schemes | | Produced at | PCF Gate 5 ‘Construction Preparation’ | | Responsibility | Produced by Project Teams with support from Evaluation Group |
Table 1 - Definition of Benefits Realisation and Evaluation Plan (BREP)
Once the BREP has been approved, baseline data and the forecasts used to inform the original investment decision are collected prior to construction.
**R1** Highways England should ensure that project teams have received adequate training about the importance of benefits management and their role in the evaluation process as it continues to evolve.
**Post Opening Evaluation**
PCF Stage 7: Close Out includes the initiation of the post opening evaluation process. This is carried out by the Evaluation Group after the scheme has been opened to traffic for one and five years, in accordance with the BREP or SEP and using the identified data sources. A scheme has to be open to traffic for at least 12 months before an evaluation can be carried out to allow time for the traffic impacts to settle and for other data to be available (e.g. safety).
Once the scheme has opened, Senior Analysts meet with the Project Team, plus the Benefits Lead from the relevant programme and other business partners, to discuss the scheme, any changes during construction and revise the evaluation scope if there are any changes to the earlier plan.
The Senior Analyst reviews and refines the requirements based on the earlier evaluation plan and creates the evaluation project plan based on the resources available as advised by the Evaluation Programme Manager. The analysts will then carry out the evaluation.
Evaluation of benefits for each of the focus areas is typically based on the following:
| Evaluation Focus Area | Primary Basis for Evaluation | |-----------------------|------------------------------| | Safety | • Comparison of forecast and outturn changes in collision numbers, rates and severity using STATS19 data published by DfT\
• Safety trends are compared in the five years before the scheme is constructed with trends up to five years after the scheme has been fully open to traffic.\
• Change in safety levels are compared with an estimate of what might have happened on the road if the scheme had not been built to control for the wider factors which impact on road safety. | | Traffic | • Comparison of traffic model outputs (from appraisal) with actual outturn traffic flow data, assessment of journey times and reliability\
• Specially commissioned traffic surveys on local roads if the scheme was predicted to impact on traffic flows on the local road network and other data sources are not available | | Environment | • Non-traffic based impacts. Site visits to confirm that the mitigations identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment are in place and operating effectively\
• Traffic-based environmental impacts (e.g. noise, air quality Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are based on observed and forecast traffic data. | | Economic | • Monetised journey time and accident benefits (as of recently, this is only undertaken Five Years After opening)\
• Comparison of predicted and outturn scheme costs, although the remit of POPE is not to provide analysis for reasons of over/under-spend. Costs are converted to a present value comparable with the benefits to facilitate the calculation of the benefit cost ratio (BCR) |
Table 2 - Primary bases for evaluation
As can be seen, the evaluation process is a resource intensive process of data collection, site visits and analysis which can take at least nine months to complete. The timing of the analysis is dependent on:
- Whether traffic management is still being undertaken on the road
- If traffic flows on the road are temporarily constrained by nearby schemes under construction or external factors (e.g. local road schemes)
- Availability of validated safety data
- Need for temporary traffic counts during ‘neutral’ travel periods (i.e. outside holiday periods) and ideally during a consistent period to the baseline
- Seasonality factors related to the environmental site visit
- Quality of the data and whether any analytical assurance issues have been raised.
The final POPE report includes the detailed results of the evaluation for each of the focus areas, as well as a summary of the scheme impacts and a comparison with the original scheme objectives.
3.2 Application of evaluation process to different programmes
**CIP and SMP schemes**
POPEs are produced for each individual scheme that falls within Major Projects (i.e. CIP, RIP and SMP).
At the time of this review, all CIP schemes are either in construction or planning stages, however, given the unique nature of CIP schemes, a bespoke approach to appraisal and evaluation is often required, although POPE reports are still likely to be produced one year after fully opening which, given the long duration of these projects, can be some time after parts of the schemes have been opened to traffic. CIP schemes also provide significant opportunities to learn lessons and identify wider benefits and process improvements both within Highways England and the supply chain. These are outside the evaluation process but are captured through Highways England’s continuous improvement processes.
POPE is undertaken for smart motorways using the consistent evaluation method and a number of POPE reports have been published for smart motorway schemes (e.g. M1 J10–13, M1 J39–42, M25 J5–7 and M62 J25-30), and the new approach to benefits management and evaluation is being rolled out across the smart motorway programme. In addition, the monitoring and evaluation evidence base for smart motorways includes specific trials and bespoke safety monitoring studies which are outside the scope of this review but is reflected within DfT’s Smart Motorway Stocktake which was published in March 2020.
**Small-scale improvements**
For small-scale improvements such as the Congestion Relief Programme that are delivered by Operations Directorate, and where it is difficult to justify the effort of evaluating every scheme, a sample-based approach is taken, which builds on the established approach used for the former Local Network Management Schemes (LNMS) and Pinch Point Programmes whereby POPEs are produced for a representative sample of schemes and a meta-analysis carried out to assess the impact of the programme as a whole.
**Ring-fenced investment funds**
The ring-fenced or ‘Designated’ investment funds are managed by Safety, Engineering and Standards Directorate (SES) and were introduced in RIS1. These relate to:
- Environment
- Air Quality
- Cycling, Safety and Integration
- Innovation
- Growth and Housing Highways England have undertaken reviews to determine the most appropriate way of evaluating schemes delivered under these programmes and derive an overall evaluation approach which could be tailored to the requirements of each fund.
Five evaluation approaches were considered for each fund as shown in Table 3.
| Evaluation Approach | Details | |---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1. Process evaluation | Helps establish whether the programme is being implemented as planned, and what is working more or less well | | 2. Outputs evaluation | Shows what was delivered by the programme | | 3. Outcomes evaluation | Shows the effect of the programme | | 4. Economic evaluation | Provides an ex-post assessment of programme-level benefit cost ratio | | 5. Quasi-experimental evaluation | Shows how much of any change in key metrics is directly attributable to the programme |
Table 3 - Evaluation approaches being considered for Ring-fenced funds
The results of the studies suggested a combination of process evaluation, outputs evaluation and outcomes evaluation for all funds with some elements of economic and quasi-experimental evaluation if appropriate and methodologically feasible.
In terms of reporting, it is expected that they take a similar, sample-based approach to that used for small-scale improvements focussing on the specific objectives of each fund and sub-fund.
R2 Highways England should continue to develop the evaluation process to make sure it is sufficiently flexible and scalable to cover the wide range of schemes and programmes whilst ensuring consistency and comparability.
R3 Highways England should consider whether there are ways to provide an assessment of early scheme outcomes, as well as monitoring benefits over the longer term, so that lessons can be identified and shared in a timely way.
R4 Highways England should ensure that the requirements for benefits realisation and evaluation remain consistent and up to date in the respective processes and products across all projects and programmes.
3.3 Changes to evaluation process
Prior to the publication of Highways England’s Benefits Management Manual (BMM) in October 2018, the POPE process was largely a standalone exercise that was carried out for each major scheme and, on a sample basis, at a programme level for small scale improvements with periodic or programme level meta-analyses.
The anticipated benefits, as quantified during the original scheme appraisal, and how they were to be measured were set out in a Scheme Evaluation Plan (SEP) which was produced by Highways England analysts or consultants (before the formation of the Evaluation Group) prior to construction beginning.
Although POPE has always been a requirement of the MP PCF, with the introduction of the new benefits management process as set out in the BMM, Highways England formally incorporated the existing post-opening evaluation process into the a wider benefits management approach that runs throughout the scheme lifecycle. The BMM aims to ensure consistency in benefits management across all of Highways England’s portfolios, programmes and projects, and clearly defines how evaluation fits into the wider benefits management process, with clearly defined responsibilities for planning and delivering the evaluation.
Under the new process, responsibility for producing the evaluation plan (which is now part of the wider Benefits Realisation and Evaluation Plan, or BREP, which is replacing the SEP) sits with the Project Team but is assured and signed-off by the Evaluation Group. The BREP is more comprehensive than the SEP and clearly sets out the evaluation data requirements, including baseline data, additional data that needs to be collected (e.g. local road traffic surveys), and links to the original benefits register and benefits mapping.
On its introduction, the new BREP process was applied to schemes that hadn’t yet passed project control framework (PCF) Stage 5 ‘Construction Preparation’ (although is being retrofitted to some schemes on a case-by-case basis) which means that, given the long lifecycle of a scheme, there is currently a mixture of schemes that are going through the old SEP process and the new BREP process.
The key changes affecting evaluation during RIS1 are summarised in the table below. | Change | Original situation (pre 2018) | Current situation (post 2018) | Impact | |--------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------| | Responsibility for evaluation | ▪ POPE carried out by external consultants | ▪ Evaluation carried out by Highways England internal Evaluation Group ▪ New steering group and governance arrangements | ▪ Need to create, resource and upskill evaluation team ▪ Enhanced internal capabilities ▪ Ability to take wider view of evaluation ▪ Improved knowledge retention | | Introduction of benefits management approach | ▪ Standalone POPE process ▪ Evaluation requirements captured in the SEP as part of PCF process ▪ SEP produced by consultants | ▪ POPE part of wider benefits management approach ▪ Evaluation requirements captured in the BREP ▪ BREP produced by project team with sign-off from Evaluation Group | ▪ Focus on benefits management culture ▪ Better integration of evaluation into scheme lifecycle ▪ Better definition of evaluation requirements, including data needs ▪ Improved ownership of benefits management and evaluation requirements by the business | | Approval and publication of POPE reports | ▪ Publication of POPE reports approved by DfT and published on .GOV website | ▪ POPE reports approved by Highways England’s Chief Analyst and agreed for publication by the Corporate Publication Steering Committee then published by Highways England ▪ Reports are shared with DfT for information prior to publication | ▪ Increased control over publication process and timescales ▪ Independent, 4th line assurance provided by DfT |
Table 4 - Summary of changes to evaluation process during RIS1 4 Specific Lines of Enquiry
This section describes the results of a number of specific lines of enquiry that the review was asked to consider.
4.1 Resources and capabilities
Evaluation Group
As mentioned before, the POPE process has been in existence for 15-years, beginning with Major Projects. Historically, the POPE of Major Projects was carried out by external consultants but in 2017 Highways England took the decision to bring a number of routine processes, including production of the POPE, in-house. This required the creation, resourcing and upskilling of a new Evaluation Group, all of which took approximately one year to complete.
The Evaluation Group sits alongside Transport Planning Group, Economics Group and Performance Analysis and Modelling Group within the Chief Analyst’s Division (CAD) of Strategy and Planning Directorate and is therefore independent of any of the delivery arms of Highways England. The Evaluation Group consists of ten people (Head of Evaluation, Principal Evaluation Manager, plus eight analysts covering safety, traffic, environment and Smart Motorways) and the structure is shown in the figure below.
![Evaluation Group Diagram]
The new team has brought together technical specialists from within Highways England, for instance in environmental impacts of schemes, alongside experienced analysts who joined Highways England to be part of the newly formed function.
Economic evaluation is carried out by the Evaluation Group with support from other groups within CAD as required, including advisory and assurance support from Transport Planning and Economics Groups. Where required, additional specialist resources are brought in (for example Sustrans have been advising on benefits from cycling schemes). The initial priority of the new Evaluation group has been to replicate the POPE process while looking for methodological improvements, and not hold up the MP evaluation programme. The team is currently fully occupied with evaluation of RIP and SMP schemes but the Head of Evaluation does provide an advisory role for other programmes and there are requests for bespoke evaluations. Overall priorities are set by the MP Evaluation Steering Group and evaluation is managed as a programme.
Bringing the evaluation process in-house is anticipated to provide Highways England’s analysts with a broader perspective and allow longer-term insights to be provided, as well as, improving knowledge management.
A further role of the Evaluation Group is to develop standards and work with the benefits leads within MP to encourage a benefits culture ensures that the focus remains on benefits realisation throughout the life of schemes.
**R5** Highways England should ensure that the Evaluation Group remains fully resourced and skilled to meet the requirements of RIS2, and beyond, and the evolving evaluation process.
**Major Projects evaluation programme management**
Management of resources within the Evaluation Group is the responsibility of the Principal Evaluation Manager.
Management of the evaluation programme includes a scheme tracker which tracks the progress of schemes prior to opening. The tracker shared with the review team includes in excess of 90 schemes.
Once opened to traffic, schemes form part of the current evaluation work programme. A senior analyst from the Evaluation Group is allocated to each scheme to act as the evaluation manager, supported by a project team of analysts for each of the focus areas, i.e. safety, traffic, environmental and economy. Ideally the same senior analyst would be involved throughout the process.
**Small Scale Improvements evaluation management**
Evaluation of small-scale improvements, such as the current Congestion Relief Fund programme, is carried out on behalf of Highways England by external consultants on a representative sample basis. The evaluation programme is managed by Operations Directorate (OD). Once the programme has been delivered, a meta-analysis of the POPEs will be carried out by the Evaluation Group.
**4.2 Governance and assurance**
**Major Projects Evaluation Steering Group**
Overall delivery of the Evaluation Programme, including delivery against milestones, quality assurance and implementation of lessons learnt is overseen by the Evaluation Steering Group.
The Steering Group forms a key part of the governance structure for the evaluation programme and oversees and steers its delivery, providing accountability to the Chief Analyst and Executive Director of MP. The Steering Group approves and assures evaluation outputs and acts as focal points within their programme areas to embed evaluation findings and lessons learnt back within the business.
The group is chaired by the Head of Evaluation and membership includes benefits management leads from each of the MP programmes (RIP, CIP and SMP), MP Programme Office, Transport Planning Group, Environment Group and Operations Directorate, as we as programme and technical leads from the Evaluation Group.
**Analytical Requirements Committee**
At a scheme level, the Analytical Requirements Committee (ARC) sits throughout the scheme lifecycle. The ARC reviews the analytical assumptions being made for the scheme in the Analytical Requirements Report (ARR) which sets out the analytical requirements at each stage of the scheme lifecycle (discussed below). The evaluation section within the ARR must be approved by the Evaluation Team who are represented on the ARC. This committee can flag any issues with the Evaluation Group at any stage during the scheme lifecycle.
**Assurance**
As well as the Evaluation Steering Group, all output from the evaluation process is reviewed by someone within the Chief Analyst Division who was not involved in the evaluation. This forms part of the overall assurance framework based on Four Lines of Defence:
1. Peer review of data analysis
2. Senior review of evaluation within the Evaluation Group (e.g. individual focus-area such as Environment)
3. Evaluation Steering Group and member of Chief Analyst Division not involved in the evaluation reviews output for scheme evaluation as a whole
4. DfT review of Tier 1 schemes (i.e. high value or high priority schemes)
Overall responsibility for Highways England’s approach to evaluation sits with the Chief Analyst, who along with Exec Members, approves POPE reports.
**4.3 Evaluation data**
As can be seen above, the evaluation process is dependent on the quality and coverage of the data that it uses and, in particular traffic data. This data is drawn from Highways England’s centralised Roads Information Framework (RIF) and, if necessary, can be supplemented by local monitoring data if the scheme is forecast to impact on traffic flows on the local road network. Where there are issues with the quality of the automated collection of traffic data (for example the loops in the road have become faulty), this limits the extent of the traffic evaluation which can be undertaken. Going forward, Evaluation Group will continue to feed their requirements into the ongoing development of the RIF.
There have been legacy issues with carrying out evaluations of older in particular the historic handover of detailed project data to support the summary information in the AST. This particular issue was addressed in the design of the BREP which includes the original appraisal data.
**4.4 Evaluation of outturn costs**
Although, as mentioned above, the remit of POPE is not to provide analysis of the reasons for over-under spend, the current POPE process does include core metrics relating to delivery efficiency and cost effectiveness. This includes a comparison of outturn construction cost against those agreed in the Business Case as well as outturn Value for Money (VfM) assessment made using data profiles from the first five years post opening. Outturn cost metrics The metrics that outturn cost influences and which are monitored for each scheme and evaluated in the scheme POPE include:
- The outturn scheme cost against the Final Target Cost captured in the Final Business Case prior to construction;
- The impact of outturn cost in the scheme Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR);
- The impact of outturn cost on the scheme VfM after evaluating other scheme objectives such as accident savings and journey time improvements.
4.5 Publication of evaluation reports Although it is not a specific licence requirement, as mentioned above, a key aspect of the evaluation process, as well as learning for future schemes or other schemes within a programme, is to provide transparency and accountability through the publication of the POPE reports. The reports have a number of potential audiences including:
- The public;
- HM Treasury and the Department for Transport;
- Supply chain and other external partners;
- ORR; and
- Internal Highways England stakeholders.
Evaluations begin after a scheme has been fully opened to traffic for at least 12 months and, although there is no formal target date for publication of POPE reports, Highways England aim to disseminate findings internally and publish the reports in a timely manner.
ORR monitoring requirements for RIS2 From discussions with ORR, it is understood that, with regards to evaluation, their focus from a monitoring perspective during RIS2 will be:
- The completion of POPEs and timely publication of reports
- The outturn costs and benefits achieved for each major scheme or programme; and
- The overall benefits delivered by RIS2 as a portfolio.
Approval and publication process Previously, POPE reports were reviewed and approved for publication on the .GOV website by DfT. The Evaluation Group has been working with the Executive Committee and DfT stakeholders to agree a new process for assuring and signing off POPE reports ahead of publication in line with the Company’s transparency policy. Key aspects of this process are:
- The process builds in analytical assurance and sufficient time to review the findings internally.
- The results will be formally cleared by the Chief Analyst (to ensure appropriate analytical assurance) and the Executive Director of Corporate Affairs and Communications.
- Once officially signed off, the timing of the publication will be agreed by the Executive Director of Corporate Affairs and Communications and the Executive Director of Strategy and Planning as part of the routine publication process within the organisation.
- Media handling plans will be developed for each study in collaboration with Strategic Communications business partners and Press Office. Highways England share the completed studies and handling considerations with the Department for Transport ahead of publication.
However, the move from Highways Agency to Highways England and the associated governance changes, interrupted the delivery of POPE reports. Highways England are working hard to catch-up and remain committed to providing transparency through the continued timely delivery and publication of POPE reports going forward.
In addition to the POPE reports, and meta-analysis of smaller schemes delivered as part of a particular programme, periodically Highways England carries out a meta-analysis of all evaluations to date, to take an overview of trends across the programme as a whole. For example, in 2019 Highways England published an Evaluation Insight Paper based on a meta-analysis of the 85 evaluations that had been undertaken of major schemes between 2002 and 2014. The ability to produce such Insight reports highlights the importance of maintaining a consistent and comparable evaluation methodology.
Since 2015, Highways England have published the results from more than 30 evaluation studies in full and summary formats. The full reports contain detailed technical information whereas the summary reports have focussed on the main findings of the study and the extent to which the original scheme objectives have been met. It is understood that Evaluation Group are reviewing the style of POPE reports and will be considering new approaches for the evaluations they have completed in-house.
**Stakeholder awareness and application of POPE reports**
To gauge the level of awareness and application of POPE reports, as part of this study, more than 60 organisations were invited to complete an online survey which was also promoted on social media.
Responses were received from eight organisations which comprised:
- 3 x Highways England Tier 1 supply chain partners
- 2 x Highways England Tier 2 supply chain partners
- 1 x Sub-national Transport Body
- 1 x National Transport Body
- 1 x wished to remain anonymous
Out of the eight respondents, five were aware that Highways England published POPE reports and three were not. Of the five that were aware of the POPE reports, only one respondent had made use of a POPE report to “see the outcomes and scheme benefits for projects that we’d been involved with” and had found the report very useful as it “helps tailor the design and construction planning for subsequent schemes”. The respondent thought the report was very detailed and didn’t have any suggestions for how it could be improved.
Of the seven respondents who had not made use of a POPE report, reported that they were interested in the results of post-opening evaluation of major projects and three of the seven were either ‘Very Likely’ or ‘Likely’ to make use of a POPE report in the future. Although the number of responses was relatively small and is not suitable for making generalisations, the results do suggest that there is interest in POPE reports amongst the wider range of stakeholders – and in particular the supply chain - but that more could be done to raise awareness that the reports exist and where they can be found.
| R6 | As part of the review of future reporting formats for scheme and programme evaluations that better meet the needs of their respective audiences, Highways England could consider what information this will generate that may be of use to the ORR. | | R7 | Given the potential value of the information they include, Highways England should consider how to raise awareness of the POPE and other evaluation reports amongst the full range of potential audiences. |
4.6 Feedback for future investment decisions
Lessons learned are captured and feed into future scheme appraisal processes. As mentioned previously one of the roles of the Evaluation Steering Group is to ensure that lessons learned are fed back into future investment decisions and there are numerous examples where this has happened ranging from enhancements to traffic models and supporting research into the accuracy of cost estimates through to providing evidence to inform the RIS2 business case.
More generally, the Evaluation Group is represented on the Appraisal Methods Group and the intention is the learning is fed back as a matter of routine rather than as a specific process.
4.7 Future developments
As its approach to benefits management matures, Highways England intends to take a wider and more sophisticated view of evaluation which is likely to include:
- Developing methodologies to evaluate the impact on wider economy and/or customer satisfaction;
- Introducing greater flexibility into the evaluation process e.g. bespoke or interim evaluations, focussing effort where there is most to learn, whilst ensuring consistency and comparability;
- Extending robust evaluation processes across the full range of portfolios and programmes proportionately; and
- Developing more bespoke output formats for the evaluation findings to support internal dissemination and improve external transparency.
In evolving its evaluation approach, Highways England is continuing to work closely with DfT to ensure alignment with good practice and consistency with other transport modes.
| R8 | Highways England should continue to develop the evaluation methodologies to consider a broader range of other scheme impacts including impact on the wider economy and customer satisfaction. | 5 Scheme Review
To provide an evidence base for the review of HE’s Major Projects evaluation process the schemes within RIS1 were examined and a sample of nine schemes was selected from the MP portfolio. Schemes were selected to investigate and highlight different aspects of the evaluation process and how it has evolved over time. The analysis of the sample schemes was largely qualitative and involved reviewing scheme evaluation documentation and the associated processes.
The purpose of the scheme review was to:
1. Provide evidence on how effectively the schemes move through the evaluation process. In particular the development and publication of one year and five-year POPEs.
2. To illustrate how the evaluation process has evolved over time and whether these changes are driving continuous improvement in the scheme evaluation process and the associated outputs from scheme evaluation.
5.1 Overview of the evaluation of RIS1 schemes
Since the beginning of RIS1, Highways England have published more than 30 reports on evaluation studies including two ‘one year after’ POPEs for RIS1 schemes, nine ‘one year after’ and nine ‘five year after’ POPE reports for pre-RIS1 schemes as well as a number of meta-analyses and the Insight report.
In terms of the MP schemes in RIS1, at the time of this study, 37 had been opened to traffic. Of these, 17 had not been open to traffic for more than 12 months. The evaluation status of the remaining 20 schemes as of January 2020 is shown in the table below.
| Evaluation Status | MP Schemes | |------------------------------------------|------------| | On Hold (due to ongoing schemes in the locality) | 1 | | Combined with other schemes | 2 | | Data Collection | 8 | | Analysis | 3 | | Assurance | 4 | | POPE completed and Published | 2 | | TOTAL | 20 |
*Table 5 - Evaluation Pipeline (Jan 2020)*
The pipeline of evaluation work demonstrates the progression of schemes from data collection, through analysis, assurance and ultimately publication of a POPE. Whilst this data is only a snapshot provided by Highways England’s evaluation team the volume of work appears to be consistent across the different stages of the evaluation process.
The review found that, since 2017, the average time between completion and publication of POPE reports is 27 months. Now that Highways England has ownership of the sign-off and publication process, there should be a significant improvement in the time taken to publish POPE reports going forward. POPE reports contain a lot of useful information and should be published in a timely manner in order to maximise their value. Highways England should consider what steps it can reasonably take to improve the time taken between report completion and publication without compromising quality.
Despite the long lead time for the publication of POPEs, the project obtained assurances from Highways England that the lessons from evaluation were acted upon swiftly and findings were disseminated to the relevant internal stakeholders upon the completion of evaluation – prior to the publication of the corresponding POPE report.
5.2 Detailed review of sample schemes The commission examined a sample of nine individual schemes. These schemes were selected to:
- Span the significant changes in the evaluation approach. Specifically, the change from using an external consultant to undertake evaluation and produce POPE reports to this work being brought in house with the formation of Highways England’s evaluation team;
- Span the change in evaluation process from the production of SEPs to BREPs; and
- Include different project types e.g. Smart Motorway and Complex Infrastructure Projects.
The table below provides a list of the sample of schemes and the corresponding evaluation process used. A short description of each scheme paraphrased from the information provided from the evaluation is provided in the subsequent subsections.
| Scheme | Programme | Opened to Traffic | Evaluation Process | Carried out By | |-------------------------|-----------|-------------------|--------------------|-------------------------| | A453 Widening | RIP | July 15 | SEP | External | | A14 Kettering Bypass | RIP | Apr 15 | SEP | External | | M6 J2-4 Smart Motorway | SMP | In Construction | SEP | External | | A21 Tonbridge to Pembury| RIP | Sep 17 | SEP | Transition from External to Internal | | M20 J10a | RIP | In Construction | SEP | Internal | | M271 Redbridge | RIP | In Construction | SEP | Internal | | M20 J3-5 Smart Motorway | SMP | In Construction | SEP | Internal | | A500 | RIP | In Construction | BREP | Internal | | A14 Cambridge – Huntingdon| CIP | Dec-19 | SEP / BREP | Internal |
Table 6 - Sample Schemes 5.3 Findings from scheme review
The detailed scheme review found good conformity with the process and consistency in the application of the evaluation process across the different programmes under both the SEP and BREP model. Furthermore, the review of the sample schemes found a good standard of consistency between the evaluation approach undertaken by the external consultant and the in-house Highways England evaluation team.
The BREP is a considerable improvement over SEP in terms of capturing and collating information and tying this back to the scheme objectives and the appraisal, which should improve evaluation process overall.
| R10 | Highways England should continue to use BREP in preference to SEP and monitor its effectiveness and further improve the evaluation process as required. | 6 Comparison with other organisations
6.1 UK Public Sector As part of the study, the following comparator organisations agreed to be interviewed about their approach to benefits management and evaluation.
- DfT Evaluation Centre of Excellence and Roads Economics, Modelling and Evaluation Group
- DfT Rail Group
- Transport for London
- NHS
- West Midlands Police
Across government, all organisations have been encouraged to adopt a benefits-focused approach to project delivery but the majority of the organisations interviewed were at an early level of maturity.
There were some examples of good practice in providing feedback from post-project reviews to future investment decisions but only Highways England had a well-established, standardised process for post-opening evaluation. Indeed, largely for this reason, Highways England is considered “best in class” by DfT and the POPE process has been cited as good practice by the Institute for Government (2017) and the National Infrastructure Commission (2018).
Because many organisations are at a similar level of maturity when it comes to benefits management, there is very active community of practice that provides support and shares lessons and good practice. Highways England are an active participant in this community.
6.2 International practice
Government commissioned evaluations A desktop study and contact with various government and private sector organisations reveals that there are only a handful of countries that conduct Post Opening Evaluations in an equivalent manner to the POPE methodology. The research has shown however that there are similar post-opening evaluations commissioned by government agencies in Norway, France, USA, and New Zealand as shown in the table below.
| Country | Infrastructure type | Project Size | When done | |------------|---------------------|--------------------|--------------------| | France | Road, rail, port, airport | Over £70m | 5 years post opening | | Norway | Road | over £20m | 5 years post opening | | USA | Rail | All projects (funded by FTA) | 2 years post opening | | New Zealand| Road, busways | Over £5m | 1-3 years post opening |
Table 7 - Government commissioned post-opening evaluations on transport projects
In terms of scope, these post-opening studies have differing evaluation criteria including cost, traffic, travel times, safety and environment as shown in the table below: In France post-opening studies are undertaken by *Loi d’Orientation des Transports Interieurs* and cover: costs (and reasons for overruns), traffic, travel times, safety, ecology, water quality, environmental impacts, and public feedback.
In Norway, *Statens Vegvesen* commissions these evaluations which include a review of costs, traffic, travel time savings, vehicle operating costs, noise and air pollution. Non monetised benefits including environmental, but changes in land use are not included.
In USA, Federal law requires sponsors of transit projects receiving major capital project funding from the *Federal Transit Authority* to produce a Before-and-After Study to cover construction costs, service levels, project scope and ridership.
In New Zealand, the *New Zealand Transport Agency* undertakes Post Implementation Reviews on project cost and timeframe, traffic, travel times, safety (crashes), and pedestrian/ cycle facilities.
As can be seen, the scope of most evaluations focusses on monetised cost-benefit criteria such as construction costs, traffic forecasts and accident reductions. Environmental evaluations are less prevalent despite the fact that most developed countries do perform some kind on Environmental Impact Assessment at project inception.
**Government-backed lending agencies**
Many of the government-backed lending institutions, including the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) conduct post-opening project reviews of transport projects.
World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group produces Project Performance Assessment Reports (PPAR) that evaluate projects according to bank performance and borrower performance as well as outturn demand based on one-year-after opening traffic counts.
EBRD carries out ex post evaluations of projects on a case study basis. These evaluations are primarily focussed on outturn cost in terms of updating the original cost benefit analysis with a qualitative approach taken to assessing the outturn benefits.
______________________________________________________________________
| Country | Cost | Traffic | Travel times | Safety | Environment | |-------------|------|---------|--------------|--------|-------------| | France | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Norway | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | USA | ✓ | ✓ | | | | | New Zealand | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
*Table 8 – Post-opening evaluation scope* Other evaluations
Aside from the formal assessments outlined above, the project team has reached out to other contacts overseas to get a picture of what might be happening elsewhere:
| Organisation | Comment | |--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Netherlands highways | Discussions with organisations on two recently completed highway schemes (A27/A1 at Hilversum and A1/A6 just outside Amsterdam) indicate that a Post Completion Report is completed by the contractor which looks primarily at the construction phase and includes:\
(i) a summary of significant technical changes\
(ii) construction issues/risks manifesting themselves\
(iii) creation of work opportunities\
(iv) traffic volumes\
(v) achievement of project milestones\
There are also market consultation workshops between the Dutch highways authority Rijkswaterstaat (RWS) and invited contractors/ concessionaires on cooperation aspects (how can they improve cooperation). For example, on the A9 IXAS highway tunnel project, RWS has engaged University of Delft to hold workshops and do interviews to report back on how cooperation was (i) during construction (ii) after civils completed (iii) after tunnel opening. | | USA highways | Apart from the FTA conducted reviews on rail projects, nothing similar is undertaken for highway schemes although it is understood some States do conduct their own ad hoc studies but nothing USA-wide is known about. For instance, in Florida, FDOT review outturn costs and traffic data whereas in Ohio, ODOT sends out a lessons learned questionnaire about one-year-after opening. | | German highways | Nothing similar to a POPE undertaken. On accidents, every year there is a regional meeting between Authority, police and concessionaires/ maintainers to discuss issues, but this is not project-based more on a regional basis. With regard to traffic again this is reviewed annually on a network rather than project basis. | | Canada highways | Nothing similar to a POPE undertaken. There are general ad hoc discussions between Authority and contractor/ concessionaire at a high-level on how things are going, and any lessons learned but nothing is published. |
Table 9 - Additional examples of evaluation approach
Summary
Despite some evidence of the use of post project evaluation schemes in the international transport there remains significant differences in terms of coverage and scope of the schemes in different countries and Highways England’s approach compares well.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4401-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 31,
"total-input-tokens": 69636,
"total-output-tokens": 14928,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
166,
1
],
[
166,
3553,
2
],
[
3553,
6366,
3
],
[
6366,
9655,
4
],
[
9655,
12542,
5
],
[
12542,
14871,
6
],
[
14871,
17776,
7
],
[
17776,
19372,
8
],
[
19372,
21050,
9
],
[
21050,
21746,
10
],
[
21746,
24296,
11
],
[
24296,
26526,
12
],
[
26526,
28469,
13
],
[
28469,
31378,
14
],
[
31378,
34399,
15
],
[
34399,
37217,
16
],
[
37217,
40321,
17
],
[
40321,
41757,
18
],
[
41757,
43426,
19
],
[
43426,
45183,
20
],
[
45183,
48308,
21
],
[
48308,
51279,
22
],
[
51279,
53995,
23
],
[
53995,
56846,
24
],
[
56846,
59448,
25
],
[
59448,
62175,
26
],
[
62175,
64828,
27
],
[
64828,
65632,
28
],
[
65632,
68145,
29
],
[
68145,
70645,
30
],
[
70645,
73539,
31
]
]
} |
43cc21abe7d421007f0438ba1628f9ca9e33a9e2 | Dear Patrick
Contravention of condition 4 of GB Statement of National Regulatory Provisions: Passenger (SNRP)
On 14 March 2019, I sent a letter advising that the ORR Board had determined that Govia Thameslink Railways Limited (GTR) contravened Condition 4 of its SNRP in relation to its provision of passenger information following the implementation of the 20 May 2018 timetable and during the subsequent disruption. The Board considered it appropriate to impose a penalty and proposed a penalty amount of £5 million. This letter also enclosed a proposed Penalty Notice in accordance with s.57C (1) of the Railways Act 1993.
In accordance with s.57C (1)(e) ORR specified the period within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed penalty may be made, requiring all responses by 5 April 2019.
Consultation representations
ORR received two responses during the specified period, which were not withdrawn; one letter from Transport Focus and one from GTR (a letter and two documents).
1 https://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0019/40654/orr-decision-letter-to-gtr-pidd-investigation-2019-03-14.pdf 2 https://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0020/40655/orr-penalty-notice-for-gtr-2019-03-14.pdf The Board has carefully considered all of the representations received and taking account of all the evidence, ORR’s published economic enforcement policy, and its duties set out in section 4 of the Railways Act 1993 made the following decisions:
- **Contravention Decision:** The Board did not consider that GTRs representations on the contravention call into question the soundness of the contravention decision.
- **Consideration of penalties:** ORR’s Board decided that it:
a. remains of the view that the imposition of a penalty is justified and proportionate, in accordance with the Macrory principles; and
b. remains of the view that a penalty of £5 million is appropriate in this case.
**Section 57C Notice**
In accordance with Section 57C of the Railways Act 1993, enclosed with this letter is ORR’s formal final notice confirming a penalty sum of £5 million.
This notice sets out in more detail the reasons for the above decisions and the factors considered in reaching this final decision.
In accordance with the Act, the penalty should be paid to the Secretary of State by 28 June 2019 unless GTR make an application within 21 days from the date of this Notice for ORR to specify different dates by which different portions of the penalty are to be paid.
I am copying this letter to David Brown, Go-Ahead Group Chief Executive, and to the Secretary of State for Transport, Polly Payne, Ruth Hannant and Tim Rees at the Department for Transport.
We will publish this letter, the enclosed decision notice and all representations received on our website.
Yours sincerely
John Larkinson Chief Executive
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4402-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4487,
"total-output-tokens": 776,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1226,
1
],
[
1226,
2856,
2
]
]
} |
7352ef49713a9454afd990a539187f6ecbdab952 | Dear Patrick
Contravention of condition 4 of GB Statement of National Regulatory Provisions: Passenger (SNRP)
ORR wrote to Govia Thameslink Railway Limited (GTR) on 3 October 2018 to inform the company that we had launched an investigation into whether GTR did, or is doing, everything reasonably practicable to achieve compliance with its obligations set out in condition 4 of its SNRP.
In particular, our investigation has focused on GTR’s provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information:
- to passengers and prospective passengers prior to the implementation of 20 May 2018 timetable; and
- to passengers during the subsequent disruption i.e. following the implementation of the 20 May 2018 timetable.
We have also considered:
- the steps GTR has taken or is taking to address the issues, make improvements and recover;
- whether there are any systemic issues; and/or • whether there are any mitigating factors which should be considered in this case.
Our guidance to support compliance with condition 4 recognises that timetabling services and providing information to passengers are difficult, complex tasks. There is a balance to be struck between service delivery and the ability to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information for passengers during sustained periods of disruption. The licence condition is not intended to undermine the primary objective of providing the best available services for passengers.
Thank you for GTR’s co-operation and information provided over the course of this investigation. ORR has considered evidence, including GTR’s responses, material provided to us in our meetings and source information previously provided to us as part of the Timetable Inquiry.
This letter sets out the decisions made by the ORR Board on what regulatory action should be taken following the investigation.
In reaching these decisions, the ORR Board had regard to its duties under section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. ORR has also applied our competition primacy duty which obliges ORR to consider whether it would be more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act 1998. In this case, ORR does not consider that the Competition Act 1998 is applicable.
Stephanie Tobyn, ORR Deputy Director, Railway Markets and Economics, wrote to GTR on 29 January 2019 setting out the findings of our investigation and asked for any representations from GTR. The Board also considered GTR’s response to ORR’s letter and the supplementary information provided on 13 February 2019.
Summary of Decisions
GTR’s provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers and prospective passengers prior to the implementation of 20 May 2018 timetable.
Based on the balance of the information assessed, ORR consider that GTR took reasonably practicable steps to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers prior to the timetable change on 20 May 2018.
GTR’s provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers during the subsequent disruption i.e. following the implementation of the 20 May 2018 timetable.
In summary, ORR considers that:
(i) GTR’s operational decision making was not supported by passenger information that was sufficiently aligned to the steps that it was taking to recover the service;
______________________________________________________________________
1 Both ORR’s letter to GTR of 29 January 2019 and GTR’s response letter of 13 February 2019 are published with these documents on our website. (ii) GTR’s failure to clearly communicate known cancellations in a timely manner undermined the ability of prospective passengers to plan ahead and make informed journey decisions; and
(iii) Operational decisions taken and implemented to support the recovery process did not take account of the need to provide passengers with appropriate, accurate and timely information to an acceptable extent and within an acceptable time period.
ORR Board is therefore satisfied that, taking account of all evidence, including our findings and GTR’s representations, there is evidence that GTR contravened condition 4 of its SNRP in that it failed to deliver to the greatest extent reasonably practicable, having regard to all relevant circumstances, its obligation to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers to enable them to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance.
In coming to this conclusion, the ORR Board had regard to all the relevant circumstances including the failure of the May timetable and the funding available to GTR. The Board was not satisfied that there is an on-going contravention of condition 4.
Consideration of penalties
Having identified a past breach, the Board then had to consider whether a penalty was appropriate. ORR’s policy is clear that our primary objective in setting a penalty is to change the future behaviour of a licence holder so as to deter non-compliance with its obligations (both specifically and in general).
The Board took account of all the evidence, our policy, and our section 4 duties and determined that the imposition of a penalty would be appropriate in this case.
The Board considered a penalty is appropriate in relation to GTR’s failure in the provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers because a penalty would reinforce and incentivise GTR to ensure that the provision of information to passengers is managed more effectively in the future and could also act as a future deterrent to other licence holders.
Having considered the type, extent and duration of information failures that impacted passengers, the level of harm and potential harm caused, the culpability of GTR and mitigating and aggravating factors, the Board proposes to impose an overall penalty sum of £5 million in respect of GTR’s contravention of condition 4 as described in the accompanying notice.
The proposed level of the penalty is considered appropriate and proportionate in the context of a moderately serious breach as described in the accompanying notice. Section 57C Notice
In accordance with Section 57C of the Railways Act 1993, enclosed with this letter is ORR’s formal notice that it proposes to impose a penalty sum. This notice sets out in more detail the factors informing the level of proposed penalty.
A consultation period of at least 21 days is required for this notice. A deadline of Friday 5 April 2019 is therefore set out in the notice.
ORR will take into consideration any representations or objections made and not withdrawn and will make a final decision on whether a penalty is appropriate, and if so, how much it should be, as soon as practicable following the end of the consultation period.
A more detailed assessment of the evidence ORR has used to reach these decisions has already been provided to GTR and the final investigation report, ORR’s letter of 29 January and GTR’s response letter of 13 February 2019 will also be published with this letter on ORR’s website.
I am copying this letter to the David Brown, Go-Ahead Group Chief Executive, and to the Secretary of State for Transport, Polly Payne, Ruth Hannant and Tim Rees at the Department for Transport.
Yours sincerely
John Larkinson Chief Executive
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4403-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 8672,
"total-output-tokens": 1660,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
887,
1
],
[
887,
3447,
2
],
[
3447,
6019,
3
],
[
6019,
7205,
4
]
]
} |
55c925a55f160401596b196e2c042666a5558fdb | Dear David
Investigation findings of Northern Compliance with condition 4 of GB Statement of National Regulatory Provisions: Passenger (SNRP)
ORR wrote to Northern on 3 October 2018 to inform you that we had launched an investigation into whether Northern did, or is doing, everything reasonably practicable to achieve compliance with its obligations set out in condition 4 of its SNRP.
Condition 4 of the Passenger Train Licence and the Statement of National Regulatory Provision (SNRP) provides that:
**Purpose**
1. The purpose is to secure the provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable railway passengers and prospective passengers to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance, including when there is disruption
**General duty** 2. The SNRP holder [licence holder] shall achieve the purpose to the greatest extent reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the funding available.
Thank you for Northern’s co-operation and the information provided to ORR during the investigation. We have considered that information, including your responses, material provided to us in or following meetings and source information previously provided to us as part of the Timetable Inquiry. We have undertaken a detailed analysis of the Northern passenger experience of the timetable change to better understand the nature and impacts of the primary information failures they were exposed to. We have also examined data collected in the course of our regulatory monitoring.
In particular, our investigation has focused on Northern’s provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information:
- to passengers and prospective passengers prior to the implementation of 20 May 2018 timetable; and
- to passengers during the subsequent disruption i.e. following the implementation of the 20 May 2018 timetable.
In assessing the evidence we have considered whether Northern was and is doing everything reasonably practicable to comply with its obligations in condition 4. We have also considered:
- the steps Northern has taken to address the issues, make improvements and recover;
- whether there are any systemic issues; and/or
- whether there are any mitigating factors which should be considered in this case.
A summary of findings from our analysis of the evidence we have collected is set out below.
**Northern’s provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers and prospective passengers prior to the implementation of 20 May 2018 timetable**
In relation to Northern’s provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable railway passengers and prospective passengers to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance in the lead up to the implementation of the May Timetable (‘pre 20-May’), the findings from our investigation are as follows:
- We consider that Northern’s communications plan and campaign to encourage passengers to ‘check their new train times’ was successful in raising awareness amongst passengers and was appropriate in its methods and reach. The campaign commenced four weeks prior to the introduction of the new timetable, and our research found that 62% of passengers were aware that the timetable was changing.
- Timetables were made available online to help passengers to plan their journeys. Some of the distributed flyers at specific stations also highlighted the train times and where particular pinch points would be found in the new timetable. However, there was a delay in producing printed timetables, which hampered passengers’ ability to plan their journey, particularly for those who are not able to access information through online methods. Our research found that the personal impact of the new timetable was not well understood by some passengers and there was confusion about the scale of the change. In this respect, there was perhaps the opportunity to convey a more urgent message both on social media and in literature to passengers generally about the new timetable.
Northern demonstrated the ability and willingness to act in response to feedback from passengers and via staff about the impact of the new timetable on specific local services. Direct communications with passengers using services in hotspot areas was positive but passengers using these lines were not also informed via twitter. Messaging which goes to all passengers but is only relevant to some is normally a regular feature of rail communications (e.g. incident or service disruption on specific lines/routes) and would have supplemented more direct communication.
Nonetheless, we consider that Northern’s communications plan and campaign to bring the timetable change to passengers’ attention was broadly successful. The methods used did signal to passengers that a timetable change was happening and the detailed communications relevant on specific routes was helpful. Prospective passengers were made aware of the change, had access to the expected timetable and reasonable efforts were made to keep passengers up to date in the period leading up to 20 May.
It is therefore our final view that in respect of their condition 4 obligations, Northern took reasonably practicable steps to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers prior to the timetable change on 20 May.
Northern’s provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers during the subsequent disruption i.e. following the implementation of the 20 May 2018 timetable.
In relation to Northern’s provision of appropriate, accurate and timely information to enable railway passengers and prospective passengers to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance during the period of disruption following the introduction of the 20 May timetable (‘post-20 May’), the findings from our investigation are as follows:
- We consider that the exceptional circumstances that followed the introduction of the 20 May timetable meant that providing perfect advance information for all services was, from the outset, an impossible task. There were two weeks from 20 May to 4 June where in many cases Northern passengers suffered from the provision of particularly poor information, which affected their travel and journey planning. Passengers also faced disruption as a result of two RMT strike days on 24 and 26 May.
- Our guidance to support compliance with condition 4 recognises that timetabling services and providing information to passengers are difficult, complex tasks. There is a balance to be struck between service delivery and the ability to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information for passengers during sustained periods of disruption. The licence condition is not intended to undermine the primary objective of providing the best available services for passengers. Against this context we consider that although passenger information was in many cases inadequate in the period between 20 May and 4 June, there is evidence to suggest that Northern took steps to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to the greatest extent reasonably practicable having regard to the circumstances that it faced. Northern’s interim timetable was introduced on 4 June, which stabilised service levels, improved performance, reduced last-minute cancellations and enabled the provision of better information to passengers (although it is widely recognised that on some routes passengers continued to experience significant disruption following this period e.g. on the Lakes Line).
In particular, we found that:
**Northern’s service recovery up to the introduction of the interim timetable on 4 June**
In response to the timetable disruption, Northern took a number of operational decisions to try to stabilise the train service. These steps included:
- Implementation of a Gold Command Structure to provide a strategic response to the disruption including through focused leadership, co-ordination and communication (for both passengers and staff);
- Use of ‘sweeper trains’ to manage passenger demand - initially these additional services were ad hoc but when the timetable was reintroduced on 25 May (after a strike day timetable was in use on 24 May) the sweeper trains became part of the advertised timetable.
- Identification of services ‘at-risk’ of cancellation and use of a three-hour cut-off for decision-making regarding such services, at which point services still ‘at-risk’ were cancelled to provide certainty to passengers and accurate information on CIS screens.
- Northern was able to implement measures aimed at improving the situation that they faced on 20 May. The decision to hold an emergency directors’ meeting on 23 May and subsequently plan the interim timetable for 4 June proved fundamental to providing passengers with greater certainty over the services that they were capable of running.
- Evidence indicates that whilst the quality of information provided to passengers was in many cases inadequate during the period between 20 May and 4 June, Northern did have regard to the fact that running a train service (or rail replacement bus) is only helpful to passengers if they know when and where the service will arrive, where it is going and how long the journey will take.
**Communication and impact of the interim timetable**
- Northern’s interim timetable involved removing 6% of services (168 a day) from its 20 May timetable. Northern has said that this ‘enabled us to accelerate our driver training, stabilise service levels, improve performance and significantly reduce last-minute-cancellations’.
- Northern operated a reduced service until 30 July, when 75% of the removed services in its interim timetable were reinstated. Overall more trains were running after the interim timetable was introduced than were operating before the
______________________________________________________________________
1 [https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/temporary-timetables](https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/temporary-timetables) - statement from David Brown timetable of 20 May, and the number of minutes Northern’s services were delayed recovered to pre-20 May levels from week three onwards.
- Northern developed a comprehensive communications plan for passengers to support the introduction of the interim timetable. The evidence we have reviewed suggests that this communications plan was appropriate both in terms of its scale and reach. Firstly, it had clear provisions for ensuring the information reached as many different types of passengers as possible by utilising multiple communications channels. Secondly, it was also targeted through key actions to ensure information was especially focused on the routes which would be most affected by the change. In particular, it gave Northern passengers access to accurate information to enable them to make or plan their journeys from the 4 June with a greater degree of certainty than had been the case in the prior two week period.
On the balance of evidence assessed, and as summarised above and in our investigation report, whilst the quality of information provided to passengers was in many cases inadequate during the period between 20 May and 4 June, we consider there is evidence to indicate that Northern gave appropriate consideration to the provision of information alongside operational service recovery and that it subsequently took reasonable practicable steps to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to its passengers. We have therefore concluded that ORR will not take any further action in relation to any possible breach of Northern’s SNRP.
**Next steps**
We are writing separately to the industry to share the results of our investigation. We will be asking operators to review their crisis management plans, and to provide details of the arrangements to support passengers that require additional assistance during disruption (both planned and unplanned) including Northern.
We will continue to monitor operators’ performance in this key consumer area and will hold them to account to ensure that they meet their obligations.
A more detailed assessment of the evidence ORR has used to reach these decisions has already been provided to Northern and our final investigation report will also be published with this letter on ORR’s website.
I am copying this letter to Polly Payne, Ruth Hannant and Tim Rees at the Department for Transport.
Yours sincerely,
John Larkinson Chief Executive
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4404-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 11340,
"total-output-tokens": 2535,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1271,
1
],
[
1271,
3728,
2
],
[
3728,
6878,
3
],
[
6878,
10031,
4
],
[
10031,
12458,
5
]
]
} |
1eb11e5d17955cb6ade5505956263a930ebc2fa6 | ORR’s Equality Information
January 2014 ORR’s Equality Information
Introduction and background
01. The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) is committed to furthering the aims of the Equality Act 2010.
02. The public sector duty of the Equality Act 2010 consists of a general equality duty, which is set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. In summary, those subject to the equality duty must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to: a. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act; b. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and c. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic.
03. ORR is also subject to specific duties which are imposed by secondary legislation in the form of the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011. Those specific duties include the need to publish sufficient information to demonstrate its compliance with the general equality duty across its functions. The information provided must include: a. Information on the effect that its policies and practices have had on people who share a relevant protected characteristic, to demonstrate the extent to which it furthers the aims of the general equality duty for its employees and for persons affected by its policies and practices; b. A statement of one or more objectives it thinks it should achieve in order to comply with the public sector equality duty. ORR’s equality information
04. ORR has a total of 278 staff. In order to avoid identifying particular individuals, the data is only shown for groups of more than 10 staff. This has been indicated in the data.
05. Our equality data has been taken from ORR’s HR database (as at 31 December 2013).
06. ORR has analysed the distribution of its workforce, as far as it is able to, in terms of the protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership). This has been broken down by grade. This data shows that the majority of staff are male (64%), most staff are white (67%) and 5% of staff have a reported disability. This data is largely similar to the data in January 2013. The data can be found in Annex 1.
07. ORR has analysed the numbers of part-time and full-time staff at each level of the organisation. The majority of part-time staff are women at each grade. This data can be found in Annex 2.
08. An analysis of pay for male and female staff has been undertaken to assess whether there is a gender pay gap. This has been broken down by grade. The data can be found in Annex 3.
09. ORR does not currently have any reported transsexual staff in employment. As part of our Equality and diversity policy, we aim to recruit as diverse a workforce as possible, and would welcome applications from anybody.
10. There are a number of areas that we are unable to report on because the numbers are too few (10 people or less). These areas are pregnancy and maternity, dismissals and grievances, and recruitment.
11. We are committed to publishing our equality information on an annual basis. Annex 1
% distribution of ORR’s workforce by protected characteristic and grade (as at 31 December 2013)
| Protected SCS \*\* | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | Overall | |-----------------|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---------| | **Gender** | | | | | | | | | | Male | 73%| 67%| 81%| 76%| 55%| 52%| 33%| 64% | | Female | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 24%| 45%| 48%| 67%| 53% | | **Race/ethnicity** | | | | | | | | | | White | 93%| 86%| 81%| 74%| 55%| 58%| 45%| 67% | | Mixed | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\* | | Asian or Asian British | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 9% | | Black or Black British | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 5% | | Other ethnic group | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | | Undeclared | 0% | \*\*\*| 21%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 15% | | **Disability** | | | | | | | | | | Reported disability | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 5% | | No reported disability | 100%| 100%| 94%| 94%| 87%| 97%| 94%| 94% | | Undeclared | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | **Age** | | | | | | | | | | 19 and below | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | 20-29 | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 33%| 12% | | 30-39 | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 32%| 20%| \*\*\*| 61%| \*\*\*| 25% | | 40-49 | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 27%| 32%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 26% | | 50-59 | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 32%| 40%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 32% | | 60+ | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | **Religion or belief** | | | | | | | | | | No religion | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 20%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 15% | | Christian | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 32%| 30%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 23% | | Buddhist | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Hindu | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Jewish | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Muslim | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Sikh | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | | Other | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Undeclared | 73%| 71%| 52%| 48%| 55%| 58%| 70%| 58% | | **Sexual orientation** | | | | | | | | | | Heterosexual | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 13%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 15% | | Gay or lesbian | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Bisexual | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Other | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Undeclared | 73%| 86%| 94%| 87%| 87%| 74%| 82%| 79% | | **Marriage and civilpartnership** | | | | | | | | | | Married | \*\*\*| 81%| 58%| 64%| 32%| 42%| \*\*\*| 51% | | Single | \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| 21%| 42%| 35%| 55%| 63% | | Divorced | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | 4% | | Widowed | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Civil partnership | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | | Partner | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Undeclared | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 12% |
\*\*Senior Civil Servant - this represents the most senior level of the organisation and grade G is at the least senior level of the organisation.
\*\*\*In order to avoid identifying particular individuals, the data can only be shown for more than 10 people. Annex 2
% distribution of ORR’s workforce by gender, working pattern and grade (as at 31 December 2012)
| Protected characteristics | SCS | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | Overall | |----------------------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---------| | **Male** | | | | | | | | | | | Full-time | 91% | 93% | 100%| 95% | 82% | 94% | 91% | \*\*\* | 94% | | Part-time | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | 0% | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | 0% | 6% | | **Female** | | | | | | | | | | | Full-time | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | 70% | 93% | 87% | 68% | 100%| 78% | | Part-time | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | 0% | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | 0% | 22% |
### Median
| Grade | Male | Female | % difference of female compared | |-------|--------|---------|---------------------------------| | A | £69,903| £72,323 | 3.46% | | B | £63,594| £61,588 | -3.15% | | C | £57,227| £53,000 | -7.39% | | D | £44,392| £41,500 | -6.51% | | E | £32,071| £30,957 | -3.47% | | F | £26,171| £29,927 | 14.35% | | G | £23,656| £20,993 | -11.26% |
### Mean
| Grade | Male | Female | % difference of female compared | |-------|--------|---------|---------------------------------| | A | £70,648| £71,266 | 0.87% | | B | £62,765| £62,801 | 0.06% | | C | £56,109| £54,301 | -3.22% | | D | £43,235| £42,238 | -2.31% | | E | £33,074| £32,597 | -1.44% | | F | £27,707| £29,477 | 6.39% | | G | £22,925| £21,770 | -5.04% |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4405-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 10167,
"total-output-tokens": 3384,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
41,
1
],
[
41,
1547,
2
],
[
1547,
3230,
3
],
[
3230,
6653,
4
],
[
6653,
7470,
5
],
[
7470,
8626,
6
]
]
} |
f764e782ef8fa5d27635610aa107669248fdb973 | ORR’s Equality Information
January 2015 ORR’s Equality Information
Introduction and background
01. The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) is committed to furthering the aims of the Equality Act 2010.
02. The public sector duty of the Equality Act 2010 consists of a general equality duty, which is set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. In summary, those subject to the equality duty must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to: a. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act; b. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and c. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic.
03. ORR is also subject to specific duties which are imposed by secondary legislation in the form of the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011. Those specific duties include the need to publish sufficient information to demonstrate its compliance with the general equality duty across its functions. The information provided must include: a. Information on the effect that its policies and practices have had on people who share a relevant protected characteristic, to demonstrate the extent to which it furthers the aims of the general equality duty for its employees and for persons affected by its policies and practices; b. A statement of one or more objectives it thinks it should achieve in order to comply with the public sector equality duty. ORR’s equality information
04. ORR has a total of 283 staff. In order to avoid identifying particular individuals, the data is only shown for groups of more than 10 staff. This has been indicated in the data.
05. Our equality data has been taken from ORR’s HR database (as at 31 December 2014).
06. ORR has analysed the distribution of its workforce, as far as it is able to, in terms of the protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership). This has been broken down by grade. This data shows that the majority of staff are male (63%), most staff are white (66%) and 5% of staff have a reported disability. This data is largely similar to the data in January 2014. The data can be found in Annex 1.
07. ORR has analysed the numbers of part-time and full-time staff at each level of the organisation. The majority of part-time staff are women at each grade. This data can be found in Annex 2.
08. An analysis of pay for male and female staff has been undertaken to assess whether there is a gender pay gap. This has been broken down by grade. ORR endeavours to ensure that our pay system is fair and equitable. The data can be found in Annex 3.
09. ORR does not currently have any reported transsexual staff in employment. As part of our Equality and diversity policy, we aim to recruit as diverse a workforce as possible, and would welcome applications from anybody.
10. There are a number of areas that we are unable to report on because the numbers are too few (10 people or less). These areas are pregnancy and maternity, dismissals and grievances, and recruitment.
11. We are committed to publishing our equality information on an annual basis. Annex 1
% distribution of ORR’s workforce by protected characteristic and grade (as at 31 December 2014)
| Protected SCS \*\* | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | Overall | |------------------|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---------| | Gender | | | | | | | | | | Male | 72%| 55%| 78%| 75%| 58%| 48%| \*\*\*| 55% | 63% | | Female | \*\*\*| 45%| \*\*\*| 25%| 42%| 52%| 69%| \*\*\* | 37% | | Race/ethnicity | | | | | | | | | | White | 94%| 82%| 84%| 67%| 61%| 61%| 38%| 50% | 66% | | Mixed | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | | Asian or Asian British | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 8% | | Black or Black British | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 6% | | Other ethnic group | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Undeclared | 0% | \*\*\*| 18%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 14% | | | Disability | | | | | | | | | | Reported disability | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 5% | | | No reported disability | 100%| 91%| 94%| 92%| 89%| 90%| 93%| 80% | 92% | | Undeclared | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 4% | | | Age | | | | | | | | | | 19 and below | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | 20-29 | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 35%| \*\*\*| 14% | | | 30-39 | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 19%| 37%| 35%| \*\*\*| 24% | | | 40-49 | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 22%| 26%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 23% | | | 50-59 | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 38%| 45%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 33% | | | 60+ | \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| 6% | | | Religion or belief| | | | | | | | | | No religion | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 16%| 29%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 14% | | | Christian | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 34%| 31%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 23% | | | Buddhist | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Hindu | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Jewish | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Muslim | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Sikh | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Other | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Undeclared | 72%| 77%| 53%| 49%| 61%| 61%| 69%| 55% | 59% | | Sexual orientation| | | | | | | | | | Heterosexual | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 15%| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 19% | | | Gay or lesbian | 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Bisexual | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Other | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Undeclared | 72%| 73%| 91%| 84%| 76%| 74%| 76%| 70% | 79% | | Marriage and civilpartnership | | | | | | | | | | Married | 67%| 82%| 59%| 63%| 39%| 35%| \*\*\*| 52% | | | Single | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 24%| 39%| 45%| 48%| 65% | 31% | | Divorced | \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 0% | | | Widowed | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Civil partnership| 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Partner | 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | \*\*\*| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | \*\*\* | | Undeclared | \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| \*\*\*| 10% | |
\*\*Senior Civil Servant - this represents the most senior level of the organisation and grade G is at the least senior level of the organisation.
\*\*\*In order to avoid identifying particular individuals, the data can only be shown for more than 10 people. Annex 2
% distribution of ORR’s workforce by gender, working pattern and grade (as at 31 December 2014)
| Protected characteristics | SCS | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | Overall | |----------------------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---------| | Male | | | | | | | | | | | Full-time | 92% | 92% | 92% | 93% | 91% | 100%| \*\*\* | 100%| 94% | | Part-time | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6% | | Female | | | | | | | | | | | Full-time | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | 70% | 88% | 88% | 75% | \*\*\* | 78% | | Part-time | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | \*\*\* | 0% | 22% |
### Median
| Grade | Male | Female | % difference of female compared | |-------|--------|---------|---------------------------------| | A | £70,403| £66,250 | -5.90% | | B | £63,845| £62,088 | -2.75% | | C | £57,727| £52,416 | -9.20% | | D | £43,491| £41,453 | -4.69% | | E | £32,640| £31,457 | -3.62% | | F | £28,544| £30,272 | 6.05% | | G | £24,156| £21,960 | -9.09% |
### Mean
| Grade | Male | Female | % difference of female compared | |-------|--------|---------|---------------------------------| | A | £70,541| £68,720 | -2.58% | | B | £62,988| £62,089 | -1.43% | | C | £56,621| £53,441 | -5.62% | | D | £42,634| £42,349 | -0.67% | | E | £33,042| £32,780 | -0.79% | | F | £28,548| £29,657 | 3.89% | | G | £23,259| £22,380 | -3.78% |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4406-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 10185,
"total-output-tokens": 3503,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
41,
1
],
[
41,
1547,
2
],
[
1547,
3298,
3
],
[
3298,
7119,
4
],
[
7119,
7936,
5
],
[
7936,
9092,
6
]
]
} |
468213860a7809f26fa93c38ad5864bff8731624 | Equality information
2016
Summary
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) is committed to furthering the aims of the Equality Act 2010.
The public sector duty of the Equality Act 2010 consists of a general equality duty, which is set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. In summary, those subject to the equality duty must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to:
1. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act;
2. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
3. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic.
ORR is also subject to specific duties which are imposed by secondary legislation in the form of the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011. Those specific duties include the need to publish sufficient information to demonstrate its compliance with the general equality duty across its functions. The information provided must include:
04. Information on the effect that its policies and practices have had on people who share a relevant protected characteristic, to demonstrate the extent to which it furthers the aims of the general equality duty for its employees and for persons affected by its policies and practices;
05. A statement of one or more objectives it thinks it should achieve in order to comply with the public sector equality duty. Analysis of equality data
06. ORR has around 300 staff. Our equality data has been taken from ORR’s HR database (as at 31 December 2015).
07. ORR has analysed the distribution of its workforce, as far as it is able to, in terms of the protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership). This has been broken down by grade. This data shows that the majority of staff are male (63%), most staff are white (68%) and 5% of staff have a reported disability. This data is largely similar to the data in January 2015. The data can be found in Annex 1.
08. ORR has analysed the numbers of part-time and full-time staff at each level of the organisation. The majority of part-time staff are women at each grade. This data can be found in Annex 2.
09. An analysis of full time equivalent (FTE) pay for male and female staff has been undertaken to assess whether there is a gender pay gap. This has been broken down by grade. ORR endeavours to ensure that our pay system is fair and equitable. The data can be found in Annex 3.
10. In Annex 4 the tables show the protected characteristics for applicants (or those who started the application process) for ORR roles, advertised externally between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015. By next year we hope to improve the completion rate of this data, with our recruitment partner.
11. Information about the effectiveness of our people policies has come from our people survey; with statistically significant improvement this year for inclusion and fair treatment responses. See the tables in Annex 5.
12. ORR does not currently have any reported transsexual staff in employment. As part of our Equality and diversity policy, we aim to recruit as diverse a workforce as possible, and would welcome applications from anybody.
13. There are a number of areas that we are unable to report on because the numbers are too few (10 people or less). These areas are pregnancy and maternity, dismissals and grievances.
14. We encourage staff to provide accurate information on protected characteristics by completing their personal details on our HR system. This, alongside the work HR is doing over the next five years, seeks to address areas where we want to improve our inclusiveness and diversity (for example, tackling unconscious bias in recruitment, addressing pay anomalies using our Career Families competencies framework, and eliminating bullying and harassment).
15. We are committed to publishing our equality information on an annual basis. Annex 1
% distribution of ORR’s workforce by protected characteristic and grade (as at 31 December 2015)
| Protected characteristic | SCS | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | Overall | |--------------------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---------| | **Gender** | | | | | | | | | | | Male | 80% | 66% | 82% | 68% | 64% | 46% | 30% | 42% | 63% | | Female | 20% | 34% | 18% | 32% | 36% | 54% | 70% | 58% | 37% | | **Race/ethnicity** | | | | | | | | | | | White | 90% | 83% | 87% | 67% | 69% | 51% | 40% | 53% | 68% | | Mixed | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 5% | 1% | | Asian or Asian British | 0% | 0% | 3% | 6% | 13% | 22% | 10% | 11% | 8% | | Black or Black British | 0% | 3% | 0% | 6% | 9% | 5% | 25% | 16% | 7% | | Other ethnic group | 5% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | | Undeclared | 5% | 14% | 11% | 19% | 7% | 20% | 25% | 16% | 15% | | **Disability** | | | | | | | | | | | Reported disability | 0% | 3% | 3% | 9% | 4% | 5% | 0% | 5% | 5% | | No reported disability | 95% | 93% | 92% | 89% | 93% | 85% | 95% | 89% | 91% | | Undeclared | 5% | 3% | 5% | 2% | 2% | 10% | 5% | 5% | 4% | | **Age** | | | | | | | | | | | 20-29 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6% | 9% | 37% | 25% | 26% | 11% | | 30-39 | 10% | 38% | 24% | 27% | 44% | 22% | 10% | 26% | 27% | | 40-49 | 35% | 21% | 21% | 18% | 29% | 22% | 45% | 5% | 23% | | 50-59 | 45% | 41% | 42% | 41% | 18% | 15% | 20% | 37% | 33% | | 60+ | 10% | 0% | 13% | 8% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 5% | 6% | | **Religion or belief** | | | | | | | | | | | No religion | 0% | 3% | 21% | 9% | 22% | 7% | 20% | 11% | 12% | | Christian | 15% | 17% | 34% | 27% | 2% | 22% | 10% | 11% | 20% | | Hindu | 0% | 0% | 3% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 1% | | Jewish | 5% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | | Muslim | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 1% | | Sikh | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 1% | | Other | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 1% | | Undeclared | 80% | 76% | 42% | 59% | 76% | 61% | 70% | 74% | 64% | | **Sexual orientation** | | | | | | | | | | | Heterosexual | 25% | 21% | 13% | 14% | 13% | 27% | 25% | 16% | 18% | | Gay or lesbian | 0% | 3% | 3% | 1% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | | Other | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 0% | | Undeclared | 75% | 76% | 84% | 85% | 82% | 73% | 75% | 79% | 80% | | **Marriage and civil partnership** | | | | | | | | | | | Married | 80% | 86% | 61% | 58% | 40% | 34% | 30% | 32% | 53% | | Single | 10% | 3% | 26% | 26% | 38% | 54% | 40% | 47% | 31% | | Divorced | 5% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 2% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 2% | | Widowed | 0% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 1% | | Civil Partnership | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | | Partner | 0% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 0% | 5% | 5% | 3% | | Undeclared | 5% | 3% | 11% | 7% | 13% | 12% | 10% | 16% | 9% | | Separated | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 1% |
Senior Civil Servant - this represents the most senior level of the organisation and grade G is at the least senior level of the organisation. Annex 2
% distribution of ORR’s workforce by gender, working pattern and grade (as at 31 December 2015)
| Employment type | SCS | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | Overall | |--------------------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---------| | Male | | | | | | | | | | | Full-time | 94% | 100%| 87% | 83% | 97% | 95% | 100%| 100%| 91% | | Alternative working pattern | 0% | 0% | 10% | 3% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 3% | | Part-time | 6% | 0% | 3% | 13% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6% | | Female | | | | | | | | | | | Full-time | 25% | 60% | 71% | 79% | 75% | 77% | 64% | 100%| 74% | | Alternative working pattern | 0% | 0% | 14% | 0% | 6% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 4% | | Part-time | 75% | 40% | 14% | 21% | 19% | 14% | 36% | 0% | 22% |
Senior Civil Servant - this represents the most senior level of the organisation and grade G is at the least senior level of the organisation. Annex 3
% difference of female FTE pay compared to male FTE pay, by grade (as at 31 December 2015)
| Grade | Male | Female | % difference of females compared | |-------|--------|---------|---------------------------------| | SCS | £109,587 | £109,536 | 0.0% | | A | £73,036 | £66,846 | -8.5% | | B | £54,072 | £62,647 | -1.4% | | C | £58,247 | £52,888 | -9.2% | | D | £43,891 | £42,306 | -3.6% | | E | £31,857 | £31,857 | 0.0% | | F | £28,171 | £29,394 | 4.3% | | G | £23,620 | £22,360 | -5.3% |
| Grade | Male | Female | % difference of females compared | |-------|--------|---------|---------------------------------| | SCS | £109,587 | £109,536 | 0.0% | | A | £71,696 | £69,338 | -3.3% | | B | £63,557 | £62,648 | -1.4% | | C | £57,065 | £53,693 | -5.9% | | D | £42,904 | £42,840 | -0.1% | | E | £32,918 | £32,652 | -0.8% | | F | £28,376 | £29,885 | 5.3% | | G | £23,381 | £23,105 | 0.0% | Annex 4
These tables show the protected characteristics for applicants (or those who started the application process) for ORR roles, advertised externally between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015.
| Gender | Total | |-----------------|-------| | Female | 472 | | Male | 705 | | Prefer not to say | 18 | | Not completed | 655 |
| Disability | Total | |-----------------|-------| | No | 1116 | | Yes | 49 | | Prefer not to say | 30 | | Not completed | 655 |
| Ethnicity | Total | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | Asian/Asian British - Any other Asian background | 22 | | Asian/Asian British - Bangladeshi | 54 | | Asian/Asian British - Chinese | 17 | | Asian/Asian British - Indian | 106 | | Asian/Asian British - Pakistani | 52 | | Black African/ Caribbean/ Black British - African | 145 | | Black African/ Caribbean/ Black British - Any other | 18 | | Black African/ Caribbean/ Black British/ African background | | | Black African/ Caribbean/ Black British - Any other | 39 | | Mixed/multiple ethnic groups - Any other mixed background | 9 | | Mixed/multiple ethnic groups - White and Asian | 8 | | Mixed/multiple ethnic groups - White and Black African | 6 | | Mixed/multiple ethnic groups - White and Black Caribbean | 7 | | Other ethnic group - Any other ethnic group | 16 | | Other ethnic group - Arab | 5 | | White - English | 472 | | White - Gypsy or Irish Traveller | 2 | | White - Irish | 15 | | White - Northern Irish | 5 | | White - Other White background | 88 | | White - Scottish | 25 | | White - Welsh | 21 | | Prefer not to say | 63 | | Not completed | 655 |
### Sexual Orientation
| Sexual Orientation | Total | |----------------------------|-------| | Bisexual | 19 | | Gay man | 33 | | Gay woman/lesbian | 7 | | Heterosexual/straight | 1036 | | Other | 1 | | Prefer not to say | 99 | | Not completed | 655 |
### Age
| Age | Total | |---------|-------| | 16-24 | 177 | | 25-29 | 220 | | 30-34 | 192 | | 35-39 | 131 | | 40-44 | 123 | | 45-49 | 133 | | 50-54 | 98 | | 55-59 | 45 | | 60-64 | 20 | | 65+ | 2 | | Prefer not to say | 51 | | Not completed | 658 |
### Religion
| Religion | Total | |---------------------------|-------| | Any other religion | 12 | | Buddhist | 13 | | Christian | 517 | | Hindu | 66 | | Jewish | 6 | | Muslim | 128 | | Sikh | 26 | | No religion | 329 | | Prefer not to say | 98 | | Not completed | 655 | Annex 5 An analysis of equality data from ORR’s Civil Service People Survey (Autumn 2015), 88% of staff responded to the survey.
| Inclusion and fair treatment | % Positive score | % Neutral score | % Negative score | |-----------------------------|------------------|-----------------|------------------| | I am treated fairly at work | 86 | 9 | 5 | | I am treated with respect by the people I work with | 92 | 7 | 1 | | I think that ORR respects individual differences (e.g. cultures, working styles, backgrounds, ideas etc.) | 79 | 16 | 5 |
| Discrimination, harassment and bullying | Yes (%) | No (%) | Prefer not to say (%) | |----------------------------------------|---------|--------|-----------------------| | During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced discrimination at work | 7 | 87 | 6 | | During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work? | 6 | 89 | 5 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4407-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 15388,
"total-output-tokens": 5645,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1465,
1
],
[
1465,
3963,
2
],
[
3963,
4043,
3
],
[
4043,
8219,
4
],
[
8219,
9345,
5
],
[
9345,
10757,
6
],
[
10757,
13511,
7
],
[
13511,
14686,
8
],
[
14686,
15714,
9
]
]
} |
1c53d884cf8fac63d241abfc1a9d6241d6c15cb6 | Minimum profit charge (FA12/84) £10
ILAGAB non-taxable distributions (FA12/84) £15
E+F profits 25
ILAGAB trade profit (after losses b/f) £50
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3511-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1072,
"total-output-tokens": 96,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
143,
1
]
]
} |
8eef784e06f6e4d80dfcee292402bb02bdb2558d | ### A1 - BLAGAB I minus E computation
| Step 1 – BLAGAB income | Property business (LAM3090) | 47,701 | |------------------------|-----------------------------|--------| | | Loan relationship and derivative income (LAM03070) | 527,136 | | Step 2 – BLAGAB chargeable gains less losses | Net chargeable gains (LAM03200) | (G) 230,333 | | Step 3 – Sundry receipts and minimum profits charge | Sundry receipts (LAM03090) | 455 | | | Minimum profits charge (A2) (LAM03500) | 9,500 | | Step 4 – Sum of steps 1 – 3, deduct any BLAGAB non-trading deficit. Result is ‘I’ | Sum of steps 1 – 3 | 821,247 | | | Non-trading deficit (LAM03070) | (2,501) | | | ‘I’ | 818,746 | | Step 5 – Adjusted BLAGAB management expenses ‘E’ | Less BLAGAB management expenses (LAM04000) | (A3) (288,650) | | Step 6 – subtract ‘E’ from ‘I’ | I minus E profit / (excess BLAGAB expenses) | (A8) 536,218 | | | Less non-BLAGAB allowable losses under s95 FA 2012 (LAM03400) | (6,122) | | | | 530,096 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3512-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3643,
"total-output-tokens": 482,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1106,
1
],
[
1106,
1106,
2
]
]
} |
17f22f7add372daa8031e2c72d1f8cadf9026813 | ### A2 - Minimum profits charge (LAM07230)
| Adjusted I- E profit / excess BLAGAB expenses | Total | |-----------------------------------------------|-------| | I minus E profit | 530,096 | | Ignore minimum profits charge | (9,500) | | Add BLAGAB non-taxable distributions | 118,577 | | | 639,173 |
| Adjusted BLAGAB trade profit | 650,273 | | Less BLAGAB trade loss b/f | (1,600) | | | 648,673 |
| Minimum profits charge | (A1) 9,500 |
1 The minimum profits charge is carried forward to the next accounting period as an excess management expense.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3513-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2089,
"total-output-tokens": 235,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
754,
1
]
]
} |
6c36fb4fd0517a62cee5be9802f2bd42193b1327 | ### A3 - BLAGAB management expenses (LAM04000)
| Step 1 – Company’s ordinary BLAGAB management expenses of the AP | Total | |---------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | Ordinary BLAGAB management expenses | 109,620 |
| Step 2 | | |---------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | less six-sevenths of the acquisition expenses of the period | (42,500) |
| Step 3 – deemed BLAGAB management expenses – FA2012/S78(3) | | |-----------------------------------------------------------|-------| | Spreading of acquisition expenses | 169,150 | | Capital allowances on management assets | 22,500 | | Transitional relief for old annuity contracts | 8,350 |
| Step 4 – total of steps 1-3, adjust for expenses reversed in the AP and BLAGAB trade loss utilised | | |---------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | Sum of steps 1 to 3 | 267,120 | | Deduct relief previously given for expenses repaid in the AP | (3,600) | | Adjust for BLAGAB trade loss relieved | 0 |
| Step 5 – add management expenses brought forward to the sum of step 4 | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | Management expenses brought forward | 12,500 | | Minimum profits charge of previous AP | 12,630 |
| Adjusted BLAGAB management expenses (A1) | 288,650 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3514-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2415,
"total-output-tokens": 409,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1569,
1
]
]
} |
dbc8b9155973d985d8b1ef7ea6b29f080b6f4ecf | ### A4 - BLAGAB trade profit (LAM07200)
| Accounting profit before tax | Profit before tax | Total | |------------------------------|-------------------|-------| | Adjustments to accounting profit | Disallowed expenses | 9,430 | LAM07150 | | | Capital allowances – management assets | (27,350) | LAM14050 | | | Pre 2013 Deferred Acquisition Costs (DAC) | 11,620 | LAM14050 | | | Pre 2013 Deferred income | (1,350) | LAM14030 | | | Transitional receipt/(expense) | (19,288) | LAM07210 | | | Policyholder tax adjustment (A7) | nil | (26,938) |
| BLAGAB trade profit for tax | BLAGAB trade profit | 650,273 | |----------------------------|---------------------|--------| | Less BLAGAB trade loss brought forward | BLAGAB trade loss brought forward | (1,600) | LAM07310 | | | (A2) (A7) | 648,673 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3515-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2090,
"total-output-tokens": 327,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
795,
1
]
]
} |
faa06075923a4e1266e4cc846a587be0f80db5ae | ### A5 - Non-BLAGAB trade profit (LAM07000)
| Accounting profit/loss before tax | Total | |-----------------------------------|-------| | Loss before tax | (11,255) |
| Adjustments to accounting profit | | |----------------------------------|-------| | Disallowed expenses | 3,650 | | Capital allowances – management assets | (2,460) | | Pre 2013 Deferred Acquisition Costs (DAC) | 10,340 | | Pre 2013 Deferred income | | | Transitional receipt/(expense) | (7,630) | | | 4,350 | | | 8,250 |
| Non-BLAGAB loss for tax | | |-------------------------|-------| | Non-BLAGAB trade loss | (5,605) | | Less offset against other profits | (A8) | | | (5,605) |
| Non-BLAGAB trade losses | | |-------------------------|-------| | Current period loss carried forward | Nil | | Non-BLAGAB trade loss brought forward | (5,840) |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3516-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2241,
"total-output-tokens": 322,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
977,
1
]
]
} |
fffb3fd20243d0e0265b6a7649f2992532b2b3fd | **A6 - Long-term business fixed capital and other non-trade (LAM11000)**
| Description | Total | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| | Loan relationships and derivative income | 21,540 | | Non-trading gain on intangible assets | 7,660 | | Chargeable gains | 655 | | Capital losses not arising from BLAGAB | (655) | | Management expenses | (5,880)| | Non-trading loan relationship deficit brought forward CTA209/S457(1) | (1,250)| | Profit / (loss) | (A8) | | **Total** | **22,070** |
*LTBFC contains structural assets and those grandfathered from pre 1 January 2013 shareholders’ funds. Tax rules applicable to investment companies apply.*
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3517-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1834,
"total-output-tokens": 252,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1123,
1
]
]
} |
acfe621bc5e68a9c8fa48f6e420369cda45bd77b | ### A7 - Policyholders’ share of I minus E profit (LAM060000)
| Description | Total | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------| | I minus E profit | (A1) 530,096 | | Reduced by adjusted BLAGAB trade profit (below) | (530,096) | | Policyholders’ share | (A8) nil | | BLAGAB trade profit reduced by brought forward losses (A4) | 648,673 | | Reduced by shareholders share of BLAGAB non-taxable distributions | (118,577) | | Adjusted BLAGAB trade profit | 530,096 | | BLAGAB non-taxable distributions (A2) | 118,577 | | Shareholders’ share of BLAGAB non-taxable distributions (LAM06040) | 118,577 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3518-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2069,
"total-output-tokens": 267,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
978,
1
]
]
} |
37b37147c0bd6ea2801a8a4695e069576864dd74 | ### A8 - Tax calculation
| Description | BLAGAB I minus E | Long-term business fixed capital | Total per return | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|----------------------------------|------------------| | Non-trade loan relationship income | (A1) 527,136 | (A6) 21,540 | 548,676 | | Property business | (A1) 47,701 | | 47,701 | | Sundry and minimum profits | (A1) 9,955 | | 9,955 | | Profits before gains | (A1) 584,792 | (A6) 21,540 | 606,332 | | Net chargeable gains | (G) 236,455 | 0 | 236,455 | | Non-trading gain on intangible fixed assets | | (A6) 7,660 | 7,660 | | Non trading deficit on loan relationship | (A1) (2,501) | | (2,501) | | Management expenses | (A3) (288,650) | (A6) (5,880) | (294,530) | | Non-trading loan relationship deficits brought forward CTA09/S457(1) | | (A6) (1,250) | (1,250) | | Net profits before reliefs | (A1) 530,096 | (A6) 22,070 | 552,166 | | Shareholders’ profits before reliefs | (A5) 530,096 | 22,070 | 552,166 | | Less trading losses CTA10/S37 (non-BLAGAB) | (5,605) | | (5,605) | | Group relief | (120,650) | | (120,650) | | Shareholders’ share of profits | 403,841 | 22,070 | (A9) | 425,911 | | Policyholders’ share of profits | nil | (A9) | nil | | Total taxable profits | **403,841** | **22,070** | **425,911** |
1 This example does not reflect the operation of the loss streaming rules introduced in F (No 2)A 2017
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3519-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4513,
"total-output-tokens": 737,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2308,
1
],
[
2308,
2604,
2
]
]
} |
fd1aea4c6c2012c32a6a0a4a40a2f6c8a45599dd | ## A9 - Tax liability
| Corporation tax | Tax | Profit | Rate | |-----------------|-----|--------|------| | On policyholders’ share of profits | | | | | 2016 | | | 20.00% | | 2017 | | | 20.00% | | Tax on policyholders’ profit | nil | (A8) nil | | | On shareholders’ profits | | | | | 2016 | 21,016.20 | 105,081 | 20.00% | | 2017 | 60,957.70 | 320,830 | 19.00% | | Tax on shareholders’ profits | 82,063.90 | (A8) 425,911 | | | Tax before DTR | 82,063.90 | | | | DTR relief | (B) (1,112) | | | | Income Tax set off | (3,556.10) | | | | Corporation tax liability | **77,395.80** | | |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3520-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2011,
"total-output-tokens": 323,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
582,
1
]
]
} |
6da08005134079ebf1d72f391e141007bc741698 | ## B1 – Double tax relief – summary (LAM09000)
| Category | Relevant income | Foreign tax | Creditable tax before limitations | Excess foreign tax | Actual creditable tax | Tax deductible | |----------------|-----------------|-------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------|-----------------------|----------------| | BLAGAB (B2) | 81,420 | 1,112 | 1,112 | 0 | (A9) 1,112 | 0 | | Non-BLAGAB (B3)| 302,897 | 7,602 | 6,700 | 902 | (A9) 0 | 7,602 | | Total | 384,317 | 8,714 | 7,812 | 0 | 1,112 | (A5) 7,602 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3521-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1705,
"total-output-tokens": 270,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
789,
1
]
]
} |
1f4e143d38b4687889984bd1f728e85edff16789 | ### B2 – Foreign Income – BLAGAB
| Source | Relevant income | Foreign tax | Rate % | Foreign tax to 20.25% | Excess foreign tax | Appropriate fraction of relevant expenses (TRE x RI/TI) | Income above expenses TIOPA 2010 s100 | Relevant fraction of profits | Income restricted to profits TIOPA 2010 s101 | Maximum creditable tax | Actual creditable tax | |-------------------|-----------------|-------------|--------|-----------------------|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------| | Overseas shares | 19,230 | 260 | 1.38 | 260 | 0 | 17,250 | 1,980 | 15,631 | 1,980 | 400 | 260 | | Overseas debentures | 62,190 | 852 | 1.37 | 852 | 0 | 55,772 | 6,418 | 50,551 | 6,418 | 1,296 | 852 | | Total | 81,420 | | | | | | | | | | 1,112 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3522-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2366,
"total-output-tokens": 384,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1655,
1
]
]
} |
25f881945625f6330a7e7b39e6ad60085fbd22b5 | ### B3 - Foreign Income – non BLAGAB
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Source | Relevant income | Foreign tax | Rate | Foreign tax to 20.25% | Excess foreign tax | Appropriate fraction of relevant expenses (TRE x RI/TI) | Income above expenses TIOPA 2010 s100 | Relevant fraction of profits | Income restricted to profits TIOPA 2010 s101 | Maximum creditable tax | Actual creditable tax | | Overseas shares | 100 | 15 | 15% | 15 | 0 | 67.37 | 32.63 | (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Overseas preference shares | 18,997 | 4,749 | 25% | 3,847 | 902 | 12,798 | 6,199 | (352) | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Overseas debentures | 283,800 | 2,838 | 1% | 2,838 | 0 | 191,196 | 92,604 | (5251) | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Total | 302,897 | | | | | | | | | | 0 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3523-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2275,
"total-output-tokens": 407,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
783,
1
]
]
} |
44c71aa04c01893f34c6329a0909850c3266c61c | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Lambeth
MAYOR OF LONDON COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
## CONTENTS
| Section | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | CONTENTS | 1 | | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 3 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 12 | | AIR QUALITY | 15 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 18 | | FUEL POVERTY | 21 | | OVERHEATING | 24 | | REFERENCES | 28 | | FURTHER READING | 31 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 32 | | DATA APPENDIX | 35 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 42 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American. In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: ‘Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward’; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Lambeth Picture
- 17 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage; 14 per cent below the London average.
- Within Lambeth, 50 per cent of households in 7 out of 21 wards have deficient access to nature.
- 30 per cent of Lambeth’s population participate 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 62 per cent participate once a week which is above the London average.
- Lambeth’s adult obesity prevalence is 21 per cent, which is equal to than the London rate, 21 per cent, but lower than the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in Lambeth Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions:
Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
• All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹² • The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces.¹³ • Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | Additional (for example) | • The Marmot review (2010) www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013): www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens. Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing. There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts. Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
What is its impact on health? A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week. Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers. Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable.
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk. This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Lambeth Picture
- On average 614,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Lambeth.(^{23})
- High numbers of people participate in active travel, with the percentage of people cycling to work greater than the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 11 per cent below the Greater London average.(^{24})
- There was an average of 1234 casualties and 8 fatalities per year on Lambeth’s roads between 2005 and 2009: one of the highest in London.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A3 with an average daily flow of 70,000 motor vehicles.(^{25})
- The Borough has one cycle super highway proposed in the Mayor’s ‘Vision for Cycling’.(^{26})
Figure 2 Journeys in the Lambeth by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users.
- Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes. • Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. See also section on air quality.
**Case Study: Cycling across Hackney**
Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.
• Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads.
• Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created.
• Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres.
• A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.
*Contact: Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council*
*[email protected]*
**Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney**
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and | | | deliberate injuries in under 18s | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | |---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | | • What are the health benefits of active travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
The Lambeth Picture The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
Potential actions: • Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk. • Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding. • Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff. • Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans. • Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities.
See also section on green spaces and healthy food
Case studies: Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan • Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan. • The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding. • It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens. • It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding. • The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007 • In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding. • Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result. • The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Lambeth Picture
- On some of Lambeth’s main arterial roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Lambeth is the 9th most affected area by poor air quality in London. 33
- In 2011 the GLA identified nine Air Quality Focus Areas within Lambeth.
Figure 3 NO₂ emissions on Lambeth Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation34.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport.
**Case studies:**
**Reducing exposure – City Air**
‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting.
Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
*Contact: Ruth Calderwood*
[email protected]
**Mitigating impact - Croydon Air Text**
In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website.
**Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework**
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.londonair.org.uk | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | • www.comeap.org.uk | | | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence? Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
The Lambeth Picture
- Lambeth’s adult obesity rate is 21 per cent. This is equal to the London average (21 per cent), but lower than the national average (24 per cent).
- Lambeth’s obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 24 per cent. This is higher than the national and London rates (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 13 out of 35 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map), 36–43 per cent of the total population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 30 per cent of Lambeth’s population participate five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 62 per cent participate once a week. Figure 4 Healthy food consumption in Lambeth
Model based consumption of fruit and vegetables in Lambeth by ward, 2006-8 LA population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Potential actions
• Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html).
• Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools.
• Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas.
• Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security. • Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan.
See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk.
**Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest - Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact**
• Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes.
• A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
**Achievements:**
• Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission.
• HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
*Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration*\
[email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?Id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type. Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty). Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health. The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care). The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Lambeth Picture
- The older population of Lambeth is projected to rise from 23,700 (2012) to 31,200 (2025) and 45,600 (2040).(^{47})
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. There are some disparities between wards with Clapham Common achieving 198th lowest risk score of all London wards but Coldharbour being 604(^{th}) out of 625 wards and at significantly greater risk.
- There are no Lambeth wards are at low risk of fuel poverty, but six are at high risk according to the fuel poverty risk indicator. On the positive side, three wards show significant improvement between 2006-2010.(^{48})
Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Lambeth
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- **Housing**
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- **Health**
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity benefit claimant rate
- **Older people**
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- **Worklessness**
- Unemployment
- **Poverty**
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation(^5). The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team(^5) can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements(^5)).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and bloodstream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Lambeth Picture The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Lambeth
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Figure 7 Temperature across the capital London Average Screen Temperatures in degrees Celsius for the period 26 May-19 July 2006 Equal count mapping method: each interval; contains 7% of the total number of grid points
Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council*
*[email protected]*
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk) | | **Additional (for example)** | • GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report | | | • Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org)) | | | • Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | REFERENCES
1 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm
2 Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660.
3 MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx
4 Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward;
5 Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx
6 Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244
7 Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from “Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives”; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8
8 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atl.html
9 Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward
10 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atl.html
11 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2006-2008) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atl.html
12 GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken from www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx;
13 Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/
14 Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1
15 Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation
16 London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011, taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk
17 Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network.
18 Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport.
19 Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts.
20 Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk 21 Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December. Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk 22 Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk 23 Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk 24 Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk 25 Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000-2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport 26 The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk 27 Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk 28 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk 29 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 30 Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 31 Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 32 Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk 33 www.phoutcomes.info 34 https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works 35 Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity. Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2013, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/. 36 Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/london-boroughs/takeaways-toolkit; 37 Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. 38 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 39 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 40 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 41 Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 42 New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk 43 Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk 44 Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 45 Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion 46 Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf 47 Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/dataset/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough 48 Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/dataset/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards 49 Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk 50 The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 51 UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted 52 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 53 Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk 54 Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939 55 Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345 56 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 57 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf
## PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013–2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Secondary | |---------|-----------| | Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator | Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator |
| AQ – Air Quality | AT – Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH – Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF – Healthy Food | | |
### Domain 1
Improving the wider determinants of health
| Indicator | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |-----------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 1.1 Children in poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.2 School readiness | | | | | | | | | 1.3 Pupil absence | | | | | | | | | 1.4 First time entrants to the youth justice system | | | | | | | | | 1.5 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training | | | | | | | | | 1.6 Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation | | | | | | | | | 1.7 People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness | | | | | | | | | 1.8 Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services | | | | | | | | | 1.9 Sickness absence rate | | | | | | | | | 1.10 Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads | | | | | | | | | 1.11 Domestic abuse | | | | | | | | | 1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence) | | | | | | | | | 1.13 Re-offending levels | | | | | | | | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | | | | | | | | | 1.15 Statutory homelessness | | | | | | | | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | | | | | | | | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.18 Social isolation | | | | | | | | | 1.19 Older people’s perception of community safety | | | | | | | | Primary Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator Secondary Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator
| AQ – Air Quality | AT – Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH – Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF – Healthy Food | | |
| Domain 2 Health Improvement | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |-----------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 2.1 Low birth weight of term babies | | | | | | | | | 2.2 Breastfeeding | | | | | | | | | 2.3 Smoking status at time of delivery | | | | | | | | | 2.4 Under 18 conceptions | | | | | | | | | 2.5 Child development at 2-21/2 years | | | | | | | | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | | | | | | | | 2.8 Emotional well-being of looked after children | | | | | | | | | 2.9 Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.10 Self-harm | | | | | | | | | 2.11 Diet | | | | | | | | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | | | | | | | | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | | | | | | | 2.14 Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | | | | | | | | 2.15 Successful completion of drug treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.16 People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | | | | | | | | | 2.18 Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | | | | | | | | 2.19 Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | | | | | | | | 2.20 Cancer screening coverage | | | | | | | | | 2.21 Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | | | | | | | | 2.22 Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | | | | | | | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | | | | | | | | | 2.24 Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | | | | | | | | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 4.1 Infant mortality | | | | | | | | | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | | Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|----|--------|---------| | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1| 23.2 | | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8| 20.5 | | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4| 18.0 | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5| 13.9 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1| 16.7 | | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2| 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3| 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5| 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3| 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4| 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4| 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5| 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7| 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7| 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3| 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9| 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
NOO (2005) Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL) National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011) Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
### Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| LA | Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | |---------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------------------------------------|------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | Once a week 45.1 | 5 times per week 15.4 | LA 22 | 8 | (25.40 - 31.20) | | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 | 17.6 | 41 | 16 | (43.90 - 56-10) | | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 | 20 | 28 | 10 | (31.20 - 37.20) | | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 | 16.3 | 34 | 13 | (38.20 - 45.30) | | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 | 21.1 | 39 | 15 | (27.20 - 45.30) | | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 | 26 | 28 | 10 | (44.60 - 55.10) | | | City of London | 19.7 | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | | | | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 24 | 10 | (48.60 - 52.10) | | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 | 19.8 | 44 | 17 | (35.50 - 48.8) | | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 39 | 15 | (41.10 - 55.40) | | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 | 18.6 | 36 | 14 | (33.90 - 41.90) | | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 | 19.5 | 32 | 12 | (32.70 - 42.20) | | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 | 24 | 27 | 10 | (34.90 - 41.60) | | | Hammersmith & Fulham| 15.6 | 66.4 | 27.6 | 25 | 10 | (41.70 - 48.20) | | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 | 17.7 | 36 | 14 | (39.20 - 48.00) | | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 | 17.1 | 31 | 12 | (39.70 - 47.60) | | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 30 | 12 | (30.80 - 37.30) | | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 | 14.1 | 32 | 12 | (34.20 - 45.40) | | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 | 17.8 | 28 | 10 | (36.90 - 47.20) | | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 | 22.4 | 23 | 7 | (27.60 - 40.80) | | | Borough | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |-------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | 22.53 | | | | | | England | 24.2 | 19.2 | | | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Area | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |-----------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------| | | 2012 | 2025 | 2040 | 2011 | 2011 | | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | 75.8 | 28357.6 | 35872.7 | 47363.6 | 22454.5 | 22.9 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team—Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo—Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team—GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons—MA/MSc postgraduate students—University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst—Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly—Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母語版本的此文件， 請致電以下號碼或與下列地址聯絡
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος eγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυ- δρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinebilirsiniz, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresle başvurunuz.
Punjabi ਮੇ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਇਸ ਦਸਤਵਚਨ ਦੀ ਕਿਸੀ ਜਾਂ ਕਿਸੀ ਅਧਾਰੀ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਲੱਖ ਹੈ, ਜਾ ਰੋਕਣ ਲਈ ਲੇਖ ਦੇ ਲੇਖ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਲੇਖ ਕਲੱਖ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਲੇਖ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਲੇਖ
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میں جاہتی ہیں، تو براہ کرم نئی دلی گی نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیکھیں گی نمبر پر رابطہ کریں
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أدناء
Gujarati ધી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નક્કી તમારી ભાષામાં જીન્ટુલી લોકો તો, કૂટા કરી આપણે નુંબર ઉપર કોન કરી અધયા નીચેના સરનામે સંપર્ક કરીએ.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1315-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 45,
"total-input-tokens": 115132,
"total-output-tokens": 27636,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
111,
1
],
[
111,
432,
2
],
[
432,
1395,
3
],
[
1395,
3950,
4
],
[
3950,
6287,
5
],
[
6287,
7074,
6
],
[
7074,
9497,
7
],
[
9497,
10441,
8
],
[
10441,
11898,
9
],
[
11898,
14622,
10
],
[
14622,
15907,
11
],
[
15907,
18041,
12
],
[
18041,
18396,
13
],
[
18396,
21143,
14
],
[
21143,
23413,
15
],
[
23413,
24263,
16
],
[
24263,
26785,
17
],
[
26785,
27896,
18
],
[
27896,
30345,
19
],
[
30345,
32805,
20
],
[
32805,
33863,
21
],
[
33863,
35794,
22
],
[
35794,
38372,
23
],
[
38372,
39834,
24
],
[
39834,
43072,
25
],
[
43072,
46090,
26
],
[
46090,
46661,
27
],
[
46661,
48177,
28
],
[
48177,
50686,
29
],
[
50686,
54909,
30
],
[
54909,
59593,
31
],
[
59593,
60861,
32
],
[
60861,
63029,
33
],
[
63029,
65068,
34
],
[
65068,
67631,
35
],
[
67631,
69674,
36
],
[
69674,
72802,
37
],
[
72802,
75723,
38
],
[
75723,
83117,
39
],
[
83117,
89217,
40
],
[
89217,
95218,
41
],
[
95218,
97266,
42
],
[
97266,
100484,
43
],
[
100484,
103370,
44
],
[
103370,
105110,
45
]
]
} |
4863a996c8392ffe49c1cadfea327e996ab0b944 | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Lewisham
MAYOR OF LONDON COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
## CONTENTS
| Section | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | CONTENTS | 1 | | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 3 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 12 | | AIR QUALITY | 15 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 18 | | FUEL POVERTY | 21 | | OVERHEATING | 24 | | REFERENCES | 28 | | FURTHER READING | 31 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 32 | | DATA APPENDIX | 35 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 42 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American.¹ In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: ‘Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward’; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Lewisham Picture
- 23 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage; 8 per cent below the London average.
- Within Lewisham, more than 40 per cent of households in 3 out of 18 wards have deficient access to nature.
- 21 per cent of Lewisham’s population participate 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 56 per cent participate once a week, which equals the London average.
- Lewisham’s adult obesity prevalence is 24 per cent, which is higher than the London rate, 21 per cent, and equal to the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in Lewisham
Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions:
Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
• All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹² • The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces.¹³ • Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU\
www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | Additional (for example) | • The Marmot review (2010)\
www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013):\
www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens\\textsuperscript{16}. Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing\\textsuperscript{17}. There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts\\textsuperscript{18}. Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
What is its impact on health?
A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week\\textsuperscript{19}. Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers\\textsuperscript{20}. Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable\\textsuperscript{21}.
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk\\textsuperscript{22}. This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Lewisham Picture
- On average 476,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Lewisham.(^{23})
- Average numbers of people participate in active travel, with the percentage of people cycling to work level with the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 2 per cent below the Greater London average.(^{24})
- There was an average of 968 casualties and 5 fatalities per year on Lewisham’s roads between 2005 and 2009: one of the highest in London.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A205 with an average daily flow of 53,000 motor vehicles.(^{25})
- The Borough currently has one cycle super highway and another is proposed in the Mayor’s ‘Vision for Cycling’.(^{26})
Figure 2 Journeys in the Lewisham by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users. • Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes. • Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. See also section on air quality.
**Case Study: Cycling across Hackney**
Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.
• Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads. • Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created. • Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres. • A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.
*Contact: Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council, [email protected]*
**Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney**
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and | | | deliberate injuries in under 18s | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | |---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | | • What are the health benefits of active travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery, fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
**The Lewisham Picture** The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
**Potential actions:**
- Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk.
- Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding.
- Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff.
- Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans.
- Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities. See also section on green spaces and healthy food
**Case studies:** **Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan**
- Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan.
- The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding.
- It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens.
- It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding.
- The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
**Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007**
- In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding.
- Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result.
- The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Lewisham Picture
- On some of Lewisham’s main arterial roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Lewisham is the 14th most affected area by poor air quality in London. 33
- In 2011 the GLA identified nine Air Quality Focus Areas within Lewisham.
Figure 3 NO₂ emissions on Lewisham Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation34.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport. Case studies: Reducing exposure – City Air ‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting. Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
Contact: Ruth Calderwood [email protected]
Mitigating impact – Croydon Air Text In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website.
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • www.londonair.org.uk | | | • www.comeap.org.uk | | **Additional (for example)** | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence? Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
The Lewisham Picture
- Lewisham’s adult obesity rate is 24 per cent. This is higher than the London average (21 per cent), and equal to the national average (24 per cent).
- Lewisham’s obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 25 per cent. This is higher than the national and London rates (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 14 out of 36 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map), 36–43 per cent of the total population consume five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 21 per cent of Lewisham’s population participate five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and 56 per cent participate once a week. Figure 4 Healthy food consumption in Lewisham Model based consumption of fruit and vegetables in Lewisham by ward, 2006-8 LA population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Potential actions • Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html). • Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools. • Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas. • Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security. • Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan. See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk. Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest - Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact
• Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes.
• A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
Achievements:
• Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission.
• HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type. Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty). Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health. The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care). The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Lewisham Picture
- The older population of Southwark is projected to rise from 26,600 (2012) to 32,100 (2025) and 44,800 (2040).
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. There are no stark disparities between wards but overall the borough is at higher risk of fuel poverty with the ward of Rushey Green scoring 559th of all 625 London wards and presenting risks.
- No Lewisham wards that are at low risk of fuel poverty, but six are at high risk according to the fuel poverty risk indicator. No wards show significant improvement or reduction in their risk score between 2006-2010.
Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Lewisham
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- Housing
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- Health
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity benefit claimant rate
- Older people
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- Worklessness
- Unemployment
- Poverty
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation(^5). The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team(^5) can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements(^5)).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and bloodstream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Lewisham Picture The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Lewisham
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Figure 7 Temperature across the capital London Average Screen Temperatures in degrees Celsius for the period 26 May-19 July 2006 Equal count mapping method: each interval; contains 7% of the total number of grid points
Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council*
*[email protected]*
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk) | | **Additional (for example)** | • GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report | | | • Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org)) | | | • Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | REFERENCES
1 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm 2 Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660. 3 MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx 4 Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward; 5 Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx 6 Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244 7 Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from “Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives”; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8 8 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 9 Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward 10 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 11 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Health Need Assessment Toolkit, Data Period, 2006-2008) http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 12 GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken from www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx; 13 Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/ 14 Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1 15 Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation 16 London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011, taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk 17 Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network. 18 Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport. 19 Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts. 20 Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk 21 Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk 22 Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk 23 Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk 24 Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk 25 Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000–2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport 26 The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk 27 Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk 28 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk 29 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 30 Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 31 Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 32 Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk 33 www.phoutcomes.info 34 https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works 35 Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity. Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2013, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/. 36 Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/london-boroughs/takeaways-toolkit; 37 Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. 38 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 39 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 40 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 41 Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 42 New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk 43 Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk 44 Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 45 Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion 46 Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf 47 Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough 48 Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards 49 Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk 50 The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 51 UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted 52 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 53 Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk 54 Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939 55 Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345 56 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 57 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013-2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Secondary | |---------|-----------| | Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator | Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator |
| AQ – Air Quality | AT - Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH - Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF - Healthy Food | | |
| Domain 1 | Improving the wider determinants of health | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 1.1 Children in poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.2 School readiness | | | | | | | | | 1.3 Pupil absence | | | | | | | | | 1.4 First time entrants to the youth justice system | | | | | | | | | 1.5 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training | | | | | | | | | 1.6 Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation | | | | | | | | | 1.7 People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness | | | | | | | | | 1.8 Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services | | | | | | | | | 1.9 Sickness absence rate | | | | | | | | | 1.10 Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads | | | | | | | | | 1.11 Domestic abuse | | | | | | | | | 1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence) | | | | | | | | | 1.13 Re-offending levels | | | | | | | | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | | | | | | | | | 1.15 Statutory homelessness | | | | | | | | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | | | | | | | | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.18 Social isolation | | | | | | | | | 1.19 Older people’s perception of community safety | | | | | | | | | Domain 2 | Health Improvement | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|--------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 2.1 | Low birth weight of term babies | | | | | | | | | 2.2 | Breastfeeding | | | | | | | | | 2.3 | Smoking status at time of delivery | | | | | | | | | 2.4 | Under 18 conceptions | | | | | | | | | 2.5 | Child development at 2-21/2 years | | | | | | | | | 2.6 | Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.7 | Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | | | | | | | | 2.8 | Emotional well-being of looked after children | | | | | | | | | 2.9 | Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.10 | Self-harm | | | | | | | | | 2.11 | Diet | | | | | | | | | 2.12 | Excess weight in adults | | | | | | | | | 2.13 | Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | | | | | | | 2.14 | Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | | | | | | | | 2.15 | Successful completion of drug treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.16 | People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.17 | Recorded diabetes | | | | | | | | | 2.18 | Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | | | | | | | | 2.19 | Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | | | | | | | | 2.20 | Cancer screening coverage | | | | | | | | | 2.21 | Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | | | | | | | | 2.22 | Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | | | | | | | | 2.23 | Self-reported well-being | | | | | | | | | 2.24 | Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | | | | | | | | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 4.1 Infant mortality | | | | | | | | | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | |
## DATA APPENDIX
### Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|----|--------|---------| | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1| 23.2 | | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8| 20.5 | | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4| 18.0 | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5| 13.9 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1| 16.7 | | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2| 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3| 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5| 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3| 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4| 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4| 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5| 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7| 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7| 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3| 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9| 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
NOO (2005) Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL) National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011) Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
## Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| LA | Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | |---------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------------------------------------|------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | Once a week 45.1 | 5 times per week 15.4 | 22 | 8 | (25.40 - 31.20) | | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 | 17.6 | 41 | 16 | (43.90 - 56-10) | | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 | 20 | 28 | 10 | (31.20 - 37.20) | | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 | 16.3 | 34 | 13 | (38.20 - 45.30) | | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 | 21.1 | 39 | 15 | (27.20 - 45.30) | | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 | 26 | 28 | 10 | (44.60 - 55.10) | | | City of London | 19.7 | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | | | | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 24 | 10 | (48.60 - 52.10) | | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 | 19.8 | 44 | 17 | (35.50 - 48.8) | | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 39 | 15 | (41.10 - 55.40) | | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 | 18.6 | 36 | 14 | (33.90 - 41.90) | | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 | 19.5 | 32 | 12 | (32.70 - 42.20) | | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 | 24 | 27 | 10 | (34.90 - 41.60) | | | Hammersmith & Fulham| 15.6 | 66.4 | 27.6 | 25 | 10 | (41.70 - 48.20) | | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 | 17.7 | 36 | 14 | (39.20 - 48.00) | | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 | 17.1 | 31 | 12 | (39.70 - 47.60) | | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 30 | 12 | (30.80 - 37.30) | | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 | 14.1 | 32 | 12 | (34.20 - 45.40) | | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 | 17.8 | 28 | 10 | (36.90 - 47.20) | | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 | 22.4 | 23 | 7 | (27.60 - 40.80) | | | Borough | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |-------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | | | 22.53 | | | | England | 24.2 | | | 19.2 | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Area | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 2012 | Population Aged 65 2025 | Population Aged 65 2040 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | 75.8 | 28357.6 | 35872.7 | 47363.6 | 22454.5 | 22.9 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team—Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo—Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team—GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons—MA/MSc postgraduate students—University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst—Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly—Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母語版本的此文件，請致電以下號碼或與下列地址聯絡
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος εγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυδρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinmek için, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresle başvurunuz.
Punjabi ਸੀ ਤਮਨੇ ਆਂਦਲਾਵਿਚ ਨਕਸ਼ ਤਮਾਰੀ ਭਾਸਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਿਸੇ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਿਸੇ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਦੇ ਉਪਾਧਿ ਵਿੱਚ.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1316-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 45,
"total-input-tokens": 115391,
"total-output-tokens": 27144,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
112,
1
],
[
112,
433,
2
],
[
433,
1396,
3
],
[
1396,
3951,
4
],
[
3951,
6289,
5
],
[
6289,
7076,
6
],
[
7076,
9507,
7
],
[
9507,
10453,
8
],
[
10453,
11916,
9
],
[
11916,
14781,
10
],
[
14781,
16026,
11
],
[
16026,
18225,
12
],
[
18225,
18580,
13
],
[
18580,
21328,
14
],
[
21328,
23620,
15
],
[
23620,
24379,
16
],
[
24379,
26901,
17
],
[
26901,
28232,
18
],
[
28232,
30597,
19
],
[
30597,
33053,
20
],
[
33053,
34271,
21
],
[
34271,
36025,
22
],
[
36025,
38603,
23
],
[
38603,
40028,
24
],
[
40028,
43266,
25
],
[
43266,
46284,
26
],
[
46284,
46857,
27
],
[
46857,
48373,
28
],
[
48373,
50881,
29
],
[
50881,
55029,
30
],
[
55029,
59716,
31
],
[
59716,
60990,
32
],
[
60990,
63166,
33
],
[
63166,
65231,
34
],
[
65231,
67509,
35
],
[
67509,
69549,
36
],
[
69549,
72585,
37
],
[
72585,
75506,
38
],
[
75506,
83116,
39
],
[
83116,
89286,
40
],
[
89286,
95329,
41
],
[
95329,
97377,
42
],
[
97377,
105162,
43
],
[
105162,
108048,
44
],
[
108048,
109142,
45
]
]
} |
3152e050067b2488222a6a03fa5ca61ce8fe5e34 | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Merton
MAYOR OF LONDON COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
# CONTENTS
| CONTENTS | Page | |--------------------------------|------| | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 2 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 12 | | AIR QUALITY | 15 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 18 | | FUEL POVERTY | 21 | | OVERHEATING | 24 | | REFERENCES | 28 | | FURTHER READING | 31 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 32 | | DATA APPENDIX | 35 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 42 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American.¹ In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: ‘Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward’; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Merton Picture
- 35 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage; 4 per cent above the London average.
- Within Merton, more than 40 per cent of households in 3 out of 20 wards have deficient access to nature.
- 18 per cent of Merton’s population participate 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and 55 per cent participate once a week which equals the London average.
- Merton’s adult obesity prevalence is 19 per cent, which is lower than the London rate, 21 per cent, and the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in Merton Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions: Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
• All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹² • The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces.¹³ • Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU\
www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | Additional (for example) | • The Marmot review (2010)\
www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013):\
www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens\\textsuperscript{16}. Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing\\textsuperscript{17}. There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts\\textsuperscript{18}. Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
What is its impact on health?
A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week\\textsuperscript{19}. Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers\\textsuperscript{20}. Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable\\textsuperscript{21}.
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk\\textsuperscript{22}. This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Merton Picture
- On average 431,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Merton.(^{23})
- Average numbers of people participate in active travel, with the percentage of people cycling to work level with the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 11 per cent above the Greater London average.(^{24})
- There was an average of 522 casualties and 3 fatalities per year on Merton’s roads between 2005 and 2009: one of the lowest in London.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A3 with an average daily flow of 110,000 motor vehicles.(^{25})
- The Borough currently has one cycle super highway.(^{26})
Figure 2 Journeys in the Merton by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users.
- Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes.
- Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. See also section on air quality.
**Case Study: Cycling across Hackney**
Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.
- Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads.
- Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created.
- Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres.
- A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.
**Contact:** Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council, [email protected]
**Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney**
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | • What are the health benefits of active | | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery, fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
**The Merton Picture** The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
**Potential actions:**
- Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk.
- Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding.
- Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff.
- Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans.
- Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities.
See also section on green spaces and healthy food
**Case studies:** **Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan**
- Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan.
- The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding.
- It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens.
- It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding.
- The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
**Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007**
- In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding.
- Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result.
- The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Merton Picture
- On some of Merton’s main arterial roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Merton is the 12th least affected area by poor air quality in London. 33
- In 2011 the GLA identified four Air Quality Focus Areas within Merton.
Figure 3 NO₂ emissions on Merton Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation34.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport. Case studies: Reducing exposure – City Air ‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting. Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
Contact: Ruth Calderwood [email protected]
Mitigating impact – Croydon Air Text In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website.
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary** | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • www.londonair.org.uk | | **Additional (for example)** | • www.comeap.org.uk | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence? Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
The Merton Picture
- Merton’s adult obesity rate is 19 per cent. This is lower than the London average (21 per cent), and the national average (24 per cent).
- Merton’s obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 19 per cent. This is equal to the national rate and lower than London rate (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 10 out of 25 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map), 41-55 per cent of the total population consume five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 18 per cent of Merton’s population participate five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and 55 per cent participate once a week. Potential actions
- Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html).
- Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools.
- Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas.
- Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security.
- Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan.
See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk.
Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest - Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact • Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes.
• A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
Achievements: • Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission. • HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type. Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty). Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health. The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care). The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Merton Picture
- The older population of Merton is projected to rise from 23,800 (2012) to 29,800 (2025) and 39,800 (2040).
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. There are some stark disparities between wards with Village achieving the lowest risk score of all London wards but Cricket Green being 524th out of 625 wards and at greater risk.
- Eleven Merton wards are at low risk of fuel poverty and two at high risk according to the fuel poverty risk indicator. No wards show either an improvement or a reduction in their fuel poverty risk score between 2006-2010.
Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Merton
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- **Housing**
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- **Health**
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity benefit claimant rate
- **Older people**
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- **Worklessness**
- Unemployment
- **Poverty**
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation(^5). The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team(^5) can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements(^5)).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and blood stream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Merton Picture The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Merton
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Figure 7 Temperature across the capital London Average Screen Temperatures in degrees Celsius for the period 26 May-19 July 2006 Equal count mapping method: each interval; contains 7% of the total number of grid points
Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council* [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England | | **Additional (for example)** 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk) | | | • GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | | • London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report | | | • Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org)) | | | • Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | REFERENCES
1 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm 2 Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660. 3 MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx 4 Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward; 5 Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx 6 Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244 7 Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from “Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives”; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8 8 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 9 Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward 10 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 11 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Health Need Assessment Toolkit, Data Period, 2006-2008) http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 12 GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken from www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx; 13 Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/ 14 Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1 15 Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation 16 London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011,taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk 17 Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network. 18 Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport. 19 Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts. 20 Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk 21 Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk 22 Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk 23 Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk 24 Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk 25 Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000-2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport 26 The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk 27 Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk 28 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk 29 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 30 Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 31 Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 32 Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk 33 www.phoutcomes.info 34 https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works 35 Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity. Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2013, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/. 36 Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/london-boroughs/takeaways-toolkit; 37 Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. 38 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 39 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 40 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 41 Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 42 New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk 43 Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk 44 Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 45 Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion 46 Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf 47 Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough 48 Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards 49 Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk 50 The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 51 UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted 52 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 53 Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk 54 Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939 55 Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345 56 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 57 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013-2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Secondary | |---------|-----------| | Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator | Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator |
| AQ – Air Quality | AT - Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH - Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF - Healthy Food | | |
**Domain 1** Improving the wider determinants of health
| AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | | | | | | | |
1.1 Children in poverty 1.2 School readiness 1.3 Pupil absence 1.4 First time entrants to the youth justice system 1.5 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training 1.6 Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation 1.7 People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness 1.8 Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services 1.9 Sickness absence rate 1.10 Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads 1.11 Domestic abuse 1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence) 1.13 Re-offending levels 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise 1.15 Statutory homelessness 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons 1.17 Fuel poverty 1.18 Social isolation 1.19 Older people’s perception of community safety | Domain 2 | Health Improvement | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|--------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 2.1 | Low birth weight of term babies | | | | | | | | | 2.2 | Breastfeeding | | | | | | | | | 2.3 | Smoking status at time of delivery | | | | | | | | | 2.4 | Under 18 conceptions | | | | | | | | | 2.5 | Child development at 2-21/2 years | | | | | | | | | 2.6 | Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.7 | Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | | | | | | | | 2.8 | Emotional well-being of looked after children | | | | | | | | | 2.9 | Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.10 | Self-harm | | | | | | | | | 2.11 | Diet | | | | | | | | | 2.12 | Excess weight in adults | | | | | | | | | 2.13 | Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | | | | | | | 2.14 | Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | | | | | | | | 2.15 | Successful completion of drug treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.16 | People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.17 | Recorded diabetes | | | | | | | | | 2.18 | Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | | | | | | | | 2.19 | Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | | | | | | | | 2.20 | Cancer screening coverage | | | | | | | | | 2.21 | Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | | | | | | | | 2.22 | Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | | | | | | | | 2.23 | Self-reported well-being | | | | | | | | | 2.24 | Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | | | | | | | | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 4.1 Infant mortality | | | | | | | | | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | | Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|------------------| | | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1 | 23.2 | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8 | 20.5 | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4 | 18.0 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5 | 13.9 | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1 | 16.7 | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2 | 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3 | 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5 | 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3 | 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4 | 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4 | 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5 | 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7 | 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7 | 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3 | 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9 | 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
NOO (2005) Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL) National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011) Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65,176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95,634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
### Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | |--------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | LA | Once a week | 5 times per week | LA | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | 45.1 | 15.4 | 22 | 8 | (25.40 - 31.20) | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 | 17.6 | 41 | 16 | (43.90 - 56-10) | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 | 20 | 28 | 10 | (31.20 - 37.20) | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 | 16.3 | 34 | 13 | (38.20 - 45.30) | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 | 21.1 | 39 | 15 | (27.20 - 45.30) | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 | 26 | 28 | 10 | (44.60 - 55.10) | | City of London | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | | | | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 24 | 10 | (48.60 - 52.10) | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 | 19.8 | 44 | 17 | (35.50 - 48.8) | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 39 | 15 | (41.10 - 55.40) | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 | 18.6 | 36 | 14 | (33.90 - 41.90) | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 | 19.5 | 32 | 12 | (32.70 - 42.20) | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 | 24 | 27 | 10 | (34.90 - 41.60) | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 15.6 | 66.4 | 27.6 | 25 | 10 | (41.70 - 48.20) | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 | 17.7 | 36 | 14 | (39.20 - 48.00) | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 | 17.1 | 31 | 12 | (39.70 - 47.60) | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 30 | 12 | (30.80 - 37.30) | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 | 14.1 | 32 | 12 | (34.20 - 45.40) | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 | 17.8 | 28 | 10 | (36.90 - 47.20) | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 | 22.4 | 23 | 7 | (27.60 - 40.80) | | Borough | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |-------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | | | 22.53 | | | | England | 24.2 | | | 19.2 | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Area | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | 75.8 | 28357.6 | 35872.7 | 47363.6 | 22454.5 | 22.9 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team—Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo—Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team—GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons—MA/MSc postgraduate students—University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team
GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst—Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly—Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母語版本的此文件， 請致電以下號碼或與下列地址聯絡
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος εγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυ- δρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে দেখানো করন।
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinebilirsiniz, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresde başvurunuz.
Punjabi ਮੇ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਹੀ ਸੰਦਾਲਾਂ ਦੀ ਕਿਸੀ ਨਵਾਂ ਅਧਾਰੀ ਰੂਪਾਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤ ਹੈ, ਜਾ ਰੋਕਣ ਲਈ ਕੋਈ ਦੇ ਦੇਖ ਕੋਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਦੇ ਉਚਾਰਣ ਕਰਦੇ।
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میں چاہتے ہیں تو براہ کرم نئی دلی گی نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیکھیں گی نمبر پر رابطہ کریں
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أعلاه
Gujarati છી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નક્કી તમારી ભાષામાં જીવની કોઈ તો, કુશા કરી આપેલ નું ઉપર કોઈ કરો અથવા નીચેના સરળ નંબર સાથે.
43
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1317-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 45,
"total-input-tokens": 115200,
"total-output-tokens": 27241,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
110,
1
],
[
110,
431,
2
],
[
431,
1118,
3
],
[
1118,
3673,
4
],
[
3673,
6011,
5
],
[
6011,
6798,
6
],
[
6798,
9203,
7
],
[
9203,
10145,
8
],
[
10145,
11608,
9
],
[
11608,
14473,
10
],
[
14473,
15824,
11
],
[
15824,
17924,
12
],
[
17924,
18067,
13
],
[
18067,
20815,
14
],
[
20815,
23108,
15
],
[
23108,
23867,
16
],
[
23867,
26389,
17
],
[
26389,
27711,
18
],
[
27711,
30029,
19
],
[
30029,
32479,
20
],
[
32479,
33595,
21
],
[
33595,
35257,
22
],
[
35257,
37835,
23
],
[
37835,
39265,
24
],
[
39265,
42503,
25
],
[
42503,
45522,
26
],
[
45522,
46091,
27
],
[
46091,
47607,
28
],
[
47607,
50159,
29
],
[
50159,
54306,
30
],
[
54306,
58993,
31
],
[
58993,
60267,
32
],
[
60267,
62435,
33
],
[
62435,
64143,
34
],
[
64143,
66421,
35
],
[
66421,
68461,
36
],
[
68461,
71555,
37
],
[
71555,
74700,
38
],
[
74700,
82310,
39
],
[
82310,
88480,
40
],
[
88480,
90537,
41
],
[
90537,
92585,
42
],
[
92585,
99781,
43
],
[
99781,
102668,
44
],
[
102668,
104396,
45
]
]
} |
c21c43585aeda151f518cee5e13be71735f43fae | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Redbridge
MAYOR OF LONDON COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
# CONTENTS
| CONTENTS | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 3 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 11 | | AIR QUALITY | 14 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 17 | | FUEL POVERTY | 20 | | OVERHEATING | 23 | | REFERENCES | 27 | | FURTHER READING | 30 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 31 | | DATA APPENDIX | 34 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 41 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American. In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: ‘Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward’; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Redbridge Picture
- 41 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage, 10 per cent above the London average.
- Within Redbridge, 40 per cent of households in 5 out of 21 wards, have deficient access to nature.
- 19 per cent of Redbridge’s population participate 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 55 per cent participate once a week which is level with the London average.
- Redbridge’s adult obesity prevalence is 22 per cent, which is higher than the London rate, 21 per cent, but lower than the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in Redbridge
Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions:
Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
- All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹²
- The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces.¹³
- Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | Additional (for example) | • The Marmot review (2010) www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013): www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens(^\\text{16}). Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing(^\\text{17}). There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts(^\\text{18}). Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
**What is its impact on health?**
A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week(^\\text{19}). Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers(^\\text{20}). Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable(^\\text{21}).
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk(^\\text{22}). This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Redbridge Picture
- On average 524,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Redbridge.
- Low numbers of people participate in active travel, with the percentage of people cycling to work below the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 12 per cent above the Greater London average.
- There was an average of 866 casualties and 7 fatalities per year on Redbridge’s roads between 2005 and 2009; this decreased by 9% during 2009-2011.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A406 with an average daily flow of 152,000 motor vehicles.
- The Borough has one cycle super highway proposed in the Mayor’s ‘Vision for Cycling’.
Figure 2 Journeys in Redbridge by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users.
- Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes.
- Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. See also section on air quality. Case Study: Cycling across Hackney
Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.
- Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads.
- Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created.
- Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres.
- A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.
Contact: Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council, [email protected]
Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | • What are the health benefits of active travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery, fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
The Redbridge Picture The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
Potential actions: • Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk. • Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding. • Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff. • Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans. • Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities.
See also section on green spaces and healthy food
Case studies: Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan • Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan. • The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding. • It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens. • It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding. • The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007 • In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding. • Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result. • The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Redbridge Picture
- On some of Redbridge’s main arterial roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Redbridge is the 13th least affected area by poor air quality in London. 33
- In 2011 the GLA identified four Air Quality Focus Areas within Redbridge.
Figure 3 NO₂ emissions on Redbridge Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation34.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport. Case studies: Reducing exposure – City Air ‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting. Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
Contact: Ruth Calderwood [email protected]
Mitigating impact – Croydon Air Text In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website.
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary** | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • www.londonair.org.uk | | | • www.comeap.org.uk | | **Additional (for example)** | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence? Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
The Redbridge Picture
- Redbridge’s adult obesity rate is 22 per cent. This is higher than the London average (21 per cent), but lower than the national average (24 per cent).
- Redbridge’s obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 23 per cent. This is higher than the national rate and equal to the London rate (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 12 out of 33 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map), 36-43 per cent of the total population consume five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 19 per cent of Redbridge’s population participate five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 54 per cent participate once a week. Figure 4 Healthy food consumption in Redbridge
Model based consumption of fruit and vegetables in Redbridge by ward, 2006-8 LA population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Potential actions
• Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html).
• Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools.
• Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas.
• Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security.
• Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan.
See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk. Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest – Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact
- Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes.
- A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
Achievements:
- Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission.
- HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type. Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty). Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health. The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care). The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Redbridge Picture
- The older population of Redbridge is projected to rise from 34,300 (2012) to 41,200 (2025) and 51,400 (2040).
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. There are some disparities between wards with Monkhams achieving the 45th lowest risk score of all London wards but Valentines being 494th out of 625 wards and at greater risk.
- Three Redbridge wards are low risk of fuel poverty and three at high risk according to the fuel poverty risk indicator. However, four wards show a negative trend of significant decline between 2006-2010.
Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Redbridge
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- Housing
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- Health
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity benefit claimant rate
- Older people
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- Worklessness
- Unemployment
- Poverty
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation(^5). The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team(^5) can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements(^5)).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and blood stream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Redbridge Picture
The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Redbridge
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Figure 7 Temperature across the capital London Average Screen Temperatures in degrees Celsius for the period 26 May-19 July 2006 Equal count mapping method: each interval; contains 7% of the total number of grid points
Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council*
*[email protected]*
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England\
• RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk)\
• GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy\
• London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report\
• Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org))\
• Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | | **Additional (for example)** 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | |
26 REFERENCES
1 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm 2 Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660. 3 MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx 4 Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward ; 5 Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx 6 Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244 7 Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from "Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives"; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8 8 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 9 Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward 10 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 11 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Health Need Assessment Toolkit, Data Period, 2006-2008) http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 12 GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken from www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx; 13 Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/ 14 Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1 15 Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation) 16 London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011,taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk 17 Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network. 18 Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport. 19 Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts. 20 Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk
Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk
Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk
Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk
Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000–2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport
The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk
Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk
Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk
London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk
Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk
Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk
www.phoutcomes.info
https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works
Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity. Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2013, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/.
Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/london-boroughs/takeaways-toolkit;
Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63.
Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx
Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx
Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx
Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html
New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk
Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk
Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion
Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf
Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/dataset/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough
Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/dataset/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards
Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk
The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk
UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted 52 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 53 Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk 54 Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939 55 Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345 56 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 57 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013-2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator | |---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Secondary | Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator |
| AQ – Air Quality | AT - Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |-----------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH - Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF - Healthy Food | | |
**Domain 1**
**Improving the wider determinants of health**
| Indicator | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |-----------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 1.1 Children in poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.2 School readiness | | | | | | | | | 1.3 Pupil absence | | | | | | | | | 1.4 First time entrants to the youth justice system | | | | | | | | | 1.5 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training | | | | | | | | | 1.6 Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation | | | | | | | | | 1.7 People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness | | | | | | | | | 1.8 Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services | | | | | | | | | 1.9 Sickness absence rate | | | | | | | | | 1.10 Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads | | | | | | | | | 1.11 Domestic abuse | | | | | | | | | 1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence) | | | | | | | | | 1.13 Re-offending levels | | | | | | | | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | | | | | | | | | 1.15 Statutory homelessness | | | | | | | | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | | | | | | | | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.18 Social isolation | | | | | | | | | 1.19 Older people’s perception of community safety | | | | | | | | | Domain 2 | Health Improvement | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|--------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 2.1 | Low birth weight of term babies | | | | | | | | | 2.2 | Breastfeeding | | | | | | | | | 2.3 | Smoking status at time of delivery | | | | | | | | | 2.4 | Under 18 conceptions | | | | | | | | | 2.5 | Child development at 2-21/2 years | | | | | | | | | 2.6 | Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.7 | Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | | | | | | | | 2.8 | Emotional well-being of looked after children | | | | | | | | | 2.9 | Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.10 | Self-harm | | | | | | | | | 2.11 | Diet | | | | | | | | | 2.12 | Excess weight in adults | | | | | | | | | 2.13 | Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | | | | | | | 2.14 | Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | | | | | | | | 2.15 | Successful completion of drug treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.16 | People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.17 | Recorded diabetes | | | | | | | | | 2.18 | Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | | | | | | | | 2.19 | Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | | | | | | | | 2.20 | Cancer screening coverage | | | | | | | | | 2.21 | Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | | | | | | | | 2.22 | Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | | | | | | | | 2.23 | Self-reported well-being | | | | | | | | | 2.24 | Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | | | | | | | | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 4.1 Infant mortality | | | | | | | | | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | | Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|--------------|---------------|-----------------|----|--------|---------| | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1| 23.2 | | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8| 20.5 | | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4| 18.0 | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5| 13.9 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1| 16.7 | | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2| 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3| 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5| 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3| 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4| 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4| 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5| 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7| 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7| 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3| 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9| 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
NOO (2005) Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL) National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011) Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65,176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95,634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
### Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | |--------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | LA | Once a week | 5 times per week | LA | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | 45.1 | 15.4 | 22 | 8 | (25.40 - 31.20) | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 | 17.6 | 41 | 16 | (43.90 - 56-10) | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 | 20 | 28 | 10 | (31.20 - 37.20) | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 | 16.3 | 34 | 13 | (38.20 - 45.30) | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 | 21.1 | 39 | 15 | (27.20 - 45.30) | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 | 26 | 28 | 10 | (44.60 - 55.10) | | City of London | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 24 | 10 | (48.60 - 52.10) | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 | 19.8 | 44 | 17 | (35.50 - 48.8) | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 39 | 15 | (41.10 - 55.40) | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 | 18.6 | 36 | 14 | (33.90 - 41.90) | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 | 19.5 | 32 | 12 | (32.70 - 42.20) | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 | 24 | 27 | 10 | (34.90 - 41.60) | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 15.6 | 66.4 | 27.6 | 25 | 10 | (41.70 - 48.20) | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 | 17.7 | 36 | 14 | (39.20 - 48.00) | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 | 17.1 | 31 | 12 | (39.70 - 47.60) | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 30 | 12 | (30.80 - 37.30) | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 | 14.1 | 32 | 12 | (34.20 - 45.40) | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 | 17.8 | 28 | 10 | (36.90 - 47.20) | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 | 22.4 | 23 | 7 | (27.60 - 40.80) | | Borough | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |-------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | | | 22.53 | | | | England | 24.2 | | | 19.2 | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Area | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 2012 | Population Aged 65 2025 | Population Aged 65 2040 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | 75.8 | 28357.6 | 35872.7 | 47363.6 | 22454.5 | 22.9 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team—Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo—Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team—GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons—MA/MSc postgraduate students—University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst—Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly—Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母语版本的此文件，请致电以下号码或与下列地址联络
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος εγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυδρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinmek için, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresle başvurunuz.
Punjabi में उपलब्ध हैं हिंदी समाचारों की कई जानकारी अपनी बात के लिए उपयोगी है। अंग्रेजी भाषा में हेतु यह वेबसाइट पर पढ़ें।
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें।
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میں جانئیں ہیں، تو براہ کرم نئی دلی گی نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیکھیں گی نمبر پر رابطہ کریں
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أدناه
Gujarati છી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નક્કી તમારી ભાષામાં જીની કોઈ તો, કૂટા કરી આપેલ નંબર ઉપર કોન કરો અથવા નીચેના સરળ નંબર સાથે સંપર્ક સાધો.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1319-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 44,
"total-input-tokens": 114188,
"total-output-tokens": 27362,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
113,
1
],
[
113,
434,
2
],
[
434,
1341,
3
],
[
1341,
3896,
4
],
[
3896,
6233,
5
],
[
6233,
7020,
6
],
[
7020,
9455,
7
],
[
9455,
10402,
8
],
[
10402,
11859,
9
],
[
11859,
14686,
10
],
[
14686,
16082,
11
],
[
16082,
18279,
12
],
[
18279,
21027,
13
],
[
21027,
23299,
14
],
[
23299,
24058,
15
],
[
24058,
26580,
16
],
[
26580,
27917,
17
],
[
27917,
30281,
18
],
[
30281,
32767,
19
],
[
32767,
33994,
20
],
[
33994,
35745,
21
],
[
35745,
38323,
22
],
[
38323,
39721,
23
],
[
39721,
42958,
24
],
[
42958,
45977,
25
],
[
45977,
46553,
26
],
[
46553,
48069,
27
],
[
48069,
50446,
28
],
[
50446,
54595,
29
],
[
54595,
59215,
30
],
[
59215,
60489,
31
],
[
60489,
62657,
32
],
[
62657,
64755,
33
],
[
64755,
67033,
34
],
[
67033,
69073,
35
],
[
69073,
72201,
36
],
[
72201,
75156,
37
],
[
75156,
82766,
38
],
[
82766,
88866,
39
],
[
88866,
90917,
40
],
[
90917,
92965,
41
],
[
92965,
100750,
42
],
[
100750,
103636,
43
],
[
103636,
105371,
44
]
]
} |
ab53b0243a3bf2c8aa742235f5e734f6be99cb38 | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
MAYOR OF LONDON COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
# CONTENTS
| CONTENTS | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 3 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 12 | | AIR QUALITY | 15 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 18 | | FUEL POVERTY | 21 | | OVERHEATING | 24 | | REFERENCES | 28 | | FURTHER READING | 31 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 32 | | DATA APPENDIX | 35 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 42 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American. In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: ‘Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward’; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Richmond upon Thames Picture
- 51 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage; 20 per cent above the London average.
- Within Richmond upon Thames, over 50 per cent of households in 1 out of 18 wards, have deficient access to nature.
- 27 per cent of Richmond upon Thames’s population participates 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and 69 per cent participate once a week which is greater than the London average.
- Richmond upon Thames’s adult obesity prevalence is 15 per cent, which is significantly lower than the London rate, 21 per cent, and the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in Richmond upon Thames
Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions:
Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
• All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹² • The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces.¹³ • Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | Additional (for example) | • The Marmot review (2010) www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013): www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens\\textsuperscript{16}. Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing\\textsuperscript{17}. There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts\\textsuperscript{18}. Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
What is its impact on health?
A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week\\textsuperscript{19}. Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers\\textsuperscript{20}. Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable\\textsuperscript{21}.
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk\\textsuperscript{22}. This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Richmond upon Thames Picture
- On average 447,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Richmond upon Thames.(^{23})
- High numbers of people participate in active travel, with the percentage of people cycling to work above the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 3 per cent above the Greater London average.(^{24})
- There was an average of 486 casualties and 3 fatalities per year on Richmond upon Thames’ roads between 2005 and 2009: one of the lowest in London.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A308 with an average daily flow of 68,000 motor vehicles.(^{25})
- The Borough has one cycle super highway proposed in the Mayor’s ‘Vision for Cycling’.(^{26})
Figure 2 Journeys in Richmond upon Thames by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users.
- Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes. • Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. See also section on air quality.
**Case Study: Cycling across Hackney**
Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.
• Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads.
• Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created.
• Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres.
• A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.
*Contact: Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council, [email protected]*
**Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney**
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | • What are the health benefits of active cycling? | | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
**The Richmond upon Thames Picture** The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
**Potential actions:**
- Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk.
- Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding.
- Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff.
- Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans.
- Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities.
See also section on green spaces and healthy food
**Case studies:** **Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan**
- Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan.
- The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding.
- It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens.
- It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding.
- The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
**Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007**
- In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding.
- Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result.
- The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Richmond upon Thames Picture
- On some of Richmond upon Thames’ main arterial roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Richmond upon Thames is the 10th least affected area by poor air quality in London. 33
- In 2011 the GLA identified four Air Quality Focus Areas within Richmond upon Thames.
Figure 3 NO₂ emissions on Richmond upon Thames Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation 34.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport.
**Case studies:**
**Reducing exposure – City Air**
‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting. Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
*Contact: Ruth Calderwood*
[email protected]
**Mitigating impact - Croydon Air Text**
In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website.
**Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework**
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.londonair.org.uk | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | • www.comeap.org.uk | | | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence? Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
The Richmond upon Thames Picture
- Richmond upon Thames’s adult obesity rate is 15 per cent. This is significantly lower than the London average (21 per cent), and the national average (24 per cent).
- Richmond upon Thames’s obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 13 per cent. This is significantly lower than the national and London rates (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 8 out of 23 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map), 45–48 per cent of the population consume five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 27 per cent of Richmond upon Thames’s population participates five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 69 per cent participate once a week. Figure 4 Healthy food consumption in Richmond upon Thames
Model based consumption of fruit and vegetables in Richmond upon Thames by ward, 2006-8 LA population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Potential actions
- Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html).
- Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools.
- Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas.
- Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security.
- Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan.
See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk. Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest - Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact
• Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes.
• A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
Achievements:
• Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission.
• HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type. Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty). Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health. The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care). The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Richmond upon Thames Picture
- The older population of Richmond upon Thames is projected to rise from 26,500 (2012) to 33,100 (2025) and 42,000 (2040).
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. Overall, the borough ranks well with the ward of St Margaret’s and North Twickenham achieving the fifth lowest risk score among all 625 London wards.
- Sixteen Richmond upon Thames wards are low risk of fuel poverty and no wards show either a significant improvement or reduction in their fuel poverty risk index.
Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Richmond upon Thames
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- **Housing**
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- **Health**
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity benefit claimant rate
- **Older people**
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- **Worklessness**
- Unemployment
- **Poverty**
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation(^5). The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team(^5) can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements(^5)).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and bloodstream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Richmond upon Thames Picture
The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Richmond upon Thames
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council* [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk) | | **Additional (for example)** | • GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report | | | • Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org)) | | | • Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | REFERENCES
1 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm 2 Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660. 3 MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx 4 Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward ; 5 Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx 6 Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244 7 Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from “Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives”; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8 8 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 9 Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward 10 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 11 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Health Need Assessment Toolkit, Data Period, 2006-2008) http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 12 GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance , (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken fromwww.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx; 13 Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/ 14 Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1 15 Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation) 16 London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011,taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk 17 Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network. 18 Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport. 19 Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts. www.lho.org.uk/LHO_Topics/Health_Topics/Lifestyle_and_Behaviour/PhysicalActivity.aspx 20 Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk 21 Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk 22 Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk 23 Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk 24 Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk 25 Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000–2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport 26 The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk 27 Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk 28 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk 29 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA, ; , www.london.gov.uk 30 Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 31 Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 32 Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk 33 www.phoutcomes.info 34 https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works 35 Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity. Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2013, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/. 36 Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/london-boroughs/takeaways-toolkit; 37 Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. 38 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 39 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 40 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 41 Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 42 New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk 43 Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk 44 Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 45 Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion 46 Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf 47 Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough 48 Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards 49 Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk 50 The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 51 UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk
Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939
Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345
Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013-2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator | |---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Secondary | Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator |
| AQ – Air Quality | AT - Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH - Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF - Healthy Food | | |
### Domain 1
Improving the wider determinants of health
| AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | | | | | | | |
1.1 Children in poverty 1.2 School readiness 1.3 Pupil absence 1.4 First time entrants to the youth justice system 1.5 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training 1.6 Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation 1.7 People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness 1.8 Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services 1.9 Sickness absence rate 1.10 Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads 1.11 Domestic abuse 1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence) 1.13 Re-offending levels 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise 1.15 Statutory homelessness 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons 1.17 Fuel poverty 1.18 Social isolation 1.19 Older people’s perception of community safety | Domain 2 | Health Improvement | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|--------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 2.1 | Low birth weight of term babies | | | | | | | | | 2.2 | Breastfeeding | | | | | | | | | 2.3 | Smoking status at time of delivery | | | | | | | | | 2.4 | Under 18 conceptions | | | | | | | | | 2.5 | Child development at 2-21/2 years | | | | | | | | | 2.6 | Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.7 | Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | | | | | | | | 2.8 | Emotional well-being of looked after children | | | | | | | | | 2.9 | Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.10 | Self-harm | | | | | | | | | 2.11 | Diet | | | | | | | | | 2.12 | Excess weight in adults | | | | | | | | | 2.13 | Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | | | | | | | 2.14 | Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | | | | | | | | 2.15 | Successful completion of drug treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.16 | People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.17 | Recorded diabetes | | | | | | | | | 2.18 | Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | | | | | | | | 2.19 | Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | | | | | | | | 2.20 | Cancer screening coverage | | | | | | | | | 2.21 | Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | | | | | | | | 2.22 | Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | | | | | | | | 2.23 | Self-reported well-being | | | | | | | | | 2.24 | Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | |----------|-------------------| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 4.1 Infant mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|----|--------|---------| | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1| 23.2 | | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8| 20.5 | | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4| 18.0 | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5| 13.9 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1| 16.7 | | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2| 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3| 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5| 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3| 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4| 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4| 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5| 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7| 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7| 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3| 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9| 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL) National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011) Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
NOO (2005)
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65,176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95,634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
### Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | |--------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | LA | Once a week | 5 times per week | LA | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | 45.1 | 15.4 | 22 | 8 | (25.40 - 31.20) | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 | 17.6 | 41 | 16 | (43.90 - 56-10) | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 | 20 | 28 | 10 | (31.20 - 37.20) | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 | 16.3 | 34 | 13 | (38.20 - 45.30) | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 | 21.1 | 39 | 15 | (27.20 - 45.30) | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 | 26 | 28 | 10 | (44.60 - 55.10) | | City of London | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 24 | 10 | (48.60 - 52.10) | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 | 19.8 | 44 | 17 | (35.50 - 48.8) | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 39 | 15 | (41.10 - 55.40) | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 | 18.6 | 36 | 14 | (33.90 - 41.90) | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 | 19.5 | 32 | 12 | (32.70 - 42.20) | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 | 24 | 27 | 10 | (34.90 - 41.60) | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 15.6 | 66.4 | 27.6 | 25 | 10 | (41.70 - 48.20) | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 | 17.7 | 36 | 14 | (39.20 - 48.00) | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 | 17.1 | 31 | 12 | (39.70 - 47.60) | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 30 | 12 | (30.80 - 37.30) | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 | 14.1 | 32 | 12 | (34.20 - 45.40) | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 | 17.8 | 28 | 10 | (36.90 - 47.20) | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 | 22.4 | 23 | 7 | (27.60 - 40.80) | | Borough | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |-------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | | | 22.53 | | | | England | 24.2 | | | 19.2 | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Area | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 2012 | Population Aged 65 2025 | Population Aged 65 2040 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | 75.8 | 28357.6 | 35872.7 | 47363.6 | 22454.5 | 22.9 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team—Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo—Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team—GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons—MA/MSc postgraduate students—University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst—Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly—Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母語版本的此文件， 請致電以下號碼或與下列地址聯絡
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος eγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυ- δρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinmek için, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresde başvurunuz.
Punjabi ਮੇ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਹੀ ਸੰਦਾਲਵਾਂ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਕਿਹਾ ਅਧਾਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿਹਾ ਹੈ, ਜਾ ਰੋਟ ਕਿਹਾ ਲੇਖ ਦੇ ਹੋਏ ਕੋਈ ਮੋਹਾ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿਹਾ ਪੈਦੇ ਦੇ ਉਪਾਧਾ ਕੋਈ।
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें।
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میں جاہتی ہیں، تو براہ کرم نئی دلی گی نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیکھیں گی یہ پر رابطہ کریں
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أدناء
Gujarati છી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નક્કી તમારી ભાષામાં જીની લોકો તો, કૂટા કરી આપેલ નંબર ઉપર કોન કરો અથવા નીચેના સરનામે સંપર્ક કરો.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1320-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 45,
"total-input-tokens": 115254,
"total-output-tokens": 27314,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
124,
1
],
[
124,
445,
2
],
[
445,
1352,
3
],
[
1352,
3907,
4
],
[
3907,
6244,
5
],
[
6244,
7031,
6
],
[
7031,
9513,
7
],
[
9513,
10471,
8
],
[
10471,
11928,
9
],
[
11928,
14793,
10
],
[
14793,
16117,
11
],
[
16117,
18332,
12
],
[
18332,
18475,
13
],
[
18475,
21222,
14
],
[
21222,
23529,
15
],
[
23529,
24379,
16
],
[
24379,
26901,
17
],
[
26901,
28079,
18
],
[
28079,
30527,
19
],
[
30527,
33049,
20
],
[
33049,
34294,
21
],
[
34294,
36048,
22
],
[
36048,
38626,
23
],
[
38626,
40008,
24
],
[
40008,
43246,
25
],
[
43246,
46264,
26
],
[
46264,
46862,
27
],
[
46862,
48158,
28
],
[
48158,
50664,
29
],
[
50664,
54899,
30
],
[
54899,
59590,
31
],
[
59590,
60851,
32
],
[
60851,
63019,
33
],
[
63019,
64845,
34
],
[
64845,
67123,
35
],
[
67123,
69019,
36
],
[
69019,
72147,
37
],
[
72147,
75069,
38
],
[
75069,
82643,
39
],
[
82643,
88743,
40
],
[
88743,
90794,
41
],
[
90794,
92842,
42
],
[
92842,
100662,
43
],
[
100662,
103548,
44
],
[
103548,
105285,
45
]
]
} |
e4c5f915436f3c2e15698d9a6b6b7f221d184b4d | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Southwark
MAYOR OF LONDON COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
# CONTENTS
| CONTENTS | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 3 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 12 | | AIR QUALITY | 15 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 18 | | FUEL POVERTY | 21 | | OVERHEATING | 24 | | REFERENCES | 28 | | FURTHER READING | 31 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 32 | | DATA APPENDIX | 35 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 42 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American. In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: ‘Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward’; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Southwark Picture
- 25 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage; 6 per cent below the London average.
- Within Southwark over 50 per cent of households in 7 out of 20 wards have deficient access to nature.
- 20 per cent of Southwark’s population participate 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 60 per cent participate once a week which is above the London average.
- Southwark’s adult obesity prevalence is 23 per cent, which is higher than the London rate, 21 per cent, but lower than the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in Southwark Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions:
Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
• All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹² • The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces;¹³ • Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | Additional (for example) | • The Marmot review (2010) www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013): www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens\\textsuperscript{16}. Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing\\textsuperscript{17}. There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts\\textsuperscript{18}. Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
What is its impact on health?
A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week\\textsuperscript{19}. Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers\\textsuperscript{20}. Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable\\textsuperscript{21}.
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk\\textsuperscript{22}. This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Southwark Picture
- On average 582,000 trips per day are made by people in Southwark, one of the highest numbers in London.(^{23})
- Many people participate in active travel. The percentage cycling to work is double the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 14 per cent below the London average.(^{24})
- There was an average of 1,137 casualties and 6 fatalities per year on Southwark’s roads between 2005 and 200: the 4(^{th}) highest in London.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A3 with an average daily flow of 65,000 motor vehicles.(^{25})
- The borough has one cycle super highway and three more proposed in the Mayor’s ‘Vision for Cycling’.(^{26})
Figure 2 Journeys in Southwark by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users. • Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes. • Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. See also section on air quality.
**Case Study: Cycling across Hackney**
Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.
• Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads. • Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created. • Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres. • A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.
*Contact: Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council, [email protected]*
**Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney**
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and | | | deliberate injuries in under 18s | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | |---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | • What are the health benefits of active travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery, fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
**The Southwark Picture** The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
**Potential actions:**
- Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk.
- Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding.
- Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff.
- Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans.
- Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities. See also section on green spaces and healthy food
**Case studies:** **Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan**
- Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan.
- The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding.
- It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens.
- It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding.
- The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
**Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007**
- In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding.
- Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result.
- The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Southwark Picture
- On some of Southwark’s main arterial roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Southwark is the 5th most affected area by poor air quality in London. 33
- In 2011 the GLA identified nine Air Quality Focus Areas within Southwark.
Figure 3 NO2 emissions on Southwark Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation34.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport.
**Case studies:**
**Reducing exposure – City Air**
‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting.
Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
*Contact: Ruth Calderwood*
[email protected]
**Mitigating impact - Croydon Air Text**
In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website.
______________________________________________________________________
**Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework**
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.londonair.org.uk | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | • www.comeap.org.uk | | | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence? Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
The Southwark Picture
- Southwark’s adult obesity rate is 23 per cent. This is higher than the London average (21 per cent), but lower than the national average (24 per cent).
- Southwark’s obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 29 per cent. This is significantly higher than the national and London rates (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 11 out of 33 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map), 38-43 per cent of the population consume five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 20 per cent of Southwark’s population participate five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 60 per cent participate once a week. Figure 4 Healthy food consumption in Southwark
Model based consumption of fruit and vegetables in Southwark by ward, 2006-8 LA population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Potential actions
• Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html). • Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools. • Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas. • Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security. • Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan.
See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk. Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest – Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact
- Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes.
- A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
Achievements:
- Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission.
- HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type. Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty). Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health. The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care). The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Southwark Picture
- The older population of Southwark is projected to rise from 22,900 (2012) to 30,200 (2025) and 43,500 (2040).(^{47})
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. There are some stark disparities between wards with Surrey Docks achieving the second lowest risk score of all London wards but Nunhead being 617(^{th}) out of 625 wards and at significantly greater risk.
- Three Southwark wards are low risk of fuel poverty and seven are at high risk according to the fuel poverty risk indicator. Three wards have shown significant improvement between 2006-2010, but for Peckham there was a significant decline during this period.(^{48})
Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Barnet
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- **Housing**
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- **Health**
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity benefit claimant rate
- **Older people**
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- **Worklessness**
- Unemployment
- **Poverty**
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation(^9). The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team(^9) can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements(^51)).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and blood stream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Southwark Picture The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Southwark
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Figure 7 Temperature across the capital London Average Screen Temperatures in degrees Celsius for the period 26 May-19 July 2006 Equal count mapping method: each interval; contains 7% of the total number of grid points
Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council* [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk) | | **Additional (for example)** | • GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report | | | • Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org)) | | | • Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | REFERENCES
1 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm 2 Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660. 3 MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx 4 Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward; 5 Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx 6 Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244 7 Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from "Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives"; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8 8 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 9 Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward 10 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 11 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Health Need Assessment Toolkit, Data Period, 2006-2008) http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 12 GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken from www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx; 13 Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/ 14 Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1 15 Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation) 16 London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011,taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk 17 Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network. 18 Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport. 19 Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts. 20 Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk 21 Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk 22 Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk 23 Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk 24 Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk 25 Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000-2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/area.php?region=London 26 The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk 27 Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk 28 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk 29 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA; , www.london.gov.uk 30 Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 31 Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 32 Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk 33 www.phoutcomes.info 34 https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works 35 Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity, Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2012, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/. 36 Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/londonboroughs/takeaways-toolkit; 37 Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. 38 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 39 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 40 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 41 Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 42 New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk 43 Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk 44 Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 45 Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion 46 Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf 47 Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Dataset www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough 48 Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Dataset www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards 49 Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk 50 The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 51 UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk
Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939
Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345
Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf
## PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013–2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Secondary | |---------|-----------| | Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator | Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator |
| AQ – Air Quality | AT - Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH - Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF - Healthy Food | |
### Domain 1
Improving the wider determinants of health
| Indicator | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |-----------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 1.1 Children in poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.2 School readiness | | | | | | | | | 1.3 Pupil absence | | | | | | | | | 1.4 First time entrants to the youth justice system | | | | | | | | | 1.5 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training | | | | | | | | | 1.6 Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation | | | | | | | | | 1.7 People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness | | | | | | | | | 1.8 Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services | | | | | | | | | 1.9 Sickness absence rate | | | | | | | | | 1.10 Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads | | | | | | | | | 1.11 Domestic abuse | | | | | | | | | 1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence) | | | | | | | | | 1.13 Re-offending levels | | | | | | | | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | | | | | | | | | 1.15 Statutory homelessness | | | | | | | | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | | | | | | | | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.18 Social isolation | | | | | | | | | 1.19 Older people’s perception of community safety | | | | | | | | Primary Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator Secondary Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator
| AQ – Air Quality | AT – Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH – Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF – Healthy Food |
### Domain 2
Health Improvement
| 2.1 Low birth weight of term babies | | 2.2 Breastfeeding | | 2.3 Smoking status at time of delivery | | 2.4 Under 18 conceptions | | 2.5 Child development at 2-21/2 years | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | 2.8 Emotional well-being of looked after children | | 2.9 Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | 2.10 Self-harm | | 2.11 Diet | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | 2.14 Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | 2.15 Successful completion of drug treatment | | 2.16 People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | | 2.18 Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | 2.19 Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | 2.20 Cancer screening coverage | | 2.21 Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | 2.22 Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | | 2.24 Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | | | | | | | | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 4.1 Infant mortality | | | | | | | | | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | | Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|----|--------|---------| | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1| 23.2 | | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8| 20.5 | | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4| 18.0 | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5| 13.9 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1| 16.7 | | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2| 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3| 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5| 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3| 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4| 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4| 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5| 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7| 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7| 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3| 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9| 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
NOO (2005) Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL) National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011) Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65,176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95,634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
## Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| LA | Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | |---------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------------------------------------|------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | Once a week 45.1 | 5 times per week 15.4 | LA 22 | 8 | (25.40 - 31.20) | | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 | 17.6 | 41 | 16 | (43.90 - 56-10) | | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 | 20 | 28 | 10 | (31.20 - 37.20) | | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 | 16.3 | 34 | 13 | (38.20 - 45.30) | | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 | 21.1 | 39 | 15 | (27.20 - 45.30) | | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 | 26 | 28 | 10 | (44.60 - 55.10) | | | City of London | 19.7 | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | | | | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 24 | 10 | (48.60 - 52.10) | | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 | 19.8 | 44 | 17 | (35.50 - 48.8) | | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 39 | 15 | (41.10 - 55.40) | | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 | 18.6 | 36 | 14 | (33.90 - 41.90) | | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 | 19.5 | 32 | 12 | (32.70 - 42.20) | | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 | 24 | 27 | 10 | (34.90 - 41.60) | | | Hammersmith & Fulham| 15.6 | 66.4 | 27.6 | 25 | 10 | (41.70 - 48.20) | | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 | 17.7 | 36 | 14 | (39.20 - 48.00) | | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 | 17.1 | 31 | 12 | (39.70 - 47.60) | | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 30 | 12 | (30.80 - 37.30) | | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 | 14.1 | 32 | 12 | (34.20 - 45.40) | | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 | 17.8 | 28 | 10 | (36.90 - 47.20) | | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 | 22.4 | 23 | 7 | (27.60 - 40.80) | | | Location | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |--------------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | 22.53 | | | | | | England | 24.2 | 19.2 | | | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Area | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 2012 | Population Aged 65 2025 | Population Aged 65 2040 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |-----------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | | | | | | 75.8 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team—Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo—Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team—GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons—MA/MSc postgraduate students—University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst—Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly—Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母语版本的此文件，请致电以下号码或与下列地址联络
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος εγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυδρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinmek için, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresle başvurunuz.
Punjabi में उपलब्ध हिंदी समाचार की कवरी जानकारी अपनी रूप में दिखाई देती है, जो रेडियो या टेलीविजन के द्वारा दिखाई देते हैं। यह रेडियो या टेलीविजन के द्वारा दिखाई देते हैं।
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میں جانئیں، تو براہ کرم نئی دلی گی نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیکھیں یا پر رابطہ کریں
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أدناه
Gujarati ધી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નક્કી તમારી ભાષામાં જીન્ટું કોણ તો, કૂટા કરી આપણે નુંબર ઉપર કોણ કરી અધયાય નીચેના સરનામે સંપર્ક કરીએ.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1321-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 45,
"total-input-tokens": 115308,
"total-output-tokens": 27387,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
113,
1
],
[
113,
434,
2
],
[
434,
1341,
3
],
[
1341,
3896,
4
],
[
3896,
6233,
5
],
[
6233,
7020,
6
],
[
7020,
9452,
7
],
[
9452,
10398,
8
],
[
10398,
11855,
9
],
[
11855,
14720,
10
],
[
14720,
15947,
11
],
[
15947,
18146,
12
],
[
18146,
18467,
13
],
[
18467,
21215,
14
],
[
21215,
23508,
15
],
[
23508,
24267,
16
],
[
24267,
26789,
17
],
[
26789,
27831,
18
],
[
27831,
30362,
19
],
[
30362,
32839,
20
],
[
32839,
34062,
21
],
[
34062,
35813,
22
],
[
35813,
38391,
23
],
[
38391,
39906,
24
],
[
39906,
43145,
25
],
[
43145,
46164,
26
],
[
46164,
46739,
27
],
[
46739,
48255,
28
],
[
48255,
50761,
29
],
[
50761,
54909,
30
],
[
54909,
59653,
31
],
[
59653,
60914,
32
],
[
60914,
63082,
33
],
[
63082,
65119,
34
],
[
65119,
66678,
35
],
[
66678,
68718,
36
],
[
68718,
71829,
37
],
[
71829,
74750,
38
],
[
74750,
82360,
39
],
[
82360,
88462,
40
],
[
88462,
94462,
41
],
[
94462,
96636,
42
],
[
96636,
104417,
43
],
[
104417,
107303,
44
],
[
107303,
109075,
45
]
]
} |
fbc8937c3a50f240501977c36d2427863139d694 | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Sutton
MAYOR OF LONDON COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
## CONTENTS
| CONTENTS | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 3 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 11 | | AIR QUALITY | 14 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 17 | | FUEL POVERTY | 20 | | OVERHEATING | 23 | | REFERENCES | 27 | | FURTHER READING | 30 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 31 | | DATA APPENDIX | 34 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 41 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American. In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: ‘Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward’; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Sutton Picture
- 32 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage; 1 per cent above the London average.
- Within Sutton, over 50 per cent households in 4 out of 18 wards, have deficient access to nature.
- 20 per cent of Sutton’s population participate 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 64 per cent participate once a week which is above the London average.
- Sutton’s adult obesity prevalence is 22 per cent, which is higher than the London rate, 21 per cent, but lower than the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in Sutton Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions:
Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
• All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹² • The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces.¹³ • Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | Additional (for example) | • The Marmot review (2010) www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013): www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens\\textsuperscript{16}. Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing\\textsuperscript{17}. There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts\\textsuperscript{18}. Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
What is its impact on health?
A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week\\textsuperscript{19}. Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers\\textsuperscript{20}. Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable\\textsuperscript{21}.
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk\\textsuperscript{22}. This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Sutton Picture
- On average 393,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Sutton.
- Low numbers of people participate in active travel, with the percentage of people cycling to work below the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 17 per cent above the Greater London average, one of the highest in London.
- There was an average of 393 casualties and 2 fatalities per year on Sutton’s roads between 2005 and 2009: one of the lowest in London.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A217 with an average daily flow of 39,000 motor vehicles.
- The Borough has no cycle super highways proposed in the Mayor’s ‘Vision for Cycling’.
Figure 2 Journeys in the Sutton by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users.
- Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes.
- Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. See also section on air quality.
**Case Study: Cycling across Hackney**
Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.
- Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads.
- Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created.
- Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres.
- A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.
**Contact:** Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council, [email protected]
**Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney**
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | • What are the health benefits of active travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery, fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
The Sutton Picture The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
Potential actions: • Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk. • Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding. • Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff. • Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans. • Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities.
See also section on green spaces and healthy food
Case studies: Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan 6 • Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan. • The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding. • It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens. • It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding. • The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007 7 • In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding. • Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result. • The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. 8 | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Sutton Picture
- On some of Sutton’s main arterial roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Sutton is the 3rd least affected area by poor air quality in London. 33
- In 2011 the GLA identified three Air Quality Focus Areas within Sutton.
Figure 3 NO₂ emissions on Sutton Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation34.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport.
**Case studies:**
**Reducing exposure – City Air**
‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting.
Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
*Contact: Ruth Calderwood*
[email protected]
**Mitigating impact - Croydon Air Text**
In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website.
**Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework**
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.londonair.org.uk | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | • www.comeap.org.uk | | | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence? Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
The Sutton Picture
- Sutton’s adult obesity rate is 22 per cent. This is higher than the London average (21 per cent), but lower than the national average (24 per cent).
- Sutton’s obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 19 per cent. This is equal to the national rate and lower than the London rate (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 9 out of 24 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map), 35–44 per cent of the population consume five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 20 per cent of Sutton’s population participate five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and 64 per cent participate once a week. Figure 4 Healthy food consumption in Sutton
Model based consumption of fruit and vegetables in Sutton by ward, 2006-8 LA population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Potential actions
• Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html). • Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools. • Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas. • Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security. • Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan.
See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk. Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest – Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact
- Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes.
- A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
Achievements:
- Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission.
- HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type. Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty). Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health. The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care). The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Sutton Picture
- The older population of Sutton is projected to rise from 28,600 (2012) to 34,500 (2025) and 44,100 (2040).
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. There are some disparities between wards with Belmont achieving the 66th lowest risk score of all London wards but St Helier being 463rd out of 625 wards and at greater risk.
- Eight Sutton wards are at low risk of fuel poverty and none at particularly high risk according to the fuel poverty risk indicator. However, four wards show a negative trend towards a significant decline between 2006-2010.
Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Sutton
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- Housing
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- Health
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity Benefit claimant rate
- Older people
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- Worklessness
- Unemployment
- Poverty
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation. The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and bloodstream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Sutton Picture
The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Sutton
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Figure 7 Temperature across the capital London Average Screen Temperatures in degrees Celsius for the period 26 May-19 July 2006 Equal count mapping method: each interval; contains 7% of the total number of grid points
Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council*
*[email protected]*
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England\
• RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk)\
• GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy\
• London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report\
• Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org))\
• Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | | **Additional (for example)** 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | | REFERENCES
01. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm
02. Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116; Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660.
03. MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx
04. Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward;
05. Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx
06. Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244
07. Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from "Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives"; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8
08. Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html
09. Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward
10. Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html
11. Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Health Need Assessment Toolkit, Data Period, 2006-2008) http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx
12. GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken from www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx;
13. Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/
14. Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1
15. Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation
16. London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011, taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk
17. Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network.
18. Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport.
19. Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts.
20. Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk 21 Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk 22 Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk 23 Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk 24 Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk 25 Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000–2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport 26 The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk 27 Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk 28 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk 29 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 30 Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 31 Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 32 Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk 33 www.phoutcomes.info 34 https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works 35 Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity. Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2013, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/. 36 Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/london-boroughs/takeaways-toolkit; 37 Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. 38 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 39 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 40 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 41 Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 42 New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk 43 Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk 44 Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 45 Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion 46 Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf 47 Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough 48 Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards 49 Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk 50 The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 51 UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk
Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939
Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345
Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013-2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Secondary | |---------|-----------| | Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator | Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator |
| AQ – Air Quality | AT - Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH - Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF - Healthy Food | | |
### Domain 1
Improving the wider determinants of health
| Indicator | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |-----------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 1.1 Children in poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.2 School readiness | | | | | | | | | 1.3 Pupil absence | | | | | | | | | 1.4 First time entrants to the youth justice system | | | | | | | | | 1.5 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training | | | | | | | | | 1.6 Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation | | | | | | | | | 1.7 People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness | | | | | | | | | 1.8 Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services | | | | | | | | | 1.9 Sickness absence rate | | | | | | | | | 1.10 Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads | | | | | | | | | 1.11 Domestic abuse | | | | | | | | | 1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence) | | | | | | | | | 1.13 Re-offending levels | | | | | | | | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | | | | | | | | | 1.15 Statutory homelessness | | | | | | | | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | | | | | | | | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.18 Social isolation | | | | | | | | | 1.19 Older people’s perception of community safety | | | | | | | | | Domain 2 | Health Improvement | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|--------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 2.1 | Low birth weight of term babies | | | | | | | | | 2.2 | Breastfeeding | | | | | | | | | 2.3 | Smoking status at time of delivery | | | | | | | | | 2.4 | Under 18 conceptions | | | | | | | | | 2.5 | Child development at 2-21/2 years | | | | | | | | | 2.6 | Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.7 | Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | | | | | | | | 2.8 | Emotional well-being of looked after children | | | | | | | | | 2.9 | Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.10 | Self-harm | | | | | | | | | 2.11 | Diet | | | | | | | | | 2.12 | Excess weight in adults | | | | | | | | | 2.13 | Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | | | | | | | 2.14 | Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | | | | | | | | 2.15 | Successful completion of drug treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.16 | People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.17 | Recorded diabetes | | | | | | | | | 2.18 | Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | | | | | | | | 2.19 | Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | | | | | | | | 2.20 | Cancer screening coverage | | | | | | | | | 2.21 | Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | | | | | | | | 2.22 | Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | | | | | | | | 2.23 | Self-reported well-being | | | | | | | | | 2.24 | Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | | | | | | | | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 4.1 Infant mortality | | | | | | | | | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | | Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|----|--------|---------| | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1| 23.2 | | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8| 20.5 | | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4| 18.0 | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5| 13.9 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1| 16.7 | | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2| 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3| 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5| 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3| 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4| 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4| 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5| 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7| 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7| 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3| 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9| 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
**Notes:**
- NOO (2005) - National Obesity Observatory
- Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL)
- Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
**Sources:**
- National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011)
- Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65,176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95,634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
## Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| LA | Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | |---------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | | LA | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | Once a week 45.1 5 times per week 15.4 | 22 | 8 (25.40 - 31.20) | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 17.6 | 41 | 16 (43.90 - 56-10) | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 20 | 28 | 10 (31.20 - 37.20) | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 16.3 | 34 | 13 (38.20 - 45.30) | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 21.1 | 39 | 15 (27.20 - 45.30) | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 26 | 28 | 10 (44.60 - 55.10) | | City of London | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 25.4 | 24 | 10 (48.60 - 52.10) | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 19.8 | 44 | 17 (35.50 - 48.8) | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 14.6 | 39 | 15 (41.10 - 55.40) | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 18.6 | 36 | 14 (33.90 - 41.90) | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 19.5 | 32 | 12 (32.70 - 42.20) | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 24 | 27 | 10 (34.90 - 41.60) | | Hammersmith & Fulham| 15.6 | 66.4 27.6 | 25 | 10 (41.70 - 48.20) | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 17.7 | 36 | 14 (39.20 - 48.00) | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 17.1 | 31 | 12 (39.70 - 47.60) | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 16.4 | 30 | 12 (30.80 - 37.30) | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 14.1 | 32 | 12 (34.20 - 45.40) | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 17.8 | 28 | 10 (36.90 - 47.20) | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 22.4 | 23 | 7 (27.60 - 40.80) | | Borough | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |-------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | | | 22.53 | | | | England | 24.2 | | | 19.2 | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Area | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 2012 | Population Aged 65 2025 | Population Aged 65 2040 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |-----------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | | | | | | 75.8 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team—Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo—Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team—GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons—MA/MSc postgraduate students—University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst—Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly—Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母語版本的此文件，請致電以下號碼或與下列地址聯絡
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος εγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυδρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinizde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinmek için, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresle başvurunuz.
Punjabi ਮੇ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਹਿੰਦੀ ਸਾਹਿਤਕ ਸੀ ਕਵਿਤਾ ਜਾਂ ਅਧਾਰੀ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਹੈ, ਜਾ ਰੋਕਣ ਲਈ ਲੇਖ ਦੇ ਲੇਖ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਲੇਖ ਲਿਖਣ ਲਈ ਪੈਦਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਉਪਲਬਧ ਹੈ.
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میں جانئیں تو براہ کرم نئی دلی گی نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیکھیں گی نمبر پر رابطہ کریں
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أدناه
Gujarati છી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નક્કી તમારી ભાષામાં જીની લોકો તો, કૂટા કરી આપેલ નંબર ઉપર કોન કરી અધયા નીચેના સરનામે સંપર્ક સાધો.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1322-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 44,
"total-input-tokens": 114157,
"total-output-tokens": 27473,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
110,
1
],
[
110,
431,
2
],
[
431,
1339,
3
],
[
1339,
3894,
4
],
[
3894,
6231,
5
],
[
6231,
7018,
6
],
[
7018,
9437,
7
],
[
9437,
10380,
8
],
[
10380,
11837,
9
],
[
11837,
14702,
10
],
[
14702,
16076,
11
],
[
16076,
18319,
12
],
[
18319,
20971,
13
],
[
20971,
23342,
14
],
[
23342,
24192,
15
],
[
24192,
26714,
16
],
[
26714,
27822,
17
],
[
27822,
30271,
18
],
[
30271,
32730,
19
],
[
32730,
33947,
20
],
[
33947,
35698,
21
],
[
35698,
38276,
22
],
[
38276,
39682,
23
],
[
39682,
42902,
24
],
[
42902,
45920,
25
],
[
45920,
46490,
26
],
[
46490,
48006,
27
],
[
48006,
50379,
28
],
[
50379,
54547,
29
],
[
54547,
59234,
30
],
[
59234,
60495,
31
],
[
60495,
62663,
32
],
[
62663,
64699,
33
],
[
64699,
66981,
34
],
[
66981,
69021,
35
],
[
69021,
72098,
36
],
[
72098,
75117,
37
],
[
75117,
82727,
38
],
[
82727,
88827,
39
],
[
88827,
93399,
40
],
[
93399,
95447,
41
],
[
95447,
103228,
42
],
[
103228,
106114,
43
],
[
106114,
107849,
44
]
]
} |
d19b23ebab04bf5f3bb4d4ffa28ab4b27abe031a | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Tower Hamlets COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
# CONTENTS
| CONTENTS | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 3 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 12 | | AIR QUALITY | 15 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 18 | | FUEL POVERTY | 21 | | OVERHEATING | 24 | | REFERENCES | 28 | | FURTHER READING | 31 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 32 | | DATA APPENDIX | 35 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 42 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American. In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: ‘Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward’; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Tower Hamlet’s Picture
- 15 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage; 16 per cent below the London average.
- Within Tower Hamlets over 50 per cent of households in 5 out of 17 wards, have deficient access to nature.
- 20 per cent of Tower Hamlet’s population participate 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and 56 per cent participate once a week which is level with the London average.
- Tower Hamlet’s adult obesity prevalence is 19 per cent, which is lower than the London rate, 21 per cent, and the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in tower Hamlets Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions:
Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
• All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹² • The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces.¹³ • Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • The Marmot review (2010) www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | **Additional (for example)** | • www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013): www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens\\textsuperscript{16}. Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing\\textsuperscript{17}. There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts\\textsuperscript{18}. Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
What is its impact on health?
A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week\\textsuperscript{19}. Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers\\textsuperscript{20}. Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable\\textsuperscript{21}.
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk\\textsuperscript{22}. This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Tower Hamlet’s Picture
- On average 561,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Tower Hamlets.
- Average numbers of people participate in active travel, with the percentage of people cycling to work level with the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 19 per cent below the Greater London average, one of the lowest in London.
- There was an average of 977 casualties and 6 fatalities per year on Tower Hamlets’ roads between 2005 and 2009: this decreased by 3% in 2009-2011.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A1261 with an average daily flow of 123,000 motor vehicles.
- The Borough currently has two cycle super highways and another proposed in the Mayor’s ‘Vision for Cycling’.
Figure 2 Journeys in the Tower Hamlets by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users.
- Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes. • Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. See also section on air quality.
**Case Study: Cycling across Hackney**
Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.
• Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads.
• Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created.
• Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres.
• A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.
*Contact: Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council, [email protected]*
**Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney**
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | • What are the health benefits of active | | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
**The Tower Hamlet’s Picture** The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
**Potential actions:**
- Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk.
- Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding.
- Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff.
- Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans.
- Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities. See also section on green spaces and healthy food
**Case studies:** **Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan**
- Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan.
- The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding.
- It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens.
- It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding.
- The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
**Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007**
- In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding.
- Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result.
- The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Tower Hamlet’s Picture
- On some of Tower Hamlets’ main arterial roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Tower Hamlets is the 4th most affected area by poor air quality in London.33
- In 2011 the GLA identified six Air Quality Focus Areas within Tower Hamlets.
Figure 3 NO₂ emissions on Tower Hamlet’s Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation34.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport.
**Case studies:**
**Reducing exposure – City Air**
‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting.
Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
*Contact: Ruth Calderwood*
[email protected]
**Mitigating impact – Croydon Air Text**
In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website.
**Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework**
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.londonair.org.uk | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | • www.comeap.org.uk | | | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence? Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
Tower Hamlet’s Picture
- Tower Hamlets’ adult obesity rate is 19 per cent. This is lower than the London average (21 per cent), and the national average (24 per cent).
- Tower Hamlets’ obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 25 per cent. This is higher than the national and London rates (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 12 out of 31 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map) 30-43 per cent of the population consume five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 20 per cent of Tower Hamlet’s population participate five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 56 per cent participate once a week. Figure 4 Healthy food consumption in Tower Hamlets
Model based consumption of fruit and vegetables in Tower Hamlets by ward, 2006-8 LA population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Potential actions
• Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html). • Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools. • Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas. • Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security. • Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan.
See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk. Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest - Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact
- Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes.
- A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
Achievements:
- Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission.
- HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?Id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type. Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty). Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health. The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care). The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Tower Hamlets Picture
- The older population of Tower Hamlets is projected to rise from 15,800 (2012) to 20,600 (2025) and 31,200 (2040). 47
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. There are some stark disparities between wards with Millwall achieving 47th lowest risk score of all London wards but East India and Lansbury being 619th out of 625 wards and at significantly greater risk.
- Three Tower Hamlets wards are at low risk of fuel poverty and ten are at high risk according to the fuel poverty risk indicator. On the positive side, five wards show significant improvement between 2006-2010. 48
Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Tower Hamlets
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- Housing
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- Health
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity benefit claimant rate
- Older people
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- Worklessness
- Unemployment
- Poverty
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation. The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and blood stream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Tower Hamlet’s Picture
The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Barnet
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Figure 7 Temperature across the capital London Average Screen Temperatures in degrees Celsius for the period 26 May-19 July 2006 Equal count mapping method: each interval; contains 7% of the total number of grid points
Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council*
*[email protected]*
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk) | | **Additional (for example)** | • GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report | | | • Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org)) | | | • Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | REFERENCES
1 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm 2 Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660. 3 MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx 4 Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward; 5 Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx 6 Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244 7 Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from "Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives"; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8 8 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 9 Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward 10 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 11 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Health Need Assessment Toolkit, Data Period, 2006-2008) http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 12 GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken from www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx; 13 Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/ 14 Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1 15 Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation 16 London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011, taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk 17 Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network. 18 Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport. 19 Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts. 20 Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk 21 Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk 22 Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk 23 Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk 24 Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk 25 Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000–2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport 26 The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk 27 Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk 28 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk 29 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 30 Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 31 Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 32 Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk 33 www.phoutcomes.info 34 https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works 35 Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity. Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2013, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/. 36 Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/london-boroughs/takeaways-toolkit; 37 Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. 38 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 39 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 40 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 41 Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 42 New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk 43 Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk 44 Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 45 Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion 46 Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf 47 Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datstore/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough 48 Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datstore/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards 49 Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk 50 The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 51 UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk
Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939
Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345
Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013-2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Secondary | |---------|-----------| | Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator | Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator |
| AQ – Air Quality | AT - Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH - Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF - Healthy Food | | |
### Domain 1
Improving the wider determinants of health
| AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | | | | | | | |
1.1 Children in poverty 1.2 School readiness 1.3 Pupil absence 1.4 First time entrants to the youth justice system 1.5 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training 1.6 Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation 1.7 People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness 1.8 Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services 1.9 Sickness absence rate 1.10 Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads 1.11 Domestic abuse 1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence) 1.13 Re-offending levels 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise 1.15 Statutory homelessness 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons 1.17 Fuel poverty 1.18 Social isolation 1.19 Older people’s perception of community safety | Domain 2 | Health Improvement | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|--------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 2.1 | Low birth weight of term babies | | | | | | | | | 2.2 | Breastfeeding | | | | | | | | | 2.3 | Smoking status at time of delivery | | | | | | | | | 2.4 | Under 18 conceptions | | | | | | | | | 2.5 | Child development at 2-21/2 years | | | | | | | | | 2.6 | Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.7 | Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | | | | | | | | 2.8 | Emotional well-being of looked after children | | | | | | | | | 2.9 | Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.10 | Self-harm | | | | | | | | | 2.11 | Diet | | | | | | | | | 2.12 | Excess weight in adults | | | | | | | | | 2.13 | Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | | | | | | | 2.14 | Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | | | | | | | | 2.15 | Successful completion of drug treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.16 | People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.17 | Recorded diabetes | | | | | | | | | 2.18 | Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | | | | | | | | 2.19 | Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | | | | | | | | 2.20 | Cancer screening coverage | | | | | | | | | 2.21 | Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | | | | | | | | 2.22 | Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | | | | | | | | 2.23 | Self-reported well-being | | | | | | | | | 2.24 | Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | | | | | | | | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 4.1 Infant mortality | | | | | | | | | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | | Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|----|--------|---------| | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1| 23.2 | | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8| 20.5 | | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4| 18.0 | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5| 13.9 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1| 16.7 | | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2| 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3| 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5| 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3| 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4| 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4| 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5| 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7| 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7| 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3| 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9| 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
NOO (2005) Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL) National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011) Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
## Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| LA | Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | |---------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------------------------------------|------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | Once a week 45.1 | 5 times per week 15.4 | LA 22 | 8 | (25.40 - 31.20) | | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 | 17.6 | 41 | 16 | (43.90 - 56-10) | | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 | 20 | 28 | 10 | (31.20 - 37.20) | | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 | 16.3 | 34 | 13 | (38.20 - 45.30) | | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 | 21.1 | 39 | 15 | (27.20 - 45.30) | | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 | 26 | 28 | 10 | (44.60 - 55.10) | | | City of London | 15.5 | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | | | | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 24 | 10 | (48.60 - 52.10) | | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 | 19.8 | 44 | 17 | (35.50 - 48.8) | | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 39 | 15 | (41.10 - 55.40) | | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 | 18.6 | 36 | 14 | (33.90 - 41.90) | | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 | 19.5 | 32 | 12 | (32.70 - 42.20) | | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 | 24 | 27 | 10 | (34.90 - 41.60) | | | Hammersmith & Fulham| 15.6 | 66.4 | 27.6 | 25 | 10 | (41.70 - 48.20) | | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 | 17.7 | 36 | 14 | (39.20 - 48.00) | | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 | 17.1 | 31 | 12 | (39.70 - 47.60) | | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 30 | 12 | (30.80 - 37.30) | | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 | 14.1 | 32 | 12 | (34.20 - 45.40) | | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 | 17.8 | 28 | 10 | (36.90 - 47.20) | | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 | 22.4 | 23 | 7 | (27.60 - 40.80) | | | Borough | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |-------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | | | 22.53 | | | | England | 24.2 | | | 19.2 | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Location | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |---------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | | 2012 | 2025 | 2040 | | | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | | 75.8 | 28357.6 | 35872.7 | 47363.6 | 22454.5 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team—Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo—Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team—GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons—MA/MSc postgraduate students—University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst—Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly—Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母语版本的此文件，请致电以下号码或与下列地址联络
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος εγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυδρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinmek için, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresle başvurunuz.
Punjabi ਮੇ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਹਿੰਦੀ ਸਾਹਿਤਾ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਹਿੰਦੀ ਅਧਾਰੀ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਫ਼ਲਿਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ, ਜਾ ਰੋਟ ਕੀਤੀ ਲੇਖ ਦੇ ਹੋਰ ਕੋਲ ਜਾ ਰੋਟ ਕੀਤੀ ਪੈਦੇ ਉਥਾਣਾ ਵਾਲੇ.
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میں جانئیں، تو براہ کرم نئی دلی گی نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیکھیں گی نمبر پر رابطہ کریں
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أدناه
Gujarati છી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નક્કી તમારી ભાષામાં ફોટો કોપ તો, કૂટ કરી આપણે નુંબર ઉપર કોન કરી અધયા નીચેના સરળતામાં સંપર્ક સાધો.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1323-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 45,
"total-input-tokens": 115355,
"total-output-tokens": 27529,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
100,
1
],
[
100,
421,
2
],
[
421,
1328,
3
],
[
1328,
3883,
4
],
[
3883,
6220,
5
],
[
6220,
7007,
6
],
[
7007,
9442,
7
],
[
9442,
10392,
8
],
[
10392,
11991,
9
],
[
11991,
14856,
10
],
[
14856,
16198,
11
],
[
16198,
18404,
12
],
[
18404,
18547,
13
],
[
18547,
21294,
14
],
[
21294,
23592,
15
],
[
23592,
24442,
16
],
[
24442,
26964,
17
],
[
26964,
28104,
18
],
[
28104,
30553,
19
],
[
30553,
33013,
20
],
[
33013,
34244,
21
],
[
34244,
35995,
22
],
[
35995,
38573,
23
],
[
38573,
40022,
24
],
[
40022,
43242,
25
],
[
43242,
46261,
26
],
[
46261,
46839,
27
],
[
46839,
48355,
28
],
[
48355,
50864,
29
],
[
50864,
55012,
30
],
[
55012,
59697,
31
],
[
59697,
60958,
32
],
[
60958,
63126,
33
],
[
63126,
64834,
34
],
[
64834,
67112,
35
],
[
67112,
69152,
36
],
[
69152,
72150,
37
],
[
72150,
75071,
38
],
[
75071,
82681,
39
],
[
82681,
88853,
40
],
[
88853,
94985,
41
],
[
94985,
97033,
42
],
[
97033,
105447,
43
],
[
105447,
108333,
44
],
[
108333,
110070,
45
]
]
} |
277d1660205258d874276e4e463525a7df068285 | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Waltham Forest
MAYOR OF LONDON COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
# CONTENTS
| CONTENTS | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 3 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 12 | | AIR QUALITY | 15 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 18 | | FUEL POVERTY | 21 | | OVERHEATING | 24 | | REFERENCES | 28 | | FURTHER READING | 31 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 32 | | DATA APPENDIX | 35 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 42 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American.¹ In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: 'Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward'; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Waltham Forest Picture
- 31 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage, level with the London average.
- Within Waltham Forest over 40 per cent of households in 8 out of 20 wards, have deficient access to nature.
- 20 per cent of Waltham Forest’s population participate 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and 56 per cent participate once a week which equals the London average.
- Waltham Forest’s adult obesity prevalence is 23 per cent, which is higher than the London rate, 21 per cent, but lower than the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in Waltham Forest Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions:
Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
• All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹² • The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces.¹³ • Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • The Marmot review (2010) www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | **Additional (for example)** | • www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013): www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens\\textsuperscript{16}. Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing\\textsuperscript{17}. There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts\\textsuperscript{18}. Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
What is its impact on health?
A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week\\textsuperscript{19}. Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers\\textsuperscript{20}. Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable\\textsuperscript{21}.
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk\\textsuperscript{22}. This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Waltham Forest Picture
- On average 387,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Waltham Forest.
- Average numbers of people participate in active travel, with the percentage of people cycling to work level with the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 3 per cent above the Greater London average.
- There was an average of 865 casualties and 3 fatalities per year on Waltham Forest’s roads between 2005 and 2009: this decreased by 6% in 2009-2011.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A400 with an average daily flow of 152,000 motor vehicles.
- The Borough has no cycle super highways proposed in the Mayor’s ‘Vision for Cycling’.
Figure 2 Journeys in Waltham Forest by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users.
- Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes. • Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. See also section on air quality.
**Case Study: Cycling across Hackney**
Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.27
• Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads.27
• Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created.27
• Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres.
• A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.27
*Contact: Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council, [email protected]*
**Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney**
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and | | | deliberate injuries in under 18s | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | |---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | | • What are the health benefits of active travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery, fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
The Waltham Forest Picture The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
Potential actions: • Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk. • Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding. • Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff. • Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans. • Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities. See also section on green spaces and healthy food
Case studies: Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan • Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan. • The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding. • It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens. • It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding. • The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007 • In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding. • Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result. • The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Waltham Forest Picture
- On some of Waltham Forest’s main arterial roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Waltham Forest is the 12th most affected area by poor air quality in London.33
- In 2011 the GLA identified seven Air Quality Focus Areas within Waltham Forest.
Figure 3 NO₂ emissions on Waltham Forest Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation34.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport.
**Case studies:**
**Reducing exposure – City Air**
‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting. Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
*Contact: Ruth Calderwood*
[email protected]
**Mitigating impact – Croydon Air Text**
In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website.
**Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework**
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.londonair.org.uk | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | • www.comeap.org.uk | | | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
The Waltham Forest Picture
- Waltham Forest’s adult obesity rate is 23 per cent. This is higher than the London average (21 per cent), but lower than the national average (24 per cent).
- Waltham Forest’s obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 24 per cent. This is higher than the national and London rates (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 10 out of 28 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map), 34-37 per cent of the population consume five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 20 per cent of Waltham Forest’s population participate five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and 56 per cent participate once a week. Figure 4 Healthy food consumption in Waltham Forest
Model based consumption of fruit and vegetables in Waltham Forest by ward, 2006-8 LA population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Potential actions
- Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html).
- Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools.
- Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas. • Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security. • Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan.
See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk.
Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest - Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact
• Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes. • A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
Achievements: • Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission. • HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type. Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty). Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health. The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care). The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Waltham Forest Picture
- The older population of Waltham Forest is projected to rise from 26,500 (2012) to 34,600 (2025) and 48,100 (2040). 47
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. There are some disparities between wards but overall the borough is at risk of fuel poverty.
- No Tower Hamlets wards are at low risk of fuel poverty and twelve are at significantly high risk according to the fuel poverty risk indicator, with Lea Bridge ranking 615th out of all 625 London wards. No wards show significant improvement or reduction in their indices. 48
Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Waltham Forest
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- Housing
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- Health
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity benefit claimant rate
- Older people
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- Worklessness
- Unemployment
- Poverty
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation(^5). The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team(^5) can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements(^5)).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and bloodstream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Waltham Forest Picture The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Waltham Forest
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Figure 7 Temperature across the capital London Average Screen Temperatures in degrees Celsius for the period 26 May-19 July 2006 Equal count mapping method: each interval; contains 7% of the total number of grid points
Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council* [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk) | | **Additional (for example)** | • GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report | | | • Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org)) | | | • Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | REFERENCES
1 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm 2 Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A, et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660. 3 MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx 4 Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward ; 5 Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx 6 Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244 7 Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from “Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives”; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8 8 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 9 Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward 10 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 11 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Health Need Assessment Toolkit, Data Period, 2006-2008) http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 12 GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken fromwww.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx; 13 Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/ 14 Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1 15 Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation) 16 London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011,taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk 17 Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network. 18 Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport. 19 Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts. 20 Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk 21 Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk 22 Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk 23 Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk 24 Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk 25 Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000–2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport 26 The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk 27 Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk 28 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk 29 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 30 Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 31 Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 32 Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk 33 www.phoutcomes.info 34 https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works 35 Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity. Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2013, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/. 36 Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/london-boroughs/takeaways-toolkit; 37 Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. 38 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 39 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 40 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 41 Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html
42 New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk 43 Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk 44 Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 45 Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion 46 Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf 47 Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough 48 Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Data store www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards 49 Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk 50 The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 51 UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted 52 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 53 Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk 54 Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939 55 Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345 56 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 57 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013-2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Secondary | |---------|-----------| | Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator | Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator |
| AQ – Air Quality | AT - Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH - Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF - Healthy Food | | |
| Domain 1 | Improving the wider determinants of health | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 1.1 Children in poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.2 School readiness | | | | | | | | | 1.3 Pupil absence | | | | | | | | | 1.4 First time entrants to the youth justice system | | | | | | | | | 1.5 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training | | | | | | | | | 1.6 Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation | | | | | | | | | 1.7 People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness | | | | | | | | | 1.8 Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services | | | | | | | | | 1.9 Sickness absence rate | | | | | | | | | 1.10 Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads | | | | | | | | | 1.11 Domestic abuse | | | | | | | | | 1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence) | | | | | | | | | 1.13 Re-offending levels | | | | | | | | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | | | | | | | | | 1.15 Statutory homelessness | | | | | | | | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | | | | | | | | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.18 Social isolation | | | | | | | | | 1.19 Older people’s perception of community safety | | | | | | | | | Domain 2 | Health Improvement | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|--------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 2.1 | Low birth weight of term babies | | | | | | | | | 2.2 | Breastfeeding | | | | | | | | | 2.3 | Smoking status at time of delivery | | | | | | | | | 2.4 | Under 18 conceptions | | | | | | | | | 2.5 | Child development at 2-21/2 years | | | | | | | | | 2.6 | Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.7 | Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | | | | | | | | 2.8 | Emotional well-being of looked after children | | | | | | | | | 2.9 | Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.10 | Self-harm | | | | | | | | | 2.11 | Diet | | | | | | | | | 2.12 | Excess weight in adults | | | | | | | | | 2.13 | Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | | | | | | | 2.14 | Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | | | | | | | | 2.15 | Successful completion of drug treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.16 | People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.17 | Recorded diabetes | | | | | | | | | 2.18 | Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | | | | | | | | 2.19 | Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | | | | | | | | 2.20 | Cancer screening coverage | | | | | | | | | 2.21 | Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | | | | | | | | 2.22 | Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | | | | | | | | 2.23 | Self-reported well-being | | | | | | | | | 2.24 | Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | | | | | | | | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 4.1 Infant mortality | | | | | | | | | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | | Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|----|--------|---------| | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1| 23.2 | | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8| 20.5 | | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4| 18.0 | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5| 13.9 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1| 16.7 | | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2| 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3| 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5| 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3| 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4| 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4| 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5| 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7| 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7| 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3| 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9| 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
NOO (2005) Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL) National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011) Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65,176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95,634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
### Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | LA | 5 times per week | LA | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | 45.1 | 15.4 | 22 | 8 | (25.40 - 31.20) | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 | 17.6 | 41 | 16 | (43.90 - 56.10) | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 | 20 | 28 | 10 | (31.20 - 37.20) | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 | 16.3 | 34 | 13 | (38.20 - 45.30) | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 | 21.1 | 39 | 15 | (27.20 - 45.30) | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 | 26 | 28 | 10 | (44.60 - 55.10) | | City of London | 19.7 | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | | | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 24 | 10 | (48.60 - 52.10) | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 | 19.8 | 44 | 17 | (35.50 - 48.8) | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 39 | 15 | (41.10 - 55.40) | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 | 18.6 | 36 | 14 | (33.90 - 41.90) | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 | 19.5 | 32 | 12 | (32.70 - 42.20) | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 | 24 | 27 | 10 | (34.90 - 41.60) | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 15.6 | 66.4 | 27.6 | 25 | 10 | (41.70 - 48.20) | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 | 17.7 | 36 | 14 | (39.20 - 48.00) | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 | 17.1 | 31 | 12 | (39.70 - 47.60) | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 30 | 12 | (30.80 - 37.30) | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 | 14.1 | 32 | 12 | (34.20 - 45.40) | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 | 17.8 | 28 | 10 | (36.90 - 47.20) | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 | 22.4 | 23 | 7 | (27.60 - 40.80) | | Borough | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |-------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | | | 22.53 | | | | England | 24.2 | | | 19.2 | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Area | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |-----------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | 2012 | 2025 | 2040 | 2011 | 2011 | | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | 75.8 | 28357.6 | 35872.7 | 47363.6 | 22454.5 | 22.9 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team—Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo—Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team—GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons—MA/MSc postgraduate students—University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team
GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst—Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly—Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母語版本的此文件， 請致電以下號碼或與下列地址聯絡
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chủ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος eγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυ- δρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinebilirsiniz, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresle başvurunuz.
Punjabi ਮੇ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਇਸ ਦਸਤਾਵੇਜ਼ ਦੀ ਕਿਸੀ ਜਾਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਅਧਾਰੀ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਫਲਿਤ ਹੈ, ਜਾ ਰੋਕਣ ਲਈ ਲੇਖ ਦੇ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਸੰਖਿਆ ਦੀ ਰੋਕਣ ਲਈ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਦੇ ਉਪਾਧਿ ਵਧੇ।
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें।
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میں چاہتے ہیں تو براہ کرم نئی دلی گی نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیکھیں گی نمبر پر رابطہ کریں
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أعلاه.
Gujarati ધી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નક્કી તમારી ભાષામાં જીની લોકો તો, કૂટા કરી આપણે નુંબર ઉપર કોન કરી અધયા નીચેના સરળનામ સંપર્ક સાધો.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1324-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 45,
"total-input-tokens": 115238,
"total-output-tokens": 27485,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
118,
1
],
[
118,
439,
2
],
[
439,
1346,
3
],
[
1346,
3901,
4
],
[
3901,
6239,
5
],
[
6239,
7026,
6
],
[
7026,
9464,
7
],
[
9464,
10415,
8
],
[
10415,
12014,
9
],
[
12014,
14879,
10
],
[
14879,
16161,
11
],
[
16161,
18301,
12
],
[
18301,
18656,
13
],
[
18656,
21404,
14
],
[
21404,
23682,
15
],
[
23682,
24532,
16
],
[
24532,
27054,
17
],
[
27054,
28201,
18
],
[
28201,
30649,
19
],
[
30649,
33127,
20
],
[
33127,
33927,
21
],
[
33927,
36112,
22
],
[
36112,
38690,
23
],
[
38690,
40090,
24
],
[
40090,
43328,
25
],
[
43328,
46346,
26
],
[
46346,
46931,
27
],
[
46931,
48447,
28
],
[
48447,
50953,
29
],
[
50953,
55100,
30
],
[
55100,
59789,
31
],
[
59789,
61057,
32
],
[
61057,
63233,
33
],
[
63233,
65298,
34
],
[
65298,
67576,
35
],
[
67576,
69616,
36
],
[
69616,
72744,
37
],
[
72744,
75665,
38
],
[
75665,
83059,
39
],
[
83059,
89161,
40
],
[
89161,
92788,
41
],
[
92788,
94836,
42
],
[
94836,
98053,
43
],
[
98053,
100940,
44
],
[
100940,
102684,
45
]
]
} |
34e32b60c695b3dc4c15cee69b54e10cf17a863d | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Wandsworth
MAYOR OF LONDON COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
## CONTENTS
| Section | Page | |----------------------------------------------|------| | CONTENTS | 1 | | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 3 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 12 | | AIR QUALITY | 15 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 19 | | FUEL POVERTY | 22 | | OVERHEATING | 25 | | REFERENCES | 29 | | FURTHER READING | 32 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 33 | | DATA APPENDIX | 36 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 43 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American. In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: ‘Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward’; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Wandsworth Picture
- 27 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage; 4 per cent below the London average.
- Within Wandsworth, over 50 per cent of households in 2 out of 20 wards, have deficient access to nature.
- 27 per cent of Wandsworth’s population participate 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 66 per cent participate once a week which is above the London average.
- Wandsworth’s adult obesity prevalence is 15 per cent, which is significantly lower than the London rate, 21 per cent, and the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in Wandsworth Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions: Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
• All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹² • The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces.¹³ • Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | Additional (for example) | • The Marmot review (2010) www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013): www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens\\textsuperscript{16}. Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing\\textsuperscript{17}. There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts\\textsuperscript{18}. Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
What is its impact on health?
A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week\\textsuperscript{19}. Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers\\textsuperscript{20}. Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable\\textsuperscript{21}.
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk\\textsuperscript{22}. This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Wandsworth Picture
- On average 387,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Wandsworth.
- Average numbers of people participate in active travel, with the percentage of people cycling to work level with the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 3 per cent above the Greater London average.
- There was an average of 865 casualties and 3 fatalities per year on Wandsworth’s roads between 2005 and 2009; this decreased by 6% in 2009-2011.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A400 with an average daily flow of 152,000 motor vehicles.
- The Borough has no cycle super highways proposed in the Mayor’s ‘Vision for Cycling’.
Figure 2 Journeys in Wandsworth by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users. • Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes. • Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. See also section on air quality.
**Case Study: Cycling across Hackney**
Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.
• Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads. • Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created. • Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres. • A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.
*Contact: Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council, [email protected]*
**Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney**
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and | | | deliberate injuries in under 18s | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | |---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | | • What are the health benefits of active travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery, fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
The Wandsworth Picture The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
Potential actions: • Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk. • Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding. • Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff. • Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans. • Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities. See also section on green spaces and healthy food
Case studies: Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan • Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan. • The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding. • It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens. • It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding. • The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007 • In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding. • Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result. • The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Wandsworth Picture
- On some of Wandsworth’s main arterial roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Wandsworth is the 12th most affected area by poor air quality in London.33
- In 2011 the GLA identified four Air Quality Focus Areas within Wandsworth.
Figure 3 NO₂ emissions on Wandsworth Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation34.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport.
Case studies:
Reducing exposure – City Air
‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting. Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
Contact: Ruth Calderwood [email protected]
Mitigating impact - Croydon Air Text
In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary** | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • www.londonair.org.uk | | | • www.comeap.org.uk | | | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | | **Additional (for example)** | | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
The Wandsworth Picture
- Wandsworth’s adult obesity rate is 15 per cent. This is significantly lower than the London average (21 per cent), and the national average (24 per cent).
- Wandsworth’s obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 20 per cent. This is higher than the national rate, but lower than the London rate (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 15 out of 37 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map), 42–47 per cent of the population consume five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 27 per cent of Wandsworth’s population participate five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and 66 per cent participate once a week. Figure 4 Healthy food consumption in Wandsworth
Model based consumption of fruit and vegetables in Wandsworth by ward, 2006-8 LA population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Potential actions
• Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html). • Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools. • Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas. • Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security. • Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan.
See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk. Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest – Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact
- Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes.
- A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
Achievements:
- Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission.
- HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type.(^4) Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty).(^4) Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.(^4)
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health.(^4) The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care).(^4) The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).(^4)
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Wandsworth Picture
- The older population of Wandsworth is projected to rise from 27,700 (2012) to 33,000 (2025) and 43,600 (2040).(^{47})
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. There are some stark disparities between wards with Thamesfield achieving the 26th lowest risk score of all London wards but Roehampton being 501(^{st}) out of 625 wards and at greater risk.
- Seven Wandsworth wards are low risk of fuel poverty and two are at high risk according to the fuel poverty risk indicator. No wards show significant improvement or decline between 2006–2010.(^{48})
**Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Wandsworth**
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- **Housing**
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- **Health**
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity benefit claimant rate
- **Older people**
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- **Worklessness**
- Unemployment
- **Poverty**
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation(^5). The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team(^5) can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements(^5)).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and blood stream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Wandsworth Picture
The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Wandsworth
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Figure 7 Temperature across the capital London Average Screen Temperatures in degrees Celsius for the period 26 May-19 July 2006 Equal count mapping method: each interval; contains 7% of the total number of grid points
Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council* [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk) | | **Additional (for example)** | • GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report | | | • Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org)) | | | • Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | REFERENCES
1 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm 2 Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660. 3 MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx 4 Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward; 5 Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx 6 Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244 7 Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from "Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives"; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8 8 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 9 Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward 10 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 11 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Health Need Assessment Toolkit, Data Period, 2006-2008) http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 12 GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken from www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx; 13 Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/ 14 Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1 15 Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation) 16 London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011, taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk 17 Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network. 18 Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport. 19 Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts. 20 Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk 21 Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk 22 Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk 23 Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk 24 Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk 25 Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000–2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport 26 The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk 27 Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk 28 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk 29 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 30 Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 31 Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 32 Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk 33 www.phoutcomes.info 34 https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works 35 Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity. Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2013, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/. 36 Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/london-boroughs/takeaways-toolkit; 37 Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. 38 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 39 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 40 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 41 Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 42 New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk 43 Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk 44 Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 45 Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion 46 Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf 47 Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough 48 Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards 49 Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk 50 The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 51 UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted 52 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 53 Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk 54 Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939 55 Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345 56 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 57 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf
## PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013–2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Domain 1 | Improving the wider determinants of health | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 1.1 | Children in poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.2 | School readiness | | | | | | | | | 1.3 | Pupil absence | | | | | | | | | 1.4 | First time entrants to the youth justice system | | | | | | | | | 1.5 | 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training | | | | | | | | | 1.6 | Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation | | | | | | | | | 1.7 | People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness | | | | | | | | | 1.8 | Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services | | | | | | | | | 1.9 | Sickness absence rate | | | | | | | | | 1.10 | Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads | | | | | | | | | 1.11 | Domestic abuse | | | | | | | | | 1.12 | Violent crime (including sexual violence) | | | | | | | | | 1.13 | Re-offending levels | | | | | | | | | 1.14 | The percentage of the population affected by noise | | | | | | | | | 1.15 | Statutory homelessness | | | | | | | | | 1.16 | Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | | | | | | | | | 1.17 | Fuel poverty | | | | | | | | | 1.18 | Social isolation | | | | | | | | | 1.19 | Older people’s perception of community safety | | | | | | | | Primary Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator Secondary Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator
| AQ – Air Quality | AT – Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH – Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF – Healthy Food | | |
| Domain 2 Health Improvement | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |-----------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 2.1 Low birth weight of term babies | | | | | | | | | 2.2 Breastfeeding | | | | | | | | | 2.3 Smoking status at time of delivery | | | | | | | | | 2.4 Under 18 conceptions | | | | | | | | | 2.5 Child development at 2-21/2 years | | | | | | | | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | | | | | | | | 2.8 Emotional well-being of looked after children | | | | | | | | | 2.9 Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.10 Self-harm | | | | | | | | | 2.11 Diet | | | | | | | | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | | | | | | | | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | | | | | | | 2.14 Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | | | | | | | | 2.15 Successful completion of drug treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.16 People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | | | | | | | | | 2.18 Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | | | | | | | | 2.19 Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | | | | | | | | 2.20 Cancer screening coverage | | | | | | | | | 2.21 Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | | | | | | | | 2.22 Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | | | | | | | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | | | | | | | | | 2.24 Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | | | | | | | | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 4.1 Infant mortality | | | | | | | | | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | | Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|--------------|--------------|-----------------|----|--------|---------| | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1| 23.2 | | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8| 20.5 | | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4| 18.0 | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5| 13.9 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1| 16.7 | | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2| 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3| 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5| 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3| 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4| 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4| 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5| 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7| 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7| 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3| 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9| 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
NOO (2005) Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL) National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011) Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
## Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| LA | Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | |---------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------|------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | Once a week 45.1 | 5 times per week 15.4 | LA 22 | 8 | (25.40 - 31.20) | | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 | 17.6 | 41 | 16 | (43.90 - 56.10) | | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 | 20 | 28 | 10 | (31.20 - 37.20) | | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 | 16.3 | 34 | 13 | (38.20 - 45.30) | | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 | 21.1 | 39 | 15 | (27.20 - 45.30) | | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 | 26 | 28 | 10 | (44.60 - 55.10) | | | City of London | 19.7 | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | | | | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 24 | 10 | (48.60 - 52.10) | | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 | 19.8 | 44 | 17 | (35.50 - 48.8) | | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 39 | 15 | (41.10 - 55.40) | | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 | 18.6 | 36 | 14 | (33.90 - 41.90) | | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 | 19.5 | 32 | 12 | (32.70 - 42.20) | | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 | 24 | 27 | 10 | (34.90 - 41.60) | | | Hammersmith & Fulham| 15.6 | 66.4 | 27.6 | 25 | 10 | (41.70 - 48.20) | | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 | 17.7 | 36 | 14 | (39.20 - 48.00) | | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 | 17.1 | 31 | 12 | (39.70 - 47.60) | | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 30 | 12 | (30.80 - 37.30) | | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 | 14.1 | 32 | 12 | (34.20 - 45.40) | | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 | 17.8 | 28 | 10 | (36.90 - 47.20) | | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 | 22.4 | 23 | 7 | (27.60 - 40.80) | | | Location | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |--------------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | | | 22.53 | | | | England | 24.2 | | | 19.2 | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Area | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 2012 | Population Aged 65 2025 | Population Aged 65 2040 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |-----------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | 75.8 | 28357.6 | 35872.7 | 47363.6 | 22454.5 | 22.9 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team-Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo- Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team-GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons- MA/MSc postgraduate students-University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone-Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team
GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst – Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly – Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond – Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母语版本的此文件，请致电以下号码或与下列地址联络
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος εγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυδρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinmek için, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresi başvurunuz.
Punjabi ਮੇ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਹਿੰਦੀ ਸਾਹਿਤਾਂ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਤਾ ਜਾਂ ਅਧਾਰ ਦੀ ਰੂਪਾਂ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਤਾ ਦੀ ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ, ਜਾ ਰੋਕਣ ਦੀ ਲੜਕੀ ਦੀ ਰੋਕਣ ਦੀ ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਾਣ ਦੀ ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ.
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میں جانئیں تو براہ کرم نئی دلی گی نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیکھیں گی پر رابطہ کریں
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أدناه
Gujarati છી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નક્કી તમારી ભાષામાં જોઈને કોઇ તો, કૂટા કરી આપણે પુષ્ટી ઉપર કોઈ કરી અધયાય નીચેના સરળતામાં સંપર્ક સાધો.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1325-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 46,
"total-input-tokens": 116444,
"total-output-tokens": 27964,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
114,
1
],
[
114,
435,
2
],
[
435,
1400,
3
],
[
1400,
3955,
4
],
[
3955,
6292,
5
],
[
6292,
7079,
6
],
[
7079,
9519,
7
],
[
9519,
10465,
8
],
[
10465,
11922,
9
],
[
11922,
14787,
10
],
[
14787,
15983,
11
],
[
15983,
18182,
12
],
[
18182,
18537,
13
],
[
18537,
21285,
14
],
[
21285,
23559,
15
],
[
23559,
24409,
16
],
[
24409,
26931,
17
],
[
26931,
27978,
18
],
[
27978,
29875,
19
],
[
29875,
30808,
20
],
[
30808,
33292,
21
],
[
33292,
34517,
22
],
[
34517,
36268,
23
],
[
36268,
38882,
24
],
[
38882,
40326,
25
],
[
40326,
43564,
26
],
[
43564,
46583,
27
],
[
46583,
47161,
28
],
[
47161,
48677,
29
],
[
48677,
51183,
30
],
[
51183,
55347,
31
],
[
55347,
60034,
32
],
[
60034,
61308,
33
],
[
61308,
63484,
34
],
[
63484,
65855,
35
],
[
65855,
68418,
36
],
[
68418,
70458,
37
],
[
70458,
73552,
38
],
[
73552,
76490,
39
],
[
76490,
84064,
40
],
[
84064,
90164,
41
],
[
90164,
96144,
42
],
[
96144,
98318,
43
],
[
98318,
106170,
44
],
[
106170,
109065,
45
],
[
109065,
110817,
46
]
]
} |
271d8ccf13b60a0a66cc3864b594e17cb947945b | BETTER ENVIRONMENT, BETTER HEALTH A GLA guide for London’s Boroughs London Borough of Westminster
MAYOR OF LONDON COPYRIGHT
Greater London Authority November 2013
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk
Please print and circulate widely
# CONTENTS
| CONTENTS | Page | |--------------------------------|------| | FOREWORD | 2 | | INTRODUCTION | 3 | | GREEN SPACES | 5 | | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT | 8 | | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK | 12 | | AIR QUALITY | 15 | | HEALTHY FOOD | 18 | | FUEL POVERTY | 21 | | OVERHEATING | 25 | | REFERENCES | 29 | | FURTHER READING | 32 | | PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK | 33 | | DATA APPENDIX | 36 | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 43 | FOREWORD
The Mayor’s vision is for London to be the ‘greatest city on earth’ – this means making the city a great place for Londoners to live, relax, work and raise a family, whilst being attractive to investors. However there are significant inequalities in the health and quality of Londoners’ lives. 2009-11 ONS figures show that average healthy life expectancy reduces by almost one year for every stop eastwards on the District Line between the boroughs of Richmond and Tower Hamlets – a difference of 18 years. The reasons for this are complex but the evidence points strongly to the important impact of the wider determinants of health. This inequality means some Londoners are unable to benefit from and contribute to the city’s dynamism because of preventable health problems. The Mayor wants to ensure all Londoners have the chance to participate in what London has to offer.
Furthermore, if we are to maintain and improve London’s position as the attractive world city it is, we need to create a resilient city, able to deal with extreme weather events, and a city that offers a high quality of life with green spaces, a fantastic public realm and a pleasant, healthy environment.
Local authorities have a unique role to play in achieving these goals, and with their new responsibilities for public health they have a new set of capabilities and levers for catalysing change. Better Environment, Better Health offers a bespoke guide to each of London’s thirty three boroughs, describing the impact of seven wider environmental determinants of health on their specific populations and highlighting possible actions that could be taken to promote a better environment leading to better health and well-being, overall, for Londoners.
For example we know that by encouraging walking and cycling we are not only helping to improve London’s air quality but also cardiovascular health, whilst reducing levels of obesity. The guides demonstrate how such an approach can be taken on a range of issues, without necessarily adding to the financial burden on boroughs’ already squeezed budgets, just by doing things differently.
We hope you will find value in the guide and will use it to drive improvements locally to create strong environments which promote health and well-being, and are resilient.
Finally, we would like to thank the project team for writing the guides and their drive in taking this project forward.
Victoria Borwick Deputy Mayor of London and Mayoral Health Advisor
Matthew Pencharz Senior Advisor for Environment and Energy INTRODUCTION
What is likely to shape the health of our communities over the next twenty or thirty years? What will improve quality of life? What will help people live longer, particularly those most likely to die early? What will improve people’s quality of life, reducing years lost to disability and poor mental and physical health? What will improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people? The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has argued that in the 20th century public health measures added 25 years to the life of an average American. In its list of top ten interventions half are closely connected to the environment. The same list would be likely to apply to the UK and London. In the 21st century public health measures, including measures seeking to improve the environment, are likely to be as important in supporting good health as improvements in healthcare. We need to prepare, assess and plan for extreme weather events and their impacts not just to improve Londoners’ health and wellbeing but to increase economic prosperity, for business and service continuity and to strengthen community resilience.
In this guide we focus on seven environmental issues and their relationship to health:
- Green spaces
- Active travel & transport
- Surface water flood risk
- Air quality
- Healthy food
- Fuel poverty
- Overheating
For each of these we ask certain questions:
- What is the issue and how do we measure it?
- What is its impact on health? What is the evidence?
- Who will experience the impact most?
- What is the local borough picture?
- What are the key actions to promote good health?
We also provide links to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and suggested further reading. The aim of the bespoke borough guides is to maximise opportunities for improving health and wellbeing, as well as enhancing community resilience. They are aimed at professionals working in health, environment, regeneration, economic development or any aspect of shaping local places, as well as local people interested in improving the quality of life in their communities. Where issues are locally relevant we hope this document will help to start a conversation which enables them to be identified and addressed in borough Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and health and wellbeing strategies. These guides do not cover all of the wider environmental determinants of health. For example, they do not look at some aspects of housing (such as overcrowding), workplace health, wider resource use, access to services, water resource management or noise pollution. More broadly, issues of planning and environmental control tie many of these areas together. How we shape ongoing development and use of our town centres, neighbourhoods and business districts presents opportunities to maximise the health of users: residents, employees and visitors. Similarly, environmental consideration provides the scope to address potential risk to resilience, health and well-being as well as promoting good practice amongst, for example, businesses, landlords and facilities managers. GREEN SPACES
Accessible green space has long been recognised as a wider environmental determinant of good health. Wide ranging research shows strong evidence that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on both physical and mental well-being. When considering green space it is helpful to think about both access and use: availability being a necessary but insufficient indicator and determinant of use. A range of data are available on both access and use including the Natural England MENE survey (frequency, mode of access, reasons); London.gov.data: ‘Access to Public Open Space and Access to Nature by Ward’; and Sport England: Active people Survey (physical activity rate).
What is the impact on health? Accessible, safe green space is shown to reduce mental distress, depression and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children. Access to a garden or living a short distance to/from green areas, as well as having the potential to lead to improvements in the environment, are associated with a general improvement in mental health and wellbeing. Both the Marmot Review and NICE have highlighted evidence that the presence of good quality outdoor green spaces encourages physical activity which is important across a wide range of health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes and mental/physical health. Increasing and improving the proportion of green spaces in urban centres also has a secondary positive impact on health through other wider environment determinants of health such as urban heat-island effect, surface flood risk and air quality.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
- Urban residents (through impact on quality of life)
- Older people and children
- People suffering from obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, diabetes
- People suffering from mental distress and depression.
The Westminster Picture
- 22 per cent of the borough surface has green space coverage; 9 per cent below the London average.
- Within Westminster, 50 per cent of households in 4 out of 20 wards, have deficient access to nature.
- 25 per cent of Westminster’s population participate 5 times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and 59 per cent participate once a week which is above the London average.
- Westminster’s adult obesity prevalence is 15 per cent, which is significantly lower than the London rate, 21 per cent, and the national rate, 24 per cent. Figure 1 Green Spaces in Westminster Pink coloured areas are defined as area of deficiency in access to local, small and pocket parks. Proximity rate is +/- 400m from households.
http://www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx
Potential actions:
Given the significant relationship between health and green spaces in the urban environment some key actions can be identified to improve quality and proximity in order to enhance access and use. This includes considering:
• All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance to improve biodiversity function and connectivity of green spaces;¹² • The Green Flag Award system to improve quality and promote access to green spaces.¹³ • Promoting physical activity in outdoor spaces through “outdoor gyms” and “guided walking exercise prescription” as a way to recover from cardiovascular diseases and illness.¹⁴
See also sections on surface water flood risk and healthy food. Case Study: Regenerating Burgess Park, London Borough of Southwark
The regeneration of Burgess Park, in Southwark, was underpinned by a comprehensive plan that made the focus of the park a place for healthy living, showing how to combine ‘natural’ regeneration with health promotion. This has also included opportunities for investment, growth and jobs. For example, improved access to, and routes through, the park, alongside enhancements to the lakes, planting, lighting and on-site facilities, has made the park a much more attractive and welcoming place, encouraging play and informal recreation. The park also has over 10 km of running, cycling and fitness routes and a new BMX track, to cater for more formal sport and physical activity.
Contact: Ruth Miller, Burgess Park Project Manager [email protected]
Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Suggested further reading | |---------|---------------------------| | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • Planning for Health (2009) HUDU www.instituteofhealthequity.org | | Additional (for example) | • The Marmot review (2010) www.nice.org.uk | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • Benefit of Urban Parks, IFpra (2013): www.ecehh.org | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • www.naturalengland.org.uk | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • www.hphpcentral.com | | | • CMO (2011) Start Active, Stay Active | ACTIVE TRAVEL & TRANSPORT
Travel is essential for connecting people to employment, recreation, education and health and community services. Most people travel in some way every day, making it part of everyday life and therefore a factor that can greatly affect the health of all London’s citizens\\textsuperscript{16}. Travel includes walking and cycling, use of private vehicles, public transport and goods vehicles. In London more than 80 per cent of journeys take place on roads either by motor vehicle, bike or on foot; therefore road transport and street environments have a very significant impact on health and wellbeing\\textsuperscript{17}. There are inequalities in the impact of transport upon health, with the most deprived people and those using the most heavily trafficked roads experiencing the most negative health impacts\\textsuperscript{18}. Only a few London boroughs include a dedicated transport focus in their Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), suggesting the impact of travel on health may be underestimated.
What is its impact on health?
A comprehensive public transport network provides many health benefits including access to services, reducing social isolation and increasing work and social opportunities. A major benefit of travel in London is that it enables people to maintain regular physical activity via walking (particularly as part of public transport trips) and cycling. Only around 20 per cent of Londoners currently meet the minimum recommendation for physical activity of 150 minutes per week\\textsuperscript{19}. Everyday physical activity is essential for good physical and mental health, contributing to the prevention of over 20 diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers\\textsuperscript{20}. Cycling and walking can be easily incorporated into daily routines to meet physical activity needs. In London, approximately 4.3 million trips currently made by car or public transport have been identified as easily cyclable\\textsuperscript{21}.
Creating opportunities which enable Londoners to walk and cycle has other potential health benefits including access to safe, green spaces. This could lead to reductions in congestion which, in turn, may reduce overheating and improve air quality. The negative impacts of transport in London are concentrated in the London’s most heavily trafficked streets, where high concentrations of vehicles contribute to air and noise pollution and increased injury risk\\textsuperscript{22}. This can create the impression of a hostile environment for walking and cycling and can exacerbate health inequalities. Motor vehicles are responsible for 41–60 per cent of air pollutants in the UK, which have an impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. People who live on or use heavily trafficked streets are the most adversely affected. The Westminster Picture
- On average 1,168,000 trips per day are made by people originating in Westminster.
- High numbers of people participate in active travel, with the percentage of people cycling to work higher than the Greater London average.
- Use of motor vehicles is 25 per cent below the Greater London average, the lowest rate in London.
- There was an average of 1695 casualties and 13 fatalities per year on Westminster’s roads between 2005 and 2009: the highest in London.
- The most heavily used road (excluding motorways) is the A4202 with an average daily flow of 125,000 motor vehicles.
- The Borough currently has two cycle super highways and two proposed in the Mayor’s ‘Vision for Cycling’.
Figure 2 Journeys in Westminster by modal share
Source: London Travel Demand Survey
Potential actions:
- Designing street environments to encourage walking and cycling.
- Designing and engineering roads to reduce motor vehicle speed and implement 20mph zones where appropriate.
- Promoting a network of roads and paths that are safe and convenient for cycling and walking.
- Supporting walking and cycling by ensuring that, where possible, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians are considered before other road users. • Promoting cycling through information, maps and cycle hire schemes. • Improving safety of heavily trafficked streets where most traffic related health risk is concentrated. • See also section on air quality.
Case Study: Cycling across Hackney Hackney has the highest levels of cycling in London. There are more cyclists than motorists in many parts of the borough. This is evidenced by the fact that 6 per cent of journey’s originating from Hackney are on bike, higher than any other borough in London. Since 2001 the Council has sought to increase the areas that are cycle friendly by improving the design and increasing the accessibility of the road network for cyclists.
• Road safety has been improved by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes. The aim is to enforce 20 mph speed limits across the borough on all residential roads. • Systematic improvements have been made to the public realm for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and a number of designated cycle routes such as the Hackney Park cycle route have been created. • Hackney has invested in a range of cycle parking bays including lockers in estates, hangars (on street bike/storage lockers), on residential streets and large bike ports at transport hubs such as railway stations and town centres. • A comprehensive free cycling training programme has targeted a range of audiences.
Contact: Ben Kennedy, Hackney Council, [email protected]
Example of a cycling improvement scheme Wordsworth Road/Palatine Road, Hackney
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary** | • Healthy Transport Healthy Lives, British Medical Association (BMA) | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | • NICE Walking and Cycling, Local Government Briefing | | **Additional (for example)** | • Mayors Vision for Cycling, 2013 GLA | | 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons | • London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm (2013) | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and | | | deliberate injuries in under 18s | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | |---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | | • What are the health benefits of active travel: A systematic review of trials and cohort studies, PloSOne, 8 | SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
Surface water flooding describes flooding on the land surface from sewers, drains, groundwater and runoff from land after a heavy rainfall event. Surface water flooding events are difficult to predict but can cause significant disruptions to local populations and to health and other services. London is vulnerable to surface water flooding because some areas have poor drainage systems and large areas of impervious surfaces. Approximately 480,000 London properties and ten hospitals are at risk of surface water flooding in London. Surface water flooding is already a considerable risk and one that, without action, will increase in London due to population growth, urban expansion and ageing of drainage systems. In addition, changing climate patterns are likely to increase the number and intensity of large magnitude precipitation events leading to a likelihood of more frequent and larger magnitude surface water flooding events. Local Flood Authorities are responsible for mapping, assessing and managing local flood risks, identifying whom and what is at risk and the vulnerability of services such as hospitals and schools to surface water flooding.
The Mayor’s Regional Flood Risk Appraisal identifies surface water flood risk as the most likely cause of flooding in London. The GLA, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Councils have been developing and delivering a programme to manage this risk, known as Drain London.
There are multiple ways in which flooding can create health risks:
- Fast flowing water has multiple potential hazards such as moving debris which can cause physical injury and even death. Contaminated flood water containing pollutants such as chemicals and sewage can cause disease.
- Flooding of health facilities results in disruption to access to healthcare facilities, with increased difficulty providing routine medical care and increased patient admissions in neighbouring facilities.
- Exhaust emissions from machinery operating in the clean-up process and recovery from a flood can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Disruptions in flood recovery, fear of repeat events and added effects of stress due to insurance claims and refurbishing properties can cause mental health problems. Up to 25 per cent of people who experienced flooding in their homes in the major UK floods in 2007 experienced mental health issues after the event.
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Some areas in London are at risk of surface water flooding particularly where there is inadequate sewer/drainage capacity, and some groups are at greater risk. These include people with limited mobility or/and those who are dependent on medication and/or regular healthcare at home or at a health/social care facility. Those with less flood awareness due to weak social networks and limited or no access to public warning systems and/or information are also at risk.
The Westminster Picture The Environment Agency will be releasing a national surface water flood risk map for each London borough in December 2013. Whilst this will show the areas at risk it should also be noted that any low lying area could also potentially be affected but may not be visible on the maps because of the difficulty in assessing surface water flood risk. The maps will provide borough-specific assessments.
Potential actions: • Developing emergency plans to reduce effects of surface water flood risk. • Including integrated emergency planning for priority groups/services. Developing land management strategies such as green roofs to reduce likelihood of surface water flooding. • Incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as an alternative to traditional approaches to managing runoff. • Identifying vulnerable and isolated people and implementing early warning systems and evacuation plans. • Planning for disruption of infrastructure and increase in patient volumes at health and social care facilities.
See also section on green spaces and healthy food
Case studies: Purley (LB Croydon) community flood plan • Purley is vulnerable to flooding and experienced a large flood event in 2007. In response the community developed a Community Flood Plan. • The flood plan is owned by the community, and aims to reduce the impact of flooding. • It advises the community on how to prevent flooding and what to do if it happens. • It is a low cost but effective way of reducing a wide range of impacts of flooding. • The community has created a number of flood wardens who play a central role in advising local citizens and businesses on the flood risk and actions they can take to reduce the impact and nature of flood events.
Surface water flooding event, London, July 2007 • In July 2007, 121mm of rainfall fell in London, mostly on July 20th, causing some significant surface water flooding. • Approximately 400 properties were flooded, 158 schools affected and two hospitals were closed as a result. • The closure of St George’s Hospital caused major disruption. | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary:** | • GLA Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, 2013 | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • Drain London- http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/looking-after-londons-water/drain-london Programme | | **Additional (for example)** | • London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • Multi-Agency Flood Plan, LB Havering, 2012 | | | • Floods in the European Union, Health effects and their prevention (2013), World Health Organisation (WHO) | AIR QUALITY
Good air quality has long been recognised a basic requirement for good health. The UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2000, updated in 2010, set standards for a variety of pollutants that are considered harmful to human health and the environment. These are based on EU limit values and are for a range of air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM$_{10}$ and PM$_{2.5}$), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide, benzo(a)pyrene and ozone.
Much of the focus of air quality action is on nitrogen dioxide (NO$\_2$) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) refers to a complex mixture of non-gaseous particles of varied physical and chemical composition. It is categorised by the size of the particulate. In London, road traffic is a significant source of PM mainly from exhaust emissions and wear, tyre and brake wear and dust from road surfaces.
In addition, older furnaces and boilers may have an impact on the overall air quality environment within a house. Poor air quality could potentially compromise health and well-being.
It should be noted that exceedences apply across the whole of London, particularly near built up areas and major roads.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Long-term exposure to poor air quality can contribute to the development of chronic diseases and can increase the risk of respiratory illness. In Greater London it is estimated that the equivalent of 4,267 deaths in London in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct whereby all health impact associated with air pollution are amalgamated. Since everyone breathes the air where they are, a more realistic interpretation is that the risks are distributed across the whole population, with a total mortality impact of the concentrations equivalent to that number of deaths. At high concentrations NO$_2$ can result in inflammation of a person’s airways; long-term exposure can affect lung function and respiratory symptoms and can increase asthma symptoms. PM aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will deposit within the respiratory tract. The impact of PM$_{2.5}$ on health is especially significant.
Who may experience the greatest impact?
- People who live or work close to areas with poor air quality
- People with respiratory problems
- People with heart problems The Westminster Picture
- On many Westminster’s roads there are high concentrations of NO2 (see map) which are above the recommended limits.
- Statistical tools are used by public health specialists to try to understand the comparative impact of different factors on mortality. Using these techniques, Westminster is the 2nd most affected area by poor air quality in London. In 2011 the GLA identified eight Air Quality Focus Areas within Westminster.
Figure 3 NO₂ emissions on Westminster Roads
Potential actions:
- Promoting a modal shift to encourage higher proportions of walking, cycling and use of public transport and less use of cars. This could include a wide range of measures from systemic action within the planning and transport system to one-off events such as car free days. Such measures could lead to significant improvements in air quality.
- Promoting energy efficiency in homes, public and commercial offices. For more information see the Energy Company Obligation.
- Individual steps could be taken to: a) reduce personal contribution to air pollution such as engine idling; and, b) reduce risk of exposure where it is potentially hazardous to health (particularly for people with underlying vulnerabilities) through systems such as airText.
See also section on active travel and transport. Case studies: Reducing exposure – City Air ‘CityAir’ was launched in May 2011 in the City of London to encourage businesses to help to improve local air quality.
Best practice guidance and case studies were produced to provide advice to City businesses on reducing emissions from buildings, encouraging staff to walk and cycle in the City, using purchase contracts to require low polluting vehicles and building air quality targets into environmental reporting. Information is available at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/cityair. To date over 50 businesses have been engaged, representing over 40,000 employees. CityAir employee walking campaigns have been very popular.
Contact: Ruth Calderwood [email protected]
Mitigating impact – Croydon Air Text In 2005 the London Borough of Croydon developed with the European Space Agency and Cambridge Environment Research Consultants an air quality forecasting service called ‘airTEXT’. AirTEXT provides information on pollution levels in the borough using ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ bandings. Whenever moderate or high pollution levels are expected, subscribers to airTEXT receive a text message, call or voicemail. This enables recipients to respond, if necessary, for example by taking a different route/mode of transport to work, keeping their medication with them or not exercising outside on certain days. In 2012 a new airTEXT app was developed which provides information on four health-relevant alerts: UV, pollen, air quality and temperature. Currently around 10,000 people use the airTEXT service through text, Twitter or the website.
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary** | • GLA Local Authority Air Quality Guides | | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | • www.londonair.org.uk | | | • www.comeap.org.uk | | | • NICE Guidance PH41 Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking forms of travel or recreation | | **Additional (for example)** | • Kilbane-Dawe (2012) 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise | | HEALTHY FOOD
Access to healthy food is an important wider environmental determinant of health. Improving the food environment means enhancing the availability of affordable and nutritious food and recognising the relationship between the geography of food retailing and dietary patterns. It also means considering of sustainable production, processing and delivery. Policy attention has focused on the role of local planning measures and the impact of large supermarkets, provision of food growing places, the physical environment and education on a healthy diet. Many factors influence the availability of healthy food. The predominance of unhealthy food and low income may interact with environmental factors to limit access.
Access to healthy food can be measured through the following indicators: cost, quality, geography, mode of transportation, physical proximity and socio-economic variables.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence? Reduced access to healthy food and the ready and cheap availability of unhealthy foods (such as fast-food and takeaway outlets) increases the risk of a diet based on high consumption of sugar, saturated fat and salt and low in vegetables and fruit. This could lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers associated with obesity. The National Obesity Observatory estimated the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity to be £15.8 billion per year (2007). This has an impact on children as well as adults. Studies have also found that an increased density of fast food restaurants is directly related to increased Body Mass Index (mass index showing body fat based on height and weight) and that having a fast food outlet within 160m of a school is associated with a 5 per cent increase in obesity.
The Westminster Picture
- Westminster’s adult obesity rate is 15 per cent. This is significantly lower than the London average (21 per cent), and the national average (24 per cent).
- Westminster’s obesity rate among primary school children (year 6) is 25 per cent. This is higher than the national and London rates (19 and 23 per cent respectively).
- In 10 out of 24 Middle Super Output Areas (two darkest blue areas on map), 48-52 per cent of the population consume five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
- 25 per cent of Westminster’s population participate five times per week in physical activity for at least 30 minutes and nearly 59 per cent participate once a week. Figure 4 Healthy food consumption in Westminster
Model based consumption of fruit and vegetables in Barking and Dagenham by ward, 2006-8 LA population consuming five portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Potential actions: • Developing schemes to promote local and easily accessible healthy food from retailers (for example www.cieh.org/healthier-catering-commitment.html). • Using planning controls to manage proliferation of fast-food outlets on high streets and near schools. • Promoting the GLA Healthy Schools London Awards Initiative (www.healthyschoolslondon.org.uk). Healthy food choice in schools is recognised as a way to tackle obesity and chronic diseases caused by poor nutrition. This includes diet, education, and healthy meals provided at schools and accessible from nearby areas. • Capital Growth (www.capitalgrowth.org) initiatives have the potential to promote community food growing. These activities reconnect people to the food system, engages them in issues such as where their food comes from, seasonality, healthy eating, and food security. • Procuring from local food suppliers and retailers, signed up to the Healthier Catering Commitment Plan.
See also section on green spaces and surface flood risk. Case Study: Fast-food Fix – LB Waltham Forest - Tackling the Takeaways: Making an Impact
- Community engagement on ‘takeaways’ in the borough identified dissatisfaction with the number and location of 241 local hot food takeaways (HFT). This included schools, concerned that the proximity of HFTs to schools had a negative impact on healthy eating programmes.
- A HFT corporate steering group was established to:
- Ensure existing HFT businesses operated as responsibly as possible;
- Develop strategies to tackle the wider social, environmental and economic issues associated with the proliferation of HFTs in the borough.
Achievements:
- Supplementary planning documents were developed restricting the opening of new HFT shops. So far, 20 applications have been refused planning permission and only 4 HFTs have been given planning permission.
- HFTs in the borough have been reduced from 241 to 194
Contact: Gordon Glenday, Head of Planning Policy and Regeneration [email protected]
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NICE guidance: www.nice.org.uk | | 2.11 Diet | • Takeaways Toolkit (2012): see www.london.gov.uk | | **Additional (for example):** | • District Action on Public Health: http://districtcouncils.info/; | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | • CIEH Food Policy, (2013): www.cieh.org | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | • Healthy People, Healthy Lives, (2011); | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | • Good planning for Good Food: see www.sustainweb.org/publications/?Id=192 | FUEL POVERTY
There are three factors that can result in fuel poverty, often in combination: low income, poor energy efficiency in homes and increasing energy prices. A household is now defined as ‘fuel-poor’ if its total income is below the poverty line (taking into account housing energy costs) and its energy costs are higher than typical for its household type. Data on fuel poverty is collected from the English Housing Survey Domestic Fuel Inquiry and published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). More than 560,000 households in London are estimated to be spending more than ten per cent of their basic income on energy (the previous official definition of fuel poverty). Fuel poverty has the potential to have an adverse impact on children already in poverty as well as to increase the numbers of children living in poverty. Fuel poverty is also known to have an impact on well-being as indicated in self-reported well-being surveys.
What is the impact on health? What is the evidence?
Fuel poverty can have a negative impact on health, especially on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Fuel poverty results in cold homes, exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and influenza, and negatively affects mental health. The effects of fuel poverty may be compounded by social isolation, poor emotional well-being, reduced mobility and poor diet. Cold homes are also known to affect cognitive performance. However, actual deaths are only one part of the problem. Age UK estimates the cost to the NHS of cold homes as £1.36 billion per year (not including additional costs to social services for subsequent care). The recent DECC fuel poverty framework attempts to monetise the health impacts of fuel poverty. It refers to a model estimating changes in people’s health from the installation of energy efficiency measures (resulting from changes in the indoor temperature and pollutant exposure).
Who might experience the greatest impact?
Fuel poverty affects vulnerable groups such as older people, the group most likely to suffer excess winter deaths. Children, people with disabilities and/or those living in deprivation are also at greater risk of suffering from the effects of fuel poverty as they often need to spend longer time indoors and require heating for longer periods of time. Additionally, private sector tenants are at significantly greater risk of encountering the worst housing quality and are also least likely to access support or feel empowered to do anything about the issue. The Westminster Picture
- The older population of Westminster is projected to rise from 25,200 (2012) to 30,400 (2025) and 39,400 (2040).
- A Fuel Poverty Risk score has been developed. There are some stark disparities between wards with Knightsbridge and Belgravia achieving the 11th lowest risk score of all London wards but Church Street and Queen’s Park being 624th and 625th out of 625 wards and at significantly greater risk.
- Two Westminster wards are at low risk of fuel poverty and five are at high risk according to the fuel poverty risk indicator and Queen’s Park shows a negative trend toward significant reduction between 2006-2010.
Figure 5 Fuel Poverty risk in Westminster
The Fuel Poverty Risk Index was developed by the London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. It is calculated on the basis of twelve indicators across four sections:
- **Housing**
- Dwellings without central heating
- Uninsulated cavity walls
- Lofts with less than 150mm insulation
- **Health**
- Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
- Standardised Mortality Ratio
- Incapacity benefit claimant rate
- **Older people**
- People aged 60 and over
- Older people claiming pension credit
- **Worklessness**
- Unemployment
- **Poverty**
- Income support claimant rate
- Child poverty rates
- Households classified ‘fuel poor’
Source: GLA (2013) Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Tool, available on London Datastore Potential actions: The first key step to any intervention is to identify vulnerable areas/individuals and map the extent of the problem. Vulnerable individuals and households can be identified and supported through:
- Close collaboration with third-sector organisations which are working with vulnerable groups/isolated populations/people to refer or inform them of available support.
- Home energy improvements as a vital sustainable solution to fuel poverty. There are opportunities through initiatives such as the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation(^6). The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme support team(^5) can offer advice on funding, procurement and best practice to partner with energy efficiency providers. In addition, the issue of overheating should be taken into account when implementing any energy efficiency works especially wall and loft insulation. Whilst take up of the Green Deal to date has not been significant, it remains an important delivery mechanism to reduce fuel poverty in London. (See section on overheating).
- Promoting collaboration between local authorities and private landlords in line with upcoming energy efficiency legislation (2018 energy efficiency requirements(^5)).
- Raising awareness of benefits entitlement and support through public health campaigns, working with third sector organisations and the local community.
See also section on overheating and air quality.
Case Study: Barts Health in Tower Hamlets – Reducing Fuel Poverty Barts Health has recently established a partnership project with British Gas and Global Action Plan that aims to reduce fuel poverty in Tower Hamlets. Hospital staff, GPs and community groups refer patients from vulnerable groups or those people living in hard-to-treat homes to the Energy Companies Obligation, supporting the installation of energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The project will train and support 40 health professionals (GPs, outpatient care staff and community nurses) plus community groups. The partnership initially aims to target 200 homes. The initiative is not just a referral mechanism but will raise awareness among vulnerable groups, medical practitioners and the wider community on what steps could be taken to address fuel poverty. Such an initiative could be linked with other seasonal health initiatives such as winter flu jab promotion.
Contact: Fiona Daly, Barts Health NHS Trust, [email protected] | Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Primary** | • Marmot Review Team, 2011 – The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty | | 1.17 Fuel poverty | • Age UK, 2012 - The Cost of Cold | | **Additional (for example)** | • Hills, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty | | 1.1 Children in poverty | • DECC, 2013, Helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | • DECC, 2013, Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | • London Assembly, 2012, In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in London, GLA | OVERHEATING
What do we mean by overheating? How do we measure it?
Extreme weather events are more likely to be a factor affecting people’s health in future years. Heatwaves, such as the one in the summer of 2003 which caused the death of 2000 people, could become more frequent (London had an excess mortality of 42%, compared to England of 17%). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect means that urban areas tend to be hotter than rural areas. This is due to increased absorption of the sun on concrete compared with green or brown spaces, reduced cooling from breezes due to buildings and increased heat production from houses, industry, businesses and vehicles. This is especially relevant for London with its densely built-up central boroughs and high concentration of traffic and people. The UHI effect is not universally experienced across the city as it relates to availability of green space/water bodies, building density, amount of traffic and energy consumption. However there are particularly vulnerable spots in each borough, as well as vulnerable people across areas. (See maps below). When considering London as a whole, the costs associated with overheating mortality are expected to be around £7-78 million in the 2030s (473-712 heat-attributable deaths); by the 2050s, this could rise to £13-149 million (1200-1838 heat-attributable deaths).
What is the impact on health?
Overheating can cause heat strokes, exacerbates existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and affects people with respiratory conditions due to a combination of overheating and poor air quality. A heatwave can also affect mental health with peak suicide and homicide rates reported during previous heatwaves in the UK. Research has shown a direct link between a temperature rise to more than 24°C and risk of death. Additionally, people may suffer from heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat rash and heat syncope (fainting as a result of overheating). Overheating may lead to dehydration, especially in older people, and there is a strong link between high temperatures, dehydration and blood stream infections, also particularly in older people.
Who will experience the greatest impact?
Certain housing conditions (older and small top floor, purpose built flats because of the low solar protection offered by the top floor of poorly insulated flats; and newly constructed houses not suitably designed for extreme heat events and the quality of the built environment could potentially contribute to the overheating of an environment. Certain groups such as children have less efficient body cooling mechanisms and are therefore at greater risk. Similarly, the body’s thermoregulatory mechanisms could be impaired in older people and those with chronic health conditions. Those considered vulnerable to overheating may not always perceive themselves to be at risk. Simple measures to reduce the negative impacts of overheating are not always implemented which could place these groups at even greater risk. The Westminster Picture
The map below shows temperature differences across the borough and also shows the effects of existing infrastructure and green space on overheating risk. Combined with data on vulnerable populations, this will provide a more precise picture of the biggest risk areas.
Figure 6: Average temperatures in Westminster
Model simulations of London’s temperatures were provided by Dr. Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel (University of Reading) using the Met Office Unified Model and MORUSES (MetOffice Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme) (Bohnenstengel et al., 2010). Figure 7 Temperature across the capital London Average Screen Temperatures in degrees Celsius for the period 26 May-19 July 2006 Equal count mapping method: each interval; contains 7% of the total number of grid points
Potential actions: The NHS Heatwave Plan for England 2013 suggests actions to mitigate and/or ameliorate some of the effects of future heatwaves and hot weather. Short term actions include:
- Modifying surface properties and integrating green infrastructure, for example, ‘cool roofs’, ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool pavements’ (paving materials that tend to reflect, provide cooler surfaces and increase water evaporation ratio).
- Planting trees and vegetation and creating green spaces to enhance evaporation and shading, (temperatures in and around green spaces can be several degrees lower than their surroundings). The development of ‘green spaces’ can not only help to alleviate the impact of the UIH effect but has been shown to have other positive health benefits such as improving mental health and well-being. Increasing green infrastructure also improves air quality.
- Insulating homes. This protects against hot weather as well as reducing heating needs in the winter.
- Introducing an active transport plan or car-sharing schemes. These will reduce numbers of vehicles used leading to improvements in air quality, whilst promoting healthy living.
- Using reflective paint on south-facing walls and roofs.
- Taking fuel poverty into account when implementing any energy efficiency works. • Considering using the planning process to influence planning decisions on housing and commercial properties’ heat thresholds. • Retrofitting public buildings with energy-saving technology – including low-energy lighting and high-efficiency boilers. This presents one of a number of opportunities to improve on infrastructure, growth and support local job creation.
The Plan makes the case for a medium term (10–30 years) and long term approach (30+ years). See also section on fuel poverty and air quality.
**Case Study: London Borough of Islington and the CRISP Project** CRISP is a joint project between Islington Council and North London Cares that took place in the beginning of 2013. Research among residents aged 65+ concluded that the majority of elderly people did not take hot weather issues as seriously as cold weather issues. Although levels of information were generally found to be good, there were some everyday actions being taken that might exacerbate the risk of overheating. The project identified the need for a widespread information campaign on proper use of windows, curtains and fans. The research identified challenges of communicating information about overheating. The findings and recommendations will inform Islington’s Council Seasonal Resilience Plan and the work of the Seasonal Health Interventions Network (SHINE).
*Contact: John Kolm-Murray, Islington Council*
*[email protected]*
| Links to Public Health Outcomes Framework | Suggested further reading | |------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | **Primary:** | • NHS Heatwave Plan for England | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | • RE:FIT is the Mayor of London’s innovative scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Greater London, [www.refit.org.uk](http://www.refit.org.uk) | | **Additional (for example)** | • GLA (2011) London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board-approved sustainable development management plan | • London Climate Change Partnership (2012) Heat Thresholds Project: Final Report | | | • Built Infrastructure for Older People in Conditions of Climate Change ([BIOPICCC](http://biopiccc.org)) | | | • Design and Delivery of Robust Hospital Environments in a Changing Climate ([De2RHECC](http://de2rhecc.org)) | REFERENCES
1 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013, from CDC (USA); www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm 2 Evidence demonstrating links between access to green spaces and health: Coombes, E., Jones, A P, & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social science & medicine, 70(6), 816-822; Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., et al (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(7), 587-592; Nielsen, T. S., & Hansen, K. B. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850; Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P et al (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109-116. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660. 3 MENE Survey evidencing frequency, mode and motivation in access to Green Space, (2012-2013), from Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/mene.aspx 4 Local access to public open spaces, taken from Access to Public Open Space, (2012), London Data Store http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward; 5 Survey showing number of people participating in sport in local communities, taken from Active People Survey (2013), Sport England www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey.aspx 6 Use of small public urban green spaces and health benefits, Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012) Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11 (3), 235-244 7 Physical Activity and the Environment, taken from "Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives"; NICE (2008). Physical activity and the environment, PH Guidance 8 8 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2005) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 9 Access to Public Open Space, (2012), taken from London Data Store, http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/access-public-open-space-and-nature-ward 10 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 11 Toolkit showing levels of adult obesity, taken from Health Need Assessment Toolkit, Data Period, 2006-2008) http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 12 GLA All London Green Grid Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2012) taken from, www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/all-london-green-grid-spg; Datasets to support this guidance, taken from www.gigl.org.uk/Ourdatasets/Openspace/tabid/117/Default.aspx; 13 Green flag award system for green spaces, taken from Keep Britain Tidy, http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/ 14 Southwark Council outdoor gym, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200435/free_outdoor_activities/2611/outdoor_gyms/1 15 Burgess Park regeneration project July 2012, taken from www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/792/burgess_park_to_reopen_after_8_million_transformation) 16 London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS),2011, taken from Transport for London, Travel in London, Supplementary Report: www.tfl.gov.uk 17 Evidence demonstrating link between transport and health, March 2013, Keeping well in hard times: Protecting and improving health & well-being in an income shortfall: taken from, London Health Inequalities Network. 18 Link between heavily trafficked streets and health impacts, 2005, taken from Health Development Agency Making the case: Improving health through transport. 19 Data showing physical activity rates in London, 2010, taken from Public Health England: Physical Activity in London: Key Facts. 20 Link between active travel and health, 2012, taken from British Medical Association, Healthy Transport= Healthy Lives, BMA, www.bma.org.uk 21 Analysis of cycling potential, 2010, taken from Transport for London, December Analysis of Cycling Potential, Travel in London, www.tfl.org.uk 22 Report showing negative impacts of transport in London, 2011, taken from Mackett, R.L. & Brown, R.; Transport, Physical Activity and Health. Present knowledge and the way around. Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, www.cege.ucl.ac.uk 23 Number of travel trip by each modal share, 2011, taken from London Travel Demand Survey. Transport for London, www.tfl.org.uk 24 Reported road casualties in Great Britain, annual report 2011, taken from www.gov.uk 25 Most heavily vehicular used roads, 2000-2012, taken from Traffic Statistics, Department of Transport 26 The Mayor’s proposed cycle superhighways for London, 2013, taken from Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, GLA, www.tfl.gov.uk 27 Hackney’s case study showing cycling promoting measures, 2013, taken from London Borough of Hackney Sample of Schemes for cycling & public realm. www.hackney.gov.uk 28 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), 2010, taken from, Technical Guidance. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk 29 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal, October 2009, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 30 Overall strategic plan for London, the London Plan, 2011, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 31 Secondary impact of floods on health, 2013, World Health Organisation; Floods in the WHO European Union, Health effects and their prevention. Edited by Bettina Menne and Virginia Murray, taken from Public Health England’s website, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 32 Effects of floods on mental health, 2011, taken from Murray, V, Caldin et al (2011); The Effects of Floods on Mental Health, Health Protection Agency, www.hpa.org.uk 33 www.phoutcomes.info 34 https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works 35 Access to healthy food, taken from, White (2007), Food Access and Obesity. Obesity reviews, 8 (s1), 99-107.; Chartered Institute for Environment and Health, 2013, taken from Chartered Institute for Environment and Health Food Policy: http://cieh.org/. 36 Takeaways Toolkit, 2012, taken from, London Food Board and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/promoting-healthy-sustainable-food/london-boroughs/takeaways-toolkit; 37 Effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain, taken from, Currie, J., Vigna, SD et al (2010), The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. 38 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 39 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2011-2012), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 40 Health Needs Assessment Toolkit, (2006-2008), NHS UK, Public Health England, http://hna.londonhp.nhs.uk/JSNA.aspx 41 Adult Obesity (2011-2012) National Obesity Observatory, NHS UK, Public Health England; http://www.sepho.nhs.uk/NOO/e-Atlas/adult/atlas.html 42 New Fuel Poverty Definition 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), taken from Fuel Poverty, A Framework for future action. www.decc.gov.uk 43 Tackling fuel poverty in London 2012, taken from GLA - London Assembly In from the cold? www.london.gov.uk 44 Fuel poverty impact on wellbeing, 2011, taken from, Marmot Review Team, The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 45 Cost of fuel poverty to the NHS, 2012, taken from AgeUK, The Cost of Cold www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/cold-homes-cost-nhs-1-point-36-billion 46 Monetising health impacts of fuel poverty, 2013, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, Fuel Poverty, a Framework for Future Action- Analytical Annex https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211137/fuel_poverty_strategic_framework_analytical_annex.pdf 47 Custom Age Range Creator Tool for GLA Population Projections 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/dataset/applications/custom-age-range-creator-tool-gla-population-projections-borough 48 Fuel Poverty Risk Indicators Toolkit, 2013, taken from GLA London Datastore www.data.london.gov.uk/dataset/package/london-fuel-poverty-risk-indicators-wards 49 Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation information, 2012, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change, www.decc.gov.uk 50 The Mayor’s RE:NEW Programme, 2013, taken from GLA, www.london.gov.uk 51 UK Energy Act 2011, taken from Department of Energy and Climate Change www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/16/contents/enacted 52 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 53 Potential costs of overheating including data, 2013, taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Economics of Climate Resilience: Health and Well-being Theme CA0401 www.defra.gov.uk 54 Overheating and health, 2011, taken from Health Protection Agency, Overheating and health: a review into the physiological response to heat and identification of indoor heat thresholds www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317133912939 55 Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Armstrong et al. (2010) Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales, Journal of Epidemiology and Health, vol.65:4, 340-345 56 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england 57 Heatwave Plan 2013, taken from Public Health England, Making the case: the impact of heat on health – now and in the future www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england FURTHER READING
- Local Authorities’ strategies (e.g. Planning, Transport) are monitored on an annual basis and PHOF indicators may be relevant additions to these strategies and a way of spreading a public health approach across the Council: www.phoutcomes.info provides useful borough summaries for this approach.
- The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) highlights the impact of wider environmental determinants most adversely on those in more deprived areas: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/series/english-indices-of-deprivation
- Public Health has an important role in reminding other departments about health inequalities and intra borough inequalities. Basic summaries can be found at: www.apho.org.uk/?QN=P_HEALTH_PROFILES
- The local authority planning process offers the opportunity to mainstream some of these issues through planning guidance. The Town & Country Planning Association offers a useful guide: www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_FINAL_Reuniting-health-planning.pdf
- The NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk and their Watch Out for Health Checklist and the Health Impact Assessment Gateway http://www.apho.org.uk/default.aspx?QN=P_HIA offers useful insight across many fields including regeneration, social infrastructure planning, housing, policy development, planning advocacy and negotiations, planning obligations, development management, master planning, environmental and health impact assessment.
- Some themes in this Guide, for example, (food, fuel poverty, active travel) are addressed in Keeping Well in Hard Times hwww.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/17975/1/Keeping per cent20well per cent20in per cent20hard per cent20times.pdf
- There is a useful guide for developers on maximising environmental benefits at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/147852.aspx
- Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4767/1/4767.pdf
- Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_great_outdoors.pdf PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Mapping environmental determinants to the 2013-2016 Public Health Outcomes Framework
| Primary | Secondary | |---------|-----------| | Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator | Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator |
| AQ – Air Quality | AT - Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH - Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF - Healthy Food | |
### Domain 1
Improving the wider determinants of health
| AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | | | | | | | |
1.1 Children in poverty 1.2 School readiness 1.3 Pupil absence 1.4 First time entrants to the youth justice system 1.5 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training 1.6 Adults with a learning disability/in contact with secondary mental health services who live in stable and appropriate accommodation 1.7 People in prison who have a mental illness or a significant mental illness 1.8 Employment for those with long-term health conditions including adults with a learning disability or who are in contact with secondary mental health services 1.9 Sickness absence rate 1.10 Killed and seriously injured casualties on England’s roads 1.11 Domestic abuse 1.12 Violent crime (including sexual violence) 1.13 Re-offending levels 1.14 The percentage of the population affected by noise 1.15 Statutory homelessness 1.16 Utilisation of outdoor space for exercise/health reasons 1.17 Fuel poverty 1.18 Social isolation 1.19 Older people’s perception of community safety Primary Improvements or worsening will have a direct impact on the indicator Secondary Improvements or worsening may have an impact on this indicator
| AQ – Air Quality | AT – Active Travel and Transport | GS – Access to Green Space | |------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------| | FR – Surface Flooding | OH – Overheating | FP – Fuel Poverty | | HF – Healthy Food |
| Domain 2 Health Improvement | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |-----------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 2.1 Low birth weight of term babies | | | | | | | | | 2.2 Breastfeeding | | | | | | | | | 2.3 Smoking status at time of delivery | | | | | | | | | 2.4 Under 18 conceptions | | | | | | | | | 2.5 Child development at 2-21/2 years | | | | | | | | | 2.6 Excess weight in 4-5 and 10-11 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.7 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in under 18s | | | | | | | | | 2.8 Emotional well-being of looked after children | | | | | | | | | 2.9 Smoking prevalence – 15 year olds | | | | | | | | | 2.10 Self-harm | | | | | | | | | 2.11 Diet | | | | | | | | | 2.12 Excess weight in adults | | | | | | | | | 2.13 Proportion of physically active and inactive adults | | | | | | | | | 2.14 Smoking prevalence – adults (over 18s) | | | | | | | | | 2.15 Successful completion of drug treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.16 People entering prison with substance dependence issues who are previously not known to community treatment | | | | | | | | | 2.17 Recorded diabetes | | | | | | | | | 2.18 Alcohol-related admissions to hospital | | | | | | | | | 2.19 Cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and 2 | | | | | | | | | 2.20 Cancer screening coverage | | | | | | | | | 2.21 Access to non-cancer screening programmes | | | | | | | | | 2.22 Take up of the NHS Health Check programme – by those eligible | | | | | | | | | 2.23 Self-reported well-being | | | | | | | | | 2.24 Injuries due to falls in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | Domain 3 | Health Protection | AQ | AT | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 3.1 Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution | | | | | | | | | | 3.2 Chlamydia diagnoses (15-24 year olds) | | | | | | | | | | 3.3 Population vaccination coverage | | | | | | | | | | 3.4 People presenting with HIV at a late stage of infection | | | | | | | | | | 3.5 Treatment completion for Tuberculosis (TB) | | | | | | | | | | 3.6 Public sector organisations with a board approved sustainable development management plan | | | | | | | | | | 3.7 Comprehensive, agreed inter-agency plans for responding to public health incidents and emergencies | | | | | | | | |
| Domain 4 | Healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality | AQ | Tr | GS | FR | OH | HF | FP | |----------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | 4.1 Infant mortality | | | | | | | | | | 4.2 Tooth decay in children aged 5 | | | | | | | | | | 4.3 Mortality rate from causes considered preventable | | | | | | | | | | 4.4 Under 75 mortality rate from all cardiovascular diseases (including heart disease and stroke) | | | | | | | | | | 4.5 Under 75 mortality rate from cancer | | | | | | | | | | 4.6 Under 75 mortality rate from liver disease | | | | | | | | | | 4.7 Under 75 mortality rate from respiratory diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.8 Mortality rate from infectious and parasitic diseases | | | | | | | | | | 4.9 Excess under 75 mortality rate in adults with serious mental illness | | | | | | | | | | 4.10 Suicide rate | | | | | | | | | | 4.11 Emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital | | | | | | | | | | 4.12 Preventable sight loss | | | | | | | | | | 4.13 Health-related quality of life for older people | | | | | | | | | | 4.14 Hip fractures in people aged 65 and over | | | | | | | | | | 4.15 Excess winter deaths | | | | | | | | | | 4.16 Estimated diagnosis rate for people with dementia | | | | | | | | | Table 1 – Green Space Data
| Borough Green Space Surface | Adult Obesity | Green Space Access Deficiency (% value per Ward) | Participation in Physical Activity % per week - Adult Obesity | Obesity Prevalence | |-----------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | | Barking & Dagenham | 33.6 | 17.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 45.1 | 15.4 | 28.7 | | Barnet | 41.3 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.6 | 17.9 | | Bexley | 31.7 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 60.8 | 20.0 | 26.4 | | Brent | 21.9 | 21.0 | 4.0 | over 40% | 49.4 | 16.3 | 21.2 | | Bromley | 57.8 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 62.4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | | Camden | 24.8 | 18.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 65.1 | 26.0 | 15.5 | | City of London | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 28.7 | | | City of Westminster | 21.5 | 20.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 59.3 | 25.4 | 15.0 | | Croydon | 37.1 | 24.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 58.9 | 19.8 | 24.3 | | Ealing | 30.9 | 23.0 | 6.0 | over 50% | 48.2 | 14.6 | 18.1 | | Enfield | 45.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 50.7 | 18.6 | 23.2 | | Greenwich | 34.4 | 17.0 | 1.0 | over 40% | 55.4 | 19.5 | 22.6 | | Hackney | 23.2 | 19.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 58.9 | 24.0 | 22.6 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19.1 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 27.6 | 15.6 | | Haringey | 25.5 | 19.0 | 6.0 | over 40% | 54.9 | 17.7 | 20.1 | | Harrow | 34.6 | 21.0 | 8.0 | over 50% | 51.7 | 17.1 | 19.2 | | Havering | 59.3 | 18.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 52.5 | 16.4 | 27.3 | | Borough Green Space Surface | Total Ward N. | Ward with Access Deficiency | % Households | 1 time a week | 5 times per week | LA | London | England | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|----|--------|---------| | Hillingdon | 49.2 | 22.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 48.9 | 14.1| 23.2 | | | Hounslow | 39.6 | 20.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 52.4 | 17.8| 20.5 | | | Islington | 12.4 | 16.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 61.3 | 22.4| 18.0 | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 15.1 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 63.5 | 21.5| 13.9 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 36.4 | 16.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 61.2 | 23.1| 16.7 | | | Lambeth | 17.3 | 21.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 62.0 | 30.2| 20.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Lewisham | 22.5 | 18.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 56.4 | 21.3| 23.7 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Merton | 34.6 | 20.0 | 3.0 | over 40% | 55.0 | 17.5| 19.1 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Newham | 23.9 | 20.0 | 9.0 | over 50% | 45.7 | 17.3| 25.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Redbridge | 40.6 | 21.0 | 5.0 | over 40% | 54.5 | 19.4| 22.3 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 50.8 | 18.0 | 1.0 | over 50% | 69.3 | 27.4| 14.9 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Southwark | 24.9 | 20.0 | 7.0 | over 50% | 59.5 | 19.5| 22.5 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Sutton & Merton | 32.0 | 18.0 | 4.0 | over 50% | 64.2 | 19.7| 21.6 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 15.2 | 17.0 | 5.0 | over 50% | 55.9 | 19.7| 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Waltham Forest | 31.4 | 20.0 | 8.0 | over 40% | 56.2 | 20.3| 23.4 | 20.7 | 24.2 | | Wandsworth | 26.9 | 20.0 | 2.0 | over 50% | 66.4 | 26.9| 15.0 | 20.7 | 24.2 |
NOO (2005) Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL) National Obesity Observatory (2010-2011) Health Needs Assessment Toolkit
### Table 2
**Active Travel and Transport Data**
| Location | Number of 'Travels per day' (000's) | Annual Casualties on the Road, 2005-2009 average | % Change 2005-2009 to 2011 | Average Fatalities 2005-2009 | Number of Vehicles | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 280 | 604 | 1 | 5 | 115,178 | | Barnet | 769 | 1,344 | 3 | 13 | 97,861 | | Bexley | 357 | 644 | -12 | 4 | 107,803 | | Brent | 592 | 918 | -2 | 8 | 122,900 | | Bromley | 691 | 929 | -6 | 10 | 45,486 | | Camden | 744 | 902 | 3 | 5 | 93,779 | | City of London | 262 | 369 | 11 | 2 | 73,434 | | Croydon | 720 | 1,208 | 2 | 6 | 42,861 | | Ealing | 633 | 1,155 | -15 | 10 | 136,071 | | Enfield | 594 | 1,033 | 7 | 12 | 98,621 | | Greenwich | 428 | 919 | 1 | 9 | 95,934 | | Hackney | 404 | 948 | -8 | 5 | 123,966 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 494 | 745 | 4 | 6 | 146,475 | | Haringey | 483 | 830 | 10 | 6 | 51,152 | | Harrow | 422 | 534 | -21 | 2 | 42,162 | | Havering | 477 | 903 | -10 | 6 | 85,344 | | Hillingdon | 563 | 1,028 | -8 | 8 | 116,844 | | Hounslow | 488 | 959 | 4 | 9 | 104,013 | | Islington | 486 | 742 | 33 | 4 | 61,866 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 472 | 818 | -2 | 5 | 114,618 | | Kingston upon Thames | 378 | 430 | 3 | 3 | 145,850 | | Lambeth | 614 | 1,234 | 6 | 8 | 70,578 | | Lewisham | 476 | 968 | 10 | 5 | 53,300 | | Merton | 431 | 522 | -2 | 3 | 110,779 | | Newham | 590 | 1,014 | -10 | 4 | 152,416 | | Redbridge | 524 | 866 | 9 | 7 | 152,241 | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 486 | 7 | 3 | 68,154 | | Southwark | 582 | 1,137 | 0 | 6 | 65,176 | | Sutton | 393 | 576 | -7 | 2 | 39,510 | | Tower Hamlets | 561 | 977 | -3 | 6 | 123,339 | | Waltham Forest | 387 | 865 | -6 | 3 | 152,241 | | Wandsworth | 621 | 925 | 14 | 5 | 145,850 | | Westminster | 1168 | 1,695 | -3 | 13 | 125,289 | | Average | 531 | 886 | 6 | 95,634 |
**Source:**\
London Travel Demand Survey\
Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain, gov.uk
### Table 3 Air Quality Data
| Area | Fraction (%) of mortality attributable to long term exposure to PM2.5 | Rank | % different from UK average | Number of Air Quality Focus Areas | |-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 3 | | Barnet | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 15 | | Bexley | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 1 | | Brent | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 6 | | Bromley | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 1 | | Camden | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 5 | | City of London | 9 | 33 | 61% | 2 | | Croydon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 5 | | Ealing | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 5 | | Enfield | 6.6 | 7 | 18% | 10 | | Greenwich | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 7 | | Hackney | 7.8 | 26 | 39% | 8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 5 | | Haringey | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 9 | | Harrow | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 5 | | Havering | 6.3 | 1 | 13% | 3 | | Hillingdon | 6.5 | 5 | 16% | 8 | | Hounslow | 7.1 | 14 | 27% | 10 | | Islington | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 3 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 6.7 | 9 | 20% | 2 | | Lambeth | 7.7 | 24 | 38% | 9 | | Lewisham | 7.2 | 17 | 29% | 9 | | Merton | 6.9 | 12 | 23% | 4 | | Newham | 7.6 | 23 | 36% | 6 | | Redbridge | 7 | 13 | 25% | 4 | | Richmond upon Thames | 6.8 | 10 | 21% | 4 | | Southwark | 7.9 | 27 | 41% | 7 | | Sutton | 6.4 | 3 | 14% | 3 | | Tower Hamlets | 8.1 | 30 | 45% | 6 | | Waltham Forest | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 7 | | Wandsworth | 7.3 | 21 | 30% | 4 | | Westminster | 8.3 | 31 | 48% | 8 |
Source:
## Table 4 Healthy Food Data
| Adult Obesity Prevalence | Participation in Physical Activity % per week | Childhood Obesity Prevalence (6yrs old) | % Consumption of 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | LA | 5 times per week | Total MSOA N. | Areas (MSOA) with highest % of consumption | % Intervals | | Barking & Dagenham | 28.7 | 45.1 | 15.4 | 22 | 8 (25.40 - 31.20) | | Barnet | 17.9 | 54.9 | 17.6 | 41 | 16 (43.90 - 56.10) | | Bexley | 26.4 | 60.8 | 20 | 28 | 10 (31.20 - 37.20) | | Brent | 21.2 | 49.4 | 16.3 | 34 | 13 (38.20 - 45.30) | | Bromley | 21.8 | 62.4 | 21.1 | 39 | 15 (27.20 - 45.30) | | Camden | 15.5 | 65.1 | 26 | 28 | 10 (44.60 - 55.10) | | City of London | 19.7 | 52.8 | 28.7 | 48 | 48 | | City of Westminster | 15 | 59.3 | 25.4 | 24 | 10 (48.60 - 52.10) | | Croydon | 24.3 | 58.9 | 19.8 | 44 | 17 (35.50 - 48.8) | | Ealing | 18.1 | 48.2 | 14.6 | 39 | 15 (41.10 - 55.40) | | Enfield | 23.2 | 50.7 | 18.6 | 36 | 14 (33.90 - 41.90) | | Greenwich | 22.6 | 55.4 | 19.5 | 32 | 12 (32.70 - 42.20) | | Hackney | 22.6 | 58.9 | 24 | 27 | 10 (34.90 - 41.60) | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 15.6 | 66.4 | 27.6 | 25 | 10 (41.70 - 48.20) | | Haringey | 20.1 | 54.9 | 17.7 | 36 | 14 (39.20 - 48.00) | | Harrow | 19.2 | 51.7 | 17.1 | 31 | 12 (39.70 - 47.60) | | Havering | 27.3 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 30 | 12 (30.80 - 37.30) | | Hillingdon | 23.2 | 48.9 | 14.1 | 32 | 12 (34.20 - 45.40) | | Hounslow | 20.5 | 52.4 | 17.8 | 28 | 10 (36.90 - 47.20) | | Islington | 18 | 61.3 | 22.4 | 23 | 7 (27.60 - 40.80) | | Borough | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | % Obese | % Overweight | |-------------------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | 13.9 | 63.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 8 | (50.70 - 54.30) | | Kingston upon Thames | 16.7 | 61.2 | 23.1 | 20 | 8 | (41.90 - 49.40) | | Lambeth | 20.7 | 62 | 30.2 | 35 | 13 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Lewisham | 23.7 | 56.4 | 21.3 | 36 | 14 | (36.00 - 42.90) | | Merton | 19.1 | 55 | 17.5 | 25 | 10 | (41.40 - 55.40) | | Newham | 25.3 | 45.7 | 17.3 | 37 | 13 | (32.60 - 36.60) | | Redbridge | 22.3 | 54.5 | 19.4 | 33 | 12 | (35.50 - 43.30) | | Richmond upon Thames | 14.9 | 69.3 | 27.4 | 23 | 8 | (44.70 - 48.30) | | Southwark | 22.5 | 59.5 | 19.5 | 33 | 11 | (37.50% - 43.30) | | Sutton | 21.6 | 64.2 | 19.7 | 24 | 9 | (35.20 - 44.30) | | Tower Hamlets | 19.4 | 55.9 | 19.7 | 31 | 12 | (29.70 - 42.90) | | Waltham Forest | 23.4 | 56.2 | 20.3 | 28 | 10 | (33.70 - 37.40) | | Wandsworth | 15 | 66.4 | 26.9 | 37 | 15 | (42.30 - 46.80) | | Average | 20.6 | 57.0 | 20.7 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 48.0 | | London | 20.7 | | | 22.53 | | | | England | 24.2 | | | 19.2 | | |
Source: Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (2010-2011)
### Table 5 Fuel Poverty Data
| Area | Excess winter deaths 2010/11 | Population Aged 65 2012 | Population Aged 65 2025 | Population Aged 65 2040 | Households in privately-rented 2011 | Percentage in privately-rented 2011 | |-----------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 19,700 | 24,700 | 35,900 | 17,000 | 22.9 | | Barnet | 90 | 49,400 | 65,600 | 88,100 | 28,000 | 20.5 | | Bexley | 90 | 38,500 | 45,100 | 56,300 | 10,000 | 10.9 | | Brent | 40 | 33,800 | 46,300 | 61,100 | 26,000 | 29.2 | | Bromley | 190 | 54,200 | 64,200 | 79,500 | 17,000 | 12.6 | | Camden | 70 | 24,800 | 30,200 | 39,300 | 29,000 | 26.8 | | City of London | 10 | 1,100 | 1,700 | 2,800 | 1,000 | 8.6 | | Croydon | 70 | 46,200 | 61,200 | 84,100 | 19,000 | 13.9 | | Ealing | 90 | 37,500 | 49,000 | 65,300 | 29,000 | 24.3 | | Enfield | 150 | 40,000 | 49,900 | 64,300 | 27,000 | 22.7 | | Greenwich | 70 | 27,300 | 38,200 | 54,100 | 18,000 | 19.7 | | Hackney | 30 | 17,900 | 23,900 | 34,500 | 21,000 | 22.8 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 40 | 16,900 | 20,200 | 26,100 | 21,000 | 26.4 | | Haringey | 60 | 23,000 | 29,000 | 38,600 | 20,000 | 23.3 | | Harrow | 60 | 34,800 | 43,700 | 50,000 | 18,000 | 22.2 | | Havering | 130 | 44,000 | 53,800 | 64,600 | 10,000 | 9.4 | | Hillingdon | 120 | 36,400 | 44,300 | 56,100 | 21,000 | 19.8 | | Hounslow | 110 | 27,800 | 35,500 | 45,900 | 25,000 | 27.9 | | Islington | 30 | 18,400 | 22,500 | 31,000 | 22,000 | 24.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50 | 20,100 | 26,600 | 33,500 | 18,000 | 23.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 21,100 | 26,600 | 34,100 | 16,000 | 22.6 | | Lambeth | 60 | 23,700 | 31,200 | 45,600 | 29,000 | 23.2 | | Lewisham | 90 | 26,600 | 32,100 | 44,800 | 25,000 | 21.7 | | Merton | 60 | 23,800 | 29,800 | 39,800 | 19,000 | 24.4 | | Newham | 70 | 21,300 | 30,900 | 44,300 | 29,000 | 35.4 | | Redbridge | 80 | 34,300 | 41,200 | 51,400 | 25,000 | 25.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 26,500 | 33,100 | 42,000 | 17,000 | 21.5 | | Southwark | 90 | 22,900 | 30,200 | 43,500 | 29,000 | 22.4 | | Sutton | 60 | 28,600 | 34,500 | 44,100 | 14,000 | 16.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 40 | 15,800 | 20,600 | 31,200 | 32,000 | 33.9 | | Waltham Forest | 110 | 26,500 | 34,600 | 48,100 | 24,000 | 26.6 | | Wandsworth | 150 | 27,700 | 33,000 | 43,600 | 41,000 | 34.6 | | Westminster | 20 | 25,200 | 30,400 | 39,400 | 44,000 | 35.9 | | | 75.8 | 28357.6 | 35872.7 | 47363.6 | 22454.5 | 22.9 |
Source: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Team—Responsible for project management, project delivery and writing the guides: Annette Figueiredo—Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team—GLA; Jason Strelitz, Public Health Specialist, GLA Alena Ivanova; Elena Guidorzi; Joe Parsons—MA/MSc postgraduate students—University of London, Kings College, GLA work placements Dr Angie Bone—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
The Project Team would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the project and contributed to the production of the guides. Particular thanks go to:
GLA Staff Helen Walters, Head of Health Alex Nickson, Policy & Programmes Manager, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Peter Massini, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Lucy Saunders, Public Health Specialist, Health Team Jonathan Pauling, Principal Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Mark Ainsbury, Senior Policy Officer, Food, Economic & Business Policy Team Elliot Treharne, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Liz Prosser, Senior Project Officer, Healthy Schools London, Health Team Kat McKinlay, Policy Officer, Transport Team Gareth Baker, GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Michael Jeffreys. GIS Officer, GIS and Infrastructure Team Alison Murray, Programme Officer, Regeneration Team Emma Williamson, Principal Strategic Planner, Planning Team Susan Pape, Internal Communications Officer, HR & Organisational Development, Communications Team Una Buckley, Employee Engagement Manager, HR & Organisational Development Charlotte Hall, Health Inequalities Programme Leader, Health Team Larissa Bulla, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Energy & Waste Team Kevin Reid, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, Resilience and Quality of Life Team Rebecca Roper, Childhood Obesity and Health Team Support Officer, Health Team GLA Design Team
Other Colleagues Alex Trouton, Policy and Information Officer, Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department Jonathan Hiderbrand, Director of Public Health, London Borough of Kingston Caroline Hancock, Senior Public Health Analyst—Public Health England Thomas Abeling, PhD Researcher, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU,EHS) Paul James, Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme John Kolm-Murray, Seasonal Health Officer, Islington Council Fiona Daly—Environmental Manager, Barts Health NHS Trust Gordon Deuchars, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Age UK London Dr Anna Mavrogianni, Lecturer in Environmental Design and Engineering, UCL Jonathon Taylor, Research Associate, UCL Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, PHE Professor Sue Grimmond—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母语版本的此文件，请致电以下号码或与下列地址联络
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος εγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυδρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi diliinde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinmek için, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresi başvurunuz.
Punjabi ਮੇ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਹਿੰਦੀ ਸਾਹਿਤਾਂ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਤਾ ਜਾਂ ਅਧਾਰ ਦੀ ਰੂਪਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਫ਼ਲਿਤ ਹੈ, ਜਾ ਰੋਟ ਕੀ ਲੇਖ ਦੇ ਹੋਏ ਕੋਈ ਮੋਹ ਕੀ ਪੈਦਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਉਪਲਬਧ ਹੋਇਆ।
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میں جانئیں ہیں، تو براہ کرم نئی دلی گیا نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیکھیں گیا پر رابطہ کریں
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أدناه
Gujarati છી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નક્કી તમારી ભાષામાં જોઈને કોઇ તો, કૂટા કરી આપણે નુંબર ઉપર કોન કરી અધયા નીચેના સરળતામાં સંપર્ક સાધો.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1326-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 46,
"total-input-tokens": 116218,
"total-output-tokens": 27498,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
115,
1
],
[
115,
436,
2
],
[
436,
1123,
3
],
[
1123,
3678,
4
],
[
3678,
6015,
5
],
[
6015,
6802,
6
],
[
6802,
9234,
7
],
[
9234,
10182,
8
],
[
10182,
11639,
9
],
[
11639,
14504,
10
],
[
14504,
15758,
11
],
[
15758,
17948,
12
],
[
17948,
18303,
13
],
[
18303,
21051,
14
],
[
21051,
23325,
15
],
[
23325,
24175,
16
],
[
24175,
26697,
17
],
[
26697,
28019,
18
],
[
28019,
30433,
19
],
[
30433,
32912,
20
],
[
32912,
34148,
21
],
[
34148,
35899,
22
],
[
35899,
38477,
23
],
[
38477,
39983,
24
],
[
39983,
42429,
25
],
[
42429,
43219,
26
],
[
43219,
46238,
27
],
[
46238,
46818,
28
],
[
46818,
48334,
29
],
[
48334,
50843,
30
],
[
50843,
55007,
31
],
[
55007,
59690,
32
],
[
59690,
60964,
33
],
[
60964,
63140,
34
],
[
63140,
64846,
35
],
[
64846,
67346,
36
],
[
67346,
69389,
37
],
[
69389,
72517,
38
],
[
72517,
75438,
39
],
[
75438,
83048,
40
],
[
83048,
89218,
41
],
[
89218,
93781,
42
],
[
93781,
95829,
43
],
[
95829,
103611,
44
],
[
103611,
106497,
45
],
[
106497,
108233,
46
]
]
} |
e94be8a7a5f03f9715b891cafdedf71311ab0f03 | Competition in passenger rail services in Great Britain
A policy document
8 March 2016
## Contents
1. Summary .............................................................................................................. 4\
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4\
Consultation on the discussion document .......................................................... 5\
Independent impact assessment of the four options for greater on-rail competition ..................................................................................................... 6\
The rationale for the project .................................................................................. 6\
Our goals .............................................................................................................. 8\
Industry background: competition in the rail sector ............................................. 9\
The potential benefits of greater on-rail competition ........................................... 11\
Potential passenger benefits ......................................................................... 11\
Potential efficiency gains ............................................................................... 14\
The feasibility of greater on-rail competition: obstacles and opportunities .......... 16\
Access to infrastructure, network capacity and rolling stock .......................... 16\
Funding the network and loss-making services, and the financial sustainability of operators ................................................................. 18\
Operational issues ......................................................................................... 21\
Summary of feasibility considerations ........................................................... 23\
Options for greater on-rail competition ............................................................ 23\
The scope of the options ............................................................................... 24\
The four options ............................................................................................. 24\
Assessment of the options ............................................................................ 25\
Recommendations and next steps .................................................................... 32\
General recommendations: laying the foundations for a dynamic, competitive industry ...................................................................................... 32\
Recommended option: Option 1, a significantly greater role for open access on intercity routes ................................................................. 33\
A vision for the longer term: Option 4, a licensing system for operators on main intercity routes ................................................................. 35\
Our parallel recommendation: introducing Option 2 where it has the potential to deliver benefits on the network .................................................. 36\
Next steps ...................................................................................................... 36
2. Context: industry background ............................................................................. 37\
Structure of the rail sector in Great Britain .......................................................... 37\
Network Rail .................................................................................................. 37\
Franchised TOCs .......................................................................................... 38\
Open access operators ................................................................................. 41\
Freight operating companies ......................................................................... 42\
Rolling stock leasing companies .................................................................... 43\
The role of the regulator and government ..................................................... 44\
Funding of the rail industry .................................................................................. 48\
The rail industry’s income and expenditure ................................................... 48\
The development of competition since privatisation ...................................... 58
3. Evidence of potential passenger benefits from greater on-rail competition ...... 66\
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 66\
On-rail competition in Great Britain .................................................................. 68\
Competition between open access operators and franchisees ......................... 71\
First Hull Trains and Virgin East Coast (London to Stevenage, Grantham, Retford and Doncaster with one daily overlap to Hull) ......................... 72 Addressing potential barriers to competition ................................................ 184 Scope and timing .......................................................................................... 185 Option 1 – existing market structure, but significantly increased open access operations ........................................................................................................ 186 Designing a PSO levy or other appropriate funding mechanism ................. 188 Option 2 – two franchisees for each franchise ................................................. 189 Option 3 – more overlapping franchises ........................................................... 192 Option 4 – licensing multiple operators, subject to conditions (including public service obligations) .......................................................................................... 193 Other recommendations to support greater competition ................................... 197 Detailed specification of operators’ obligations ............................................. 197 Reforming the structure of access charges ..................................................... 198 Network Rail’s incentives as system operator ............................................. 200 Smart ticketing ............................................................................................. 201 Assessment of the options ................................................................................ 201 Passenger and efficiency benefits ............................................................... 202 Funding and risk .......................................................................................... 207 Network considerations, including operational issues ................................. 212 Wider social benefits ................................................................................... 215 Ease of implementation, including legal and technical feasibility ............... 216 Overall assessment ..................................................................................... 218
4. Recommendations and next steps ............................................................... 222 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 222 General recommendations: laying foundations for a dynamic, competitive industry ............................................................................................................ 222 Further reducing the level of detailed specification of franchise contracts... 223 Reforming the structure of access charges ..................................................... 223 Improving the ‘system operator’ function ..................................................... 223 Encouraging the use of smart ticketing ........................................................ 224 Recommended options for reform ................................................................. 224 Recommended option: Option 1, a significantly greater role for open access on intercity routes ........................................................................... 225 A vision for the longer term: Option 4, a licensing system for operators on main intercity routes ................................................................................... 231 Our parallel recommendation: introducing Option 2 where it has the potential to deliver benefits on the network ................................................ 233 Conclusions on our recommendations and next steps ................................... 235 Next steps .................................................................................................... 235
Appendix
A: Map of train operators in Great Britain B: List of open access proposals submitted to ORR from 2000 to 2015 C: On-rail competition in Europe D: EU rail legislation E: Network enhancements F: Rail capacity and auctions
1. Summary
Introduction
1.1 Great Britain’s railway sector has undergone a remarkable renaissance. In the immediate post-war period, there was a sharp decline in rail usage: the number of rail passenger journeys per year in Great Britain had fallen from about 1 billion in 1950 to barely over 600 million by the mid-1980s. Since the mid-1990s, there has been a steady rise. Over the past ten years, passenger numbers have increased by 60% and by 2014–2015, over 1.6 billion rail passenger journeys were being made annually in Great Britain, significantly outpacing the growth seen in other major EU countries.¹
1.2 Passenger satisfaction has also improved in recent years. The National Rail Passenger Survey, conducted by Transport Focus, shows that passenger satisfaction improved from an overall satisfaction rating of 72% in spring 2002 to a rating of 83% in autumn 2015.²
1.3 This suggests that the arrangements for passenger rail services in Great Britain in place since the mid-1990s have yielded broadly successful outcomes, in spite of well-known difficulties such as the collapse of Railtrack in 2001–2002, the failure of the private sector East Coast franchisee in 2009³ and the failure of the West Coast franchise letting competition in 2012.
1.4 The Competition and Market Authority (CMA)’s statutory duty is to promote competition for the benefit of consumers.⁴ In addition, the government’s current ‘strategic steer’ to the CMA, published in December 2015, states that CMA ‘should use its knowledge to actively challenge central and local government and encourage the use of effective competition to improve delivery and to promote more diversity and choice for UK consumers’.⁵
1.5 In January 2015 we launched a policy project to consider the role of competition in passenger rail services, and the extent to which the broad success of passenger rail services since the mid-1990s might be enhanced – to the benefit of passengers, the industry and the country as a whole – by introducing a greater degree of competition.
¹ Department for Transport, Rail Executive, Rail trends factsheet, Great Britain: 2014/15. ² Office of Rail Regulation (April 2014), Rail Passenger Satisfaction Benchmarking: Report on ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey, paragraph 2.1 and Transport Focus (Autumn 2015), National Rail Passenger Survey. ³ The failure of the East Coast franchisee resulted in a state-owned operator of last resort running the service for the subsequent five years. ⁴ Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, section 25(3). ⁵ Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (December 2015), Government’s response to the consultation on the strategic steer for the Competition and Markets Authority. 1.6 Following the launch of the project, we engaged in discussion with a wide range of interested parties and industry experts. We liaised closely with the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). Jointly with ORR we hosted a ‘round table’ of franchised train operating companies (franchised TOCs) and a separate round table of open access operators (OAOs) and applicants. We also individually met representatives of OAOs, franchised TOCs, Network Rail, the rail freight industry, the consumer representatives Transport Focus and Which?, as well as academics and other experts specialising in the sector. We engaged extensively with the Rail Group at the Department for Transport (DfT) and with officials at Transport Scotland, the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, HM Treasury and with international rail regulators.
1.7 In July 2015, we published a discussion document for consultation. The discussion document suggested that, while the existing system of competition ‘for’ the market was working well, a material increase in on-rail competition would result in benefits for passengers and improve efficiency in the sector.
1.8 We proposed four options for increasing on-rail competition in passenger rail services, which we considered most likely to deliver benefits on the three main intercity routes in Great Britain – namely the East and West Coast main lines and the Great Western route. To protect against risk for existing and imminent franchises, we stated that we did not envisage any of these options coming into effect until after the end of the current frail franchise terms (or, where new franchise tenders are imminent, after the terms of those franchises about to be tendered), which would mean 2023 at the earliest.
1.9 We invited comments on the four options as well as on potential barriers to greater on-rail competition including funding the network and operational impact.
Consultation on the discussion document
1.10 During the consultation period, we engaged with a wide range of stakeholders through bilateral meetings and held an industry-wide ‘round table’. We also presented our work at a number of industry forums and conferences.
1.11 Over 50 consultation responses were received including from the DfT, ORR, the Rail Delivery Group, Network Rail, Transport Scotland, franchised TOCs and their owner groups, OAOs, Transport Focus, Which?, regional transport
______________________________________________________________________
6 CMA (17 July 2015), *Competition in passenger rail services in Great Britain: A discussion document for consultation.* partnerships and industry experts. Individual responses are published alongside this policy document.
**Independent impact assessment of the four options for greater on-rail competition**
1.12 In order to inform our further assessment of the four options for greater on-rail competition set out in our discussion document, ORR commissioned Arup and Oxera to undertake an impact assessment of the options.(^7)
1.13 The impact assessment focused on three main areas:
- an assessment of the legal and operational feasibility of each option;
- the impact of each option on market outcomes, including the benefits and costs for passengers, social objectives, wider benefits and externalities, industry costs and efficiency; and
- the impact of each option on government funding of the rail network.
1.14 ORR published the impact assessment on 4 January 2016.(^8) The CMA invited any further consultation responses in relation to the four options for greater on-rail competition in light of this impact assessment. Twelve responses were received, including from the DfT, Rail Delivery Group, Network Rail, Transport Scotland, franchised TOCs and OAOs. The responses are published alongside this policy document.
**The rationale for the project**
1.15 This project is intended as a contribution to public policy debate by an independent competition authority that is not a participant in the rail industry. We examined whether it would be desirable and feasible to increase the degree of competition ‘in’ the market for passenger rail services in Great Britain – that is, competition between operators of passenger rail services, also called ‘on-rail’ competition.
1.16 Downward pressure on fares, upward pressure on service quality and innovation and greater efficiency are – in theory at least – benefits delivered by competitive markets. As a competition authority, we have explored claims
______________________________________________________________________
(^7) Arup is an engineering and transport consultancy and Oxera is an economic consultancy with expertise in both competition and transport.
(^8) ORR (31 December 2015), *Impact assessment of the CMA’s options for increasing on-rail competition: Final Report*. made in recent years(^9) (by regulators, think tanks and commentators) that, in Great Britain’s passenger rail sector, these objectives could be better achieved through greater competition between passenger train operators.
1.17 The following points are important context for our work:
- In Great Britain we have an established industry structure that enables competition in passenger train operations, with full separation between train operators at the ‘downstream’ retail level and a wholly independent ‘upstream’ infrastructure manager, Network Rail.
- The franchising process, post-Brown Review(^10) (ie after 2012), is on a firmer footing than before, evidenced by the successful competition to award the East Coast main line franchise in 2014. At the same time, pressure is building on the system as increasingly ambitious open access applications are submitted and ORR must consider whether to accept them in circumstances where (unlike the options proposed in this report) there is no obligation on new entrants to pay fixed track access charges or otherwise compensate for any resultant shortfall in government revenues.(^11)
- Capacity to accommodate new entry may become available in the future through a combination of incremental enhancements of the existing network but, more significantly, through planned major new build (eg for High Speed 2 (HS2)) and technologies allowing more efficient use of the network (such as on-board digital signalling systems).
- The government maintains a central role in the market in order to ensure that the network delivers wider social, economic and environmental benefits. The government also has a key role as a funder of the industry – particularly in relation to socially valuable services and longer-term
______________________________________________________________________
(^9) See, for example: Martin Cave (CERRE) and Janet Wright (Indepen Consulting) (29 May 2010), *Options for increasing competition in the Great Britain rail market: on-rail competition on the passenger rail market and contestability in rail infrastructure investment – Final report to the Office of Rail Regulation; Office of Rail Regulation* (2011), *Consultation on the potential for increased on-rail competition*; Tony Lodge (March 2013), *Rail’s second chance: Putting competition back on track*, Centre for Policy Studies; articles by Allister Heath, *Daily Telegraph*, 20 August 2014 and by Tony Lodge, *Daily Telegraph*, 28 August 2014; John Nelson (August 2015), *It’s time to move beyond open access*, Passenger Transport; Nick Brooks (November 2015), *Open access can replace long-distance franchises*, *Railway Gazette International*.
(^10) Following the problems with the re-let of the West Coast franchise, the Brown Review examined the wider rail franchising programme, looking in detail at whether changes were needed to the way risk was assessed and to the bidding and evaluation process.
(^11) The framework of track access charges is set by ORR, and if they are increased in a (five-yearly) periodic review, the government as franchising authority indemnifies the franchisee for much of the increase for the remainder of the franchise term. network enhancements that might not otherwise be provided by the market.
- An increasing proportion of funding of the industry (now 68%) is, however, made by passengers through fares and other charges rather than by the government. This can be seen as strengthening the case for passengers to have greater choice through on-rail competition – particularly on commercial intercity services.
- ORR is reviewing the structure of track access charges, which is an important step in creating a level playing field between franchised TOCs and OAOs, addressing some of the distortions arising in the current funding structure which are impediments to increased competition.
- The trend in other major European countries, and the ambition of the European Commission, is for greater on-rail competition. There are examples of on-rail competition on key high-speed routes in countries including Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden. New train operators are continuing to enter a number of these markets and significant new on-rail competition is proposed for other key high-speed routes, including between Paris and Brussels, Stuttgart and Berlin, and between Madrid and Valencia.
Our goals
1.18 In undertaking this policy project, we engaged with the industry and passenger and consumer groups to identify possible ways to improve the railways in Great Britain, including by:
- securing better value for money – for passengers by way of downward pressure on fares, and for the wider economy through efficiencies that lead to lower operating costs of passenger train services;
- enhancing service quality and encouraging innovation; and
- unlocking efficiencies at the ‘upstream’ level of infrastructure operations/management, for example by giving Network Rail greater incentives to use capacity on the network more efficiently and to control costs.
1.19 In our view, any recommendations to adapt the current industry framework for the future must be capable of being implemented:
- without disrupting the current and forthcoming rounds of franchise awards; • while maintaining the provision of socially valuable passenger rail services which may not be commercially viable;
• without jeopardising current and future investment in the network; and
• without any adverse operational impact.
Industry background: competition in the rail sector
1.20 The main features of the passenger rail sector in Great Britain, as currently configured, are as follows:
• Train services are provided to passengers by train operators – the vast majority of these passenger train operating services (representing some 99% of passenger miles) being provided under regional franchises awarded by the government for a specified period (typically around seven to 15 years), with a competitive bidding process for the award of each franchise.
• Franchise contract awards and major network enhancements are managed by the Rail Group at the DfT. Transport Scotland is responsible for managing franchises in Scotland and the Welsh government will take responsibility for the next franchise in Wales. There are plans for further devolution of regional franchises.
• The national rail infrastructure (the track, bridges, depots and major rail termini) is provided by an infrastructure operator, Network Rail, which is separate from the train operators. The train operators pay ‘access charges’ for the track and other infrastructure which are regulated by ORR, the independent economic regulator of rail and road.
• Rolling stock is acquired by the train operators, usually by way of lease, from private sector competing rolling stock companies, three of which (the ROSCOs) inherited the rolling stock of the pre-privatisation British Rail.
1.21 The competitive tendering of franchises is a form of competition ‘for’ the market in passenger rail services. There is also a small degree of competition ‘in’ the market – ie competition between train operators, also called ‘on-rail’ competition. This occurs in three ways:
• Overlapping franchises: where two or more franchised TOCs operate on the same route, and therefore compete against each other for passengers on that route. • Parallel franchises: where two or more franchised TOCs operate services between the same city pairs, although on different routes, and so compete for passengers travelling between those cities.(^{12})
• OAOs: these are operators of passenger services authorised by ORR to have access to the network on certain routes for a specified time.
1.22 The extent of overlapping and parallel franchises has fallen in recent years, following a policy decision in 2001 by the then franchising authority, the Strategic Rail Authority, to reduce the number of franchises – a trend that has continued in recent years.
1.23 There are currently just two OAOs, Grand Central and First Hull Trains, both of which are owned by larger companies with franchise operations in Great Britain.(^{13}) These operate a small number of services on specified routes in competition to the franchisee on the East Coast main line. Together they represent less than 1% of passenger miles. In the past, there had been other OAOs, and applications have recently been made to ORR for more substantial passenger services on intercity routes.(^{14})
1.24 The scale of ‘open access’ operations is currently limited by ORR’s assessment criteria. There is concern that competition from OAOs might pose a risk to the revenue streams of franchisees, which could deter potential franchisees from bidding for franchises or could induce them to submit ‘lower’ bids, reducing the revenues available to the government for funding the network and for subsidising public service operations.
1.25 ORR needs to achieve an appropriate balance between its 24 statutory duties, which include not only an obligation to promote competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users, but also duties to act so as not to render it unduly difficult for network licence holders (ie Network Rail) to finance regulated activities and to have regard to the funds available to the government for its functions in relation to railways and railway services.(^{15})
1.26 In practical terms, ORR balances its duties through the application of a ‘not primarily abstractive’ (NPA) test, under which ORR would not expect to
______________________________________________________________________
(^{12}) An example is travel between London and Birmingham, which is served by two franchised TOCs on the West Coast main line and on a different route by Chiltern Railways.
(^{13}) Grand Central is owned by Arriva UK, which is itself a subsidiary of the German national rail operator Deutsche Bahn (which also operates certain franchises in Great Britain). First Hull Trains is a subsidiary of FirstGroup which also has franchise operations in Great Britain. ORR is currently considering applications by Alliance Rail and FirstGroup to run open access services in competition with the incumbent franchised TOC on the East Coast main line.
(^{14}) In August 2015, Alliance Rail was granted access rights to operate six daily return services between London and Blackpool from 2018.
(^{15}) Railways Act 1993, section 4. approve open access applications unless they generate at least 30 pence of new revenue for every £1 abstracted from existing operators.
1.27 Train operators often face a further degree of competitive constraint from other modes of transport, depending on the particular routes they serve. For example, on routes from London to Scotland, train operators face competition from airlines. On many long-distance flows there is competition from coach transport and, on local flows, operators may face competition from local bus services.
1.28 In contrast to passenger rail services, which are the focus of this report, rail freight operations are entirely ‘open access’, with a number of private sector operators competing freely on the network.
The potential benefits of greater on-rail competition
1.29 We have examined whether incremental measures to improve the process of competition ‘for’ the market by way of the competitive award of franchises are the best way to improve services for the passenger – or whether more significant improvements could be achieved on key intercity routes by introducing a greater degree of on-rail competition.
Potential passenger benefits
1.30 Since on-rail competition does not currently exist on a significant scale in Great Britain, we cannot draw definitive conclusions on the magnitude of the benefits that greater on-rail competition would deliver in the future. Nonetheless, we have engaged extensively with industry experts and examined detailed evidence from the current examples of on-rail competition in Great Britain and, by way of analogy, from other markets including on-rail competition in other European countries and other markets where there is in-market competition, including Great Britain rail freight, the experience of EU airline deregulation and the introduction of new competition between London’s airports.
1.31 The following key points emerge from existing on-rail competition in Great Britain and Europe:
- On-rail competition in Great Britain from open access shows that OAOs, notwithstanding their current limited role: — compete with franchised TOCs on price, frequently offering lower dedicated fares both for ‘walk-up’ and advance tickets;\\textsuperscript{16}
— have developed improvements to service levels and introduced innovations, including selling a wider range of tickets on-board, free wi-fi and new information systems – which is reflected in high passenger satisfaction compared to the majority of franchised TOCs; and
— appear to have generated some growth in the market for rail travel and delivered a number of wider economic benefits.
• On-rail competition in Great Britain from overlapping and parallel franchises shows that:
— there are examples of on-rail competition between franchised TOCs leading to price competition (within the constraints of the ticketing regulation framework), with competing franchised TOCs offering lower fares than the ‘lead operator’ on many routes across a range of season, ‘walk up’ and advance tickets – although sometimes for a slower service; and
— Franchised TOCs are generally restricted to competing on price because of franchise specifications. However, where franchise agreements are less specified by government (such as the Chiltern Railways franchise), on-rail competition between franchised TOCs also appears to have led to improved service quality and innovation.
• On-rail competition in other European countries, including Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden shows that, while there are some differences with the market structure in Great Britain:
— on-rail competition has delivered benefits for passengers, including lower fares, increased service frequency and customer service innovations;
— the introduction of on-rail competition has taken place on some of the most geographically important routes in each country, indicating the
\\textsuperscript{16} Interavailable fares are set by the lead operator for a journey, which is normally the operator with the greatest commercial interest in that particular journey. Other operators are required to honour these interavailable fares once they have been set by the lead operator, but other operators or groups of operators can set ‘dedicated’ fares for travel only on their own trains, generally at a lower price than the interavailable fare. The lead operator can also set dedicated fares in certain circumstances. For example, it can set discounted advance fares for travel only on its own services. trust placed in the ability of on-rail competition to deliver benefits that outweigh the risks;
- The trend towards introducing greater on-rail competition is continuing in Europe, with on-rail competition set to be introduced in countries including France, Belgium, Finland and Spain;
1.32 The following conclusions may be drawn from our assessment of the introduction of competition in other transport markets:
- In rail freight in Great Britain, competition ‘in’ the market developed strongly after privatisation, with new entrants successfully winning market share from incumbents. Benefits included improved staff productivity and investment which enables prices to be kept down and service standards to improve. While there are differences between the structure of the freight and passenger rail sectors, the case study illustrates how competition ‘in’ the market can realise benefits in the rail sector.
- The experience of the airline industry in Europe illustrates that a greater degree of competition ‘in’ the market can lead to a reduction in costs and lower fares, while also leading to improved services, the development of innovative business models and growth in the market overall.
- The example of competition between London’s Gatwick and Heathrow airports demonstrates that innovation, service quality improvements and lower prices may materialise over a number of years when dynamic competition is increased.
- In local bus services, sustained head-to-head competition where it exists has delivered benefits to customers, as a result of bus operators competing on the basis of service frequencies, in addition to fares and service quality. The process of competition has sometimes resulted in periods of intense short-lived rivalry, leading to the exit of one operator, and discriminatory behaviour by incumbents against new entrants. However, we do not consider that the issues in the local bus sector are directly relevant to the long-distance intercity rail sector.
1.33 We recognise that it is not possible to test comprehensively the effects of introducing a significantly increased degree of on-rail competition in passenger train services. There are, inevitably, material differences between different transport sectors, and between different operators. However, making due allowances for differences between the structure of the rail sector in Great Britain and other countries, and between transport sectors, we consider that these examples illustrate the significant benefits that could be obtained from greater on-rail competition in addition to the benefits delivered by competition ‘for’ the market.
**Potential efficiency gains**
1.34 We considered the potential for greater on-rail competition to deliver efficiency gains at both the retail level, where passenger train operators compete, and at the ‘upstream’ level of infrastructure operations/management.
1.35 At the retail level, we found that new entrants have achieved operational efficiencies in terms of (a) greater operational flexibility, (b) greater use of outsourcing, (c) efficiencies in ticketing, and (d) lower staff costs (often combined with higher employee engagement and satisfaction). This is supported by a range of empirical evidence:
- ORR found in 2011 that OAOs have costs which are 10 to 30% lower than franchised TOCs’ costs for a given density of operation.(^\\text{17})
- Empirical work we commissioned from Leeds University’s Institute of Transport Studies found that OAOs’ input prices were 29% lower than those of franchised TOCs operating intercity routes.(^\\text{18}) Despite some uncertainty regarding the precise magnitude of the efficiencies, we note the following:
- Using an econometric model that makes allowances for differences between OAOs and franchised TOCs, the study suggests that efficiency advantages offered by OAOs, which are able to adopt a more efficient business model than franchised TOCs, more than offset any cost disadvantages from the limited scale and density of their current operations.(^\\text{19})
- Expanding the role of open access has the potential to deliver greater efficiencies as operators would benefit from greater economies of scale and density, although the overall cost impact depends on the extent to which the incumbent loses economies of scale and density, and is route-specific.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{17}) See ORR (October 2011), *The potential for increased on-rail competition – a consultation document.*
(^{18}) Rasmussen, T, Wheat, P and Smith, A (2015), *Do open access train operators exhibit inherent cost benefits compared to their franchised counterparts?*
(^{19}) Differences allowed for include access charges, density, scale, train length, station operations, average passenger loads and input prices. The incentives that dynamic competition would create for operators to reduce costs may generate further efficiencies over and above those reflected in the model.
1.36 At the ‘upstream’ level of infrastructure operations/management, we found that greater on-rail competition may create stronger incentives for franchised TOCs and OAOs to put pressure on Network Rail to use capacity more efficiently (to accommodate new entry and to control costs), with scope for reformed track access charges to further strengthen these incentives. For example:
- London Midland, Virgin West Coast and Chiltern Railways compete on the London to Birmingham route. Competition from other operators was a driver in London Midland undertaking a project to find new capacity to operate additional services. London Midland proposed a method for increasing capacity on the West Coast main line and worked closely with Network Rail to gain approval for its proposal. This led to a material increase in passenger seats both into and out of London Euston.20
- When Grand Central launched its services from London to York, the additional capacity required by the incumbent franchised TOC to run services from London to York was identified by Network Rail partly as a result of the capacity questions raised by Grand Central in its open access application.
1.37 Evidence from other sectors also suggests that competition at the retail level can incentivise efficiency at the upstream level:
- As noted by the DfT in 2012, in the rail freight sector, the competitive environment has forced freight operators to find significant efficiencies over recent years, and it has encouraged Network Rail to do the same.21
- The air transport regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, noted the positive impact that liberalisation of airline services had on the ‘upstream’ management of airports.
- In the Scottish water sector, the introduction of downstream retail competition in the past decade substantially increased the efficiency of the upstream wholesale water monopolist.
______________________________________________________________________
20 Credo (March 2015), Incentivising better capacity management on GB rail: Case study evidence from other industries, ORR/CT/14-63. 21 DfT (March 2012), Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First, Cm 8313, p50. 1.38 In summary, there is evidence to suggest that greater on-rail competition has the potential to deliver benefits for passengers in addition to the benefits delivered by competition ‘for’ the market. We also found evidence to suggest that greater on-rail competition may have the potential to deliver efficiency gains at both the retail level and at the ‘upstream’ level of infrastructure operations/management.
The feasibility of greater on-rail competition: obstacles and opportunities
1.39 We considered the potential technical, economic and policy obstacles to greater competition in the passenger rail market in Great Britain and possible ways to overcome these obstacles, which fall into three broad categories:
- access to infrastructure, network capacity and rolling stock;
- funding the network and loss-making services, and the financial sustainability of operators; and
- operational issues and greater complexity arising from an increase in the number of operators.
We consider these potential obstacles in turn.
Access to infrastructure, network capacity and rolling stock
Access to infrastructure
1.40 In Great Britain, there is vertical separation between passenger train service operations and network infrastructure. Network Rail is not permitted to discriminate between train operators and has to consider all applications for access rights in an even-handed way. Therefore, the market fundamentals for on-rail competition are already in place in Great Britain.
Network capacity
1.41 On many parts of the rail network in Great Britain, there is very limited spare capacity available, particularly at peak times. In turn, this may limit the opportunity for new entrants to run services in competition with existing franchised TOCs.
1.42 In the shorter term, a number of capacity enhancements are planned, including electrification projects and station upgrades. However, while these projects may generate some increase in network capacity, we did not find that these enhancements would generate new capacity on a scale that would facilitate significant new entry on the three main intercity routes.
1.43 In the longer term, the move from conventional signalling to on-board digital signalling as part of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) is expected to allow for more trains to run safely over the same length of track. The construction of HS2, which will see high-speed services run between London Euston and Birmingham (and beyond) from 2026, will represent a step change in capacity between London and the North of England.
1.44 Although it is too soon to know how much capacity on-board signalling and HS2 are likely to create, they will clearly add some additional network capacity, helping to create additional opportunities for on-rail competition. ORR also told us that a reformed open access system would, alongside franchising, support the delivery of the government’s objective of making the best use of step changes in capacity, such as HS2 and on-board signalling, by responding to changing circumstances and identifying opportunities for new services.
1.45 More generally, we note that new network capacity is not a prerequisite for greater on-rail competition in the future. First, greater on-rail competition could be achieved by reallocating existing capacity between operators at the time of franchise design. Second, even where there is no spare track capacity (ie in terms of train paths), there is still likely to be capacity available on trains – particularly in the off-peak period. Third, even where certain train services are at full capacity, strategies including product differentiation and yield management may enable train operators to compete for particular categories of passenger and to manage demand across their services.
1.46 Moreover, as discussed in paragraph 1.36, we note that on-rail competition has the potential to incentivise the identification of new capacity.
Access to rolling stock
1.47 We considered whether the availability and cost of rolling stock is a barrier to greater on-rail competition. We found that, while there is currently scarcity in the availability of rolling stock, this scarcity is likely to become less problematic in the coming years.
1.48 As part of the InterCity Express Programme, new rolling stock will enter service on the Great Western main line from 2017 and on the East Coast main line from 2018, releasing the trains currently utilised on these lines. If OAOs have an opportunity to access this rolling stock, this could improve competitive conditions for re-leased (ie used) rolling stock, supplementing OAOs’ ability to procure rolling stock.
1.49 Furthermore, where operators have sufficiently long access rights, there is evidence to suggest that obtaining rolling stock has not represented a barrier to entry. In Great Britain, we note that Alliance Rail is procuring new Pendolino units to operate its open access services from London to Blackpool, which will commence in 2018 under the Great North Western Railway brand. Grand Central and First Hull Trains have also procured new trains. In the international examples of on-rail competition that we have considered, OAOs have purchased new rolling stock and have not cited rolling stock procurement as a barrier to entry.
1.50 The impact assessment commissioned by ORR noted that the rolling stock market seemed to be reverting to operator – and ROSCO – led procurement, which is more compatible with a multi-operator railway.
**Funding the network and loss-making services, and the financial sustainability of operators**
1.51 Any consideration of competition in Great Britain’s passenger rail services must take into account the complex mix of funding. As in other countries, rail services require a significant degree of government funding, reflecting:
(a) the policy objective of providing socially valuable passenger rail services even if they are not commercially profitable (including public service obligation (PSO) operations(^{22})); and
(b) the need for very significant ongoing investment in the rail network infrastructure, including future construction.
1.52 In 2013–2014, the industry’s total income of £13.3 billion was broken down as follows:
- Passengers contributed £9.0 billion through fares and other charges.
- The government contributed £3.8 billion through:
______________________________________________________________________
(^{22}) Article 2(e) of EU Regulation 1370/2007 defines a PSO as ‘a requirement defined or determined by a competent authority in order to ensure public passenger transport services in the general interest that an operator, if it were considering its own commercial interests, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent or under the same conditions without reward’. — £3.7 billion to Network Rail (significantly more than Network Rail received in track access charges) – by way of direct subsidy or ‘network grant’; and
— £0.1 billion net contribution to franchised TOCs (franchised TOCs paid £1.9 billion in premiums to government, while franchised TOCs in receipt of subsidy received £2.0 billion).
• A further £0.5 billion of income came from other sources.23
Impact of on-rail competition on government funds
1.53 The share of industry costs that is not met through passenger fares is financed through a mixture of direct government funding of infrastructure and cross-subsidisation between franchised TOCs through the franchise bidding process. An increased level of competition in the market is likely to reduce franchised TOCs’ overall revenues, because (a) consumers are partly transferred from the franchised operator to the competitor(s) and (b) fares decrease due to competition.
1.54 We recognise that a significant reduction in premium payments could threaten:
(a) the funding of network infrastructure investment (ie new entrants ‘free-riding’ on incumbents’ investments – which could, in turn, undermine the business case for the government to make new investments24); and
(b) the funding of services deemed socially valuable even if uncommercial (ie loss-making or of limited profitability), such as PSO operations (ie ‘cream-skimming’).
1.55 This risk is currently tackled by mapping the franchise area to limit franchise overlaps and competition and moderating open access competition, by allowing entry only if it is not expected to be primarily abstractive of revenue from the franchised TOC (ie the NPA test).
1.56 However, we found that the impact on government funding from greater on-rail competition may be mitigated by:
• on-rail competition increasing overall passenger volumes by lowering fares, improving service quality and targeting unmet demand. In this
______________________________________________________________________
23 Income from other sources included property income, station retail and freight charges. 24 The DfT told us that franchise premiums were a critical element of the business case for major investments such as the InterCity Express programme for new rolling stock. regard, we note evidence that passenger numbers of East Coast main line routes served by OAOs grew faster than at stations with no competition. Moreover, in most of the European case studies considered, on-rail competition led to significant demand growth; and
- efficiencies from greater on-rail competition having the potential to partly offset any reduction in government funds.
1.57 We are conscious of the importance of government funds in financing network infrastructure and socially valuable services and therefore propose mechanisms in our options for greater on-rail competition for addressing the impact on government funds (eg through a levy on OAOs). However, we believe that it is important for policymakers to balance a potential increase in passenger benefits from greater on-rail competition with a potential reduction in government funds.25
1.58 We note that the threat to government funds from on-rail competition is a feature of the current framework under which OAOs pay lower track access charges than franchised TOCs, with no mechanism in place to enable the government to recover reductions in franchise premiums. Moreover, the uncertainty created by current and future open access applications may have a significant impact on franchise premiums.26
**Impact of on-rail competition on investment**
1.59 We considered the potential impact of greater on-rail competition on investment. We found that on-rail competition has the potential to enhance business cases for investment by generating growth in passenger numbers, developing innovations in the design of investment projects and incentivising private sector investment in the network. However, we note that it is important to ensure that safeguards are in place to avoid undermining public investment cases, including investment cases for schemes such as HS2 and rail electrification schemes.
**Impact of on-rail competition on operators’ finances**
1.60 We considered the risk that on-rail competition, in driving down fares, would threaten the financial viability and sustainability of market participants. We
______________________________________________________________________
25 For example, Which? told us that the goal of the regulatory system for rail should be to deliver the quality of service that consumers are willing to pay for at the lowest possible combined cost, whether that cost is funded by passengers or taxpayers.
26 The DfT cited the 2014 competition for the East Coast franchise in which bidders were indemnified against 80% of any revenue loss from failing to obtain sufficient train paths on the network to deliver the franchisee’s key specified services, eg as a result of new open access services commencing during the period of the franchise. found that a number of factors are likely to mitigate this concern. In particular, product differentiation between operators and capacity constraints on the network may limit the extent to which prices would fall. Cost-reflective track access charges paid by incumbents and new entrants would also be likely to act as a ‘price floor’.
**Operational issues**
1.61 Greater on-rail competition would be likely to lead to a higher number of train operators (either franchised TOCs or OAOs) using the network. It was put to us that this could create a number of operational issues, including:
- inefficient use of capacity as a result of more operators;
- reduced interconnectivity;
- an adverse impact on performance and greater difficulty in recovery from disruption; and
- conflicting slot requests and timetabling issues, which may also affect strategically important changes to facilitate the provision of new services, such as HS2.
1.62 We also note that an increased number of competing operators could lead to greater complexity in the system, in particular in relation to ticketing.
1.63 We discussed operational issues with a wide range of stakeholders, including DfT, ORR, Network Rail, franchised TOCs and OAOs. Operational issues were also considered in the impact assessment commissioned by ORR.
1.64 **Efficient use of capacity**: Increasing the number of operators on a route may affect the total capacity available, although the effect will depend on the journey times and stopping patterns of the operators and the range of rolling stock used. There are already multiple operators on the network and there is a trade-off between the mix of services delivered (eg intercity, regional, ‘metro’ services and freight) and capacity maximisation. As noted above, on-rail competition has the potential to incentivise the more efficient identification and allocation of capacity and to help to provide the correct signals and information for deciding on trade-offs between capacity maximisation and performance as compared to a centralised process.
1.65 **Interconnectivity**: In the current framework, there are many thousands of possible connections that passengers can make and the degree of interconnectivity that can be achieved is limited. However, interconnectivity is an important characteristic for passengers – particularly on regional routes – and it is important that the ability to timetable services to ensure connections are maintained or enhanced is retained. We also note that where operators are competing more intensively for passengers, they may have greater commercial incentives to attract passengers from feeder services by ensuring good connections (and to offer onward connections to their own passengers).
1.66 **Performance:** We considered whether the complexity of coordinating the operations of multiple operators may adversely affect punctuality. We note that empirical evidence on the impact of multiple operators on punctuality is mixed and is dependent on the route and types of operators concerned. There is a degree of trade-off between service frequency and performance.(^{27})
1.67 **Recovery from disruption:** The system is already designed to work with multiple operators. Network Rail actively manages the response to disruption and current rules provide arrangements for ticket acceptance across operators once a certain disruption threshold is reached. Part H of the Network Code(^ {28}) includes a requirement for operators to comply with the Railway Operational Code, which obliges operators to work together to recover from disruption, having regard to the needs of passengers and freight customers. Operators also have a range of obligations to provide passenger information during disruption and ORR is able to deal with inadequate responses to disruption through operators’ licences. Network Rail also told us that greater on-rail competition could help performance and service recovery as OAOs are strongly incentivised to perform well in order to attract new customers.
1.68 **Slot allocation and timetabling:** This would become more complex, but evidence from other sectors and from a number of European countries where on-rail competition takes place suggests that it should be feasible. Network Rail already manages conflicting slot requests using the criteria set out in Part D of the Network Code. ORR is currently undertaking work with a view to improving Network Rail’s performance as a system operator(^ {29}) and we note that reforms to access rights have increased flexibility in slot allocation and timetabling. Moreover, there is potential to adopt alternative slot allocation mechanisms in the future should this deliver benefits.
1.69 **Ticketing complexity:** Greater on-rail competition would give operators the opportunity to match their ticket offering more closely to passenger preferences, increasing the choice of tickets available to passengers. In the current
______________________________________________________________________
(^{27}) It was also put to us that the ‘Schedule 8’ indemnity included in track access agreements incentivises operators to plan their services in a way that will not disrupt those of other operators.
(^{28}) The Network Code is a common set of rules and industry procedures that apply to all parties with a contractual right of access to the track owned and operated by Network Rail.
(^{29}) System operation covers how Network Rail operates the rail network and how decisions by Network Rail and others are made about the use of the system and its expansion over time. system, the complexity of ticketing can be confusing, but many passengers have also benefited from new types of fare (e.g., cheaper advance and carnet tickets). We note that these issues are likely to reduce over time as new technology, including smart cards and mobile ticketing, is rolled out. We also note that many passengers purchase their tickets in advance on intercity routes and that operators have more ability to differentiate themselves, which would help to ensure that passengers are able to make informed travel choices.
**Summary of feasibility considerations**
1.70 We concluded that none of the potential barriers considered are insurmountable. This was supported by the legal and operational assessment of the options for greater on-rail competition undertaken in the independent impact assessment commissioned by ORR.
1.71 We note that greater on-rail competition may create some additional operational risks which, given the diversity of the network, may vary on a case-by-case basis. However, we consider that these are manageable and would not be significantly greater than in the current system. In designing the options for greater on-rail competition set out below, we have sought to address the relevant feasibility considerations.
**Options for greater on-rail competition**
1.72 Having concluded that there were likely to be benefits of increased on-rail competition, and that there were no insurmountable barriers, we consulted on four options for greater on-rail competition. We summarise these options below and set out the framework that we have used to assess the costs and benefits of each option.
1.73 Our assessment draws upon evidence obtained through engagement with the industry and passenger groups, from consultation responses, the impact assessment commissioned by ORR and the evidence of the benefits of, and potential barriers to, greater on-rail competition set out above.
1.74 The baseline against which we assess the options is a continuation of the current system under which franchises are awarded in the framework adopted following the recommendations of the Brown Review, with incremental improvements made by the DfT over the coming years. The scope of the options
1.75 We are mindful of the fact that the industry is continuing to evolve, particularly in terms of passenger demand, network enhancements and recent and ongoing reviews into the sector.(^{30})
1.76 We have therefore set out some high-level options for increased on-rail competition. We have not attempted to set out the exact form which the options would take, nor the precise mechanisms by which the options would be implemented. We recommend that these questions are addressed through further discussions with government, the regulator, the industry and passenger groups.
1.77 We consider that the options are most likely to deliver benefits on the three main commercial intercity routes – namely the East Coast main line, the West Coast main line and the Great Western route. However, the framework could be applied on other parts of the network, with the Midland main line intercity route in particular being a potential candidate.(^{31})
1.78 There may be potential for the options to be implemented on HS2 given the premium nature of the product, the potential for service differentiation and the fact that many HS2 services will continue onward to different final destinations using the classic network. In this regard, we note that many of the examples of on-rail competition in other European countries are on dedicated high-speed lines.
The four options
1.79 Option 1 envisages OAOs playing a significantly increased role within the current market structure, alongside franchised TOCs. This could be achieved by new capacity being reserved for OAOs, or by reducing the scope of future franchises. The aim of this option is to generate larger-scale on-rail competition between franchised TOCs and OAOs while addressing the difficulties that arise in the current model of open access. Franchised TOCs and OAOs would compete on a level playing field, which would entail OAOs making a greater contribution to network costs through higher track access charges in return for more extensive access to the network. OAOs would also contribute to the funding of unprofitable but socially valuable services, which
______________________________________________________________________
(^{30}) The Shaw Report will make recommendations in March 2016 on how the longer-term future shape and financing of Network Rail should be approached. ORR is reviewing both the structure of track access charges and Network Rail’s system operator function. At the same time, DfT is reviewing ORR’s role and responsibilities.
(^{31}) We are not suggesting options for commuter services, where capacity constraints and the particular desire of passengers for a “turn up and go” service pose additional challenges for introducing greater on-rail competition. would continue to be provided within franchises, through the payment of a PSO levy.
1.80 Under Option 2, there would be two successful bidders for each franchise. Routes currently operated by one franchised TOC would be split so that two franchised TOCs could provide services. This option could be implemented in different ways. Services could be equally split, such that each operator serves many of the same destinations. Alternatively, the two franchised TOCs could be asymmetric, for example with a 60:40 (or greater) division between services. This would reduce the extent of on-rail competition between the franchised TOCs but would reduce the risk of collusive behaviour. Another possibility would be for one of the operators to act as an ‘anchor franchisee’ with responsibility for the vast majority of unprofitable but socially valuable services, with the other operating primarily profitable services.
1.81 Option 3, like Option 2, involves increased competition between franchised TOCs. Under this option, the franchise map would be redesigned to encourage greater franchise overlaps on specific point-to-point flows for franchised TOCs operating on different routes. In contrast to Option 2, the franchises would not need to be tendered simultaneously. Option 3 would effectively reverse a policy decision taken in the early 2000s to reduce the number of overlapping franchises.
1.82 Option 4 is more radical in its approach, with multiple operators providing rail services in a fully commercial environment, subject to a licensing regime which would replace the franchising model in areas where the option was implemented. The licensing regime would include obligations to provide key unprofitable but socially desirable services and could be modelled on regimes that already exist in a range of other regulated sectors in the UK such as energy, water, telecoms and postal services. Operators could apply for, or bid to obtain, licences in order to offer services which, instead of being centrally specified, would be determined by market forces. There are a number of ways in which train paths could be allocated to operators, including an auction system for small bundles of paths. This would also allow the government to raise revenue in place of franchise premiums.
Assessment of the options
Framework
1.83 In assessing the options, we used a framework which took into account a range of quantitative and qualitative measures to compare the options with the baseline of a continuation of the current system. In particular, we took into account passenger benefits, efficiency and wider economic benefits, as well as the potential barriers to competition identified by stakeholders, and the degree to which the options can overcome these potential barriers. The framework is summarised in Box 1:
Box 1: Options assessment framework
1. **Passenger and efficiency benefits**
- (a) Lower prices and fares
- (b) Improved overall passenger experience, including service quality, choice and complexity
- (c) Greater cost efficiency at the passenger services level
- (d) Dynamic or innovation benefits
2. **Funding and risk**
- (a) Taxpayer funding – impact on government funds
- (b) Impact on risk for government and operators
- (c) Impact on investment incentives
3. **Network considerations, including operational issues**
- (a) Impact on coordination and the level of transaction costs
- (b) Utilisation of capacity and interconnectivity
- (c) Impact on efficiency at the upstream network management level
- (d) Impact on safety
4. **Wider social benefits**
- (a) Externalities generated: regional economic growth and environmental benefits
- (b) Impact on social inclusion and connectivity
5. **Ease of implementation, including legal and operational feasibility** Scale of policy and regulatory changes required
**Assessment**
1.84 In undertaking our assessment, we have taken into account evidence from stakeholders, including consultation responses, and the impact assessment commissioned by ORR. The following paragraphs highlight the key points raised by each option.
**Option 1**
1.85 **Passenger, efficiency and wider economic benefits**: Option 1 would introduce on-rail competition between two large-scale train operators. The OAO would have more scope to differentiate its service offering than the franchised TOC as it would be free from franchise specification. As discussed above, the OAO may also be able to achieve greater operational efficiencies than the franchised TOC, in turn giving it greater scope to reduce fares. Together with the commercial freedom to tailor its service offering to market demand, this may lead to an overall increase in rail demand and its associated economic benefits (including reduced car usage).
1.86 **Funding and risk:** Option 1 would be expected to lead to some reduction in franchise premiums paid by franchised TOCs on the routes where it is implemented. This would be addressed through a combination of (a) a level playing field in the track access charges paid by franchised TOCs and OAOs; (b) a levy to enable OAOs to contribute to the cost of unprofitable but socially valuable services; and (c) reducing uncertainty in the franchise bidding process regarding the future level of on-rail competition.
1.87 While these mechanisms may not recover all the reduction in franchise premium, this risk should be seen in the context of the current system in which there is uncertainty regarding the level of franchise premiums and no mechanism for OAOs to provide a greater contribution to the funding of the network.
1.88 There is a risk that the PSO levy may unjustifiably deter OAO entry, although any levy could potentially be designed to reduce this risk (eg by gradual implementation as new entrants become established). Option 1 could reduce uncertainty for franchised TOCs regarding the future level of on-rail competition during franchise bidding by allocating paths to OAOs in advance of the bidding process. It may also generate additional entry opportunities, helping TOC owner groups to balance their portfolios.
1.89 **Operational issues:** By introducing an OAO competing with the intercity franchised TOC, Option 1 may create some additional operational risk. However, as discussed above, we found that this risk would be manageable and would not be significantly greater than in the current system in which multiple franchised TOCs, OAOs and freight services operate on the network.
1.90 **Implementation:** Option 1 would require a change to the structure of track access charges and the introduction of a PSO levy. The former is already under way but, as considered further below, the PSO levy would be complex to design and may possibly require primary legislation. A system for allocating paths to an OAO would also have to be designed. However, we have not received any evidence to suggest that these challenges are insurmountable.
1.91 **Impact assessment:** The impact assessment found that Option 1 was legally and operationally feasible, although further examination of the PSO levy would be required. The increase in competitive pressure was considered likely to lead to lower fares and service quality improvements. The indicative quantitative modelling found that, under the central case assumptions, measured in terms of the net present value (NPV) of benefits, Option 1 would generate £489 million of benefits over a 20-year appraisal period on the East Coast main line, £915 million on the West Coast main line and £262 million on the Great Western main line.
Option 2
1.92 **Passenger, efficiency and wider economic benefits**: Option 2 would also introduce on-rail competition between two large-scale train operators, significantly increasing the degree of competition relative to the base case. However, in contrast to Option 1, both operators would be franchised TOCs bound by franchise specification, which would limit their commercial freedom to compete on factors other than fares (e.g., service quality) and ability to achieve operational efficiencies.
1.93 **Funding and risk**: Option 2 may be expected to result in some reduction in government funds as a result of lower fares, although we note that more cost-reflective access charges and demand growth induced by greater on-rail competition may mitigate this effect to some degree. By creating smaller franchises, Option 2 would also reduce some of the financial risks associated with franchising.
1.94 **Operational issues**: In Option 2, the government would, though franchise specification, retain operational control over the competing franchised TOCs. As such, there would only be minor implications for operational control and performance.
1.95 **Implementation**: Option 2 could be delivered within the current legal framework, although a change to franchise policy and, potentially, franchise design, would be required.
______________________________________________________________________
32 The impact assessment modelled low, central and high cases to reflect uncertainty with respect to many of the key assumptions employed.
33 These net present values comprise: (a) impacts on users due to changes in fares and journey times; (b) impact on non-users due to changes in car use; (c) impact on franchised TOCs due to changes in operating costs/efficiency and in passenger revenues; and (d) impact on government funds due to changes in franchise premium payments, in revenue from access charges PSO levy and indirect tax.
34 The quantitative assessment aimed to consider the likely direction and broad magnitude of the impacts under a range of scenarios intended to be indicative of the type of service pattern and other impacts that could result under each of the options. Some respondents to the consultation raised questions about the methodology that was adopted. We also note that there are a number of considerations that were not modelled which would be expected to make the net benefits of the options greater, including the dynamic benefits of competition, increased service quality and the potential for improved efficiency of Network Rail as a result of increased pressure from operators. Other aspects which may be expected to have a negative impact were also not modelled. We take these factors into account in our assessment. 1.96 **Impact assessment**: The impact assessment found that Option 2 could be implemented within current industry structures and practices. As for Option 1, this option was expected to deliver net benefits overall. Although the extent of competitive responses would be limited by franchise agreements, the quantitative analysis found that it was possible to configure the option to deliver widespread competition across a route. Under the central case assumptions, Option 2 was modelled as producing £95–£236 million of benefits on the East Coast main line and £151–£166 million on the West Coast main line.(^{35})
**Option 3**
1.97 **Passenger, efficiency and wider economic benefits**: Option 3 would be likely to deliver more marginal benefits from on-rail competition, both due to the more limited extent of overlaps between franchised TOCs compared with Option 2 and the possibility that the franchised TOCs providing overlapping services may be differentiated (e.g., a regional service and an intercity service).
1.98 **Funding and risk**: In Option 3, franchise bidders would not be aware of the future level of on-rail competition from other franchised TOCs, which may increase uncertainty in the bidding process. Moreover, the application of UK merger control to the award of franchises creates a risk in Option 3 as bidders with overlapping services would face detailed competition scrutiny, possibly reducing their appetite for bidding and, consequently, the intensity of competition for the franchise award.
1.99 **Operational issues**: In common with Option 2, the government would, though franchise specification, retain operational control over the competing franchised TOCs. As such, there would only be minor implications for operational control and performance.
1.100 **Implementation**: Option 3 could be delivered within the current legal framework, although a change to franchise policy and, potentially, franchise design, would be required.
1.101 **Impact assessment**: The impact assessment found that Option 3 could be implemented within current industry structures and practices. The degree of competition created was considered likely to be limited both by the geographic extent of overlaps and the possibility that franchises would serve differentiated markets. This is reflected in the quantitative analysis which suggested that the
______________________________________________________________________
(^{35}) Figures for Option 2 are ranges under the central case as both symmetric and asymmetric sub-options were modelled. The impact assessment modelled Option 2 on the East and West Coast main lines only. benefits are less significant than under Option 2, with the central case assumptions modelled as producing an NPV on the Great Western main line of £56 million.\\textsuperscript{36}
\\textit{Option 4}
1.102 \\textbf{Passenger, efficiency and wider economic benefits}: Option 4 would generate the strongest on-rail competition, with three or more operators competing on key flows. This option is therefore likely to deliver the largest reduction in fares of the four options. As each operator would be free from franchise specification, Option 4 is likely to generate the strongest incentives for operators to differentiate their products and to innovate in order to win market share – subject to the licence conditions imposed. Option 4 also provides the greatest scope for operators to achieve operational efficiencies as well as strong incentives for operators to engage with Network Rail to ensure that it delivers performance and enhancements in a cost-effective way.
1.103 \\textbf{Funding and risk}: The impact of Option 4 on government funds is more difficult to predict given that the auctioning arrangements have not yet been determined. The extent of on-rail competition would act to reduce industry funds by driving fares down, although this would be mitigated to a degree by demand growth. Moreover, the auction of train paths could generate significant revenue for the government. However, there are a number of significant challenges to auctioning paths on the railway that would need to be overcome.
1.104 We also note that Option 4 may address some of the risks for franchised TOCs and government that exist in the base case, which include uncertainty regarding the future level of on-rail competition at the time of bidding for a franchise and the risk of there being an insufficient number of bidders in franchise competitions.
1.105 \\textbf{Operational issues}: In Option 4, a strong system operator function would be required in order to manage the timetables of multiple intercity train operators. Changes to timetables and licences would have to be coordinated over time and with major projects. However, while the operational risk is higher than in the other options, we do not consider the issues to be insurmountable.
1.106 \\textbf{Implementation}: Option 4 would require an overhaul of the current system in areas where it was implemented, including the design of licences and a mechanism for auctioning train paths. We summarise these issues below.
\\textsuperscript{36} The impact assessment modelled Option 3 on the Great Western main line only. 1.107 **Impact assessment**: The impact assessment found that there would be significant challenges in implementing Option 4, although these were not considered to be insurmountable. Option 4 was deemed too difficult to model quantitatively in the time available due to the uncertain nature of the service patterns and exact regulatory framework which it would entail. However, a qualitative assessment found that due to the intensity of competition between commercial operators free to adopt their own business models, Option 4 had the potential to offer significant benefits to consumers and should be considered further. Option 4 was also considered likely to drive significant improvements in efficiency.
**Conclusion**
1.108 We summarise our assessment in Box 2 below.(^{37})
**Box 2: Summary of options against assessment criteria**
| | 1 – Greater open access | 2 – Split franchises | 3 – Overlapping franchises | 4 – Licence system | 0 – Base case | |--------------------------|-------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------|--------------| | Passenger and efficiency benefits | ✓ ✓ ✓ | ✓ ✓ | ✓ | ✓ ✓ ✓ | - | | Funding and risk | × | × | - | × | - | | Considerations within the network, including operational issues | ✓ | - | - | ✓ | - | | Wider social/economic benefits | ✓ ✓ | ✓ ✓ | ✓ | ✓ ✓ ✓ | - | | Implementation ease | × × | × | × | × × × | - |
1.109 Taking the above assessment into account, we conclude that while Option 4 has the potential to deliver the greatest passenger and efficiency benefits, it carries significant implementation risks, which have not yet been fully explored. Option 1 would also be likely to deliver significant benefits while addressing issues in the current open access model and, given that it retains franchising, raises fewer implementation issues.
1.110 We also consider that Option 2 could provide benefits by introducing on-rail competition on key routes. Although the scope of the benefits – particularly those arising from dynamic competition – may be reduced by both operators
______________________________________________________________________
(^{37}) This representation, and in particular the use of ‘ticks’ and ‘crosses’, is indicative and intended as an aid to summarise our longer and more nuanced assessment. remaining as franchised TOCs subject to franchise specification, Option 2 is implementable under the current legal framework. Given the diversity of the network in Great Britain, Option 2 may also have the potential to deliver benefits on parts of the network where Option 1 is less suitable.
1.111 We consider that Option 3 would not be likely to produce significant passenger and efficiency benefits given the limited degree of on-rail competition that it would generate.
Recommendations and next steps
1.112 In setting out next steps, we focus first on general recommendations to lay the foundations for a dynamic, competitive industry, and then on the key steps for implementation of our preferred options to introduce greater competition. We then set out the key stages required in implementing our preferred options.
General recommendations: laying the foundations for a dynamic, competitive industry
1.113 We make a number of general recommendations that we consider to be key to enabling full realisation of the benefits of greater on-rail competition. These may be summarised as follows:
- **Continuing to reduce the level of specification of franchise contracts on routes where there is on-rail competition** – this would allow franchised TOCs to compete on factors such as service quality instead of on fares only, therefore helping to realise the dynamic benefits of competition. In Option 1, reducing the specification of the franchised TOC’s franchise agreement would increase its flexibility to respond to competition from the OAO.
- **Reforming the structure of track access charges** – reforming the structure of access charges would support more effective competition between different types of passenger train operator. As noted above, ORR is already proposing to address this as part of its review of the structure of track access charges. We also welcome the government’s decision in 2015 to re-route the network grant paid by government to Network Rail via train operators as it will help to increase pressure from operators on Network Rail to deliver efficiency improvements.
- **Improving the ‘system operator’** – a strong system operator is essential to ensuring that track capacity is effectively utilised and is therefore central to implementing greater competition between train operators. We note that ORR is already undertaking a review of Network Rail’s system operator function.
- **Encouraging the use of smart ticketing so that real passenger journeys are tracked within the system** – by replacing the current system which shares revenue between competing operators based on estimates of passenger numbers, this will strengthen the incentives for operators to compete for passengers where there is on-rail competition. We note that there are already positive developments in this area, with smart cards and mobile ticketing being rolled out in a number of areas.
1.114 Building on these general recommendations, we set out our preferred options for introducing greater on-rail competition below.
**Recommended option: Option 1, a significantly greater role for open access on intercity routes**
1.115 We consider that Option 1 is the lead option for introducing greater on-rail competition on key intercity routes for the benefit of passengers and wider society. This option could be piloted in one franchise area before being extended to other areas. The first intercity franchise for which an Invitation to Tender will be issued following the implementation of the new structure of track access charges – and which would allow time for the other necessary implementation steps – is the next East Coast main line franchise, which will commence in 2023. However, as set out below, in order to deliver greater on-rail competition in 2023, the implementation steps need to be taken soon.
1.116 It would also form the first step in any future transition into the licensing model proposed under Option 4. The key steps required to implement Option 1 are summarised below.
**A level playing field in track access charges**
1.117 The first stage of this process is already under way. ORR’s review of the structure of track access charges has identified a potential inability to support effective competition between different types of passenger train operator as a gap in the current system. ORR is therefore consulting on proposals for OAOs to make a greater contribution to network costs, particularly where capacity is scarce and most valuable. In this regard, ORR’s consultation notes that such changes might allow for a better allocation of capacity between OAOs and franchised TOCs, which may lead funders to be relatively neutral between them in terms of the revenue impacts on the taxpayer.\\textsuperscript{38}
1.118 ORR’s review of the structure of track access charges will conclude in 2017 and the new charges will take effect from the start of the next five-year Network Rail Control Period in 2019. If a level playing field between the charges paid by franchised TOCs and OAOs is achieved, this will also help to address some of the funding risks associated with open access applications made under the current framework from 2019 onwards.
Designing and implementing a PSO levy
1.119 Primary legislation may be required to implement a PSO levy to mitigate the impact of greater on-rail competition on government funds, as the levy would be government imposed and distinct from the track access charges set by ORR.
1.120 EU legislation provides for member states to employ a levy to compensate for PSOs, but its imposition is discretionary, and the government has not transposed the relevant legislation into UK law to date.\\textsuperscript{39} Transposing the relevant EU legislation would be an alternative to making primary legislation in the UK. The levy would need to be designed carefully to ensure that its fits with EU legislation regardless of whether it is imposed by primary legislation or the transposition of EU legislation.
1.121 There are a number of questions to address in the design of the levy, including the charging mechanism and whether the levy would change over time. While OAOs responding to our consultation stated that they would be willing to pay a levy in return for greater access to the network, care would need to be taken to ensure that the levy did not act as an unjustifiable barrier to entry. It may also be appropriate to consider whether any levy should apply to current OAOs with small-scale operations focused on previously unserved destinations.
1.122 Any levy would need to be in place as soon as possible so as to inform OAOs’ entry decisions. Moreover, given the links to the charging regime, the levy would ideally be in place by the time that the new structure of track access charges is implemented in March 2019.
\\textsuperscript{38} ORR (10 December 2015), \\textit{Network Charges: A consultation on how charges can improve efficiency}.
\\textsuperscript{39} Article 12 of Directive 2012/34/EU allows the authority responsible for passenger rail transport in an EU member state to impose a levy on rail operators providing passenger services to contribute to the financing of public service obligations laid down in public service contracts that have been awarded according to European law. Allocating train paths to an OAO
1.123 For open access operations to expand on the main intercity routes, the required train paths would need to be made available. Prior to the expiry of the current intercity franchises (eg East Coast main line), the DfT would need to reconfigure the franchises to allow capacity for OAOs to operate in competition with the intercity franchised TOC on certain routes. For Option 1 to be introduced in 2023, this would need to be achieved in advance of the expression of interest documents being issued for the East Coast main line franchise in 2021.
1.124 In parallel, a system for allocating train paths to an OAO would need to be developed either by the DfT or ORR. There are a number of possibilities for allocating paths, including an economic assessment of OAOs’ applications by ORR or a bidding or auction process for paths (in which the level of PSO levy that OAOs were willing to pay could be a factor).
A vision for the longer term: Option 4, a licensing system for operators on main intercity routes
1.125 Option 1 could be extended towards the model of competition in Option 4 in the future. For example, instead of a franchised TOC operating 70% of train paths for intercity services and an OAO the remaining 30%, three OAOs of a similar size could be licensed to operate all the paths. This is an ambitious proposal and would require an overhaul of the current system. In particular:
- Licences would need to be designed in such a way that socially valuable services were delivered and minimum service levels were provided, while not being overly prescriptive and unduly restricting commercial decisions.
- The structure of the new licensing system would need to be defined in national legislation and also comply with the corresponding EU regulations.
- A system would have to be established for allocating paths to operators, which would be likely to involve auctioning capacity.
- A strong system operator would need to be in place with sufficient flexibility to coordinate timetables and the response to industry developments, such as major projects.
______________________________________________________________________
40 Measures would need to be put in place to ensure that the franchise operator and OAO did not have commercial links, while also ensuring that the franchise bidding market is not undermined. 1.126 We note that Option 4 was advocated by a major TOC owner group and that the impact assessment commissioned by ORR did not consider that the challenges were insurmountable. However, given the questions associated with its design, we recommend that more detailed consideration is given to Option 4 once the steps required for Option 1 to be implemented are in place.
**Our parallel recommendation: introducing Option 2 where it has the potential to deliver benefits on the network**
1.127 In parallel to our main recommendations, we also recommend considering the introduction of Option 2 on areas of the network where it has potential to deliver greater benefits. This would allow policymakers a choice of tools as to how to achieve greater on-rail competition in the future.(^{41}) Option 2 would be implemented under the existing regulatory framework and no legal issues have been identified.
1.128 The franchises on which the option was implemented would need to be redesigned in order to ensure that there is appropriate competition between the two franchised TOCs on the selected routes, while retaining operational integrity.
**Next steps**
1.129 The publication of this policy document does not mark the end of our engagement in this area. The recommendations we have set out are for the long term and we will continue to engage with policymakers and regulators as appropriate to discuss how the benefits of on-rail competition can be harnessed on the network in the future.
1.130 We also encourage industry participants and stakeholders to continue to consider the benefits that greater on-rail competition could deliver, and to consider further ways in which opportunities to expand on-rail competition for the benefit of passengers and wider UK productivity may be pursued.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{41}) The Invitation to Tender for the Great Western franchise will be issued in January 2018 and may create an opportunity for policymakers to increase on-rail competition by splitting the franchise. 2. **Context: industry background**
2.1 This chapter sets out the current structure of the rail sector in Great Britain and describes the roles of the key industry players, including Network Rail franchised TOCs, OAOs, freight operators, the regulator and government. We set out the process by which franchised TOCs, OAOs and freight operators access the network and outline the complex system of funding the rail network.
**Structure of the rail sector in Great Britain**
*Network Rail*
2.2 Network Rail owns and manages the main rail network infrastructure in Great Britain, including the track and related infrastructure (e.g., depots, signalling and electrification systems) and virtually all the stations (Network Rail operates 19 stations itself and leases all the others to the franchised TOCs). For management purposes, the network is divided into ten regional operating routes, each constituting a separate business unit with its own accounts to facilitate greater benchmarking of performance between operations. The ten routes are Anglia, Kent, London North East, London North West, East Midlands, Scotland, Sussex, Wales, Wessex and Western.
2.3 Network Rail is regulated by ORR under its network licence. ORR has a range of statutory powers to set the contractual and financial framework within which Network Rail operates. There are six parts to Network Rail’s licence covering: network management and timetabling; restrictions on activities;
______________________________________________________________________
42 Powers relating to transport in Northern Ireland were devolved as part of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The railways in Northern Ireland are owned and operated by the state-owned company NI Railways rather than by a TOC selected in a competitive franchise tender process. Rail services in Northern Ireland are therefore excluded from the scope of this report.
43 Network Rail was established in 2002 as a company limited by guarantee, taking over the assets and liabilities of Railtrack and its role as the network operator. The company was established on a ‘not for profit’ basis which means that, while it could make a profit, to do so was not its primary aim. Following a change in European reporting rules, on 1 September 2014, Network Rail was reclassified as a public sector body. Network Rail has retained commercial and operational autonomy to manage Great Britain’s rail infrastructure within the framework of the relevant regulatory and control rules that apply, as an ‘arm’s length body’ of the DfT. The most significant effect of the change was that the company’s net debt (currently around £30 billion) appeared on the government’s balance sheet.
44 Network Rail also owns the land, rail infrastructure and assets on the Isle of Wight but these have been leased to Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited (under the Island Line brand) for a period of 25 years, commencing on 1 April 1994. This is a vertically integrated operation with Island Line being responsible for all railway operations and infrastructure maintenance. See Network Rail, Network Statement 2016, December 2015-December 2016.
45 Network licence granted to Network Rail Infrastructure Limited. dealings with third parties; information requirements; corporate requirements and standard industry obligations.
2.4 The level of access charges paid to Network Rail is regulated by ORR through a process of five-yearly periodic reviews and, where appropriate, interim reviews. ORR assesses what Network Rail must achieve, the money it needs to do so and the incentives needed to encourage delivery and outperformance. Each review covers a five-year period, known as a ‘control period’. The current period, Control Period 5 (CP5), runs from 2014 to 2019. The outputs and funding for this period were set during the Periodic Review 2013 (PR13).
**Franchised TOCs**
2.5 Franchised TOCs operating passenger rail franchises are awarded the right to run specific services within a specified area for a specific period of time, in return for the right to charge fares and, where appropriate, to receive financial support from the franchising authority (now the Rail Group in the DfT). Franchised TOCs generally lease stations from Network Rail and earn rental income by subletting parts of them, for example to retailers.
2.6 There are currently 16 franchises operating in England and Wales and two in Scotland. Table 1 sets out the current franchises and their operators and a map of train operators in Great Britain is included in the Appendix.
______________________________________________________________________
46 More detailed information on the periodic reviews is provided on ORR’s [website](#).
47 As noted in paragraph 2.36 below, Transport Scotland is the franchising authority for the ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper franchises. There are also specific arrangements in place for London Overground and Merseyrail. Table 1: Rail franchises in Great Britain in 2016
| Franchise | Operating name (franchised TOC) | Franchisee (TOC owner group) | Duration | |----------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------| | England and Wales | | | | | Chiltern | Chiltern Railways | Arriva | Mar 2002–Dec 2021 | | Cross Country | CrossCountry | Arriva | Nov 2007–Oct 2019 | | East Anglia | Abellio Greater Anglia | Abellio | Feb 2012–Oct 2016 | | East Coast | Virgin East Coast | Stagecoach/Virgin | Mar 2015–Mar 2023 | | East Midlands | East Midlands Trains | Stagecoach | Nov 2007–Mar 2018 | | Essex Thameside | c2c | National Express | Sep 2014–Nov 2029 | | Great Western | First Great Western | First Group | Apr 2006–Apr 2019 | | Northern | Northern | Serco/Abellio | Dec 2004–Apr 2016 | | South Eastern | Southeastern | Govia | Apr 2006–Jun 2018 | | South Western | South West Trains | Stagecoach | Feb 2007–June 2017| | Thameslink, Southern & | Thameslink, Great Northern, | GoVia | Sep 2014–Sep 2021 | | Great Northern | Southern, Gatwick Express | | | | TransPennine Express | First TransPennine Express | First Group/Keolis | Feb 2004–Apr 2016 | | West Midlands | London Midland | GoVia | Nov 2007–Oct 2017 | | West Coast | Virgin | Stagecoach/Virgin | Mar 1997–Sep 2017 | | Wales & Borders | Arriva Trains Wales | Arriva | Dec 2003–Oct 2018 | | Scotland | | | | | Caledonian Sleeper | Caledonian Sleeper | Serco | Mar 2015–Mar 2030 | | ScotRail | ScotRail | Abellio | Apr 2015–Mar 2025 |
Source: ORR data and House of Commons note (14 December 2015), Railways: passenger franchises.
2.7 Franchised TOCs bid for franchises on the basis of the amount of funding they would require – or the premium they would be prepared to pay – in order to run the services specified in the franchise. The winner is selected on the basis of a weighted scoring system taking into account factors including the subsidy required or premium offered and initiatives to enhance the quality of service for passengers. This competition ‘for’ the market, to run a franchise, is currently the principal form of competition in passenger rail services. Franchised services cover 99% of passenger rail miles.
2.8 In the event that a franchise is terminated or suitable bids are not submitted, the Secretary of State for Transport (in the case of England and Wales) has a responsibility to be the operator of last resort (see section 30 of the Railways Act 1993). 48
2.9 European law specifies that rail franchises may initially be awarded for a term of up to 15 years, but may be extended in certain circumstances for a further 7.5 years. This means that the maximum length of rail franchises cannot
______________________________________________________________________
48 For example, this happened in the case of Connex South Eastern in December 2003 (at the time, operating the South Eastern franchise), GNER with respect to the East Coast franchise in December 2006 (although GNER continued to manage the franchise on behalf of the DfT under a temporary agreement until the new franchise became operational in December 2007) and National Express in November 2009 (for the East Coast franchise). exceed 22.5 years. The independent Brown Review into franchising, which was published in January 2013, recommended that franchise agreements should be concluded for an initial term of seven to ten years with a pre-contracted extension, in the event that agreed criteria are met, for a further three to five years giving a maximum term of up to 15 years.
2.10 Initial franchises were specified by the then Franchising Director, which produced a Passenger Service Requirement (PSR) setting out the minimum service levels for train services, based on the timetable historically operated by British Rail. Each PSR was (and, for the Chiltern Railways franchise, is still) specific to a franchise, but generally included requirements relating to first and last trains, frequency, journey time and stopping patterns. The Franchising Director had the responsibility for monitoring each franchisee’s performance. If a franchisee did not deliver the proper timetable, the Franchising Director could impose penalties or, as a last resort, terminate the franchise agreement.
2.11 Under the Transport Act 2000 a body called the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) inherited all the functions, property, rights, and liabilities of the Franchising Director. Under the Railways Act 2005, the functions relating to franchise agreements for England transferred from the SRA to the DfT, responsibility for the Scottish franchise transferred to the Scottish Executive and the Welsh government was granted a direct role for local and regional passenger rail services in Wales. Franchise specification became tighter (eg in relation to the frequency and timing of services and the provision of on-board facilities such as catering and cleaning) through the introduction of Service Level Commitments and Train Service Requirements.
2.12 The rights and obligations of franchised TOCs are specified through a Train Service Requirement as part of the franchise agreement negotiated between the franchising authority and the franchisee. The Train Service Requirement includes obligations on franchised TOCs such as the number of daily calls at
______________________________________________________________________
49 EU Regulation 1370/2007, Articles 4(3) and (4). If justified by the amortisation of capital in relation to exceptional infrastructure, rolling stock or vehicular investment and if the public service contract is awarded in a fair competitive tendering procedure, a public service contract may have a longer duration.
50 The review of the rail franchising programme was conducted following problems with the award of the West Coast franchise in 2012. Certain of the current franchises have a term exceeding 15 years: these are Chiltern Railways (19 years) and West Coast (20 years; due to multiple extensions). See House of Commons note by Louise Butcher (8 January 2015), Railways: fares, Business and Transport (SN1904).
51 The DfT told us that the greater level of financial risk borne by the franchising authority over time has led to a greater level of franchise specificity. The DfT also told us that franchise specification is critically important in ensuring the delivery of socially and economically important services, which would otherwise not be provided, and in securing other vital characteristics for those services which the market would not provide, but which are of importance to passengers and the wider economy (eg additional capacity to prevent overcrowding on commuter routes, higher frequencies, faster journeys). It therefore considers that there is a legitimate and principled role for specification within franchises. stations and the timing of first and last trains. Each franchise has its own specific Train Service Requirement.
2.13 Following the problems with the re-let of the West Coast franchise, the Brown Review examined the wider rail franchising programme, looking in detail at whether changes were needed to the way risk was assessed and to the bidding and evaluation process. During the hiatus in the bidding process, a number of direct awards were made to extend franchises. The nature of these awards varied but, in effect, the government negotiated directly with the incumbent operator and there was no competition for the award. The DfT worked with technical advisers to build a comparator model based on the current and projected performance of the franchise. The submissions from the incumbent for the direct award were then compared with this model. The franchise bidding process restarted in 2013, leading to the subsequent award of the Essex Thameside, Thameslink, Southern & Great Northern and Virgin East Coast main line franchises.
Open access operators
2.14 Franchised TOCs face a degree of competition ‘in’ the market from non-franchised operators, which are granted the right, by ORR, to compete on certain routes as OAOs.
2.15 OAOs operate on a commercial basis with no subsidy and are required to apply to ORR and Network Rail for the necessary access rights to run their proposed service. Network Rail will advise a current or potential rail operator on the likelihood of train paths being available on the relevant part of the network for running a proposed service based on the timetable in operation at the time. Network Rail may then either support an application to ORR under section 18 of the Railways Act 1993 or not, in which case the procedure under section 17 for ‘disputed’ applications is followed.
2.16 Fares set by OAOs are not subject to fare regulation. However, OAOs have the same general ticketing obligations as franchised TOCs, other than with respect to ticket offices.
______________________________________________________________________
52 In August 2012, the DfT awarded the West Coast franchise to FirstGroup. Virgin Trains judicially reviewed the DfT’s decision and, in October 2012, the DfT announced that it would no longer contest the judicial review, stating that it had discovered technical flaws in its bidding process. 53 DfT (January 2013), The Brown Review of the Rail Franchising Programme. 54 ATOC press release (21 November 2008): ATOC Announces 2009 Rail Fares Changes. 55 Ticketing regulation refers to the industry-wide agreements which all train operators are required to adhere to as a condition of their operating licence issued by ORR. 2.17 Of a total of 19 proposals for open access services received by ORR between 2000 and 2014, only four were successful.\\textsuperscript{56}
2.18 There are currently just two OAOs:
- First Hull Trains, which commenced services between London and Hull in 2000. Currently, First Hull Trains runs seven services per day between London and Hull on weekdays and five on weekends.\\textsuperscript{57}
- Grand Central Railway, which commenced services from London to Sunderland in 2007 and from London to Bradford in 2010. The company runs five trains per day from London to Sunderland on weekdays/ Saturdays, four on Sundays and four trains per day from London to Bradford throughout the week.\\textsuperscript{58}
2.19 Another OAO, Wrexham and Shropshire, used to operate open access services between London Marylebone and Wrexham. It commenced operations in April 2008 but was unsuccessful financially and exited the market in January 2011.
**Freight operating companies**
2.20 Freight operating companies operate freight train services in Great Britain on an entirely open access basis, ie there is full competition ‘in’ the market, rather than ‘for’ the market. Services are not specified by government.
2.21 Freight operators may either own or lease locomotives and wagons. They are allocated train paths on the network by Network Rail, alongside franchised TOCs and OAOs. Rail freight operates in sectors including bulk (eg coal, construction and petrochemicals), intermodal (eg shipping containers) and automotive.
2.22 There are currently seven separate freight operators in Great Britain: Colas Rail, DB Schenker, Devon & Cornwall Railways, Direct Rail Services, Europorte, Freightliner and GB Railfreight.
\\textsuperscript{56} Other operators such as those running the Heathrow Express and the North Yorkshire Moors Railway can be considered to be OAOs but they do not run long-distance high-speed services in competition with franchised TOCs and their access agreements pre-date the current regime.
\\textsuperscript{57} See First Hull Trains timetables.
\\textsuperscript{58} See Grand Central timetables. Rolling stock leasing companies
2.23 The three major ROSCOs operating in Great Britain are Angel Trains, Eversholt and Porterbrook. ROSCOs own fleets of trains and lease them to franchised TOCs, OAOs, freight operators and train building companies. When rolling stock is replaced by newer stock on a given route, it is often re-let to other routes operated by different companies. The ROSCOs work with train operators to determine the sorts of rolling stock required to deliver the desired customer services.
2.24 Although constrained by the availability of rolling stock and the rolling stock’s interoperability with train operators’ requirements, there is a degree of competition between ROSCOs. A new competitor, QW Rail Leasing, entered the market in 2008 and currently leases trains to London Overground.
2.25 In recent years, the government has procured large rolling stock orders directly from the train manufacturers, including the rolling stock for schemes such as the InterCity Express Programme (replacing the original diesel InterCity ‘High Speed Trains’), Thameslink and Crossrail. The rationale for this was to ensure the delivery of large-scale investment and to align the procurement and delivery of the new rolling stock with the specification and delivery of major infrastructure upgrades to parts of the network on which the new rolling stock will be used.
2.26 The Competition Commission reviewed the rolling stock leasing market in 2009 and concluded that competition in the market for the leasing of rolling stock was restricted by the limited number of alternative fleets available to franchised TOCs when bidding for franchises and a number of other factors such as the costs and risks involved in switching rolling stock. The Competition Commission made several recommendations and imposed the Rolling Stock Leasing Market Investigation Order, which placed certain obligations on rolling stock lessors.
59 The main companies involved in building existing passenger trains for the market in Great Britain are Alstom Power, Bombardier Transportation, Hitachi Europe Ltd and Siemens Transportation Systems Ltd. 60 Competition Commission (7 April 2009), Rolling Stock Leasing market investigation final report. 61 This required ROSCOs to provide TOCs with a set list of information, with a view to increasing the comparability of competing offers. In April 2015, ORR consulted on how well the Order was working and on whether any other important changes had taken place since the Order came into force in 2010. It concluded that the Order has, in at least the large majority of cases, been complied with and been broadly successful on its own terms. There were mixed views on the extent of market changes since 2010. ORR (April 2015), The Rolling Stock Leasing Market Investigation Order 2009, review findings. The role of the regulator and government
2.27 Unlike many other privatised industries, government plays a major role in all aspects of the rail industry from access to the network to the operation of passenger rail services. As described in paragraph 2.45 below, the government accounts for 29% of the rail industry’s funding. The following paragraphs set out the roles of the key government departments and agencies involved.
Office of Rail and Road, the industry regulator
2.28 ORR is an independent regulator, which operates within the framework set by UK and EU legislation and is accountable through Parliament and the courts. It is the main safety and economic regulator of railways in Great Britain. In exercising its functions under the principal legislation, the Railways Act 1993, ORR must consider and achieve an appropriate balance between its 24 statutory duties, one of which is to ‘promote competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users of railway services’ and another of which is to ‘have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State for the purposes of his functions in relation to railways or railways services’.
2.29 ORR’s statutory responsibilities include:62
- monitoring the efficiency and performance of Network Rail and other main line rail infrastructure providers (including HS1 and the UK end of the Channel Tunnel), to hold them to account on performance for users within a long-term framework;
- regulating and enforcing health and safety on the railways, to protect passengers, workers and the public;
- regulating access to the rail network for passenger services and freight, to maximise capacity and ensure fair and equal treatment of operating companies and the charges that they pay;
- licensing and authorising rail activities and technical standards, to ensure safety, accessibility and interoperability of rail infrastructure and vehicles across the network, and internationally;
- ensuring fair and efficient markets for customers and across the sector including the supply chain; and
______________________________________________________________________
62 As from 1 April 2015, ORR is also the independent monitor of Highways England. • protecting and promoting passenger interests, including under consumer law.
Department for Transport
2.30 The DfT, acting under the authority of the Secretary of State for Transport, is responsible for preparing the government’s long-term strategy for the rail industry, defining the level of passenger services expected to run and specifying the level of funding required.
2.31 The DfT is now (through its Rail Group) the franchising authority responsible for the majority of franchise agreements entered into with respect to services on the rail network in England, Wales and cross-border routes. In addition, it is responsible for fare regulation and other consumer protection aspects such as safeguarding the provision of services for disabled people.
Rail Group
2.32 In 2014, the DfT created a Rail Executive within it to support the drive to strengthen its focus on passengers, to build an enhanced culture of commercial expertise and innovation and to ensure greater coordination of improvements to track and trains. The role covers:
• passenger rail services, including franchise contract award and franchise management;
• major projects, including Crossrail, Thameslink and the InterCity Express Programme for rolling stock procurement;
• integrated delivery of projects;
• whole industry strategy and funding; and
• Network Rail sponsorship.
2.33 The Rail Executive was renamed the Rail Group in January 2016.
Devolution of franchises
2.34 As set out below, Transport Scotland is now responsible for managing the ScotRail franchise and the Welsh government will take responsibility for
______________________________________________________________________
63 The franchising authorities for the London Overground and Merseyrail operations are Transport for London and Merseytravel respectively. managing the next Wales & Borders franchise. There are also proposals for further devolution of franchises.
Transport Scotland
2.35 Transport Scotland was created in 2006 to carry out the transport functions of the Scottish Executive, including responsibility for devolved powers over rail franchising. Transport Scotland carries out appraisals of capital investment projects in the rail sector, advises on rail investment decisions and provides the specification of railway outputs to the Scottish government.
2.36 Transport Scotland is responsible for managing the ScotRail franchise in Scotland, which is worth around £2.5 billion over its ten-year term. FirstGroup ran the ScotRail franchise from 2004. The ten-year franchise was awarded to Abellio in October 2014 and commenced operations on 1 April 2015. At the end of the old ScotRail franchise, the Caledonian Sleeper (which operates overnight services from London to Scotland in both directions), became a separate franchise operated by Serco. The specifications of both franchises were built around a detailed analysis of how rail can support broader economic growth and social cohesion across Scotland.64
2.37 Scotland’s rail strategy is determined by Scottish Ministers and includes responsibility for defining the level of public expenditure required to support Network Rail’s operations and the ScotRail franchise. The DfT is obliged to inform and take full account of the views of the Chief Executive of Transport Scotland prior to approving any new commercial transactions that have a material impact on the Scottish network, while each body has to bring to the attention of the other, as a matter of urgency, any matter which has the potential of materially impacting upon the operation of rail services in Scotland or the planned investment programme.65
2.38 In May 2015, Abellio ScotRail and Network Rail entered into a formal agreement to encourage, through an alliance, greater organisational integration and operational alignment.66
Welsh government
2.39 The Welsh government was given more powers with respect to passenger services in Wales under the Railways Act 2005. In November 2014,
64 Transport Scotland consultation response. 65 See paragraphs 22 and 24 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Scottish Ministers and the DfT entered into in September 2014 following Network Rail’s reclassification. 66 Alliance framework agreement between Network Rail Infrastructure Limited and Abellio ScotRail. agreement was reached to devolve rail franchising functions to the Welsh government effective from 2017. This will enable the Welsh government to specify and award the next Wales & Borders franchise, for which the Invitation to Tender will be issued in August 2017 so that the new franchise may commence in October 2018.
Proposals for further devolution of franchises
2.40 A number of regional rail franchises are expected to be devolved in the coming years.
2.41 On 20 March 2015, the Secretary of State for Transport signed a Partnership Agreement with Rail North for the management of the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises from 1 April 2016. Rail North is a government body based in Leeds, which was set up to support railways in the North of England and represents 29 Local Transport Authorities from across the region. Although there remain a number of ‘reserved matters’ for the Secretary of State, the responsibilities of Rail North will include developing the Train Service Requirements and train plan, implementing changes to the train fleet, undertaking performance management and enforcement, while, also, applying fare increases to fare baskets.
2.42 In addition to this, and as part of the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ programme, the government entered into a devolution agreement with Greater Manchester in November 2014, outlining the powers to be transferred to the area as it moves towards having a directly elected mayor in 2017. The powers and resources that the mayor will receive include a devolved transport budget as well as responsibility for franchised bus services, railway stations and ‘smart ticketing’ (following the example of London’s Oyster card) in Greater Manchester. Furthermore, Greater Manchester will work closely with the DfT and Rail North in order to contribute to rail franchising policy.
______________________________________________________________________
67 For further information on the Rail North – DfT Partnership, see Rail North’s website. Available at: www.railnorth.org. 68 The aim of the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ programme is to close the north-south economic divide by investing in infrastructure, including major transport projects. 69 The Greater Manchester devolution agreement was supplemented by a further agreement in July 2015. See House of Commons (7 October 2015), Devolution to local government in England (SN07029). 70 Ibid. 71 See HM Treasury and Great Manchester Combined Authority (November 2014), Greater Manchester Agreement: Devolution to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and transition to a directly elected mayor, paragraph 15. 2.43 The *Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016* puts in place the legal framework to enable other areas to follow the lead of Greater Manchester.(^72)
**Funding of the rail industry**
*The rail industry’s income and expenditure*
2.44 Figure 1 sets out the rail industry’s income and expenditure in 2013–2014.
**Figure 1: Rail income and expenditure in 2013–2014**
Source: ORR (February 2015), GB rail industry financial information 2013-14.
______________________________________________________________________
(^72) *Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016*. Devolution deals have been announced for Sheffield (December 2014 and October 2015), West Yorkshire (March 2015) and Cornwall (July 2015), which contain elements of control over transport policy being devolved to these regions. Passenger revenue
2.45 In 2013–2014, the rail industry in Great Britain received £13.3 billion in income, of which 68% was from passengers (from fares, car parking and on-train catering), 29% from government and 4% from other sources such as property, retail and freight.(^{73})
2.46 Passenger fares contributed 61% (£8.2 billion) of the industry’s total income, of which unregulated fares accounted for 64% and regulated fares (ie fares capped under franchise agreements) for 36%. In both categories, discounted fares (eg advance, off peak and super off-peak) accounted for 42% (£3.3 billion). Passengers contributed another £0.8 billion through the payment of charges such as car parking and on-train catering.(^{74})
2.47 The proportion of the rail sector’s funding paid for by passengers is increasing. ORR analysis, adjusted for inflation, shows that:
- funding from government sources decreased by 16.4% between 2010 and 2014. This equates to a 28.3% decrease in the government’s financial contribution per passenger journey; and
- income from passengers increased by 10.8% during the period between 2010 and 2014. This largely reflected the 16.6% increase in passenger journeys with the average fare per passenger journey decreasing by 5.0%.
2.48 We note that passengers (rather than the government) are now responsible for funding the largest share of the industry’s costs. This can be seen as strengthening the case for passengers rather than government having an increasing say in services by allowing greater passenger choice through on-rail competition – particularly on commercial intercity services.
Government funding
2.49 Different parts of government contributed a total of £3.8 billion (29%) to the funding of the network. The main sources of government funding were the DfT (£2.6 billion), Transport Scotland (£0.8 billion) and the Welsh government (£0.15 billion). On a per journey basis, there were higher levels of government funding in Wales and Scotland than in England, varying from £1.88 per
(^{73}) See ORR (February 2015), *GB rail industry financial information 2013-14*.
(^{74}) Ibid. passenger journey in England to £7.77 per journey in Scotland and £9.18 per journey in Wales.
2.50 As a whole, the government contributed £3.7 billion to Network Rail through the network grant.(^75) Network Rail also received £2.4 billion in income from track access and other charges levied on train operators and £0.5 billion in income from other sources.
**Franchises**
2.51 In 2013–2014, franchised TOCs paid £1.9 billion in premiums to government, while TOCs in receipt of subsidy received £2.0 billion. The government therefore made a net contribution of £0.1 billion to franchised TOCs.(^76) In effect, for the franchises operated by the DfT, the franchises received a total subsidy of 6.8 pence per passenger mile in 2013–2014.(^77) This includes the subsidy paid directly to the franchised TOCs by government and an allocation of the network grant (ie payments made directly to Network Rail).
2.52 During the period 2013–2014, three franchises (Thameslink, Southern & Great Northern, South Western and East Coast) paid government a larger premium than the subsidies they received (ie they had a negative subsidy per passenger mile). Northern Rail received the highest subsidy per passenger mile of 51.5 pence.
2.53 Franchised TOCs’ main costs are the track access charges that they pay to Network Rail, the costs of leasing stations and rolling stock and of employing staff. Under the terms of each franchise agreement, the government indemnifies each franchisee, for the duration of the franchise term, against any rise in the rate of track access charges payable by the franchised TOC to Network Rail, typically following a periodic review by ORR (see above, paragraph 2.4), that occurs during the franchise term. Franchised TOCs may do light maintenance work on rolling stock themselves or contract it out to private companies. Heavy maintenance is normally procured for TOCs by ROSCOs, according to the contracts between them.
______________________________________________________________________
(^75) The government signalled its intention in the summer 2015 Budget to change the way in which it channels public money through the industry, directing funding through the TOCs instead of through the network grant, with the aim of encouraging customers of the railway to demand efficiency and the best use of scarce capacity on the rail network.
(^76) TOCs bidding for franchises normally indicate whether they would be in a position to pay a premium to the franchising authority for the service awarded (or, in the alternative, if a subsidy payment would be required).
(^77) See Department for Transport Business Plan input indicator. 2.54 Franchised TOCs’ revenues are primarily derived from the sale of tickets but also include other income from ancillary activities such as car parking, on-board catering and advertising.(^78)
**Network Rail**
2.55 At present, Network Rail’s income is derived from the following sources: (a) grants received from the DfT and from Transport Scotland (64% of its income); (b) its commercial property income (10% of its income); and (c) track access charges paid by passenger and freight operators (26% of its income).(^79) In addition, funds are received from debt issuance, with Network Rail having previously raised bonds in the capital markets supported by a UK government guarantee for the purposes of funding capital expenditure and refinancing existing debt. However, following reclassification, Network Rail will no longer issue bonds but will instead borrow £30.3 billion directly from the government through a loan facility designed to cover funding requirements for the period 2014–2019.(^80)
2.56 In its most recent Periodic Review (PR13) of Network Rail’s funding and outputs, ORR assumed that for the five-year period from 2014 to 2019 approximately 30% of Network Rail’s revenue would be derived from access charges, 60% from the network grant and the remaining 10% from other sources.(^81) Over this period, the government has committed £18 billion, including for investments to modernise the network where this is most needed.(^82)
2.57 Network Rail’s funding arrangements may change in the coming years following the recommendations of the Shaw report on the longer-term future shape and financing of Network Rail (described further in paragraph 2.72).
**Track access charges**
2.58 Network Rail levies a number of charges on operators using the rail network. The main categories of charges are set out below:
______________________________________________________________________
(^78) ORR (November 2012), *Costs and Revenues of Franchised Passenger Train Operators in the UK*, p21.
(^79) ORR data. As noted above, the government is planning to change the way in which Network Rail is funded, channelling funds through the TOCs instead of through the network grant.
(^80) See *Network Rail: Debt Issuance Programme overview.*
The DfT will decide whether to extend the Loan Facility Agreement by April 2017.
(^81) ORR (October 2013), *Final determination of Network Rail’s outputs and funding for 2014-19.*
(^82) Ibid. (a) **Variable track access charge (VTAC)** – this charge is related to the short-term cost of running an additional train over the track, reflecting the wear and tear incurred.
(b) **Capacity charge** – this was introduced in 2002 as a way of reimbursing Network Rail for the additional delay costs associated with additional traffic as incurred under Schedule 8 of the track access agreements. The charge aims to provide appropriate incentives and price signals to encourage train operators and funders to make efficient use of network capacity.
(c) **Other charges** – other charges levied by Network Rail include electrification asset usage charge, traction electricity charge and certain freight-only charges (including a freight-specific charge and a coal spillage charge).
(d) **Fixed track access charge (FTAC)** – this charge recovers Network Rail’s residual funding requirements after taking into account the charges set out above and the network grant.
2.59 Different types of operator currently pay different charges. The charges payable are set out in the track access agreements that passenger and freight operators enter into with Network Rail. These agreements, which also specify the rights that train operators have to be allocated capacity on those parts of the network for which Network Rail is infrastructure manager, are approved by ORR. Most track access agreements are entered into for a term of between five and ten years.
______________________________________________________________________
83 Schedule 8 compensates train operators for the impact of unplanned service disruption due to poor performance. Disruptions can be attributable either to Network Rail or other train operators. Compensation payable covers fare revenue losses and costs (eg cost of running replacement bus services). The purpose of Schedule 8 is to ensure that train operators’ exposure to risk is reduced. Losses incurred by train operators are covered by the organisation to which the disruption is attributable rather than the train operator facing the disruption. By better understanding the impact of service disruptions on costs and revenues of train operators, Network Rail’s decision-making can be positively influenced (eg noting where further investments are needed). Payments are calculated on the basis of predetermined formulae and are made when the performance of Network Rail or train operators diverges from a benchmark number of minutes of lateness. If performance is below the benchmark, compensation is paid to the train operator affected and if Network Rail or the train operator perform better than the benchmark, a bonus is paid by the train operator that benefits from this improved performance. See ORR (November 2012), *Consultation of Schedules 4 and 8 possessions and performance regimes*.
84 ORR ensures that the framework of access charges set are consistent with EU law, including Directive 2001/14/EU. Specifically, it has to take into account the provisions of the Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005, which require, among others, that track access charges are non-discriminatory and transparent, ensuring on the one hand that train operators are not charged excessively high prices by Network Rail and on the other that the charges paid are sufficient to cover Network Rail’s costs of running the network. 2.60 Figure 2 provides a breakdown of the different sources of Network Rail’s income during CP5 (ie for the period 2014–2019), including from track access charges described above.
**Figure 2: Network Rail’s current overall charging income**\*
![Network Rail income breakdown chart]
Source: ORR.
- The ‘Other Single Till Income’ referred to in Figure 2 primarily relates to income generated from the commercial exploitation of property owned by Network Rail. The variable and other charges listed are the following: the electricity asset usage charge (EAUC), the traction electricity charge (EC4T), the capacity charge (CC), the variable track access charge (VUC) and the station long-term charge (SLTC), which recovers station building and information and security systems maintenance and repair costs.
**Charges paid by OAOs and franchised TOCs**
2.61 Franchised TOCs, OAOs and freight operators pay variable charges, whereas only franchised TOCs also pay FTAC. The fact that OAOs do not pay FTAC is often cited as a reason to restrict the entry of OAOs in order to protect the funding of the network.
2.62 In 2006, the then franchisee on the East Coast main line, GNER, brought a judicial review against the open access applications of Grand Central and First Hull Trains in the English High Court on the basis of an alleged illegality in ORR’s policy of charging franchised TOCs and OAOs inconsistently.
2.63 The court noted that there was a critical distinction to be made between the circumstances in which franchised TOCs and OAOs access the network upstream.(^{85}) Franchised TOCs have very considerable advantages, including
______________________________________________________________________
(^{85}) Great North Eastern Railway Limited v The Office of Rail Regulation, Hull Trains Company Limited and Grand Central Railway Company Limited [2006] EWHC 1942 (Admin). taking over established businesses, protections against variations in access charges and revenue protections such as ‘cap and collar’ (now replaced by a GDP risk-sharing mechanism). The court decided that the different market conditions faced by the OAOs and the franchised TOCs justified different charging regimes and also described FTAC as an ‘artificial construct’.
**ORR review of structure of track access charges**
2.64 The way in which Network Rail charges train operators for their use of the network affects decisions made by franchised TOCs, OAOs and freight operators, Network Rail and funders of the network. In its final determination for PR13, ORR therefore committed to working with the industry to conduct a review of Network Rail’s structure of access charges in advance of the next Periodic Review (PR18) which will cover Control Period 6 (CP6), which runs from 2019–2024. In undertaking its review, ORR aims to improve the understanding of what drives Network Rail’s costs and the link between these costs and charges.
2.65 In order to help inform ORR’s review, the Rail Delivery Group conducted a review with the industry of the current structure of access charges and considered how Network Rail and operators’ incentives could be better aligned to improve industry outcomes. The Rail Delivery Group published a report setting out options for a new and/or updated charges and incentives regime in November 2015.
2.66 On 10 December 2015, ORR published for consultation a list of options for changing the structure of Network Rail’s charges. In considering the options for changes to the structure of charges, ORR identified four gaps in the current charging regime: (a) a limited ability to drive down costs; (b) a lack of specific and strong incentives to provide and allocate capacity most efficiently; (c) a potential inability to support effective competition between different types of passenger train operator; and (d) complexity.
2.67 ORR proposes to focus its future work on understanding what drives Network Rail’s costs, considering if this information should be reflected in charges, and improving the existing set of charges.
2.68 The consultation closed on 4 March 2016 following two workshops (one in Glasgow and one in London) where ORR’s proposed approach to the review
______________________________________________________________________
86 The ‘cap and collar’ risk-sharing mechanism is discussed further in paragraph 2.105. 87 The Rail Delivery Group was set up in 2011 to provide leadership to Britain’s rail industry, bringing together the owners of Britain’s passenger train operators, freight operators and Network Rail. 88 Rail Delivery Group, *Review of Charges*. 89 ORR (10 December 2015), *Network Charges: A consultation on how charges can improve efficiency*.
54 of the structure of track access charges was discussed with stakeholders. ORR will start the process for PR18 with the publication of its initial consultation document in April 2016, setting out how it proposes to prioritise and focus the review to address the current and prospective challenges and opportunities.
2.69 As set out in our consideration of the options for greater on-rail competition in Chapter 6, reforming the structure of access charges is an integral part of the CMA’s proposals for greater on-rail competition and the CMA will therefore continue to work with ORR as it undertakes its review.
Other recent reviews
2.70 In June 2015, Sir Peter Hendy was appointed Chairman of Network Rail and was asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to develop proposals by autumn 2015 on how the rail upgrade programme (set out in the Appendix should be carried out. The report concluded that the vast majority of programmes and projects should go ahead for delivery by 2019. No projects were cancelled and the remaining projects will be delivered after 2019.
2.71 At the same time, for the purposes of improving future investment programmes, the Secretary of State requested that Dame Colette Bowe, an experienced economist and regulator, examine lessons learned in order to make recommendations for better investment planning. The report was published in November 2015 and concluded that there was no one overarching cause which explains the cost escalation and delays to projects and programmes in the current control period, which if corrected would prevent it from recurring. Instead, a number of issues have combined to require this programme to be reviewed and elements to be replanned.
2.72 In July 2015, the government appointed Nicola Shaw, Chief Executive of High Speed 1, to advise it on how the longer-term future shape and financing of Network Rail should be approached. The work is to be presented jointly to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A scoping study was published in November 2015 and a detailed report with
90 DfT (June 2015), Oral Statement to Parliament, Network Rail’s performance. 91 Replanning Network Rail’s investment programme: a report from Sir Peter Hendy to the Transport Secretary, November 2015. 92 Report of the Bowe Review into the planning of Network Rail’s Enhancements Programme 2014-19, November 2015. 93 Shaw Report on the longer-term future shape and financing of Network Rail: terms of reference, July 2015. 94 The future shape and financing of Network Rail: the scope, November 2015. implementation proposals is to be prepared by the time of the Budget in spring 2016
Fare regulation
2.73 The Secretary of State has the power to regulate fares through franchise agreements where this is in the interests of passengers. Historically, regulated fares fall into two ‘baskets’ of fares: commuter fares and other protected fares.
2.74 Fare baskets are regulated by a cap on annual fare increases. For 2015, the amount at which an individual regulated fare can rise has been capped at the retail price index (which in July 2014 was 2.5%). We note that the new government has stated that it will not permit operators to raise regulated fares (the majority of which cover commuter routes) above the rate of retail price inflation over the next five years.
2.75 Fare baskets may include off-peak or super off-peak returns, ‘anytime’ day singles and returns and some season tickets outside urban areas, long-distance saver fares and shorter distance standard return fares. Approximately 45% of fares are subject to regulation.
2.76 Advance and first class tickets are not regulated. For long-distance journeys, ‘anytime’ single/return fares are usually unregulated as are off-peak day single/return tickets for shorter journeys. TOCs determine unregulated fares on a commercial basis and changes can be made during the franchise agreement provided that the financial effect on the franchisee is neutral within the framework provided by the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (see paragraph 2.78).
2.77 In Scotland, all ScotRail season tickets, all ScotRail off-peak returns as well as all fares in the Strathclyde area and standard singles, standard day returns and season tickets in the Edinburgh commuter area are currently regulated. These fares are set by Transport Scotland and are defined in the franchise agreement. Other fares for flows in Scotland are unregulated and can be set by the franchisee on a commercial basis. Transport Scotland does not set fares for cross-border services; rather these follow the DfT’s policy. In 2015,
______________________________________________________________________
95 See section 28 of the Railways Act 1993; also, the Transport Act 2000 and the Railways Act 2005. 96 In previous years, the cap was higher and franchised TOCs were able to increase individual fares above the cap provided that the average fares across the basket stayed below the cap. 97 See House of Commons note by Louise Butcher (8 January 2015), Railways: fares, Business and Transport (SN1904). 98 See Transport Scotland (November 2011), Rail 2014 - Public Consultation. ScotRail’s off-peak tickets remained frozen at 2013 levels and increases in peak fares will be capped to increase in line with inflation.99
Other ticket regulations
2.78 Train operators are required to comply with arrangements relating to the creation of fares, including obligations around the creation of interavailable fares and through tickets. In order to support an integrated ticket retailing system, there are interoperator agreements that enable, for example, agreement on unified systems and the allocation of revenue. The key enabling document is the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (TSA), which is entered into by all train operators.
2.79 The fares and retail regime is overseen by train operators who come together through various governance arrangements. For example, the Association of Train Operating Companies leads on changes to the TSA on behalf of the train operators and the Rail Settlement Plan facilitates integrated retailing and manages the allocation of revenue between train operators. National Rail Enquiries manages the National Rail Enquiries website and telephone service and manages some central industry data, such as real-time train information.
2.80 Under the TSA, train operators are obliged to offer at least one interavailable fare between each origin and destination point on the network. This fare is valid on any permitted route across multiple operator services. Interavailable fares are set by the lead operator (ie the operator with the greatest commercial interest on a certain route) and must be observed by all train operators selling tickets for that journey or operating a service on some or all of the route. Other operators, other than the lead operator, can set dedicated (ie unregulated) fares for travel only on their own trains at prices which are generally lower than the interavailable fare.
2.81 ORR is currently conducting a retail market review focused on who sells tickets, what tickets are sold, where and how tickets are sold, and the ticket format. ORR is considering the issues from the point of view of the industry regime – in particular, the rules and practices in which retailers (ie both TOCs and third party retailers) operate under when selling tickets in order to ensure that they are working to the benefit of passengers, the industry and taxpayers. ORR’s consultation on its June 2015 emerging findings100 closed in September 2015. ORR is planning to publish its final recommendations with respect to third party retailer arrangements in spring 2016.
99 See Transport Scotland (5 December 2014): Rail fares increases capped for Scottish passengers. 100 ORR (June 2015), Retail market review, emerging findings. The development of competition since privatisation
2.82 In this section, we consider the development of competition since privatisation including the extent to which the original government vision of competition has been achieved, the development of open access operations and the government’s reforms to franchising.
The government’s vision at the time of privatisation
2.83 At the time of privatisation, the government’s 1992 White Paper envisaged that competition would be instrumental in driving greater efficiency and a wider choice of services that were more closely tailored to customer preferences. The government noted that the rail industry was more insulated from the demands of the market than other forms of transport – such as the airline, coach and road haulage sectors – and that radical changes were needed.
2.84 The 1992 White Paper also envisaged that franchises would be designed, wherever possible, to provide scope for competition. There would be no universal template for a franchise contract and flexibility would be preserved in all aspects of franchising to take full account of the private sector’s views on how it could best bring its skills to bear. Subject to contractual obligations, operators would have the freedom to provide the extent, type and quality of service which they believed best met passenger demands.
2.85 The DfT published a paper in 1993, in which it explained that ‘it is the Government’s intention that on-track competition in the first generation of franchises will be moderated, but only to the extent necessary to ensure the successful transfer of British Rail’s passenger services to the private sector’. The government envisaged that, after the initial franchises were awarded, as the system for gaining access evolved, more services would be provided on the basis of open access and fewer under franchise agreements. Also, train operators would obtain subsidies for individual loss-making services rather than packages of services.
2.86 Freedom of access was also central to the aims of privatisation, with the government seeking the greatest possible development of commercial railway services. Liberalising access was seen as complementary to structural changes by providing the opportunity for new operators to run services,
______________________________________________________________________
101 New Opportunities for the Railways, The privatisation of British Rail, Cm 2012, July 1992. 102 The publication is entitled Gaining Access to the Railway Network and is mentioned in the ORR’s Competition for Railway Passenger Services: policy statement, 1994, p43. 103 Chris Bolt, ORR, The Restructured Railway in Great Britain: Performance and Prospects, p16. 104 Ibid. encouraging initiative, giving customers a wider choice and rail operators the stimulus of competition to provide better service quality and value for money.
2.87 Greater on-rail competition has remained a policy objective of the authorities. ORR, in its long-term regulatory statement of July 2013, said:
There is an opportunity for there to be much greater on-rail competition in the future, if governments desire it. The addition of new [network] capacity, including HS2, and the introduction of new signalling technology that allows much more dense use of network capacity, will open up new route paths that allow greater on-rail competition between operators.(^{105})
Achievement of competitive benefits
2.88 Since privatisation, the system has produced notable successes. Competition ‘for’ the market has been intense, with franchise competitions attracting a number of credible bidders. There have been real benefits, evidenced by the reverse over the past two decades of the previous long-term decline in usage of Britain’s railways and, over the past decade, a material increase in passenger satisfaction.
2.89 The system has adapted following a number of major shocks, including the Hatfield rail accident and the subsequent overhaul of the network infrastructure and insolvency of the then network operator Railtrack; the exit of the East Coast franchisee; and the failure of the 2012 West Coast franchise auction. The government, balancing the need for stability with the need to make the system more responsive to passenger needs, introduced a number of reforms to facilitate more competitive behaviour including, in the past few years, a commitment to greater flexibility in franchise specification and changes to the mechanism in franchise agreements for sharing risk between the government and franchised TOCs.
2.90 Nevertheless, for all these very real gains which have enabled franchised TOCs to become more responsive to passenger needs, the system has not yielded all of the benefits that were hoped for at the time of privatisation:
- the scale of on-rail competition envisaged at privatisation has not materialised;
(^{105}) ORR (July 2013), *Opportunities and challenges for the railway – the ORR’s long-term regulatory statement*, p12. • the post-privatisation period has seen a significant increase in passenger rail expenditure, only part of which can be directly attributed to the increase in outputs; and
• franchisee specification and risk sharing may limit the ability and incentives of franchised TOCs to respond to customer preferences.(^{106})
2.91 The following paragraphs consider these issues in greater depth.
**OAOs are limited in scale**
2.92 As described in paragraph 2.18, there are currently just two OAOs operating in Great Britain – First Hull Trains and Grand Central. Both OAOs compete against the incumbent franchisee on certain East Coast main line routes. Together, they represent less than 1% of passenger rail miles in Great Britain.
2.93 In considering applications for track access, ORR must have regard to its statutory duties. Although having a duty to promote competition for the benefit of rail users, ORR must balance this with its other statutory duties, as set out in section 4 of the Railways Act 1993, including the requirement to have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State for Transport for the purposes of his functions in relation to railways or railway services.
2.94 In the post-privatisation period, on-rail competition was limited by a policy referred to as Moderation of Competition. Under this policy, each track access agreement specified those routes on which Network Rail (and previously Railtrack) was prohibited from granting access rights to potential competitors of the franchised TOCs.(^{107}) The rationale behind this approach was to ensure that OAOs could not undermine the viability of the franchise system by ‘cherry picking’ profitable services. However, in 2004, ORR indicated that it would only approve Moderation of Competition clauses in exceptional circumstances (ie where investments would not otherwise occur). In November 2010, ORR stated that such protection would no longer be approved.
2.95 Under the current open access regime, new entrants are able to compete directly against the franchised TOCs provided that such new entry meets ORR’s ‘not primarily abstractive’ test,(^{108}) ie the new services would have to demonstrate that they can increase the overall market size by generating a
______________________________________________________________________
(^{106}) For example, ORR notes in the emerging findings of its retail market review that although in the tendering process potential franchisees are incentivised to compete to offer new products and fares, during the franchise period franchisees’ ability and incentives to offer new fares and products are limited – *ORR retail market review, emerging findings*, paragraphs 3.7–3.9.
(^{107}) See ORR (October 2011), *The potential for increased on-rail competition - a consultation document*.
(^{108}) Other factors may also be relevant, eg performance effects, benefits to passengers and the impacts on taxpayers. certain level of new-to-rail business rather than merely abstracting business from existing operators (which, in turn, would have a negative effect on the Secretary of State’s funds). The test, commonly known as the ‘NPA rule’, is currently interpreted to require that the proposal must generate three units of new revenue for every ten units that it abstracts from the franchisee(s) operating on the same routes.
2.96 For the purpose of the NPA rule, ORR has established a five-stage test which applies when a new open access service would compete with franchised services, impacting upon the public sector funder’s budget or when a new OAO would compete with an existing open access service.\\textsuperscript{109} As part of this test, standard industry models\\textsuperscript{110} are used to estimate the likely level of abstraction (as part of stage 1) and estimates are refined using benchmarking and survey information from other comparable situations (at stage 3).\\textsuperscript{111}
2.97 In 2013, ORR launched a consultation on whether to relax the NPA rule in return for OAOs paying a mark-up as a contribution to Network Rail’s fixed costs. Following consultation, however, ORR decided to retain the NPA rule, but said that it would review the operation of the requirement.
2.98 Although existing OAOs have extended their operations, over the last five years no new OAOs have entered the market. ORR received three proposals from Alliance Rail in 2014 to authorise more substantial open access operations that would compete head-on against the franchised TOCs on the East Coast and West Coast main lines. Although the application to provide passenger rail services on the West Coast (between London and Blackpool) was rejected in December 2014, ORR approved a revised proposal in August 2015. Alliance Rail expects to operate six daily services between London and Blackpool from 2018.\\textsuperscript{112} The separate application by Alliance Rail lodged with ORR in early 2014 to operate fast services between London King’s Cross and Edinburgh and to Cleethorpes and Bradford on the East Coast main line is still under consideration.
2.99 In March 2015, ORR received an application from FirstGroup to run services on the East Coast main line from 2018. This would add five daily services in
\\textsuperscript{109} The test also applies in the case where a new franchised service would compete with an existing franchise and the competing services are supported by different public sector funders or where the proposed franchise competes with an existing OAO.
\\textsuperscript{110} Rail industry models used include MOIRA and PDFH (the passenger demand forecasting handbook). MOIRA models the supply side of the rail industry and is composed of a base year and future year timetables, including data on train capacity. On the rail demand side, PDFH identifies all the known demand drivers and quantifies the value of these drivers on demand.
\\textsuperscript{111} See ORR (December 2011), \\textit{Criteria and procedures for the approval of track access contracts}.
\\textsuperscript{112} ORR (August 2015), \\textit{Decision on application for access to West Coast main line}.
61 each direction between London King’s Cross and Edinburgh. The application is currently being considered by ORR.
2.100 A full list of open access proposals submitted from 2000 to 2015 is set out in the Appendix.
Franchise overlaps have reduced
2.101 The number of franchise overlaps was reduced by the SRA following its franchising policy announcement in 2001. The SRA argued that having a single operator at each major London terminus would have a number of practical advantages including optimising capacity and offering economies of scale. In the subsequent franchising rounds, the number of franchise overlaps was significantly reduced. This trend has continued although, as set out in Chapter 3, a number of franchise overlaps remain.
Efficiencies
2.102 The post-privatisation period has seen a significant increase in passenger rail expenditure, only part of which can be directly attributed to the increase in the number of passenger rail journeys. Since 1996–1997 passenger rail industry expenditure has increased from more than £8 billion to £12.7 billion in 2013–2014. However, we note that operator margins as a share of revenue have fallen since 1997–1998, suggesting that franchising has captured value for the taxpayer. The efficiency of the sector is considered further in Chapter 4.
The government’s approach to franchise specification and risk-sharing since privatisation
2.103 The form of franchises has changed several times since privatisation, reflecting changing government policies, and attempts to deal with shortcomings of the framework as they emerged.
2.104 In March 2013, the government announced its intended approach to franchising over the medium term. The timetable for future franchise awards, subsequently revised in April 2014, was published at the same
______________________________________________________________________
113 SRA franchising policy announcement, 19 December 2001. 114 SRA Strategic Plan 2002, p38. 115 Prices adjusted for inflation at 2013/14. DfT (May 2011), Realising the Potential of GB Rail Report of the Rail Value for Money Study, p20. Also, ORR (February 2015), GB rail industry financial information 2013-14. 116 GB rail: better services, better journeys and better value, KPMG report for the Rail Delivery Group, September 2015 117 DfT press notice (26 March 2013): Fresh start for franchising. The government also published a revised statement on franchising policy, setting out how the Secretary of State proposed to exercise franchising powers in the future.\\textsuperscript{119}
2.105 In order to mitigate the risk of distorting the commercial incentives of franchised TOCs, in more recent franchising models, the ‘cap and collar’ risk-sharing mechanism was abandoned and, in some cases, replaced by a mechanism reflecting exogenous risks, such as GDP changes, throughout the whole life of the franchise.\\textsuperscript{120}
2.106 Moreover, a number of changes were made to the franchise award programme following the Brown Review in order to maximise the benefits of competition ‘for’ the market. In particular, the DfT emphasised the following:
- The new franchise award programme introduced a weighted scoring system against which bids are assessed that reflects the ‘quality’ of bids. Points in the competition are awarded to bids which include initiatives to enhance the quality of service passengers receive over and above the franchise specification’s requirements or which enhance the value of the franchise for the taxpayer that would not generally be expected to provide a return within the life of the contract.\\textsuperscript{121}
- Innovation in bids has been encouraged by making specific funds available to certain franchised TOCs for innovations that can be bid for by operators during the life of a franchise.\\textsuperscript{122}
- The approach to the treatment of the residual value of investments made by franchised TOCs was developed in order to address the risk of investment tailing off towards the end of a franchise. This makes it more likely that new competitive challenges to franchised TOCs will elicit a competitive response. There are also fewer restrictions being placed on franchised TOCs, enabling them to develop additional services and quality enhancements during the lifetime of a franchise.
\\textsuperscript{118} DfT (8 April 2014), Rail Franchising Schedule and Prior information notice for rail franchising from 2014. \\textsuperscript{119} DfT (26 March 2013), Consultation Response Document: Railways Act Section 26. \\textsuperscript{120} Under the ‘cap and collar’ mechanism, a franchised TOC’s actual revenue for a given year is compared with the target revenue forecast in its original franchise bid, with any surplus or shortfall potentially shared between the DfT and the TOC. \\textsuperscript{121} The DfT notes that this policy has resulted in bidders offering more trains, more capacity, more destinations, innovative compensation mechanisms and a variety of other passenger-facing opportunities, with passengers on recent franchises such as Intercity East Coast, Thameslink, Southern & Great Northern and Essex Thameside benefiting today. \\textsuperscript{122} This scheme is currently a pilot that applies to the Northern, TransPennine Express and East Coast franchises, the success of which will be assessed towards the end of 2017, before a decision is taken on whether or not to roll it out to other franchises. 2.107 The DfT highlighted the East Anglia Invitation to Tender, issued on 17 September 2015, as an example of its new approach providing bidders with significant scope for bringing forward innovative approaches to serve passengers.\\textsuperscript{123} For example, rather than being specified by the DfT, bidders have been invited to make their own proposals for cutting journey times and introducing new rolling stock.
2.108 We welcome the trend towards reducing the degree of franchise specification and consider the level of franchise specification that may be appropriate in an environment of greater on-rail competition in Chapter 6.
\\textit{Potential limitations to benefits arising from competition ‘for’ the market}
2.109 In many sectors, competition directly between operators ‘in’ the market tends to be more effective at delivering benefits than competition ‘for’ the market.
2.110 We note that a number of conditions need to be met in order for a bidding process to fully realise the benefits of competition ‘for’ the market. These were outlined in a paper by Professor Paul Klemperer on bidding markets as: (a) the winner takes all (ie the winner wins all of the order); (b) competition is ‘lumpy’ (ie the contract is a large proportion of the supplier’s total sales); (c) competition begins afresh for each contract and customer (ie there are no incumbency advantages); and (d) entry is easy.\\textsuperscript{124}
2.111 We note that some of the conditions for an ideal bidding market might not be met by the current competitive tendering system for franchises. In particular, entry is not ‘easy’ given that the franchise application process is expensive and time-consuming. There might also be an information asymmetry between incumbents and bidders in the franchising process which creates an advantage for incumbents in the bidding process.
2.112 More generally, ORR’s consultation response highlighted a number of reasons why competition ‘for’ the market alone may not fully realise the potential benefits of competition in the sector. ORR noted that franchised TOCs are largely insulated from changes in the charging structure and so have weakened incentives to lower costs on the network. It also noted that most operators face limited competition between franchise bids, which weakens ongoing incentives on pricing and service quality, while the fixed duration of franchises acts to weaken incentives on operators to innovate or invest in areas where there are longer-term payoffs. ORR also suggested that
\\textsuperscript{123} DfT (2015), \\textit{East Anglia Invitation to Tender}. \\textsuperscript{124} Klemperer, P (2005), \\textit{Bidding Markets}. the prescriptive nature of some franchise specifications can limit the ability of operators to adapt to passengers’ changing demands.
2.113 We also note that in order to fully realise the benefits of competition ‘for’ the market, there must be sufficient market interest in bids. The National Audit Office (NAO) noted in its review of franchising that the number of bids the DfT has received under the current franchising programme is lower than the historic trend.\\textsuperscript{125} For each of the first three competitions in the current programme (taking the InterCity East Coast competition to be the first) the DfT has received three bids, which is the minimum that it considers is necessary to ensure good quality bids. The previous ten competitions received four bids on average.
2.114 The risk of insufficient market interest in bids was also noted by Public Accounts Committee in 2016.\\textsuperscript{126} In this regard, the Public Accounts Committee stated that there are signs that the level of interest from the market in rail franchises is dwindling. It recommended that the DfT should develop alternatives to its current commercial approach so it is well placed to deliver value for money if market interest falls to a level where intense competition cannot be guaranteed.\\textsuperscript{127}
2.115 In this regard, as noted above, we recognise that the DfT is trying to encourage new entrants to the market and maintain interest from existing operating companies by simplifying the pre-qualification process and reviewing the size and number of franchises.\\textsuperscript{128}
Conclusion
2.116 The system of competition ‘for’ the market has produced some notable successes and recent reforms to the franchising system are welcome. However, the scale of on-rail competition remains limited. In Chapters 3 and 4 we consider the extent to which greater on-rail competition can deliver benefits over and above the current system of competition ‘for’ the market.
\\textsuperscript{125} NAO (24 November 2015), Reform of the rail franchising programme. \\textsuperscript{126} The Public Accounts Committee report Reform of the rail franchising programme noted that successful rail franchising depends on strong interest from the market and effective competition but there are barriers to entry to the UK market and the possibility that current participants in the market may drop out. Any reduction to the current level of competition was cited as a major risk to securing value for money for the taxpayer. \\textsuperscript{127} Ibid. \\textsuperscript{128} As discussed in Chapter 6, reducing the size of franchises may create more overlaps between franchises and therefore new opportunities for on-rail competition. 3. Evidence of potential passenger benefits from greater on-rail competition
Introduction
3.1 Franchised TOCs face strong competition ‘for’ the market in bidding to run franchises, with franchise competitions attracting a number of credible bidders.\\textsuperscript{129}
3.2 Train operators often face a further degree of competitive constraint from other modes of transport, depending on the particular routes they serve. For example, on routes from London to Scotland, train operators face competition from airlines. On many long-distance flows there is competition from coach transport. On local flows, operators may face competition from local bus services. The private car also exerts a competitive constraint on many flows.
3.3 The competitive constraint on passenger train operators from other modes of transport was highlighted by a number of respondents to the consultation.\\textsuperscript{130} While we recognise that this constraint is strong on certain flows, it is weaker on others.\\textsuperscript{131} In response to our consultation, it was also put to us by some franchised TOCs that competition from other modes of transport increases the need for franchised TOCs to be granted commercial freedom to compete effectively with other modes of transport.
3.4 However, as described further below, the scale of on-rail competition currently faced by franchised TOCs in Great Britain is limited.
3.5 This chapter considers the potential benefits that greater on-rail competition can bring in addition to competition from other modes of transport, examining examples of direct competition ‘in’ the market in:
- on-rail competition in Great Britain from open access;
- on-rail competition in Great Britain from overlapping and parallel franchises;
\\textsuperscript{129} For example, in 2015, three companies were shortlisted to run the Greater Anglia franchise (Abellio, Go-Ahead and Stagecoach) and four for the West Coast franchise (Abellio, FirstGroup, Keolis/SNCF and Virgin). As noted in Chapter 2, the NAO highlighted in its review of franchising that, by the DfT’s own measure, if it receives fewer than three bids this may reduce value for money. Risks to the value for money of future competitions were considered by the NAO to include interest declining, although the NAO noted that the DfT is aware of such challenges and is taking steps to address them.
\\textsuperscript{130} The point was noted by FirstGroup, a number of regional transport partnerships and independent consultants.
\\textsuperscript{131} One transport operator told us that intercity rail’s strongest market is on flows of around 200 miles (eg London to Manchester and York on the West Coast and East Coast main lines, respectively) as rail has an advantage over the car in journey time and airlines do not compete on flows of this distance to any significant degree. • on-rail competition in other European countries, including Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden;
• transport markets where there is ‘in’-market competition, such as: – the Great Britain rail freight sector (which, following privatisation, is fully open access); – the experience of EU airline deregulation; – the introduction of new competition between London’s airports; and – the deregulation of local bus services in Great Britain.
3.6 The DfT, while recognising that any comparator is likely to have deficiencies, told us in its consultation response that the comparators in other transport markets used by the CMA focused on the benefits of introducing competition to markets where competition was previously significantly restricted. In its view, the comparators were therefore unsuitable for assessing potential customer benefits from further, incremental, competition over and above the benefits of competition already achieved by way of the competitive award of franchises. In relation to the DfT’s concern, we note the following:
• We consider the incremental benefits that the current degree of on-rail competition from OAOs has delivered relative to the offering of incumbent franchised TOCs.
• Rail freight in Great Britain, European airlines and London airports all faced a degree of competition before further competition was introduced.
• We have undertaken further research into the examples of on-rail competition elsewhere in the EU, drawing on the experience of transport regulators and train operators in those countries. We have also considered the degree of competition that operators faced prior to liberalisation.
3.7 We recognise that it is not possible to comprehensively test the effects of introducing a significantly increased degree of on-rail competition in passenger train services ex ante. There are, inevitably, material differences between different transport sectors, and between different operators. However, we think that the evidence in this chapter taken together illustrates the significant benefits that could be obtained from greater on-rail competition in addition to the benefits delivered by competition ‘for’ the market.\\textsuperscript{132} We also cross-refer in this, and later chapters, to the independent impact assessment of our options for greater on-rail competition commissioned by ORR.
**On-rail competition in Great Britain**
3.8 The following paragraphs consider evidence regarding the benefits that the existing degree of on-rail competition in Great Britain has delivered by examining:
- fares, satisfaction, service quality and innovation on routes where there is competition between OAOs and franchised TOCs;
- fare competition where overlapping and parallel franchises operate (the degree of franchise specification restricts the range of factors on which franchised TOCs can compete); and
- the impact of changes in the degree of on-rail competition, for example, where changes to the geography of franchises have introduced or eliminated on-rail competition.
3.9 In 2014–2015, OAOs accounted for 0.7% of all rail miles in Great Britain and 0.8% of passenger rail miles. Freight operators accounted for 7.3% of rail miles. Table 2 sets out the data on rail miles by category of operator in 2014–2015.
| Operator type | Rail miles (in millions) | % of network | |---------------------|--------------------------|--------------| | Franchised TOCs | 319.0 | 91.96 | | OAOs | 2.5 | 0.72 | | Freight operators | 25.4 | 7.32 | | Total | 346.9 | 100.00 |
Source: Network Rail data from ORR data portal.
3.10 In addition to competition between OAOs and franchised TOCs, on-rail competition also takes place where franchises overlap or run parallel to each other. Overlapping franchises are defined as those where more than one
\\textsuperscript{132} The DfT suggested that the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT’s) newspaper and magazine distribution market work found that competition for the market can sometimes deliver better outcomes than competition in the market. We note that, while the OFT found that competition for the market provides a competitive constraint on the conduct of wholesalers, its effectiveness may vary between territories and wholesalers, depending on how each tender is structured and the number of bidders. The OFT also noted that while competition for the market provides a competitive constraint on wholesalers’ behaviour, it did not necessarily show that it is the most effective form of competitive constraint. OFT1121, Newspaper and magazine distribution in the United Kingdom - Decision not to make a market investigation reference to the Competition Commission, September 2009. operator serves passengers on a flow using the same track. Parallel franchises are defined as those where more than one operator serves a flow between an origin and destination, but using a different line (eg London–Birmingham with Chiltern Railways or via the West Coast line).
3.11 Table 3 below sets out the overlapping and parallel rail franchises in Great Britain in March 2016. A map of franchised and open access services is included in the Appendix.\\textsuperscript{133}
\\textsuperscript{133} www.projectmapping.co.uk. Table 3: Overlapping and parallel franchises in Great Britain in 2016
| Overlapping and parallel franchises | Flows | |------------------------------------|-------| | Great Northern and Virgin East Coast | London to Stevenage and Peterborough | | Great Northern and Abellio Greater Anglia | London to Cambridge | | First Great Western and Chiltern Railways | London to Oxford | | London Midland, Chiltern Railways and Virgin Trains | London to Birmingham | | London Midland and Virgin Trains | London to Milton Keynes, Coventry, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, Stafford, Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent Rugby to Coventry, Birmingham International | | Thameslink and East Midlands Trains | London to Luton and Bedford | | c2c and Abellio Greater Anglia | London to Southend | | South West Trains and Southern | London to Portsmouth | | South West Trains and First Great Western | London to Southampton | | South West Trains and First Great Western | London to Epsom, Dorking and Guildford | | Cross Country, First TransPennine and Virgin East Coast | York to Newcastle (and between Cross Country and Virgin on services north to Edinburgh) | | London Midland, Virgin Trains, Arriva Trains Wales and Cross Country | Birmingham International to Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury | | First Great Western and London Midland | Worcester to Hereford | | Govia, Abellio Greater Anglia and Cross Country | Cambridge to Ely | | East Midlands Trains, Cross Country and Abellio Greater Anglia | Peterborough to Ely | | Cross Country and Abellio Greater Anglia | Ely to Norwich | | Cross Country and First Great Western | Bristol Parkway to Tiverton, Exeter and stations to Plymouth and Penzance and between Reading, Oxford and Banbury Reading to Basingstoke | | First TransPennine, East Midlands Trains and Northern Rail | Liverpool to Manchester | | First TransPennine, Virgin East Coast and Northern Rail | Manchester to Leeds and York Blackpool and Barrow-in-Furness to Manchester | | East Midlands Trains, Cross Country and Northern Rail | Derby to Sheffield and Leeds | | First TransPennine and Northern Rail | Leeds to Scarborough | | First TransPennine and Northern Rail | Leeds to Hull | | Northern Rail and Virgin East Coast | Doncaster to Hull | | First TransPennine and Virgin Trains | Wigan to Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow/Edinburgh | | Arriva Trains Wales and Virgin Trains | Chester to Holyhead | | Arriva Trains Wales and First Great Western | Newport to Cardiff, Swansea and Carmarthen | | Virgin East Coast, Cross Country and ScotRail | Edinburgh to Glasgow | | Virgin East Coast, Cross Country and ScotRail | Edinburgh to Aberdeen | | Virgin East Coast and ScotRail | Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Inverness | | South West Trains and Cross Country | Basingstoke to Winchester, Southampton and Bournemouth | | Abellio Greater Anglia and Cross Country | Cambridge to Stansted Airport | | First Great Western and Southern | Brighton to Southampton | | London Midland, Cross Country and Virgin Trains | Wolverhampton to Stafford | | London Midland and Chiltern | (Leamington and) Birmingham to Kidderminster |
Source: CMA analysis. 3.12 The extent of competition on overlapping and parallel franchises varies significantly according to the frequency of the overlapping services and the extent of journey time differentials between operators.
3.13 The following paragraphs consider the passenger benefits that the relatively limited extent of on-rail competition in Great Britain from OAOs and competing franchises has delivered.
**Competition between open access operators and franchisees**
3.14 As described in Chapter 2, First Hull Trains and Grand Central currently compete with Virgin East Coast on the East Coast main line.
3.15 The current limited scale of on-rail competition in Great Britain constrains the extent to which one can draw conclusions about what would happen if the scale of on-rail competition were to increase materially. Nevertheless, there are a number of concrete examples of the benefits of current open access rail competition in Great Britain, including in relation to fares, service quality and innovation.(^{134})
3.16 In its consultation response, ORR cited potential benefits that OAOs bring in terms of:
- different business models, with the potential for greater cost reduction than could be achieved through franchising;
- stronger incentives to compete on price and service quality, reflecting their greater exposure to costs and revenue risk in the absence of a time-limited franchise; and
- combining these factors to support greater innovation in service offering and pricing and the ability to find new, underserved markets.
3.17 The following paragraphs consider the benefits arising from competition between OAOs and franchised TOCs in the current model of (limited) open access operations. Further evidence of the impact of the current level of on-rail competition in Great Britain is presented in section 5 of the impact assessment commissioned by ORR.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{134}) Transport Focus emphasised in its consultation response that while fares are the most significant passenger priority for improvement, performance, service frequency and capacity are also key elements. First Hull Trains and Virgin East Coast (London to Stevenage, Grantham, Retford and Doncaster with one daily overlap to Hull)
3.18 First Hull Trains is now a joint venture between FirstGroup (as 80% shareholder), which operates franchises in Great Britain including the Greater Western franchise and (through a joint venture) the TransPennine Express (see Chapter 2, Table 1) and Renaissance Trains. It was the first OAO in Great Britain, entering the sector with direct services between London and Hull in 2000. FirstGroup acquired its interest in Hull Trains in 2003 and the company was rebranded in 2008 as First Hull Trains.
3.19 First Hull Trains competes with Virgin East Coast on a number of flows on the East Coast main line. First Hull Trains also competes with Grand Central on the flows from London to Doncaster.
Impact on fares
3.20 First Hull Trains offers dedicated fares in competition with Virgin East Coast. In addition to offering a range of advance tickets, First Hull Trains offers super off-peak, off-peak and anytime ‘walk-up’ tickets which are generally priced below the fare set by the lead operator (with respect to interavailable fares).(^{135}) For example, from London to Doncaster, the off-peak single offered by First Hull Trains is priced at £64.00 against an interavailable off-peak single priced at £82.10. From London to Hull, the same ticket types cost £79.00 and £96.80, respectively. On the London–Grantham flow, the operators also compete on price. For example, First Hull Trains offers the dedicated anytime single ticket at a price of £51.50 against the corresponding interavailable ticket, which is priced at £60.00.(^{136})
3.21 Although the dedicated fares sold by First Hull Trains are only valid on their own services (which are less frequent), passengers benefit from the availability of cheaper fares which, in turn, may also constrain the fare set by the lead operator in the case of interavailable tickets.
3.22 First Hull Trains also competes with Virgin East Coast on the price of dedicated advance purchase tickets. Passengers booking advance tickets
______________________________________________________________________
(^{135}) Interavailable fares are set by the lead operator for a journey, which is normally the operator with the greatest commercial interest in that particular journey. Other operators are required to honour these interavailable fares once they have been set by the lead operator, but other operators or groups of operators can set ‘dedicated’ fares for travel only on their own trains, generally at a lower price than the interavailable fare. The lead operator can also set dedicated fares in certain circumstances. For example, it can set discounted advance fares for travel only on its own services.
(^{136}) Fares based on travel in November 2015. with either operator are restricted to travelling on a specific train but benefit from lower prices as a result of on-rail competition.
3.23 First Hull Trains introduced a ‘carnet’ ticket for business passengers in 2013 that it claims offers savings of up to 50%. ORR noted in the emerging findings of its retail market review that OAOs offering such products may also encourage competing franchised TOCs to offer similar products, citing the 2014 example of Virgin East Cost offering carnet tickets to business passengers through its website.(^{137})
3.24 We note that price competition between First Hull Trains and the incumbent franchised TOC would be expected both because First Hull Trains needs to win passengers by undercutting the incumbent in order to ensure that its services remain commercially viable (as an OAO service it would not be subsidised if it entered financial difficulty) and because, as an OAO, First Hull Trains has lower costs (including through paying lower access charges than the franchised TOC). Further examples of fare competition between First Hull Trains and the incumbent franchised TOC are set out in Table 3 of the impact assessment commissioned by ORR.
**Impact on service levels and innovation**
3.25 First Hull Trains also competes on service and innovation. First Hull Trains identified a number of examples, including:
- a passenger information system (incorporating information from the official industry real-time train running information system and GPS tracking) which provides real-time information on board the train, including the progress of the service, expected arrival times at stations and information on connecting trains. First Hull Trains cited its freedom from the need to amend a franchise agreement as facilitating this innovation in response to on-rail competition;
- privately funding new rolling stock with 125mph capability (the current maximum permitted line speed), more seats and higher specification;
- free 4G Single Sign Up wi-fi on all trains; and
- access to a selection of ITV programmes on board.
(^{137}) ORR (June 2015), *Retail market review, emerging findings*, paragraph 3.8. 3.26 First Hull Trains is also pursuing a project to electrify the line from Selby to Hull using predominantly private sector finance (discussed further in paragraphs 4.36 and 4.37).
3.27 Passenger surveys consistently rank First Hull Trains as one of the leading rail operators in terms of overall passenger satisfaction. The National Rail Passenger Survey published in autumn 2015 indicated that 97% of passengers were satisfied with First Hull Trains, the highest score across all operators (followed by Grand Central and Heathrow Express – which both operate on an open access basis). The Which? 2016 Trains Satisfaction Survey ranked First Hull Trains as the operator with the second highest customer score in Great Britain, taking into account factors including the availability of seating, cleanliness, frequency, punctuality, reliability and value for money.
Impact on passenger usage
3.28 Analysis of on-rail competition by Ove Arup for ORR in 2009 found that the number of journeys from stations served by both the incumbent and First Hull Trains increased at a faster rate than most of the control stations. The increase in revenue yield (ie the increase in average fare per passenger) was also smaller at stations with competition (Grantham, Doncaster and Hull) than on the control flows. Arup also cited a number of softer benefits of competition in its study, including additional car parks.
Wider economic impact
3.29 In terms of the wider economic benefits of the service, Arup (2009) notes that prior to the introduction of First Hull Trains, the Hull and Humber Ports City Region was one of the few major urban areas in Great Britain that was not served by direct connections to London. The new services created major opportunities for business in London, with people able to arrive in the capital before 0930 and to travel back in the evening.
______________________________________________________________________
138 Transport Focus, National Passenger Rail Survey, autumn 2015. 139 Which? Trains Satisfaction Survey, February 2016. 140 ORR (December 2009), On Rail Competition Analysis Key Findings (commissioned from Ove Arup & Partners Ltd). 141 The report selects control flows (and stations) with similar geography to the competitive flows in order to ensure similarity between the socio-economic characteristics of the study area in terms of various indicators, including population, journey times and service provision. Grand Central and Virgin East Coast (London to York, Northallerton and Sunderland; London to Doncaster, Wakefield and Bradford)
3.30 Grand Central is a subsidiary of Arriva UK Trains (which is itself a subsidiary of the main German national rail operator Deutsche Bahn); Arriva also operates franchised services in Great Britain (see Chapter 2, Table 1). Grand Central competes with Virgin East Coast on a number of flows on the East Coast main line and serves stations, such as Sunderland, which previously had no direct services to London.(^{142})
Impact on fares
3.31 Grand Central offers dedicated fares as part of its strategy of competing with Virgin East Coast.
- For example, Grand Central offers a dedicated anytime single fare from London to York for £83.10, whereas the interavailable fare set by the lead operator is £112.00.(^{143}) Although the dedicated fares limit the number of services on which a passenger may travel (to five per day in the York example), Grand Central told us that the majority of its passengers travel using dedicated tickets. The availability of cheaper dedicated tickets may also constrain the interavailable fare set by the lead operator, although Virgin observed that as the lead operator on the route, fare regulations prevent it from offering dedicated walk-up fares.
- For travel from London to York, both Grand Central and Virgin East Coast compete on the prices of their dedicated advance single tickets.
- We observed that the cheapest advance single tickets for travel between London to York available for departures between 0700 and 0859 cost from £20.90, whereas for travel from London to Manchester on the West Coast main line, a similar distance as from London to York but without on-rail competition, the cheapest advance single available for departures between 0700 and 0859 cost £110.00.(^{144}) While differences in demand and operating cost are likely to exist between the East and West Coast main lines, the magnitude of the fare differential appears significant.
(^{142}) Virgin East Coast introduced direct services to Sunderland in December 2015, eight years after Grand Central. However, Grand Central remains the only train operator to offer direct services to London from other stations in the region such as Eaglescliffe and Hartlepool.
(^{143}) Fares based on travel in November 2015.
(^{144}) Fares based on travel in November 2015. • Which? also considered the fare differentials on the London–York flow, finding that that Grand Central’s ‘walk-up’ tickets are cheaper than those of Virgin East Coast.\\textsuperscript{145} For example, Grand Central also sells a dedicated off-peak single valid in the peak period. The cheapest walk-up ticket for the 0802 Grand Central London to York service is therefore only £55.40, whereas the cheapest walk-up single valid on the 0800 Virgin East Coast service costs £124.50.
• As set out above in relation to First Hull Trains operating on the East Coast main line, price competition between the OAO and the incumbent franchised TOC may be expected as the OAO needs to win business by undercutting the incumbent in order to remain commercially viable and due to the fact that the OAO has lower costs (including through paying lower access charges than the franchised TOC). Further examples of fare competition between First Hull Trains and the incumbent franchised TOC are set out in Table 4 of the impact assessment commissioned by ORR.
\\textit{Impact on service levels and innovation}
3.32 Grand Central also competes with Virgin East Coast on service quality and innovation. The following examples were cited by Grand Central:
• Grand Central told us that it was the first train operator in Great Britain to offer free wi-fi to all passengers. The incumbent lead operator at the time, GNER, responded by offering wi-fi (although, in contrast to Grand Central, it charged passengers in standard class to use wi-fi).
• Grand Central introduced a ‘carnet’ ticket offer where a book of 20 fully flexible tickets is sold at a 25% discount. GNER responded by offering its own carnet.
• GNER increased the number of advance tickets that it sold on the East Coast main line. Grand Central responded by increasing the number of advance tickets that it offered for sale.
• When Grand Central launched its services from London to York, the incumbent responded by adding additional services to York. We were told that the capacity required to run the additional services was identified partly as a result of the increased competitive pressure on the route.\\textsuperscript{146} The additional capacity has generated benefits for all passengers on the route both in terms of increased frequency and crowding relief.
\\textsuperscript{145} Which? (March 2015), Trains Satisfaction Survey, Save money on your route. \\textsuperscript{146} This example is discussed further in paragraph 4.35. • Grand Central makes its full range of walk-up tickets available for sale on the train. In contrast, Grand Central told us that it is common for franchised TOCs to sell only the most expensive tickets available for a given journey if passengers do not purchase a ticket before boarding.
• Grand Central’s service to Bradford is, itself, an example of innovation. The introduction of the service acted as a catalyst for the refurbishment of Wakefield Kirkgate station, from which Grand Central offered the first direct trains to London for 32 years. The service also utilises a former freight-only line to Bradford.
3.33 Passenger surveys consistently rank Grand Central as one of the leading rail operators in terms of overall passenger satisfaction. The National Rail Passenger Survey published in autumn 2015 indicated that 93% of passengers were satisfied with Grand Central, the third highest score across all operators (following First Hull Trains and Heathrow Express – which both operate on an open access basis). The Which? 2016 Trains Satisfaction Survey ranked Grand Central as the operator with the highest customer score in Great Britain, taking into account factors including the availability of seating, cleanliness, frequency, punctuality, reliability and value for money.
Impact on passenger usage
3.34 Grand Central commissioned AECOM to examine the impact of on-rail competition on market growth between 2007–2008 and 2011–2012. Passenger journeys, revenue and yield at stations with competition (namely Peterborough, Grantham, Retford, Doncaster, Wakefield, York and Northallerton) were compared with the corresponding data at stations without competition (namely Newark, Leeds, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Berwick-upon-Tweed and Edinburgh). We recognise that analysis of this kind can be sensitive to the methodology used, and that ORR and AECOM have had some analytical differences regarding this to date. We comment on the implications of this when outlining AECOM’s key findings below. We
______________________________________________________________________
147 The Rail Delivery Group highlighted that the station improvement plans were spearheaded by Groundwork Wakefield and partner funded by Network Rail. Additional funding was secured from the Station Commercial Project Facility and National Stations Improvement Programme, both of which are administered by Network Rail.
148 Transport Focus, National Passenger Rail Survey, autumn 2015.
149 Which? Trains Satisfaction Survey, February 2016.
150 The AECOM report considers the principal stations on the East Coast main line and whether those stations were affected by competition.
151 The principal discussion corresponds to capturing accurately how passengers may be switching stations to take advantage of new services, and whether these are properly accounted for rather than classed as genuinely new passengers. Discussion of this can be found in this letter describing the ORR’s 2014 decision on an Open Access application on the West Coast Main Line. Moreover, we note that ORR only approves open access applications which are not primarily abstractive and thus generate a certain level of revenue from previously unmet demand. also note that ORR has commissioned new work to establish the volume of new passenger growth generated by OAOs on the East Coast main line.
3.35 AECOM’s analysis found that, on average:
- passenger journeys grew by 42% at stations with competition compared with 27% at stations without competition;
- over the same period, revenue increased by 57% at stations with competition compared with 48% at stations without competition; and
- revenue yield (ie average fare per passenger) therefore rose more slowly at stations with competition, increasing by 11% over the period, as compared with stations without competition where revenue yields rose by 17%.
We note that these figures may slightly overstate the benefits competition has brought in this area if, for example, some of this growth in passenger numbers was abstracted from other stations which are not included in the sample.
3.36 It should also be noted that AECOM compiles data which could be used as a control to account for the impact of changes in demand, namely employment and population growth, but does not use this in its analysis. Virgin also observed that its own analysis of East Coast revenue trends indicated that flows with competition outperformed in passenger numbers compared to other flows, but significantly underperformed in revenue, suggesting that passenger volumes increased and fares fell.
3.37 In conclusion, however, we consider that the general direction of these effects found by AECOM are likely to be correct for three reasons. First, the results are in line with those found by Arup (2009) using a somewhat different methodology, as discussed below. Second, these figures are based on averages from a number of stations, and so passenger growth caused by abstraction from one station to another station would be more likely to be cancelled out and so not have an overly positive effect on the average values. Finally, they are in line with economic theory, which would normally suggest that introducing competition lowers prices and raises passenger numbers.
3.38 AECOM also compared revenue yield trends at Northallerton and York for the financial years ending April 2008 and April 2012. The results indicated that Grand Central entered the market at a higher average fare than East Coast on journeys from London to York and Northallerton as it did not offer heavily discounted advance purchase tickets (although its walk-up dedicated fares were cheaper than those of East Coast). However, competition led to yields on both operators’ services falling over the period. In constant prices, overall average yield fell by 10% at York and by 13% at Northallerton. This contrasts with increasing average fares at East Coast main line stations where there was no competition.
3.39 In order to examine the extent to which OAOs could grow the market through introducing new direct services, AECOM examined revenue growth at Thirsk, Eaglescliffe, Hartlepool and Sunderland. Over the period from 2007 to 2014, revenue grew by 552% from £1.4 million to £9.1 million. While this success is remarkable, we are aware that there may have been particular circumstances which led to success in this area (namely a large underserved population, with no previous direct service to London, and, at Eaglescliffe in particular, good car parking facilities allowing passengers from a large new catchment area to be attracted). Therefore, while it seems that introducing competition can have positive effects in terms of growing the market, this may not be of the same magnitude as the results at these four stations.
3.40 In 2009, Arup examined the impact of the launch of Grand Central’s services between London and Sunderland in December 2007 (the work predated the increase in Grand Central’s frequency and the launch of its services to Bradford). Arup’s analysis, commissioned by ORR, was consistent with the results of the AECOM work, finding that passenger growth from Northallerton and York to London (where Grand Central competed with the incumbent operator) significantly outperformed control flows despite similar levels of regional economic growth. The improvements could not be fully explained by a reduction in generalised journey time.\\textsuperscript{152} Lower fares enabled Grand Central to grow its market share, while extra capacity offered by Grand Central offered benefits to customers.
\\textit{Wider economic impact}
3.41 In terms of the wider economic benefits of the introduction of the Grand Central service, Arup (2009) notes that new journey opportunities were created from Sunderland, Hartlepool, Eaglescliffe and Thirsk to London. Since the Arup report was published in 2009, Grand Central launched services to other stations that were not previously served directly from London, including Pontefract, Mirfield, Brighouse, Halifax and Bradford.\\textsuperscript{153}
\\textsuperscript{152} Generalised journey time is a measure of the overall temporal cost of a journey and is made up of a number of component costs, including the fare and journey time and other factors, which may include waiting time and parking costs.
\\textsuperscript{153} As set out in paragraph 3.32, Grand Central also invested in Wakefield Kirkgate station, creating additional direct journey opportunities to London from Wakefield (prior to the Grand Central service, customers could only travel directly to London from Wakefield Westgate station). Alliance Rail (London to Blackpool from 2018)
3.42 The new operation, running under the GNWR brand, will increase the number of direct services between London and Blackpool from one to six or seven each way per day.
3.43 The new services are expected to call at Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield Trent Valley, Crewe, Preston, Kirkham & Wesham and Poulton-le-Fylde. At a number of these stations, the new operator will compete for passengers against Virgin and London Midland. It will also create new direct services between London and Poulton-le-Fylde and Kirkham & Wesham. There will be an increase in direct travel options from some other stations and some journey times will be improved including from London to Tamworth and Lichfield Trent Valley (which will also benefit from the higher service quality offered by intercity services).
3.44 The services will be operated by four new six-car tilting 125mph Pendolino trains built and paid for by the operator. ORR stated in its approval decision that these will have similar or better traction characteristics to the Pendolinos using the route today.(^{154}) GNWR will also invest £1.5 million in station improvements.
Overlapping and parallel franchises
3.45 This section considers the degree of on-rail competition on overlapping and parallel franchises, the extent of which varies significantly according to the frequency of the overlapping services and the extent of journey time differentials between operators.
3.46 In contrast to OAOs, which are free from franchise specification, the factors on which franchised TOCs are able to compete is restricted due to the detail of the franchise specification which, for example, defines service frequency and other service characteristics. Franchised TOCs are, however, free to compete on fares, although the lead operator providing interavailable tickets may only offer permanent dedicated advance fares in addition to those that are interavailable (ie it cannot offer dedicated anytime or off-peak ‘walk-up’ fares).
3.47 In Appendix C of our discussion document published in July, we examined the extent of competitive interaction between overlapping and parallel franchises
(^{154}) ORR (August 2015), *Decision on application for access to West Coast main line*. A number of themes emerged from this analysis:
- The degree of price competition between franchised TOCs on overlapping and parallel franchises appears to depend on journey distance, relative journey times, frequency of services, the nature of the franchised TOCs (e.g., whether they are long-distance or regional operators) and the extent of franchise specification.
- Where franchised TOCs compete on shorter distance flows, such as between London and Cambridge and London and Peterborough, the franchised TOC competing with the lead operator typically offers a lower dedicated walk-up fare in competition with the lead operator’s inter-available fare. This offers passengers a greater range of fare and service options, including a number of cheaper fares, and may also constrain the lead operator’s unregulated fares. In the London to Cambridge and Peterborough examples, commuters benefit from cheaper season ticket options.
- In a number of cases, franchised TOCs competing with the lead operators operate a slower service than the lead operator (with the lead operator sometimes running an intercity service and the competitor a metro or regional service). In some of these examples, the franchised TOC with the slower service appears to offer deep discounts, particularly on advance tickets. Where there is competition on parallel franchises, for some passengers, the franchised TOC with the longer journey time may still offer a shorter overall journey time given the location of the stations relative to the passenger’s ultimate origin and destination.
- Long-distance intercity franchised TOCs competing on overlapping flows appear to primarily compete on the price of their dedicated advance tickets, particularly where journey times are similar on both operators. This appears to generate passenger benefits by way of lower fares.
- Competition between franchised TOCs on overlapping and parallel franchises appears to be most intense where the franchises are loosely specified or where significant changes in franchises and/or access rights were permitted. For example:
(a) Chiltern Railways has a relatively loose franchise specification compared with other franchises and was incentivised to invest in new
______________________________________________________________________
155 Competition in passenger rail services in Great Britain: A discussion document for consultation, Appendix C, July 2015. rolling stock, launch free wi-fi, introduce new timetables and improve line speeds in order to compete with Virgin Trains on the London–Birmingham route in response to the introduction of Virgin’s new ‘very high frequency’ high-speed timetable following the West Coast main line upgrade.\\textsuperscript{156} Chiltern Railways’ customers benefited from lower fares, refurbished rolling stock, improved services (branded as ‘Mainline’) and faster journey times (cut by 20%). The total market for rail traffic between London and Birmingham grew, as did the premium paid to government.
\\textit{(b)} London Midland increased its service frequency on services from London to Birmingham and North West England through changes to its access rights and enhancements to its rolling stock to allow 110mph running. The new rolling stock also offered tables and power sockets throughout. Competition from Virgin Trains and Chiltern Railways was one driver for the enhancements.\\textsuperscript{157}
- The frequency of overlapping services is likely to have an impact on the intensity of price competition. Competition between franchised TOCs appears to be less intense where one of them runs only an infrequent service.
\\textit{Changes to the level of franchise overlap}
3.48 There have been a number of changes to the degree of on-rail competition in recent years as the geographic reach of franchises has changed and as OAOs have introduced new services. Although the previous section highlights that there remain a number of franchise overlaps on which operators compete, the number is less than in previous years following a policy introduced by the SRA to simplify the franchise map and to seek to have a single franchise operator at each London terminus station (see paragraph 2.101). This allows us to examine the impact of removing on-rail competition.
\\textit{Arup 2009 analysis of changes to franchise overlaps}
3.49 The effect of some of these changes in overlap is considered by Arup (2009) in the study referred to above. The three case studies are considered below.
\\textsuperscript{156} Chiltern Railways’ franchise specifies first and last trains, the quantum (not timing) of trains per hour and action to deal with overcrowding.
\\textsuperscript{157} ORR/CT/1463, \\textit{Incentivising better capacity management in GB rail: Case study evidence from other industries and railways}, Credo, March 2015. Prior to the formation of the London and Eastern Railways (‘One’) franchise, Anglia Railways and First Great Eastern competed on flows between London, Colchester and Ipswich. Evidence from Arup’s analysis found that the timetable changes resulting from the introduction of a single operator meant that service characteristics deteriorated for passengers. In particular, service frequencies reduced and journey times were extended and the number of seats per hour reduced. Passenger growth at Ipswich and Colchester was lower compared with control flows and revenue yields (ie average fare per passenger) increased at a faster rate compared with Norwich and Stowmarket. Passenger satisfaction scores\\textsuperscript{158} slightly deteriorated and some softer measures delivered by one operator before competition was removed were affected. However, service performance levels\\textsuperscript{159} improved, which – as set out in paragraph 2.101 – was the rationale for the reducing the number of operators.
Reading to London: First Great Western and South West Trains
The extent of on-rail competition on this flow was reduced following the merger of Thames Trains into the Great Western franchise in 2004, first as First Great Western Link and then as part of the enlarged Greater Western franchise. Prior to the changes, First Great Western was the dominant operator, with Thames Trains attracting about a third of the total revenue on the flow. The revenue allocated to South West Trains, which ran a much slower service, was negligible. Arup’s analysis is inconclusive as to the impact of the changes following the removal of competition. Service frequencies did not change and the overall change in revenue yield affecting Reading was similar to that at Maidenhead (a control flow). There was an improvement in service performance levels, although there was a deterioration in passenger satisfaction.
Gatwick Airport to London: Thameslink and Southern
Arup (2009) examined the lessening of on-rail competition brought about by the amalgamation of Gatwick Express services within the Southern Railway franchise in June 2008. While there were no significant changes to the timetable or passenger growth trends, subsuming Gatwick Express into
\\textsuperscript{158} The survey measures passenger satisfaction of the on-train and station environments, eg train or station cleanliness and the helpfulness and attitude of train or station staff.
\\textsuperscript{159} This is reflected in Public Performance Measure (PPM) data, which is calculated from the percentage of planned trains that are neither cancelled nor late. See ORR Passenger & Freight Rail Performance: Quality and Methodology Report (November 2015). Southern led to a large increase in yield (ie average passenger fares) between 2008 and 2009 affecting Gatwick Airport, significantly larger than on the control flows. Service performance increased although passenger satisfaction reduced.
Summary
3.53 Arup (2009) examined only three of the many changes in franchise overlaps that resulted from the SRA’s policy decision to reduce the number of franchises. Two case studies suggested that average fares (measured as overall revenue yield) increased after the franchise overlaps were removed, while the other did not find an overall change compared with the control flow. Service performance increased in the three examples, although passenger satisfaction decreased.
Recent changes to overlapping franchises
3.54 There have been a number of further changes to the degree of on-rail competition in recent years. One example is the award of the new Thameslink, Southern & Great Northern franchise to Govia in September 2014.
3.55 The new franchise removed on-rail competition between First Capital Connect and Southern including between London and Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges, Haywards Heath and Brighton. However, we were told by the DfT that a deliberate decision was taken to have only one operator running through the Thameslink cross-London section during the Thameslink upgrade programme in order to reduce the risk to the delivery of the project. We were also told that the new franchise is designed in such a way that it could be split again in the future following the completion of the upgrade work.
3.56 In terms of the impact on fares, we note that, following the award of the new combined franchise, cheaper fares offered by Thameslink (the operator replacing First Capital Connect) will rise over time to harmonise with Southern’s fares.
3.57 Which? noted that Thameslink offered a London–Brighton off-peak ticket at £17.10 against £26.70 on Southern and that the cheaper fare may be lost after harmonisation. An annual season ticket between Brighton and London cost £4,304 after the cheaper dedicated £3,640 season ticket was withdrawn, while from Three Bridges to London, the cheapest season ticket was £3,392 per year, an increase of £436 on the dedicated fare.
160 Which? (March 2015), Trains Satisfaction Survey, Save money on your route. 3.58 The DfT told us that, notwithstanding the impact on fares, the legacy of multiple competing operators on the Brighton main line resulted in an inefficient timetable and poor performance. However, ORR told us that performance had declined since the franchises were combined – although it is not clear the extent to which this is due to the upgrade works at London Bridge station.\\textsuperscript{161} The DfT also suggested that the historical fare structure was complex and, in some respects, confusing. We consider the relationship between on-rail competition and operational performance and ticketing complexity in detail in Chapter 5.
**On-rail competition in other European countries**
*Introduction*
3.59 On-rail competition has developed in a number of other European countries, in particular in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden. This trend is continuing in a number of other European countries, with proposals for greater competition being developed in countries including Finland, France and Spain.
3.60 The EU is also focusing on developing a strong and competitive rail transport industry through a number of packages aimed at restructuring the European rail transport market. The ‘market pillar’ of the Fourth Railway package, which focuses on liberalising domestic passenger railway services, is currently being enacted. An overview of the EU railway packages is set out in the Appendix.
3.61 While we note a number of differences between on-rail competition in Great Britain and other European countries, examining the European experience offers valuable insights as to the benefits and costs of on-rail competition on a greater scale than currently exists in Great Britain.
3.62 The intensity of on-rail competition is different in each country and depends on a number of variables defined by policymakers, such as the degree of liberalisation, the scope of public service contracts (PSCs) and PSOs,\\textsuperscript{162} the manner in which PSCs are awarded (ie competitive tendering versus direct
\\textsuperscript{161} In period 9 of 2015–2016, the Public Performance Measure for Southern Mainline and Coast was 81.8%, down from 89.6% in 2011–2012. In the same period, the Thameslink Public Performance Measure was 80.6%, down from 90.5% in 2011–2012.
\\textsuperscript{162} Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 defines a PSO as ‘a requirement defined or determined by a competent authority in order to ensure public passenger transport services in the general interest that an operator, if it were considering its own commercial interests would not assume or would not assume to the same extent or under the same conditions without reward’. A PSC is defined as ‘one or more legally binding acts confirming the agreement between a competent authority and a public service operator to entrust to that public service operator the management and operation of public passenger transport services subject to public service obligations’. awards), the structure of the market (ie vertical integration or separation) and the presence of an independent economic regulator.
3.63 In summary, as set out in Table 4 below and described in further detail in the Appendix, the level of open access on-rail competition is relatively low in Germany, but is higher in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy and Sweden (although subject to different legal and market constraints).
3.64 As discussed further below, efficient open access entry, signalled by the sustainability of the OAO’s business and its share of the relevant market segment, has had a positive impact on those markets in terms of price, quality of service, demand growth and, sometimes, efficiency. There have also been some pitfalls (described further in Chapter 5), including uncertainty regarding financial stability and impact on public funds.
3.65 Table 4 and Figure 3 show the OAOs active in the EU in 2015 and provide a direct comparison of the main policy factors affecting the rail market design in European countries with on-rail competition.
Table 4: OAOs active in Europe in 2015
| Country | Main OAOs | Service | Entry date | Market share (%) | |------------------|----------------------------|---------|------------|------------------| | | | | | OAO in relevant | | | | | | segments/routes | | | | | | Incumbent | | | | | | country overall | | Austria | Westbahn | LD | 2011 | [20–25]\* | 88 | | Czech Republic | RegioJet | LD | 2011 | [35–40]† | 95 | | | Leo Express | LD | 2012 | [25–30]† | | | Germany | HKX | LD | 2012 | [5–10]‡ | 88 | | Great Britain | Grand Central | LD | 2007 | [0–5]§ | - | | | First Hull Trains | LD | 2002 | [0–5]§ | | | Italy | NTV | HS | 2012 | [20–25]# | 83 | | Sweden | Veolia/SkandJern/TAG | LD | 2011 | N/A | 68 | | | MTR | LD | 2015 | [25–30]~ | |
Source: Based on 2013 data (passenger miles) available in the Staff Working Document accompanying the European Commission’s Fourth report on monitoring development of the rail market (SWD (2014) 186 final) and from interviews conducted with national authorities and OAOs in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden.
- Market share estimate relating to the Vienna–Salzburg route. † Market share estimate relating to the Prague–Ostrava route. ‡ Market share estimate relating to the Hamburg–Cologne route. § Market share estimate relating to long-distance services on the East Coast main line.
# Market share estimate on the overall national high-speed services market.
~ Market share estimate relating to the Stockholm-Gothenburg route. 3.66 It is also relevant to note that there is considerable variation in the track access charges paid by train operators across Europe. Figure 4 presents the track access charges for intercity/long-distance services.
Figure 4: Track access charges for intercity/long-distance services (2014)\*
Source: EU Commission – SWD (2014) 186 final.
- Track access charges in 2014 for a 500-tonne intercity train. 3.67 A more detailed description of the evolution of on-rail competition in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden is set out in the Appendix.
**Benefits of on-rail competition in Europe**
3.68 This section considers the benefits that on-rail competition has generated in continental Europe, including in relation to fares, service quality and innovation, passenger usage and efficiencies.
**Fares**
3.69 The European case studies offer evidence of how open access competition has affected fares.
3.70 In Austria, the OAO’s entry generated intense price competition with the incumbent(^{163}) and in the Czech Republic the three operators have engaged in intense price competition.(^{164})
3.71 In Italy, the incumbent reacted to competition from the OAO, NTV, by offering frequent discounts, exerting downward pressure on fares for high-speed services. As a result, the fares for high-speed services are now similar to the fares for those non-high-speed long-distance services that are operated on a commercial basis but which are not subject to competitive pressure.(^{165})
3.72 In Sweden, the early new entrants (eg Veolia) often focused on the low price segment of the market and did not therefore compete strongly with the incumbent. However, the entry of a new OAO, MTR, which competes head-to-head with the incumbent has generated an extensive discounted tickets campaign from the incumbent on the Stockholm–Gothenburg route.(^{166})
3.73 In Germany, the OAO, HKX, focused on offering low fares with the aim of attracting custom from lower income groups, including students and the retired. In contrast to its routes with no competition, Deutsche Bahn (DB)
______________________________________________________________________
(^{163}) The Austrian OAO, Westbahn, offered discounted fares for regular travellers and the incumbent consistently reduced its fares by introducing special offers, starting this practice three months before the OAO’s entry.
(^{164}) For example, when RegioJet entered the market in September 2011, it offered fares which were, on average, 25% lower than the incumbent’s fares for a slightly slower service (87 mph versus 99 mph). After a month, the incumbent reacted by lowering its fares by 30% as well as waiving reservation fees and offering special discounts. Since competition in the market has been introduced, according to OAOs, average fares have decreased by 50%.
(^{165}) The data compares price/km on the incumbent Trenitalia high-speed services (‘Frecciarossa’), eg the Florence to Rome route with that on the incumbent non-high-speed long-distance services (‘Frecciabianca’), eg on the Adriatic route from Pescara to Bologna.
(^{166}) The incumbent reduced its fares by 10 to 15% following MTR’s entry. Currently, according to MTR, its cheapest fares are 10-15% lower than the incumbent. responded by freezing its fares on the Hamburg–Cologne route and by introducing refurbished rolling stock.
3.74 Figure 5 presents the estimated average return fares (in terms of €/km) on the main long-distance European commercial routes. Fares on routes with on-rail competition (e.g., Prague–Ostrava) are some of the lowest in Europe, and often lower than other routes in the same country.
**Figure 5: Estimated average return fare (€/km) in the main EU commercial routes (2013)**
*Open access competition in the route*
Source: Elaboration on data from European Commission – SWD (2014) 186 final.
Notes:
1. Data, as of February 2013, refers to (a) simple average day return business class fare (purchased eight days in advance) and (b) simple average leisure return (weekend trip with advance purchase and weekend trip with immediate departure).
2. PBKA = Paris–Brussels–Cologne–Amsterdam. HST = high-speed trains.
**Service quality and innovation**
3.75 In Austria, the OAO introduced free wi-fi and the incumbent followed this innovative offer. Moreover, the Austrian OAO introduced ticketing innovations such as online retailing, on-board ticketing services offered by stewards(^{167}) and the sale of discounted tickets at tobacco kiosks. The OAO’s five-stop service also achieves the same journey time as the incumbent three-stop service due to its more technologically advanced rolling stock. The Austrian OAO has reported very high overall customer satisfaction and punctuality rates,(^{168}) which are higher than those of the incumbent. The OAO told us that
______________________________________________________________________
(^{167}) In peak-time hours, there is one steward per coach.
(^{168}) The Austrian OAO reported a 95.5% punctuality rate (based on a 5-minute time range), against the incumbent’s rate of 86%. the incumbent has now responded to this competitive pressure by enhancing the quality of its service, leading to higher customer satisfaction.
3.76 In the Czech Republic, service quality improvements have also been generated. For example, the OAOs introduced higher quality standards in their services than that of the incumbent (such as wi-fi and lower-floor trains to facilitate access) and also offered complimentary parking and taxi services upon departure and arrival.
3.77 In Italy, the OAO explicitly started competing with the incumbent on service quality and innovation, including by introducing new rolling stock which offers more comfortable seating, a greater range of dining options and a cinema car. The incumbent reacted with a service differentiation strategy and increased frequency (especially in the off-peak hours) and also by investing in new high-speed rolling stock, which will enter service in 2017.
3.78 In Sweden, one OAO introduced sophisticated restaurant services and the new OAO, MTR, has started competing with the incumbent on the Stockholm–Gothenburg route in terms of price and quality of service in order to win passengers from rail, car and air. MTR has introduced new trains, complying with more advanced environmental requirements (which are perceived to be a relevant component of service quality in Sweden) and high-quality service onboard. MTR has scored very highly in customer satisfaction surveys.
3.79 In summary, these case studies indicate that, in addition to generating lower fares, on-rail competition in Europe has resulted in improvements in service quality, innovation and service frequency, leading to higher customer satisfaction.
Passenger usage
3.80 In the Czech Republic, we were told that the customers of the new entrants (which currently have a combined market share of 55 to 60%) were largely new to the rail market and, therefore, demand was not significantly abstracted from the incumbent. The new entrants told us that overall demand for rail travel on the Prague–Ostrava increased by 40% since on-rail competition was introduced. In Italy, when the OAO commenced its high-speed operations, rail demand grew by 10 to 15% and the overall frequency of services was increased, mainly due to the transfer of passengers from air transport services on the Milan–Rome route. In Austria, overall demand for rail travel on the
______________________________________________________________________
169 Steer Davies Gleave Consultancy, Research for European Commission, DG Move, 2012. Vienna–Salzburg route has been growing by 10% per year since on-rail competition started, with passengers attracted from road transport. As a result, the initial reduction in the incumbent’s share of the passenger rail market was only about 1.5%, despite the growth of the OAO. In Sweden, the explicit aim of the new OAO, MTR, is to target competing modes of transport rather than the incumbent rail operator. Overall demand for passenger rail services has grown since MTR entered the sector and MTR estimates that about 20% of this demand has been abstracted from air transport services.
3.81 In summary, on-rail competition generated market growth on almost all the routes involved. The new services often served previously unmet demand and also resulted in the transfer of passengers from other modes of transport, particularly from road and, in some cases, from air.
Efficiencies
3.82 There is limited information available on the costs of OAOs in other European countries and it is therefore difficult to assess the extent to which OAOs are able to achieve lower costs than incumbents.
3.83 We were told by the Austrian regulator that the OAO in Austria is understood to have lower overheads and lower staff costs than the incumbent, which allows it to compete effectively despite it having lower economies of scale and density. Moreover, the new Swedish OAO, MTR, told us that it is able to keep costs down by exploiting synergies with MTR Stockholm (the Stockholm metro network operations, which MTR took over in 2009). We were also told that a number of the OAO entrants in other European countries have sophisticated yield management systems which allow them to generate additional revenue.
Conclusion on the benefits of on-rail competition across Europe
3.84 The evidence indicates that, in these examples, on-rail competition across Europe has delivered significant benefits to passengers in terms of exerting a downward pressure on fares, improving service quality and encouraging innovation, while also generating new rail demand and market growth.
______________________________________________________________________
170 Steer Davies Gleave Consultancy, Research for European Commission, DG Move, 2012. 171 ‘MTR Swedish open-access venture targets air and road’, International Railway Journal (7 April 2015). 172 Table 10 of the impact assessment commissioned by the ORR presents some information on efficiencies from European on-rail competition. 173 HKX in Germany, NTV in Italy and, potentially, MTR in Sweden. 174 Yield management is a pricing strategy based on dynamic fare setting, which aims to maximise revenues by fully exploiting different consumers’ willingness to pay. 3.85 However, there have also been some pitfalls, including concerns regarding financial sustainability and the impact of competition on public funds, which we consider and address in Chapter 5.
**Differences between open access competition in Great Britain and other European countries**
3.86 There are a number of differences between open access competition in Great Britain and other European countries including vertical integration, capacity constraints and PSOs (see the Appendix for an overview of the market structure in each country). These differences are considered below in order to put both the benefits and costs of greater on-rail competition in other European countries in context when considering the potential benefits that greater on-rail competition would be likely to deliver in Great Britain.
**Vertical integration**
3.87 As described in the Appendix, a major difference between most European systems and Great Britain is the level of integration in the market, both at the vertical and horizontal level. Continental European incumbents are typically vertically integrated companies yet subject to obligations of functional and accounting separation imposed by the EU legislation (which does not impose a full vertical separation as there is in Great Britain).
3.88 Therefore in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Italy, the OAOs compete against a vertically integrated incumbent operator, which can act as an entry barrier. In particular, there have been concerns that OAOs may not be able to compete on a level playing field, and that incumbents may raise competitors’ operating costs, through price and non-price discrimination or by engaging in other exclusionary practices, such as predatory pricing.
3.89 The problems arising from vertical integration and the lack of a level playing field arose in Italy prior to the establishment of the independent regulator in
______________________________________________________________________
175 The incumbents operate both at upstream level, as monopolist network operator, and at downstream level, as TOC.
176 Moreover, the transposition and implementation of EU rail directives at national level has not always been a smooth and effective process in continental Europe. For example, the European Commission referred to Austria the EU Court of Justice (in 2014) for not ensuring financial transparency (and therefore failing to ensure that public funds paid for PSOs were not used to cross subsidise other transport services); Germany (in 2013) for failure to separate financial flows between train operator and rail track manager; Italy (in 2011) because of concerns regarding lack of independence of the regulatory body (previously a ministerial department) from the government; Czech Republic (in 2009) for insufficient separation between the infrastructure manager and the incumbent train operator company. 2013. Issues arising included margin squeeze\\textsuperscript{177} and non-price discrimination.\\textsuperscript{178} In Germany, there have been problems in terms of access to ticket distribution, stations and the DB Energie electricity network. Action was taken by the sector regulator.\\textsuperscript{179} Complaints by the OAO in Austria have concerned both discriminatory path allocations and the exclusion of the OAOs’ train services from the timetable published by the incumbent.\\textsuperscript{180} However, the OAO in Austria told us that OAOs are now able to compete on a more level playing field. The Czech OAOs filed complaints before the national and EU competition authorities about exclusionary practices (namely predatory pricing sustained by cross-subsidisation), undertaken by the Czech incumbent.\\textsuperscript{181}
3.90 In contrast, in Sweden, long-term vertical separation has allowed a more level playing field.
\\textit{Capacity constraints}
3.91 Capacity constraints in other European countries are often less severe than in Great Britain. Figure 6 illustrates the intensity of the use of network in various European countries.
\\textsuperscript{177} Where a vertically integrated operator, dominant in the upstream market, reduces profit margins of its competitors in the downstream market making competition unsustainable. The vertically integrated operator puts in place this exclusionary practice by increasing prices of upstream inputs sold to its competitors and/or reducing its downstream prices.
\\textsuperscript{178} In 2014 the Italian Transport Regulator (ART) imposed transparency and non-discrimination obligations (eg obligations concerning access to commercial space in the stations and train depots). See ART Regulation 70/2014. In 2014 the Italian National Competition Authority (AGCM) accepted the incumbent’s commitments on alleged abuse of dominance infringements (namely margin squeeze, access only to secondary stations, and allocation of paths forcing empty runs to depots). See AGCM decision A443.
\\textsuperscript{179} In 2009, the regulator BNetzA rejected clauses in DB Netz AG’s network statement and the Federal Administrative Court upheld BnetzA’s decision finding that most of these were discriminatory. In October 2010, BNetzA asked DB Energie to open its energy network to third parties, against which DB Energie brought an appeal. The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf agreed with the opinion of the regulator and the energy network will need to be opened to other energy suppliers from 2012; this has now occurred. In February 2012, BNetzA required that DB Energie reduce the fee by 23% compared with its proposed amount. Complaints regarding ticket selling were made to the Swedish competition authority signalling that the main selling platform is the incumbent’s website which sets price and access conditions. However, the Swedish competition authority stated that the ticket platform was not an essential facility and thus refusal to supply access did not represent abusive conduct.
\\textsuperscript{180} Complaints from the OAO about discriminatory treatment by the incumbent were addressed by the sector regulator, Schienen-control, either by facilitating a negotiated agreement between the parties or via a formal decision. Some complaints were also brought before the Austrian Competition Court.
\\textsuperscript{181} The Czech Republic’s competition authority is currently investigating this allegation. 3.92 We also note that in a number of the case studies considered, competition takes place on dedicated high-speed networks with spare capacity. In contrast, open access competition in Great Britain is on conventional (albeit intercity) lines with limited capacity available to new entrants, which limits the scale of on-rail competition.\\textsuperscript{182}
\\textit{Passenger Service Contract scope, award and PSO definition}
3.93 Another relevant difference between Great Britain and the other European countries examined is the ratio between services included in PSCs and services not included in PSCs. This is particularly true for high-speed and long-distance services, while for the regional/suburban services it is more similar (see Figures 7 and 8 below). Moreover, in most of the European countries where open access competition has developed, there is a clear definition of PSO services and a clear separation between PSO and commercial services,\\textsuperscript{183} while franchise contracts in Great Britain generally include bundles of profitable and unprofitable services.\\textsuperscript{184}
\\textsuperscript{182} We note in Chapter 6 that there may be an opportunity for greater on-rail competition on high-speed services in Great Britain once HS2 is introduced.
\\textsuperscript{183} Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 states that PSCs should clearly define the PSOs with which the public service operator is to comply and the geographical areas concerned.
\\textsuperscript{184} Arriva told us that an increased clarity of the distinction between commercial and PSO market segments in Great Britain, with appropriate competition environments for each, would make the franchising process even more effective in delivering its aims. The process of clearly identifying the rail market segments or service elements which do require financial support would allow these to be identified and treated as PSOs, with greater on-rail competition focusing on commercial services. Furthermore, the system in Great Britain differs from many other European countries (with the exception of Sweden) in terms of the scope of the competition for the market. In Britain, PSO services are generally awarded by way of a competitive bidding process rather than direct awards, while the percentage of tendered PSOs is very low in Austria and the Czech Republic,\\textsuperscript{185} low and slowly increasing in Italy\\textsuperscript{186} and increasing to a greater degree during last few years in Germany (currently at about 60%).\\textsuperscript{187}
**Network investments and unprofitable service funding**
3.95 There are also different approaches to financing the network in Great Britain than in other European countries. As noted above, in Great Britain, PSOs and commercial services are bundled together in franchises, with profitable services, in effect, cross-subsidising unprofitable services. In other European countries, the non-PSO routes are often separately defined. In addition, as set out in Chapter 2, in Great Britain, a greater proportion of revenue is derived from passengers than from general taxation. This is reflected in higher average passenger fares (Figure 9) and lower average public subsidies (Figure 10) in the UK relative to many other European countries.
**Figure 9: Average passenger fare (euro cents per passenger km) on all routes (2013)**
Source: IRG-Rail Annual Market Monitoring Report 2015.
\\textsuperscript{185} The Czech Republic has planned a number of PSO tenders to commence by late 2015/early 2016.
\\textsuperscript{186} In Italy, long-distance PSO services are allocated to the publicly owned incumbent by direct award, while at regional level, according to Regulation 1370/2007, it is possible (but not compulsory) to tender out regional PSOs. A number of legislative amendments and judicial decisions in the last few years created a high level of uncertainty in this regard.
\\textsuperscript{187} In Germany, PSOs are defined only on regional/suburban services, while long-distance services are operated on a purely commercial basis. The incremental benefits of on-rail competition
3.96 The DfT noted in its consultation response that where competition in the market has been introduced in other EU countries, this has tended to be the first introduction of any form of competition to the relevant network (or part thereof), whereas in Great Britain, there is already strong competition ‘for’ the market.
3.97 In this regard, we note that in Sweden, which was the first country in Europe to introduce vertical separation, most services included in PSCs are awarded through a competitive tender, as in Great Britain.\\textsuperscript{188} We also note that in a number of European countries in which on-rail competition has taken place for some years, the entry of additional operators (such as in Sweden and the Czech Republic) has still led to incremental benefits for passengers.
3.98 It is also relevant to note that in countries in which on-rail competition represented the first significant intra-mode competition faced by train operators, the resulting passenger benefits were often achieved in the absence of a level playing field given the presence of vertically integrated incumbents. In contrast, Great Britain’s vertically separated rail sector offers a level playing field for in-market competition between train operators. Therefore, although the introduction of competition to the rail sector for the first time in countries such as Austria and Italy might have delivered greater incremental benefits
\\textsuperscript{188} The main difference in the competitive tender of PSCs in Sweden as compared with Great Britain is that, in Great Britain, such contracts include a larger element of commercial services. than the expansion of on-rail competition in an environment of strong competition ‘for’ the market, the benefits achieved in these countries to date may be lower than the benefits that could be achievable through greater on-rail competition in Great Britain.
**A trend towards greater rail competition in European countries**
3.99 The trend towards greater competition in the rail sector is continuing, with a number of other European countries planning to open their services to competition. This trend is expected to continue as the market pillar of the EU’s Fourth Railway Package is enacted.
**France and Belgium**
3.100 In France, Thello (a joint venture of Veolia Transdev and Trenitalia) began operating overnight services between Paris and Venice in 2011. The service was the first open access operation in France. In December 2014, Thello launched open access services between Marseille and Milan, following approval by the French rail regulator, competing with SNCF on certain flows.
3.101 In October 2015, Trenitalia announced that it was holding preliminary discussions with its suppliers and relevant regulatory bodies regarding the possible launch of an open access high-speed service between Paris and Brussels in direct competition with the Thalys service. If taken forward, this would result in significant head-to-head competition on one of Europe’s most important routes.
**Finland**
3.102 In Finland, the Transport Minister announced in October 2015 that work to open up the rail sector to competition would commence, with a report aiming to identify the possible options for competition planned for publication in spring 2016. The incumbent state operator, VR, currently has an exclusive agreement which runs until 2024. However, the Transport Ministry has raised concerns about the cost-effectiveness and quality of this arrangement, which it is now considering terminating early. The Finnish domestic rail freight market was opened to competition in 2007.
______________________________________________________________________
189 Thalys is a high-speed service provided jointly by the Belgian, French, Dutch and German railways. Germany
3.103 In Germany, a new OAO, Locomore, is planning to operate open access services between Stuttgart and Berlin from September 2016.(^{190}) The current OAO, HKX, expanded its network in December 2015, when it extended its Hamburg to Cologne services to Bonn, Frankfurt and Koblenz. In July 2015, the German Monopolies Commission published a special report on competition in the rail sector(^{191}) concluding that the majority of travellers would benefit from functioning competition and urged policymakers to be more active in advancing competition in the sector.
Spain
3.104 In Spain, on-rail competition is being introduced on long-distance high-speed services. Legislation has now been passed that will lead to the gradual introduction of duopolies on high-speed routes, on which the incumbent RENFE is currently the only operator. The first route to be opened to competition will be that from Madrid to Valencia and Alicante. A tender process has been designed to select an operator to compete with RENFE for a seven-year period, after which full on-rail competition may be introduced. The tender is expected to take place in 2016.
3.105 We were told that the rationale for introducing duopoly competition is to increase efficiency, to facilitate a more dynamic industry and to increase the volume of passengers on the new high-speed network on which there is currently spare capacity.(^{192}) Duopoly competition was chosen as the mechanism by which to introduce competition in order to offer some protection to the incumbent for a transitory period while it adapts to competition. The asymmetry between the positions of the incumbent and new entrant is considered sufficient to reduce the risk of collusion.
3.106 We note that this has some analogies with our proposed ‘Option 2’ for introducing greater on-rail competition, which is discussed in Chapter 6.
International
3.107 Eurostar services are expected to face competition from Deutsche Bahn from 2017.(^{193})
______________________________________________________________________
(^{190}) Locomore’s website.
(^{191}) Monopolkommission (22 July 2015), Special Report on competition on German railway markets.
(^{192}) Response by REGUTRAIN at UNED University (Madrid) to CMA consultation.
(^{193}) Deutsche Bahn was granted an operating licence to run services in competition with Eurostar in 2013, but the operation of the new services was delayed. Competition in other transport markets
The Great Britain rail freight sector
3.108 As set out in Chapter 2, freight train services in Great Britain operate on an entirely open access basis, ie there is full competition ‘in’ the market, rather than ‘for’ the market. There are currently seven separate rail freight operators in Great Britain. Services are not specified by government and freight operators are not subsidised, other than indirectly through lower track access charges and taxpayer funded enhancements.(^{194})
3.109 In common with OAOs, freight operators pay variable charges, but not FTAC. The McNulty Report observed that ‘by paying its wear and tear costs, rail freight ensures that the network provider is no worse off from the existence of freight than from its absence’.(^{195}) However, the fixed costs of the network are still essentially paid for by taxpayers (through the network grant) and passengers (through franchised TOCs’ FTAC payments) rather than by freight operators.(^{196}) In addition, for the purpose of recovering freight avoidable costs(^{197}) (not recovered by other charges) and fixed costs of freight-only lines, certain segments of the rail freight industry pay the freight-specific charge (FSC) and freight-only line (FOL) charge.(^{198})
Competition between freight operators
3.110 The rail freight sector is characterised by high levels of competition between freight operating companies (but also between rail freight and road haulage). Since on-rail competition was introduced at privatisation, the industry has achieved growth of over 70% with the revenue of rail freight operators increasing by 44%.(^{199})
3.111 The increase in rail’s share of land freight, from about 8% in 1995 to 11% in 2013 was achieved against the backdrop of decline in heavy industry(^{200}) and ongoing competition from road freight. In contrast, the nationalised French
(^{194}) ORR (January 2013), Conclusions on variable usage charge and freight specific charge, p16.
(^{195}) DfT (May 2011), Realising the Potential of GB Rail Report of the Rail Value for Money Study, p226 (detailed report).
(^{196}) The current freight access charges regime also aims to internalise the positive environmental effects that rail freight generates by reducing road congestion.
(^{197}) The network costs that would be avoided by no longer allowing freight operators to use the network.
(^{198}) In CP5, these charges were levied only on Electrical Supply Industry coal, spent nuclear fuel and iron ore freight market segments. Freight operators transporting coal also pay the coal spillage charge.
(^{199}) Rail Delivery Group (14 May 2014), Keeping the lights on and the traffic moving: Sustaining the benefits of rail freight for the UK economy. We note that, prior to privatisation, rail freight was already facing strong competition from road freight. This suggests that on-rail competition was a key driving factor in the growth in rail freight achieved since privatisation.
(^{200}) Network Rail (October 2013), Long Term Planning Process: Freight Market Study, p20. and Spanish rail freight sectors have seen relative modal share decline since the late 1990s.\\textsuperscript{201}
3.112 Forecasts indicate that rail freight is expected to grow by a further 30% in the five years from 2014.\\textsuperscript{202} In the longer term, Network Rail forecasts that rail freight volumes could more than double over the next 30 years.\\textsuperscript{203}
3.113 The market shares of rail freight operators have changed significantly as a result of competition and new entry since privatisation. New entrants, such as GB Railfreight, have won market share from DB Schenker (formerly known as EWS), which has been active in Great Britain since privatisation. For example, in 2005–2006, DB Schenker had a market share of 67.8%, which fell to 46.7% by 2014–2015 primarily as a result of competition from other freight operators.\\textsuperscript{204}
3.114 The success of new entrants is often attributed to their focus on providing customer care at competitive prices. It was suggested to us that flexible working practices among drivers, including flexibility in rostering and drivers taking on additional duties (including dealing with customers), was a key part of the strategy to deliver an efficient service that is competitive on price.
\\textit{The efficiency of the rail freight sector}
3.115 The competitive environment has forced rail freight to find significant efficiencies over recent years and it has encouraged Network Rail to do the same. The DfT’s 2012 report entitled \\textit{Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First} highlights the fact that, unlike franchised TOCs, freight operators are subject to access charge variations at regulatory reviews. As a result, freight operators engaged considerably with ORR and Network Rail during periodic reviews in 2003 and 2008, pushing hard to challenge Network Rail’s costs.\\textsuperscript{205} The DfT’s report goes on to state that, in an industry that has had difficulty in reducing costs, freight has made good progress and that the government seeks to repeat this approach with similar success for passenger services.
3.116 The McNulty Report also considered the efficiency of the rail freight sector and highlighted the fact that, since 1997, rail freight traffic increased and unit costs fell as freight operating companies invested in new rolling stock and
\\textsuperscript{201} Rail Delivery Group, p12. \\textsuperscript{202} MDS Transmodal. \\textsuperscript{203} Rail Delivery Group, p8. \\textsuperscript{204} Market share calculated on the basis of gross tonne miles. See ORR and NRT Data Portal. \\textsuperscript{205} DfT (March 2012), \\textit{Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First}, Cm 8313, p50. entered different market segments.\\textsuperscript{206} Freight operators increased their load usage. For example, GB Railfreight increased its load usage from 667 million gross tonne miles during 2005–2006 to 3,142 million gross tonne miles by 2013–2014.\\textsuperscript{207}
3.117 According to the McNulty Report, staff productivity increased in rail freight while, as illustrated in Figure 11 below, in the rail passenger sector staff productivity has slightly decreased.\\textsuperscript{208} The McNulty Report notes that this may be due to the greater effect of competition on freight operating companies.
\\textbf{Figure 11: Staff productivity – freight and passenger operating companies 1998–2009}
\\begin{figure}[h] \\centering \\includegraphics[width=\\textwidth]{staff_productivity.png} \\caption{Indexed Staff Efficiency} \\end{figure}
Source: McNulty Report.
3.118 Lodge (2013) also highlights the efficiencies achieved by the rail freight sector, pointing to data indicating that freight operating companies reduced their unit costs by 35% between 1998–1999 and 2008–2009 as a result of competition, whereas in the rail passenger sector costs increased by 10% over the same period.\\textsuperscript{209} Rail freight traffic increased by 50% since privatisation with half the number of locomotives and two-thirds of the wagons used at the time moving a greater volume of goods.\\textsuperscript{210}
\\begin{flushright} \\textsuperscript{206} DfT (May 2011), \\textit{Realising the Potential of GB Rail Report of the Rail Value for Money Study}, p22. \\textsuperscript{207} Ibid. Gross Tonne Miles (GTM) is the mileage for each locomotive, wagon or coaching stock multiplied by the weight for each relevant vehicle. \\textsuperscript{208} Ibid. \\textsuperscript{209} Lodge, T (March 2013), \\textit{Rail’s second chance: Putting competition back on track}, Centre for Policy Studies, p36. \\textsuperscript{210} Ibid, pp37 & 38. \\end{flushright} 3.119 Freight operators have striven to minimise costs in order to ensure the competitive pricing of rail freight distribution compared with road, given that rail freight customers are price-sensitive and there are low switching costs between certain modes.\\textsuperscript{211}
3.120 Competition also appears to have spurred investment. Rail freight operators have continued to invest in the sector, investing £2 billion in new locomotives, wagons and other capital equipment since privatisation.\\textsuperscript{212} During CP4 (2009–2014), Network Rail and government made investments of over £500 million to improve freight capacity and performance.
\\textit{Conclusion}
3.121 The rail freight sector is an example of a fully open access rail environment. Competition ‘in’ the market developed strongly after privatisation, with new entrants successfully winning market share from incumbents. This competition appears to have generated benefits over and above those resulting from intense intermodal competition, including improved staff productivity and investment which enables prices to be kept down and service standards to improve.\\textsuperscript{213} In common with OAOs, freight operators determine their timetables, subject to securing access to the network, and are free from franchise specification.
3.122 Although we were told that freight is less subject to the constraints of timetabling than passenger services, it was also put to us that rail freight is subject to strict commercial and contractual requirements requiring the goods be delivered ‘just in time’. For example, supermarkets transport fresh and frozen goods by rail and, in the intermodal market segment (eg shipping containers), services run to a regular timetable.
3.123 While there are clearly differences between the structure of the freight and passenger rail sectors, the case study of the rail freight sector provides a valuable illustration of how competition ‘in’ the market can realise benefits in the rail sector.
\\textsuperscript{211} Ibid, p17. Road transports 89% of the goods moved; the remaining 11% are moved by rail. \\textsuperscript{212} Ibid, p21. \\textsuperscript{213} In addition Network Rail is subject to freight performance regulatory targets. Freight performance is measured by the Freight Delivery Metrics (FDM) which was introduced for CP5, replacing the Freight Performance Measure. FDM records the percentage of trains arriving at their destination within 15 minutes of their scheduled arrival time and only covers delays caused by Network Rail. See ORR (November 2015), \\textit{Passenger & Freight Rail Performance: Quality and Methodology Report}. The experience of EU airline deregulation
3.124 The airline industry in Europe was deregulated in the 1990s. Before deregulation, airline competition in the EU primarily took place between legacy national carriers, such as British Airways, British Midland, Air France, Lufthansa and KLM. Coles (2004) found that deregulation led to a major reduction in fares as well as an increase in the number of routes and choice of carrier. Low-cost airlines emerged and, by 2003, they accounted for 24% of the UK international market and 32% of the domestic market, leading to an average reduction in fares of 75% and contributing to an increase of 78% in the number of flights. The emergence of low-cost airlines has led to many passengers travelling from their local airports, increasing the range of flights available from regional airports.
3.125 Low-cost airlines can sustain cheaper fares as their costs are lower than those of traditional airlines. Costs are minimised by paying staff lower wages, performing ticket sales and issuing boarding passes online, requiring passengers to pay separately for food and beverages and using secondary airports. In order to compete with low-cost airlines, traditional airlines have also cut costs by adopting some of these practices and this has led to a fall in average one-way fares paid by UK-based passengers for both business and leisure travel, as shown in Figure 12 below.
214 Coles, H (2004), Passenger Flights in Europe in Stephen Davies et al, The Benefits from Competition: some illustrative UK cases, DTI ECONOMICS PAPER NO. 9, London. 215 Ibid. 216 CAA (2006), No-frills carriers: Revolution or Evolution? A study by the Civil Aviation Authority, Chapter 1, p2. 217 Section 5.2.7 of the impact assessment commissioned by ORR sets out additional evidence of reductions in air fares in Europe following the emergence of low-cost airlines. 218 Ibid, Chapters 1 and 3. 219 Ibid, Chapter 4, p12. Conclusion
3.126 The experience of the airline industry in Europe illustrates that a greater degree of competition ‘in’ the market can lead to a reduction in costs and lower fares, while also leading to improved services, the development of innovative business models and growth in the market overall.\\textsuperscript{220,221}
Dynamic competition: the Gatwick Airport example
3.127 Across numerous industries exposed to a significant increase in competitive pressures, the benefits of competition in terms of innovation, service quality improvements and lower prices have materialised over a number of years as incumbents and new entrants compete to win customers.\\textsuperscript{222} The benefits of
\\textsuperscript{220} The DfT noted that the most significant differences between the rail and aviation sectors in this context is the absence of any substantial public subsidy to the aviation sector and the lower fixed cost base in the aviation sector. We note, however, that the focus of our report is on the potential for greater on-rail competition in the commercial part of the rail sector. Moreover, we note that the airline industry as a whole has significant fixed costs, not only in relation to airline fleets, but also in relation to investment in runways and terminals.
\\textsuperscript{221} Arriva noted in its consultation response that the success of the deregulation of the air industry led to lower fares and a greater choice of carriers and routes and that the opportunity should be taken to explore whether similar benefits could be achieved in the rail industry.
\\textsuperscript{222} The impact assessment commissioned by ORR also cites the entry of Virgin Media to the UK telecoms sector as an example of competition driving innovation. Virgin Media offered faster broadband and BT responded by increasing its own broadband speed. this dynamic competition are difficult to forecast in advance of market opening and are generated by firms adopting new strategies in order to win market share, with competitors responding by improving their offering.
3.128 A further example of dynamic competition being introduced in a transport market is the introduction of competition between London’s Gatwick and Heathrow airports following the break-up of BAA. The key developments are summarised below.
3.129 Gatwick Airport was owned by BAA until its divestiture was ordered by the Competition Commission in March 2009 following a market investigation into the supply of airport services by BAA in the UK. At the time, BAA also owned Heathrow, Stansted and some other UK airports. Gatwick Airport was acquired in 2009 by Global Infrastructure Partners. The sale of Gatwick Airport was part of a package of remedies devised to address the adverse effects on competition found by the Competition Commission to arise from BAA’s common ownership of airports in the South East of England and lowland Scotland. The CMA is currently evaluating the impact of the Competition Commission’s remedies arising from the 2009 BAA airports market investigation and the evidence presented here was gathered prior to the evaluation.
3.130 Following its sale to Global Infrastructure Partners, Gatwick Airport developed its offering and there is also evidence that Heathrow Airport was incentivised to improve its own offering:
- **New routes and customers** – in targeting Heathrow Airport’s full-service long-haul airlines, Global Infrastructure Partners focused on developing its performance, capacity utilisation and facilities to accommodate new aircraft types such as the A380. Gatwick Airport developed new international routes and attracted new carriers.
- **New transfer service** – in order to assist airlines to establish new long-haul services from Gatwick Airport, a new commercial strategy was devised which included developing a transfer service called ‘Gatwick
______________________________________________________________________
223 The British Airports Authority (BAA) was established by the Airports Authority Act 1965 but, as part of the government’s privatisation plans, it was dissolved and its property, rights and liabilities transferred to BAA under the Airports Act 1986. Following incorporation in 1985 and flotation in 1987, BAA was acquired by the Spanish company, Ferrovial, in 2006.
224 The OFT made a market investigation reference in this case to the Competition Commission in March 2007 under section 131 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
225 CMA (November 2015), BAA airports - evaluation of the Competition Commission’s 2009 market investigation remedies. Terms of reference.
226 We note that prior to the break-up of BAA, Heathrow and Gatwick airports faced some degree of competitive constraint from other airports in Great Britain and, for transfer passengers, from airports elsewhere in Europe (such as Paris Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol and Frankfurt). These competitive pressures are still in place. Connect’ in order to allow passengers to transfer between flights more easily.
- **Improved resilience** – Global Infrastructure Partners also invested in facilities to minimise closure time following natural events.
- **Improved services and new innovations** – other benefits to service quality deriving from greater competition include Gatwick Airport’s introduction of new services for passengers with reduced mobility, improved security and search procedures, a premium area security lane, an airport welcome service and a new commercial retail strategy to attract high-value customers from Heathrow Airport.
- **New infrastructure** – Gatwick Airport invested in infrastructure including the station, new terminal floors and toilets.
3.131 Heathrow’s service offering also developed following the break-up of BAA. Heathrow Airport invested a total of £5.9 billion to improve quality of passenger services, enhance resilience and provide additional capacity and improve overall airport efficiency.
3.132 Heathrow Airport’s passenger satisfaction continued to increase following the new investment (having started to rise following the opening of Terminal 5).
3.133 In addition to making new investments, Heathrow Airport adopted a new commercial strategy, which included improvements to:
- the cleanliness and security of the airport’s terminals;
- the departure lounge at Terminal 3 and improvements to the security screening process; and
- departure punctuality and baggage handling, in coordination with the airlines (see annex for chart of rates).
3.134 Finally, a new Terminal 2 opened at Heathrow Airport in 2014, replacing the old terminal. In addition to improving the quality of service, the new terminal enhanced connectivity by co-locating Star Alliance members that fly from Heathrow Airport. Although the new terminal was in the pipeline prior to the break-up of BAA, we note that competitive pressure may have enhanced its final product and service offering. Conclusion
3.135 The example of competition between London’s Gatwick and Heathrow airports demonstrates that innovation, service quality improvements and lower prices may materialise over a number of years when dynamic competition is significantly increased and incumbents and new entrants compete to win customers.
Deregulation of local bus services in Great Britain
3.136 In the 1980s, long-distance coach services in Great Britain and local bus services outside London were deregulated and offered largely on a commercial basis. As a result, there was a degree of competition ‘in’ the market where local bus services overlapped. Passengers benefited from improved services and lower fares on main routes but, in some cases, reduced frequencies, higher fares and a loss of services on the lower density routes. In London, bus services were also privatised through introducing competition ‘for’ the market with all routes being contracted out by means of competitive tendering.
3.137 In 2009, the OFT examined the local bus sector (excluding Northern Ireland and London) – ie the deregulated sector where there is competition ‘in’ the market. The study found some evidence that market liberalisation and competition led to lower average fares in the sector. However, the OFT identified a number of competition concerns and made a market investigation reference to the Competition Commission in January 2010.
3.138 The Competition Commission found that head-to-head competition in the supply of local bus services was uncommon and most local markets were highly concentrated. It found that sustained head-to-head competition where it exists could deliver significant benefits to customers, as a result of bus operators competing on the basis of service frequencies, in addition to fares and service quality.
227 However, outside of London, certain socially valuable services were tendered by the relevant local authorities and were, therefore, subsidised until the late 1990s when the majority of these services also became commercially operational. See MVA Consultancy (in association with Leeds University’s ITS), Assisting Decisions: Modelling the Impacts of Increased On-rail Competition through Open Access Operation, Report for ORR (22 July 2011), p2.4.
228 Competition Commission (December 2011), Local bus services market investigation, final report, paragraph 9.31.
229 Virgin/Stagecoach told us in its consultation response that under competition ‘in’ the market, the quality and reliability of bus services has improved, investment has continued, fares offer good value for money and customer satisfaction is high. The response also suggested that customers pay more for franchised services in London compared with non-franchised systems in the rest of England and that customers in London are less satisfied with services. 3.139 However, it also found that the process of competition could result in periods of intense short-lived rivalry, leading to the exit of one operator. The anticipation of costly rivalry was found to create a barrier to entry and expansion.\\textsuperscript{230} Along with other barriers to entry and expansion, this was found to reduce the competitive constraint from potential competition and new entry.
3.140 We also note that, in recent years, concerns have been identified regarding strategic behaviour by incumbent operators, including aggressive scheduling in response to new entry.\\textsuperscript{231}
3.141 However, ORR has previously observed that competition concerns identified in the local bus sector have limited application to the case of passenger rail where similar concerns relating to the impact of head-to-head competition on service frequency are unlikely to arise.\\textsuperscript{232} Track paths are allocated in advance and frequencies cannot be quickly adjusted. Moreover, service timings cannot be altered easily, making it difficult to run trains just ahead of competitors in order to win customers.\\textsuperscript{233} ‘Hit and run’ entry (ie where an undertaking enters a market temporarily and then exits when extra profits are exhausted) is also not possible in the rail sector given that the barriers to entry and exit are higher than those in the bus sector.
\\textit{Conclusion}
3.142 The local bus sector provides an example of the adoption of models of both competition ‘for’ and ‘in’ the market. The evidence regarding passenger benefits and efficiencies resulting from the two modes of competition is mixed. While in-market competition has led to some concerns regarding the behaviour of incumbent operators in certain areas of Great Britain, we do not consider that the issues that have arisen in the local bus sector are directly relevant to the long-distance intercity rail sector.\\textsuperscript{234}
\\textsuperscript{230} Ibid, paragraph 9.38(a). \\textsuperscript{231} CMA decision of 6 May 2014, \\textit{Completed acquisition by Arriva Passenger Services Limited of the remainder of the entire share capital of Centrebus Holdings Limited (ME/6226-13)}. \\textsuperscript{232} ORR (October 2011), \\textit{The potential for increased on-rail competition – a consultation document}, p23. \\textsuperscript{233} A small number of consultees suggested to us that the ORCATS revenue allocation system may incentivise operators to schedule their services slightly ahead of those of competitors in order to obtain the most revenue. However, we note that on long-distance intercity routes, a significant proportion of passengers book their tickets in advance, with operators often differentiating their services on price and quality. Moreover, neither OAOs nor franchised TOCs raised this as a concern. We also note that timetabling must be agreed through Part D of the Network Code, reducing the likelihood of suboptimal timetabling. \\textsuperscript{234} We consider issues including timetabling, financial viability and a level playing field in Chapter 5. Conclusion on the evidence of potential passenger benefits
3.143 This chapter demonstrates the benefits that greater on-rail competition can bring through on-rail competition examples as well as in other transport markets. The following key points emerge:
- On-rail competition in Great Britain from open access shows that OAOs, notwithstanding their current limited role:
- compete with franchised TOCs on price, frequently offering lower dedicated fares both for ‘walk-up’ and advance fares;
- have developed improvements to service levels and introduced innovations, including selling a wider range of tickets on-board, free wi-fi and new information systems (this is reflected in high passenger satisfaction); and
- have generated growth in the market for rail travel and delivered wider economic benefits.
- On-rail competition in Great Britain from overlapping and parallel franchises shows that:
- there are examples of on-rail competition between franchised TOCs leading to price competition, with other franchisees offering lower fares than the lead operator across a range of season tickets, ‘walk up’ fares and advance fares; and
- franchised TOCs are generally able to compete mainly on price given that service quality, timetables and innovation are determined through franchise specification. However, where franchise agreements are less specified (such as the Chiltern Railways franchise), there is evidence that on-rail competition between franchised TOCs has also led to improved service quality and innovation.
- On-rail competition in other European countries, including Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden shows that:
- on-rail competition has delivered significant benefits for passengers, including lower fares, increased service frequency and customer service innovations;
- the introduction of on-rail competition has taken place on some of the most geographically important routes in each country, indicating the trust placed in the ability of on-rail competition to deliver benefits that outweigh any risks;
– due to differences between the structure of the rail sector in Great Britain and many other European countries, we consider the evidence of on-rail competition in other European countries to be relevant and informative but not determinative; and
– we note that the trend towards introducing greater on-rail competition is continuing in Europe.
3.144 The following conclusions may be drawn from our assessment of the introduction of competition in other transport markets:
• In rail freight in Great Britain, – Competition ‘in’ the market developed strongly after privatisation, with new entrants successfully winning market share from incumbents. Benefits included improved staff productivity and investment which enables prices to be kept down and service standards to improve. – While there are clearly differences between the structure of the freight and passenger rail sectors, the case study of the rail freight sector provides a valuable illustration of how competition ‘in’ the market can realise benefits in the rail sector.
• The experience of the airline industry in Europe illustrates that a greater degree of competition ‘in’ the market can lead to a reduction in costs and lower fares, while also leading to improved services, the development of innovative business models and growth in the market overall.
• The example of competition between London’s Gatwick and Heathrow airports demonstrates that innovation, service quality improvements and lower prices may materialise over a number of years when dynamic competition is increased and incumbents and new entrants compete to win customers.
• In local bus services: – Sustained head-to-head competition where it exists has delivered significant benefits to customers, as a result of bus operators competing on the basis of service frequencies, in addition to fares and service quality. — However, it also found that the process of competition could result in periods of intense short-lived rivalry, leading to the exit of one operator.
— We do not consider that the issues in the local bus sector are directly relevant to the long-distance intercity rail sector.
3.145 Making due allowances for differences between transport sectors, we think that the evidence in this chapter taken together illustrates the significant benefits that could be obtained from greater on-rail competition in addition to the benefits delivered by competition ‘for’ the market. 4. Efficiency gains from greater on-rail competition
4.1 In addition to generating benefits for passengers, on-rail competition may also result in greater efficiency at both the train operator level and the ‘upstream’ network management/operation level. This chapter considers the evidence available regarding the potential for greater on-rail competition to lead to efficiency savings.
Efficiencies in train operations
Introduction
4.2 Competition is an important way to drive improvements in efficiency. If firms are competing to win or retain customers in a competitive environment, they typically have greater incentives to adapt their operations in order to minimise their costs, use resources where they are valued most and to innovate to find better ways of delivering services.(^{235})
4.3 We examine the extent to which these incentives would be likely to result from greater on-rail competition in Great Britain and the impact that this might have on the cost of train operations.
4.4 Open access operations in Great Britain provide an indication of the potential for on-rail competition to lead to efficiencies as OAOs are exposed to on-rail competition from incumbent franchised TOCs and are free from franchise specification.
4.5 There are number of specific aspects of OAOs in Great Britain that make them better able than franchised TOCs to operate efficiently:(^{236})
- OAOs operating in Great Britain are free from franchise specification and have greater flexibility to change their price and service offering as part of their strategy, whereas franchised TOCs are less able to control their costs as a result of their franchise agreements.
- OAOs can make their own staffing and procurement decisions.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{235}) These sources of efficiency are also described in the ORR’s 2011 report, *The potential for increased on-rail competition – a consultation document*. A distinction is made between productive, allocative and dynamic efficiencies.
(^{236}) ORR noted in its consultation response that OAOs bring potential benefits in terms of different business models, with the potential for greater cost reduction than can be achieved through franchising (where each franchise largely inherits the operational and cost structures of its predecessor). • Franchised TOCs may have less of an incentive to challenge certain costs (particularly staff costs) given the cost of potential disruption through industrial disputes, etc as compared with the benefit that would be accrued over the limited term of their franchise, and the effect that such disruption could have on a bid to renew the franchise.
• Franchise agreements that include revenue-sharing features such as cap and collar mechanisms (described in Chapter 2) or franchise operations that are run on the basis of management agreements typically result in even lower incentives to achieve efficiencies once the franchise is under way.
4.6 In addition to efficiency savings at the train operating level, we consider that train operators who are not indemnified against increases in track access charges (such as OAOs) are more likely to take a strong interest in Network Rail’s efficiency and to drive demands for:
• more efficient use of network capacity to accommodate new paths; and
• more efficient spending on the network.
Estimating efficiency
4.7 Efficiency is conventionally measured as units of input per unit of output, or through costs per unit of output. For example, a franchised TOC’s efficiency could be assessed by its cost to provide a passenger mile, or how many staff and how much rolling stock it requires to do so. Efficiency may also be measured in terms of train-hours (ie the hourly cost of operating services) to reflect time-driven costs such as staff costs and rolling stock leasing costs.
4.8 As set out in Chapter 2, there is some evidence to suggest that the passenger rail sector in Great Britain could still achieve greater efficiency. The McNulty Report commissioned by the DfT and ORR found an efficiency gap when comparing the system in Great Britain with four European comparator railways. It concluded that Great Britain’s passenger rail sector should aim to achieve a 30% reduction from the 2008–2009 level of industry costs by 2018–2019. Other studies, such as Smith, Nash and Wheat (2009) and
______________________________________________________________________
237 ORR, Rail Value for Money study. 238 Smith, A, Nash, C and Wheat, P (2009), ‘Passenger rail franchising in Britain: has it been a success?’, International Journal of Transport Economics 36(1), pp33–62. Smith and Wheat (2011)\\textsuperscript{239} find that, respectively, franchised TOC costs were the same in 2006 as in 1997, or had actually increased.\\textsuperscript{240}
4.9 In order to determine whether on-rail competition has the potential to generate efficiencies, the unit costs or productivity of sections of the rail network where there is on-rail competition could be compared to sections of the network where there is no competition (controlling for any differences in characteristics of the network which affect costs and which differ between these areas). As passenger railway operations involve multiple outputs and multiple inputs, these outputs and inputs would ideally be assessed together, and there are a number of sophisticated means to do this.\\textsuperscript{241} However, such methodologies require a large amount of data, including comprehensive data on franchised TOC and OAO outputs, inputs and costs at a greater degree of granularity than is currently readily available.
4.10 As an alternative, it is possible to examine the costs of OAOs, which face on-rail competition for the majority of their flows, relative to franchised TOCs, which face more limited on-rail competition (and which are unable to adjust much of their competitive offering due to franchise specification). It is important to consider whether comparisons of this nature are drawn on the basis of providing ‘like-for-like’ services. We consider that this is broadly the case in the examples we consider below, as the comparisons are drawn for the provision of intercity services.
4.11 A second approach would be to draw comparisons between passenger rail services and other sectors in Great Britain with in-market competition that have similar characteristics. A third approach would be to compare results in comparable markets which experienced changes in the degree of competition they faced. In respect of these latter two approaches, we focus on the rail freight and the airport sectors, which are discussed in Chapter 3 above.
\\textit{Efficiency of open access operators}
4.12 OAOs, which currently compete on the East Coast main line, face strong competition from franchised TOCs on the routes on which they operate. Previous work has found that OAOs may achieve significant efficiencies. In its 2011 consultation, MVA consultancy, on behalf of the ORR found it
\\textsuperscript{239} Smith, ASJ and Wheat, PE (February 2011), ‘Evaluating Alternative Policy Responses to Franchise Failure: Evidence From the Passenger Rail Sector in Britain,’ \\textit{Journal of Transport Economics and Policy}, published online (Fast Track Articles).
\\textsuperscript{240} DfT (May 2011), \\textit{Realising the Potential of GB Rail Report of the Rail Value for Money Study}, p20.
\\textsuperscript{241} A summary of the issues associated with assessing efficiency in the rail sector is presented in Nash, C and Smith, SJ (2014), \\textit{Rail Efficiency: Cost Research and Its Implications for Policy}, Paper for the International Energy Agency roundtable: Efficiency in Railway Operations and Infrastructure Management. appropriate to use an assumption that OAOs have costs which are 10 to 30% lower than franchised TOCs’ costs for a given density of operation.\\textsuperscript{242}
4.13 This figure was based on a study prepared by Leeds University’s Institute of Transport Studies and included in work conducted by the MVA consultancy for the 2011 ORR consultation. The Institute of Transport Studies generated its estimate based on a number of approaches including: econometric papers by Smith, Nash and Wheat (2009)\\textsuperscript{243} and Smith and Wheat (2011);\\textsuperscript{244} estimates of the efficiency gains experienced in Sweden and Germany since privatisation through successful competition for the market; and sense-checking against the savings achieved through bus and airline deregulation in the UK (which were considerably higher at 40 to 50%).
4.14 In this regard, we were informed by a transport company which operates both franchised and open access services that its unit costs in 2014 (per vehicle mile) were in the region of 10% lower for its open access operations than for its franchised operation with similar characteristics.
4.15 In assessing the efficiencies achieved by OAOs, it is important to note that the evidence relates only to the efficiencies delivered by OAOs in the current model of marginal open access operations. In some of the proposed options for reform set out in Chapter 6, OAOs would compete on key commercial routes (closer to the model adopted in other European countries with on-rail competition).
4.16 This may generate additional costs, but potentially much larger efficiencies as OAOs benefit from economies of scale and density and as greater dynamic competition between operators increases incentives on all operators to achieve efficiencies. Moreover, as noted in the impact assessment commissioned by ORR, the effect of cost reductions due to greater on-rail competition on particular routes may lead to impacts beyond the routes that are affected as the efficiency gains may be implemented across the entire operator’s business.
4.17 As well as these efficiencies and benefits, there are a number of potential risks, which we consider further in our assessment of options in Chapter 6.
\\textsuperscript{242} See ORR (October 2011), \\textit{The potential for increased on-rail competition – a consultation document.}
Economies of density are defined as the response of cost per train mile to an increase in train miles over track miles, ie how the cost of running additional services over an area of network where an operator already runs services changes. In the MVA report, Leeds University’s ITS consider this elasticity of density to be around 0.8.
\\textsuperscript{243} Smith, A, Nash, CA and Wheat, P, ‘Passenger rail franchising in Britain: has it been a success?’, \\textit{International Journal of Transport Economics}, Volume 36(1), 2009, pp33–62.
\\textsuperscript{244} Smith, ASJ and Wheat, PE (2011), ‘Evaluating Alternative Policy Responses to Franchise Failure: Evidence From the Passenger Rail Sector in Britain,’ \\textit{Journal of Transport Economics and Policy}, published online (Fast Track Articles). We also note that OAOs may face additional track access charges under a regime where they have a significantly expanded role on the network, although we consider charges to be a separate issue from operator efficiency as the level of charges paid are not under the operator’s control.\\textsuperscript{245}
\\textit{Econometric analysis by Rasmussen, Wheat and Smith}
4.18 The CMA commissioned Wheat and Smith (with Rasmussen) from Leeds University’s Institute of Transport Studies to undertake research comparing the costs of OAOs with franchised TOCs after controlling for a number of factors. The analysis is based on the model of Wheat and Smith (2015)\\textsuperscript{246} which is currently thought to be the most sophisticated modelling of the cost structure of train operators in Great Britain.
4.19 The study found that OAOs’ input prices are 29% lower than those of franchised TOCs operating intercity routes.\\textsuperscript{247}
4.20 In the next step, the study utilised an econometric model that makes allowances for differences between OAOs and franchised TOCs (including differential access charges, density, scale, heterogeneity and input prices). This analysis suggests that the efficiency advantages offered by OAOs, which are able to adopt a more efficient business model than franchised TOCs, more than offset any cost disadvantages from the limited scale and density of their current operations – although, as the study notes, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the precise magnitude of the efficiencies.
4.21 The analysis in the paper also suggests that expanding the role of OAOs has the potential to deliver greater efficiencies as operators would benefit from greater economies of scale and density, although the overall cost impact depends on the extent to which the incumbent loses economies of scale and density as OAOs gain market share, and is route-specific. The paper also acknowledges that the incentives that dynamic competition would create for operators to reduce costs may be expected to generate further efficiencies over and above those reflected in the model.
\\textsuperscript{245} We discuss this further in Chapter 6, below. \\textsuperscript{246} Wheat, P and Smith, A (2015), ‘Do the Usual Results of Railway Returns to Scale and Density Hold in the Case of Heterogeneity in Outputs?’, \\textit{Journal of Transport Economics and Policy}, Volume 49(1). \\textsuperscript{247} We note that the DfT’s response to our consultation suggested that a factor in explaining OAOs’ lower costs observed by the study may be the specific characteristics of individual operators or routes. For example, the DfT notes that current OAOs only run on the East Coast main line, which does not require the more costly tilting rolling stock needed on the West Coast main line. While we consider that this may be a useful caveat, we do not consider that it is likely to explain the full degree of difference found by Wheat and Smith. In particular, we note that the West Coast tilting rolling stock has been in service since 2003 and that conventional trains are used on each of the other routes considered in the study, some of which is older than the stock used by OAOs. 4.22 In this regard, the DfT told us in its consultation response that it would expect efficiencies associated with OAOs’ business models to decline as they grew larger and that, in its view, it was unlikely OAOs’ input prices would remain much lower than franchised TOCs’ costs if the former expanded their operations considerably.\\textsuperscript{248} While this cannot be ruled out, we note that OAOs could still remain smaller businesses than the larger TOCs in an environment of greater on-rail competition and might be dedicated to serving a particular route. OAOs would also remain free from franchise specification, allowing them to retain some of the fundamental principles of their alternative business models. As noted above, OAOs would also benefit from economies of scale and density as their operations grew. As such, we consider that there may still be scope for OAOs to generate efficiency benefits as they grow in scale. We also note that the impact assessment commissioned by ORR did not choose to model OAO efficiencies which declined with OAO size.\\textsuperscript{249}
**Sources of efficiency at open access operators**
4.23 We have further explored, through industry engagement and round tables, the efficiencies that OAOs have been able to achieve and how these have been attained.
**Staff costs**
4.24 Staff costs represent one of the industry’s most significant costs, accounting for 29% of TOC costs in 2013/14.\\textsuperscript{250} The franchising system has had limited success in controlling staff costs as is noted, for example, in the McNulty Report.\\textsuperscript{251} In the same publication, Leeds University’s Institute of Transport Studies is reported as having found that historical OAO staff costs were 6 to 18% lower than franchised TOC staff costs, while there is evidence that staff satisfaction levels may be higher in OAOs than in franchised TOCs.
4.25 This is widely considered to be because OAOs recruit their own staff upon entry to the market. By contrast, franchised TOCs inherit staff from their predecessor under TUPE arrangements on the same terms and conditions: the duration of the new franchise is then typically insufficient to risk harming industrial relations through introducing changes to pay and conditions.\\textsuperscript{252}
\\textsuperscript{248} Ibid \\textsuperscript{249} See impact assessment commissioned by ORR, section 5.3.1 for further details of assumptions used. \\textsuperscript{250} ORR (February 2015), *GB rail industry financial information 2013-14*. \\textsuperscript{251} DfT (May 2011), *Realising the Potential of GB Rail Report of the Rail Value for Money Study*. \\textsuperscript{252} We note that it is possible that if OAOs took a significantly greater role on the network, they could become subject to TUPE arrangements. This possibility is also considered in the impact assessment commissioned by ORR (see p36). 4.26 We were told by OAOs that they were able to achieve cost savings by allocating staff more efficiently, for example through flexible and efficient rostering of staff. A number of employees at OAOs also undertake multiple roles. For example, OAOs use on-board staff to despatch trains rather than paying station staff to undertake the task. We were also told that working practices at OAOs were more flexible than those under many historical agreements in the rail industry.
4.27 We have also seen evidence that the different terms and conditions under which staff at OAOs are employed has not led to lower staff satisfaction. On the contrary, we were told that staff at OAOs demonstrate higher levels of engagement with their employer than staff at franchised TOCs. A company operating both franchised and OAO services told us that the staff on its open access services had the highest employee engagement and staff satisfaction within its operating group, because of greater staff involvement in decision-making and strategy and a stronger relationship between company performance and pay.
Other sources of train operator efficiencies
4.28 OAOs told us that they are able to achieve a number of additional efficiencies over franchised TOCs:
- **Outsourcing** – one operator told us it had achieved efficiencies by outsourcing maintenance, retail and cleaning activities. Local procurement was identified as a source of cost savings in certain areas. OAOs told us that they benefited from sharing some of the services of larger owning groups, for example in terms of legal, property and safety advice.
- **In-house provision** – vertical separation in the rail industry in Great Britain means that OAOs can access stations and train depots on an equal basis with larger franchised TOCs. This is not to say OAOs are wholly reliant on buying in upstream services; they have told us they are free to undertake services themselves when they see inefficiencies. One operator told us that it prefers to uncouple and despatch its own trains at stations as it can do it faster than if it uses the services provided by the franchisee at the station. We have also been told that they have achieved efficiencies in terms of faster passenger embarkation and disembarkation at stations.(^{253})
(^{253}) If OAOs expanded significantly in scale, they may need to take on more fixed costs, such as depots. The magnitude of any such costs will depend on factors including the scale of the OAO, the route concerned and the potential for overheads to be shared with a parent company. • **Freedom from franchise specification** – we were told by OAOs that they have achieved a number of operational efficiencies. These include faster turnarounds of train units at stations, running services that are more closely tailored to demand and adjusting the rolling stock formation accordingly. OAOs are also free to adjust services to changing demand. A number of TOC owner groups also noted that prescriptive franchise arrangements and costs prevent them from achieving further efficiencies. The impact assessment commissioned by ORR also stated that there is no evidence to suggest that franchised TOCs would have the ability to reduce unit costs of staff given the constraints of a franchise agreement.
• **The franchise process** – OAOs avoid the cost of the franchise bidding process and the ongoing costs of running franchises such as contract management services required to demonstrate that franchised TOCs are appropriately fulfilling their franchise duties. This point is also made in the 2011 ORR consultation and associated MVA report.(^{254})
• **Ticket retailing** – OAOs may have a greater incentive to chase every pound of revenue compared with franchised TOCs whose franchise contracts contain revenue-sharing mechanisms. This has led to efficiencies in terms of ticketing and pricing innovations. Key factors include early introduction of yield management systems (where advance ticket prices change over time towards the point of departure, maximising revenue for the operator). We were told that one OAO implemented this system well before its franchised rival. We have also been told that OAOs more frequently sell tickets on board trains and have a greater incentive to prevent revenue leakage than some franchised TOCs (eg through fare evasion). These customer-facing innovations are aimed at attracting the maximum number of passengers to their services. Other pricing innovations have included loyalty schemes and carnet tickets, where passengers can buy journeys in bulk ‘books’, for example of 20 tickets, at a discounted price.
4.29 Moreover, as discussed above, OAOs may have the potential to achieve further efficiencies if they were permitted to expand their service offering – eg along the lines of some of the options considered in Chapter 6.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{254}) See ORR (October 2011), *The potential for increased on-rail competition – a consultation document*. Also, MVA Consultancy (in association with Leeds University’s ITS), Report for ORR (22 July 2011), *Assisting Decisions: Modelling the Impacts of Increased On-rail Competition through Open Access Operation*.
120 Upstream efficiencies
4.30 The network is currently owned, operated and managed by Network Rail. The operation of the network makes up 52% of total industry expenditure. Efficiency gains at this upstream level therefore have significant potential to reduce the cost of the network to both passengers and taxpayers.
4.31 We consider that on-rail competition has significant potential to enhance capacity allocation and to reduce upstream costs. First, there is potential for greater on-rail competition to increase the incentives for train operators to put pressure on Network Rail to use capacity more efficiently. Second, greater on-rail competition may incentivise train operators to encourage Network Rail to reduce costs where possible (in discussions we have had in the course of preparing this document, network costs were often cited as a major source of inefficiency within the current system).
4.32 The potential for greater on-rail competition to generate upstream efficiencies would be strengthened if the structure of charges within the industry were reformed so that access charges paid by train operators were truly cost-reflective, rather than covered partly through the current mixture of infrastructure funding (ie FTAC, variable charges and the network grant). The current structure does not incentivise franchised TOCs to encourage efficiency from Network Rail as they factor in the cost of access charges to their franchise premiums or subsidy requirements, and are indemnified in their franchise agreements from increases in access charges at ORR periodic reviews. Similarly, while OAOs are fully exposed to variable charges (that reflect their direct impact on the network), they do not face any fixed access charges and, therefore, are not exposed to charges relating to the cost of providing and expanding the network. In this regard, we note that ORR’s review of the structure of track access charges has identified improving cost reflectivity and supporting efficient use and provision of network capacity as objectives.
Evidence from open access operators and competing franchisees
4.33 There is evidence to suggest that new entrants and competing franchised TOCs have incentives to put pressure on Network Rail to use capacity more efficiently (ie to accommodate new entry and to control costs).
4.34 For example, as highlighted in Chapter 3, in response to competition from Virgin Trains on the West Coast main line and from the parallel Chiltern
______________________________________________________________________
255 ORR (2012), Costs and Revenues of UK Passenger Train Operators. Railways franchise, London Midland found that it was possible to operate two services in a single train path, allowing an additional service to be added into each off-peak hour in 2012 and two additional morning peak services and five evening peak services to be added in December 2014. This example is discussed further in paragraphs 5.54 to 5.56.
4.35 In addition, we were told that when Grand Central launched its services from London to York, the additional capacity required by the incumbent franchised TOC to run services from London to York was identified by Network Rail partly as a result of the capacity questions raised by Grand Central in its open access application.
4.36 There are also examples of OAOs encouraging Network Rail to undertake projects to increase network capacity. First Hull Trains persuaded the DfT to back its plans to electrify the line between Selby and Hull, securing £3.3 million in public funds to support the scheme which is predominantly privately financed. The scheme will allow for the introduction of new electric trains which would reduce journey times. Once completed it is expected that Network Rail would take over maintenance with the special purpose company that funded and delivered the upgrade being paid an access fee by First Hull Trains and the other operators on the route to recoup its investment.
4.37 In a report published in March 2015 by the Electrification Task Force, which was established by the Secretary of State for Transport to advise him on the next steps for electrification in the North of England, the project to electrify the line between Selby and Hull was identified as one of the government’s priorities, which would lead to the provision of faster rail services, while also alleviating problems of overcrowding on routes. The Secretary of State for Transport has indicated that ‘Network Rail will take the task force’s findings into account as it develops its nationwide plan to improve the nation’s railways’.
4.38 The potential for on-rail competition to drive private sector investment in the network is considered further in Chapter 5.
Evidence from the rail freight sector
4.39 As noted by the DfT in its 2012 report entitled Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First, the competitive environment has also generated significant efficiencies in the rail freight sector over recent years, and this has
______________________________________________________________________
256 ‘Privately-funded Selby to Hull electrification by the end of CP6’, Rail Technology Magazine (19 March 2015). 257 DfT news story (5 March 2015): Transport Secretary in Sheffield to receive northern electrification report. encouraged Network Rail to achieve efficiencies. Specifically, freight operators which, unlike franchised TOCs, are subject to access charge variations and regulatory reviews, have engaged extensively with ORR and Network Rail during periodic reviews in 2003 and 2008 (to a greater degree than franchised TOCs), in order to challenge Network Rail’s costs.
4.40 We also set out below examples from other industries which help illustrate the point that competition can generate efficiencies at the upstream level of a value chain.
**Capacity expansion at Heathrow Airport**
4.41 NATS is the provider of air navigation and traffic control services in the UK. In 2012, NATS was successful in London’s Heathrow Airport tender process to develop a system to address the short- and long-term capacity and operational constraints at the airport.
4.42 Heathrow Airport faces competition from other airports, including Gatwick Airport and European airports such as Frankfurt, Amsterdam Schiphol and Paris Charles de Gaulle. It is therefore incentivised to create additional capacity in order to satisfy airline demand. The airlines themselves compete to attract passengers and require additional capacity in order to satisfy demand, expand their businesses and increase the reliability of their services. At the same time, NATS is a commercial business which is paid partly upon the number of movements that it facilitates into and out of Heathrow Airport.
4.43 This competitive environment led to an alignment of incentives between the airlines, the airport and NATS, which encouraged collaboration between the various stakeholders in order to address the capacity and operational constraints at Heathrow Airport. The solution found involved using ‘big data’ to provide decision support to air traffic controllers in order to enable more dynamic management of the network to improve capacity.
4.44 As in the rail industry, capacity constraints mean that demand for services can exceed available capacity on parts of the network. Moreover, both the aviation and rail sectors have access to rich data which can be used to model passenger demand. The example illustrates that cooperation by a downstream transport service provider and an upstream infrastructure provider, both with
______________________________________________________________________
258 DfT (March 2012), *Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First*, Cm 8313, p50. 259 ORR/CT/14-63, *Incentivising better capacity management on GB rail: Case study evidence from other industries*, Credo, March 2015. an incentive to increase capacity, was able to find an innovative solution to improve capacity.
**Airport management**
4.45 Another interesting example from the air transport services sector concerns the ‘upstream’ pressure and positive impact that airline deregulation has had on the management of airports.
4.46 The air transport regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has described the ‘virtuous circle’ generated by greater competition between airlines (and low-cost airlines in particular) seeking to exploit new business opportunities (see Figure 13 below). In this context, airports have moved from a ‘passive role’ to a more commercially oriented approach in the management of their operations.(^{260})
**Figure 13: Airport-airline interaction – post-liberalisation of EU aviation market**
!\[Diagram showing the virtuous circle generated by greater competition between airlines and the impact on airports.\](source: CAA study on No-Frills Carriers (CAP 770)).
4.47 In response to airline deregulation, airports began to change the way they viewed their operations. Although this may have also been due to a move from the public to private sector, and in part due to the break-up of BAA (described in more detail in Chapter 3), even where still publicly owned, airports started to reduce costs, price more competitively and seek out new air services.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{260}) CAA (2006), *No-frills carriers: Revolution or Evolution? A study by the Civil Aviation Authority*, Chapter 3, pp4–6. Scottish water sector
4.48 Another example of competitive downstream market participants encouraging efficiencies in upstream markets comes from the experience of the introduction of competition into the non-household water and wastewater market in Scotland in 2008. The reforms saw the separation of the previous incumbent’s ‘upstream’ water supply and wastewater treatment wholesale arm from its ‘downstream' arm, and the opening of the retail market to competition.
4.49 The Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) in its 2011 analysis with the consultancy Oxera, assumed that vertical separation and retail competition in the downstream market would lead to efficiencies of at least 0.05% per year, giving a total NPV of savings of £110 million per year. We understand the savings were realised and delivered a year ahead of schedule.
4.50 WICS considered this efficiency to have been generated as a result of the retailers taking up the role of ‘customer champion’, and putting pressure on the upstream operator to deliver services and investments tailored to the preferences of their own customers, namely downstream consumers. In the rail context, this would equate to train operators in an environment of on-rail competition putting pressure on Network Rail to minimise costs and to improve service quality in terms of reliability and punctuality, and to develop the network better in the interests of passengers.
4.51 Although it is difficult to identify the precise effect the introduction of retail competition has had, Scottish Water has achieved remarkable gains in efficiency in recent years. WICS told us it considers that the introduction of retail competition has played a significant part in this.
Efficiency gains in the impact assessment
4.52 The impact assessment commissioned by ORR reviewed evidence regarding the potential for on-rail competition to generate efficiencies, including from the Great Britain rail sector, examples of European on-rail competition, the UK bus and coach travel market, airlines’ buyer power with respect to airports and the entry of low-cost carriers in the air travel market.
4.53 In its modelling, the impact assessment made a number of assumptions regarding efficiencies.
4.54 In relation to staff costs, the impact assessment cited the McNulty Report and Leeds Institute of Transport Studies estimates, as well as estimates from
______________________________________________________________________
261 Oxera (May 2011), Water retail market savings: the experience in Scotland. Smith and Wheat (2015). The authors concluded it was appropriate to assume reductions in staff costs for OAOs of 5 to 15% relative to the ‘do nothing’ counterfactual.\\textsuperscript{262}
4.55 In relation to rolling stock costs, the impact assessment assumed a range of possible efficiencies of between 0 and 10% savings, again citing evidence from Smith and Wheat (2015).
4.56 The impact assessment also included an ‘own costs efficiency’ for OAOs of between 10 to 30% savings per train km, based on estimates of ‘open access operator business model effects’ in Smith and Wheat (2015), and a 20 to 30% range used by MVA in its 2011 report.
4.57 In addition, the impact assessment assumes an own cost efficiency of 0 to 10% for franchised TOCs competing against an OAO, and an own cost efficiency of 0 to 5% for franchised TOCs when competing against another franchisee, based on economic theory and evidence from other transport sectors such as the bus market.\\textsuperscript{263}
4.58 In all the scenarios modelled in the impact assessment, economies of density, which imply reduced efficiency when services are divided up between operators, are assumed in the range of 0.95 to 0.85.
4.59 The impact assessment applied these assumptions to scenarios in which service patterns were redesigned to model the indicative impact of the options for greater on-rail competition on operating costs.\\textsuperscript{264} Under Option 1, where OAOs expand, total industry costs fell under most of the scenarios.\\textsuperscript{265} The results for Options 2 and 3, in which greater on-rail competition between franchised TOCs is introduced, were more mixed.\\textsuperscript{266} These findings are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
\\textsuperscript{262} The counterfactual used in the impact assessment is described in more detail in Chapter 6. \\textsuperscript{263} These assumptions are detailed further in Chapter 5 of the impact assessment. \\textsuperscript{264} The estimates of how the efficiency assumptions affect operating costs in each option modelled are set out in section 8.3 of the impact assessment. \\textsuperscript{265} Total industry costs fell for the ‘central’ and ‘high’ scenarios on the East Coast, West Coast and Great Western main lines, and for the ‘low’ scenario on the East Coast main line. However, for the low scenario on the West Coast and Great Western main lines, costs rose. The ‘high’, ‘low’ and ‘central’ scenarios reflect the assumptions used, in this case with respect to cost efficiency gains resulting from competition. Further detail of the modelling and assumptions used is set out in Chapter 6 of this document. \\textsuperscript{266} For Option 2, total industry costs were higher in the low scenarios for the East Coast and West Coast main lines, higher in the central scenario for the East Coast main line and did not change on the West Coast main line under the central case scenario. Costs fell under the high scenarios for the East Coast and West Coast main lines. For Option 3, which was modelled only on the Great Western main line, total industry costs rose in the low scenario, fell marginally in the central scenario, and fell slightly in the high scenario. Conclusion
4.60 We consider that the evidence in this chapter suggests that greater on-rail competition has the potential to generate efficiency savings – particularly where operators are free from franchise specification.
4.61 Analysis by Rasmussen, Wheat and Smith (2015) found that OAO input costs were 29% lower than those of franchised TOCs operating intercity routes. This analysis also found further efficiency benefits for OAOs, although it noted there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the precise magnitude of the efficiencies and whether these would change if OAOs grew in scale.
4.62 There is also evidence to suggest that greater on-rail competition may reduce upstream costs in network and infrastructure provision and put pressure on Network Rail to use network capacity more efficiently. Evidence from other UK sectors such as the rail freight sector, capacity expansion at Heathrow Airport, airport management and the Scottish water sector also lead us to consider that increased on-rail competition may lead to increased upstream efficiencies. 5. The feasibility of greater on-rail competition: Obstacles and opportunities
Introduction
5.1 This chapter considers the potential technical, economic and policy obstacles to greater competition in the passenger rail market in Great Britain and describes possible ways to overcome these obstacles.
5.2 In particular, we consider issues that are relevant to assess in an environment of greater on-rail competition relating to:
- access to infrastructure, network capacity and rolling stock (paragraphs 5.4 to 5.68);
- funding the network and loss-making services, and the financial sustainability of operators (5.69 to 5.155); and
- an increase in the number of operators, which might lead to operational issues and to greater complexity of the system (5.158 to 5.2061).
5.3 We cross-refer to our analysis of these issues in discussing the design of options for greater on-rail competition in Chapter 6.
Access to infrastructure, network capacity and rolling stock
5.4 The structure of the value chain in the rail industry is complex. As described in Chapter 2, after the privatisation of British Rail, a model of vertical separation was chosen in Great Britain.267
5.5 Therefore, the market fundamentals required for greater on-rail competition in terms of a level playing field and non-discriminatory access arrangements are already in place in Great Britain.
5.6 Nevertheless, technical and economic constraints at the upstream network management level could result in obstacles to greater on-rail competition. In the following paragraphs we set out these potential obstacles, consider mitigating factors and discuss the regulatory and policy tools designed to overcome the obstacles.
______________________________________________________________________
267 See ‘New opportunities for the railways – Privatisation of British Rail’, presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Transport by Command of Her Majesty, July 1992. Access to network infrastructure and capacity scarcity
Non-discriminatory access and level playing field
5.7 A vertically integrated market structure may be a barrier to increasing downstream competition in the rail market (whether by way of competition ‘for’ or ‘in’ the market).(^{268}) As described in Chapter 3, vertical integration has impeded competition in a number of European countries.
5.8 In Great Britain, there is full vertical separation between Network Rail and the TOCs on one side and between TOCs and ROSCOs on the other. Although on-rail competition remains limited in scale, the unbundling of the rail network has created the prerequisite for a level playing field and the conditions for open downstream competition in the market.
5.9 Network Rail is not permitted to discriminate unduly between train operators and has to consider all applications for access rights in an even-handed way, ie franchised TOCs will not automatically be prioritised over non-franchised TOCs. We note that franchised TOCs are committed to run the services that they bid to operate as part of the competitive process during the life of a franchise, unless there is a significant change in circumstances, although additional franchised services may be specified.(^{269})
5.10 Network Rail’s Sale of Access Rights Panel oversees Network Rail’s approach to access applications, in particular considering carefully where selling rights to access network capacity may involve a trade-off with other Network Rail objectives (ie deliverability and performance of services and optimising network efficiency).
5.11 However, all new agreements to access Network Rail infrastructure and all amendments to existing agreements are subject to ORR approval and direction. Similarly, where Network Rail has multiple requests to access the same network capacity that cannot all be accommodated, ORR will determine who, if anyone, should be given access.
(^{268}) Although vertical separation may entail certain costs (eg as a result of higher transaction and coordination costs), it also creates the prerequisite for a ‘level playing field’ between TOCs and OAOs in both models of competition ‘for’ and ‘in’ the market by removing the ability or incentive for the network owner/manager to discriminate in favour of certain incumbent operators. As discussed in Chapter 4, this is likely to lead to efficiency gains more than offsetting the vertical separation costs.
(^{269}) For example, we were told that the June 2015 Train Service Requirement under the new East Coast main line franchise is for 199 weekday services at London King’s Cross, compared with 186 in March 2014 under the previous franchise. Moreover, the current services to Middlesbrough, Thornaby, Sunderland and Stirling were not included in the March 2014 Train Service Requirement. 5.12 In assessing an application for track access, ORR does not discriminate between operators. ORR has discretion as to the weight it places on each of its statutory duties according to the circumstances of a particular application.\\textsuperscript{270} Where the duties point in opposite directions, ORR seeks to balance the duties in order to reach a decision. As set out in Chapter 2, ORR balances its duties through the application of the NPA test, which has moderated the scale of open access operations.\\textsuperscript{271}
5.13 Moreover, as noted in Chapter 2, ORR is reviewing the structure of charges paid to Network Rail, in preparation for the next five-year control period for access charges (CP6) which starts in 2019. One objective of the review identified by ORR is to create a more level playing field supporting effective competition between different types of passenger operators, eg in terms of the risks and charges that franchised TOCs and OAOs face.\\textsuperscript{272}
5.14 In addition, we note that the system in Great Britain benefits from the impartiality obligations that feature in the TSA and the franchise agreements, which require incumbent operators to sell OAOs’ tickets on an impartial basis. We discuss the current arrangements that are in place that enable the allocation of revenue between operators in paragraph 5.204 below.
\\textit{Capacity scarcity and the potential for capacity expansion on the network}
5.15 Many parts of the rail network in Great Britain are characterised by physical and technical constraints which limit the network capacity available and which, in turn, might limit the opportunity for train operators to compete for passengers by running additional services. Indeed, as described in Chapter 3, capacity constraints in Great Britain are more severe that those in many
\\textsuperscript{270} In its 2015 decision on Alliance Rail’s application for the West Coast main line, ORR identified the following duties as particularly relevant to its assessment of track access applications: promote improvements in railway service performance; protect the interests of users of railway services; promote the use of the network for passengers and goods; promote competition for the benefit of rail users; have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State [for Transport] for the purposes of his functions in relation to railways and railway services; have regard to any general guidance given to ORR by the Secretary of State about railway services or other matters relating to railways; have regard to the interests in securing value for money of various stakeholders; and enable operators to plan their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance.
\\textsuperscript{271} As described in Chapter 6, in an environment of greater on-rail competition an alternative mechanism for allocating track access rights may need to be established in order to handle a potential increase in conflicting requests.
\\textsuperscript{272} In this regard, ORR consulted on whether OAOs should pay charges which are reflective of the fixed and variable costs of the infrastructure they use (while protecting the business viability of that market segment and long-term decisions already taken). Moreover, ORR advocated a review of the indemnity that franchisees enjoy against changes in track access charges during their franchises. (ORR acknowledged that the DfT is considering allowing some exposure of franchised operators to changes in track access charges, as set out in a letter from the DfT to ORR – \\textit{Improving financial incentives in the rail industry to deliver better outcomes for passengers, freight and taxpayers, December 2015}.) European countries, particularly on parts of the network where demand is high and entry might be commercially viable.\\textsuperscript{273}
5.16 A number of respondents to the consultation told us that capacity scarcity and network congestion currently (and in the near future) represent a barrier to greater on-rail competition.\\textsuperscript{274}
5.17 However, ORR pointed to the potential for network capacity to increase following technological enhancements. As further described in the Appendix, these technological enhancements include the introduction of on-board digital signalling as part of the move from conventional signalling to the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) electrification programmes\\textsuperscript{275} and investment in the rail network (eg the development of HS2 and upgrading of station facilities).\\textsuperscript{276}
\\textit{Shorter-term capacity enhancements}
5.18 In relation to capacity enhancements in the shorter term, the Secretary of State for Transport issued a statement on High Level Output Specification (HLOS) in 2012 setting out to ORR what should be achieved on the rail network in Great Britain during CP5 (see the Appendix). Moreover, the ORR’s CP5 periodic review (2014–2019) assessed options for Network Rail to improve the capability of the whole system by, for example, the use of new technology. As a result, Network Rail has planned short-term (ie by the end of CP5) enhancement works (budgeted at £6 billion) aimed at improving capacity and capability. The intention is to deliver 20% more morning peak seats into central London and 32% more peak seats into major regional cities.
5.19 ORR told us that there is potential for capacity increases in the shorter term, which may help to facilitate on-rail competition, as highlighted in ORR’s most recent long-term regulatory statement.\\textsuperscript{277} Examples cited included lengthening trains and innovation in rolling stock design to permit faster acceleration and shorter dwell times at stations.\\textsuperscript{278} We also note that electrification projects
\\textsuperscript{273} As described in paragraph 3.91, capacity constraints in other European countries are often less severe than in Great Britain, particularly on dedicated high-speed networks.
\\textsuperscript{274} Responses by First Group, Mid Wales Transport Partnership, Sherborne Transport Action Group, Transport for London, The Railways Consultancy Ltd, MDS Transmodal, Mid Wales Transportation Partnership, Chartered Institute of Logistic and Transport, SEStran, and a number of private individuals.
\\textsuperscript{275} These enhancements to the rail network are being funded and facilitated by Network Rail as part of its Digital Railway programme. On-board digital signalling will allow trains to run closer together and electrification will improve the acceleration of many trains.
\\textsuperscript{276} Stations and junctions are key bottlenecks in the network.
\\textsuperscript{277} ORR (July 2013), \\textit{Opportunities and challenges for the railway – the ORR’s long-term regulatory statement}.
\\textsuperscript{278} We note that faster acceleration has been achieved on London Midland trains through upgrades to existing rolling stock and will be enabled by electrification on the Great Western main line. The Thameslink upgrade project is an example of train lengthening and planning for shorter dwell times at stations. including those planned for the Great Western and Midland main lines may lead to some additional capacity in the shorter term through greater reliability and better rolling stock performance. ORR also told us that a strengthened system operator would be better incentivised to find new capacity on the existing network.
5.20 However, a number of respondents to the consultation, told us that sufficient capacity to sustain increased on-rail competition would be achieved only as a result of major investments in the network. The impact assessment commissioned by ORR concluded that, in the short and medium term, for the three key main line intercity routes, a significant increase in the scale of open access competition would be likely to require government to allocate some train paths that are currently being used by franchised TOCs to OAOs in the future.
Longer-term capacity enhancements – digital signalling and HS2
5.21 In the longer term, as described in the Appendix, the move from conventional signalling to on-board digital signalling as part of the ERTMS is expected to allow for more trains to be safely run over the same length of track. Network Rail told us that digital train control will enable an increase in capacity on the existing rail network by up to 40%. ORR stated in its consultation response that the move to digital signalling will increase capability of the network, albeit in ways that are difficult to predict.
5.22 Certain consultation respondents questioned the potential for on-board signalling to increase capacity, while others have indicated that capacity created by such technological developments will only ease current overcrowding and that sufficient capacity to sustain increased on-rail competition would be achieved only as a result of major investments in the network, such as HS2.
______________________________________________________________________
279 Responses by Transport for London and SEStran. 280 The Great Western main line electrification was considered likely to result in some increases in capacity although frequencies on the main long-distance route were expected to be similar to today. Improvements in capacity at Reading, in combination with Crossrail, may result in a significant increase in peak-time capacity into London, although capacity constraints at Paddington were considered to be such that the changes are unlikely to result in spare capacity for OAOs to compete directly with the Great Western franchise. In relation to the more attractive routes for OAOs, capacity on the East and West Coast main lines were considered to be constrained by capacity at London termini. 281 Network Rail, Discussion Pack: The Digital Railway Programme. 282 Submissions by ASLEF, MDS Transmodal Ltd, Powys County Council and the Mid-Wales Transportation Partnership. 283 Submissions by Professor Chris Nash and Sherborne Transport Action Group. 284 MDS Transmodal Ltd, Mid Wales Transportation Partnership, Professor Chris Nash, the Chartered Institute of Logistic and Transport, SEStran and some private individuals. 5.23 In particular, certain consultation respondents stated that, although line capacity could increase following the introduction of on-board signalling, this new technology is unlikely to alleviate problems of capacity at stations. FirstGroup told us that such technological innovations will undoubtedly have a positive impact, but it is unlikely that they will have a significant impact on major stations which are already operating at or near maximum capacity (eg London) or ‘bottlenecks’, where physical constraints (eg the number of platforms available or capacity at junctions) will remain.
5.24 On balance, there is evidence – including from ORR and Network Rail – to suggest that the introduction of on-board digital signalling as part of ERTMS will lead to greater capacity on parts of the network. However, we observe that the extent of capacity increases are difficult to predict at this stage and that a number of barriers, including capacity constraints at stations, may restrict the eventual capacity increase.
5.25 The other major longer-term change to capacity on the network is likely to arise from the construction of HS2, which is planned to create approximately 352 miles of new track and increase the number of passenger seats on trains from the North into London (and vice versa).
5.26 Phase 1 of HS2, which is expected to open in 2026, will see high-speed services run between London Euston and Birmingham, many of which will continue to other destinations using the ‘classic’ rail network. Phase 2 is planned to form a ‘Y’ shape from the West Midlands up towards Manchester and the North West with proposed stations at Manchester Airport and Manchester Piccadilly; and up towards Leeds and the North East with proposed stations in Leeds, the East Midlands and Sheffield Meadowhall. Further details of HS2 are set out in the Appendix.
5.27 A number of consultation respondents indicated that the opportunity for greater competition would only arise after completion of HS2, which is likely to significantly expand capacity on the ‘classic’ West Coast main line. In this
______________________________________________________________________
285 Submissions by The Railways Consultancy Ltd and the Passenger Transport Executive Group. 286 Consultation responses from the Passenger Transport Executive Group and Transport for Greater Manchester. 287 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport and MDS Transmodal Ltd suggested that HS2 has the potential to alleviate some capacity constraints, although other solutions should also be considered (eg longer trains and train sectioning). Professor Chris Nash stated that HS2 may reverse capacity constraints for limited parts of the network. Regional respondents in Wales (Powys County Council and Mid Wales Transportation Partnership) stated that they do not want any changes implemented until after HS2, while the Scottish Association for Public Transport expressed concern that future infrastructure investments like HS2 are likely to be compromised by increased on-rail competition. regard, ORR told us that HS2 will add a significant amount of new capacity, potentially freeing up capacity on the West Coast main line.
5.28 However, the DfT told us that although HS2 will release capacity on the ‘classic’ West Coast main line, some of this capacity will be specified to remove duplication between classic and HS2 services, to ensure that HS2 and classic rail services are fully integrated and to make use of the capacity freed up by the introduction of HS2 to improve the rail services to certain locations. These principles are considered by the DfT to be fundamental to the HS2 business case. However, we note that there are many options for future service specifications and that decisions on future services will not be taken until much nearer the time.
5.29 As considered in Chapter 6, the HS2 high-speed line may itself be a candidate for on-rail competition. We are, however, conscious of the need for policymakers to ensure that HS2 delivers the maximum economic and social benefits envisaged in its business case for its construction and that a variety of objectives must be balanced in making operational decisions regarding the nature of services that will run on HS2.
5.30 In summary, in the longer term, on-board digital signalling and HS2 are likely to create some additional capacity on the network, helping to create the flexibility to increase on-rail competition on parts of the network, should policymakers be minded to do so. ORR also told us that a reformed open access system would, alongside franchising, support the delivery of the government’s objective of making the best use of step changes in capability, such as HS2 and on-board signalling, by responding to changing circumstances and identifying opportunities for new services.
5.31 Moreover, as considered in the next section, we do not consider that the existence of spare capacity on the network is a strict prerequisite for greater on-rail competition.
**Competition under capacity constraints**
5.32 Although new capacity would create opportunities for greater on-rail competition in the future by allowing new entrants to run services in addition to those operated by incumbents today, we consider that on-rail competition could take place under today’s capacity constraints.
5.33 First, while barriers to capacity expansion may represent an obstacle to the expansion of on-rail competition from its current marginal scale through the
______________________________________________________________________
288 The economic case for HS2, PFM v4.3: Assumptions report, October 2013. introduction of new services in addition to those run by incumbents, greater on-rail competition could be introduced by reallocating existing capacity between operators. For example, the size of certain franchises could be reduced in order to allow greater open access operations or there could be two successful bidders for some franchises.
5.34 Second, even when there is no additional track capacity (ie in terms of train paths), there is still likely to be capacity available on trains, which will incentivise operators to compete to win additional passengers. We were told by a number of stakeholders that there is considerable spare capacity on many off-peak services on the long-distance intercity routes. We were also told that there may be spare capacity on certain peak-time services on intercity routes, as more price-sensitive passengers typically avoid travelling on these services.(^{289}) We also understand that even when capacity on services is limited on certain flows on a long-distance intercity route, spare capacity may still exist on a number of other flows on the route.
5.35 Third, even where certain train services are at full capacity, eg in peak services, this does not, in itself, imply that on-rail competition cannot be effective in a long-distance intercity environment. We note that:
(a) many long distance operators use yield management systems which (subject to restrictions from fare regulation) enable them to manage demand across services; and
(b) operators are still able to compete under capacity constraints by differentiating their services to attract passengers with different preferences and budget constraints (for example, we note that the open access applications by Alliance Rail and FirstGroup seek to compete with the incumbent in different ways).(^{290})
5.36 Finally, we note that there are also examples of on-rail competition leading to the identification of greater capacity on the network, suggesting that greater on-rail competition has the potential to incentivise the development of solutions to capacity scarcity.
(^{289}) In this regard we note that load factors increased in the European air transport sector following liberalisation and the introduction of new competition.
(^{290}) This is also illustrated by the example of extensive competition between airlines for services in and out of the London airports, even where capacity constraints exist. Incentives to maximise network capacity
Misalignment of incentives and Network Rail’s access rights policy
5.37 In addition to network enhancement works and investments, a number of ORR reports have noted that the capacity identification process undertaken by Network Rail could be improved in order to maximise and manage the network capacity more efficiently, allowing more services to operate on the existing network.(^{291})
5.38 We were told by a number of train operators and other stakeholders that there is currently little incentive for Network Rail to maximise capacity utilisation, with its primary focus being on operational performance. For example, in its final determination of Network Rail’s outputs and funding for 2014–2019,(^{292}) ORR noted Chiltern Railways’ view that Network Rail is ‘programmed’ to prioritise performance results over sale of capacity. Chiltern Railways also noted that there are many ways of creating additional capacity without embarking upon major schemes but that Network Rail is not currently incentivised to do this.
5.39 This alignment of incentives may be due to a number of reasons:
- Most variable charges are cost-oriented but cover only short-run marginal costs, so Network Rail has no financial incentive to sell more of its network capacity;(^{293}) moreover, fixed track access charges are not fully cost-reflective and are independent of the quantity of services provided.(^{294})
- Performance incentives and targets have been significant in Network Rail’s regulation, which have provided a disincentive for Network Rail to make additional capacity available because of the trade-off between punctuality/reliability and capacity maximisation.
- Lack of incentives could also result from (a) Network Rail’s ownership structure (ie it is a ‘for profit’ but not ‘for dividend’ company(^{295})); and (b) Network Rail’s incentive schemes applied to its senior management.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{291}) See, for example, ORR, Periodic Review 2013, ‘On-rail competition: Consultation on options for change in open access’, June 2013.
(^{292}) ORR (October 2013), Final determination of Network Rail’s outputs and funding for 2014-19.
(^{293}) In a commercial setting, Network Rail would charge prices which are set above its short-run costs so that it would profit by selling more of its network capacity.
(^{294}) Fixed charges cover Network Rail’s remaining costs after variable charges, other single till income and the network grant.
(^{295}) Network Rail can make a profit but has to reinvest it in the network. 5.40 In its system operation consultation document on making better use of the railway network, ORR identifies the current trade-offs between the level of capacity, performance and cost. ORR also highlights that while cost and performance are currently measured and regularly reported, this is not the case for the capacity of the system.
5.41 In order to take steps to improve the existing alignment of incentives, ORR undertook a recalibration of variable charges for CP5 resulting in:
- a substantial increase in the capacity charge paid by train companies to Network Rail, which now grows exponentially in congested areas and therefore encourages Network Rail to make further capacity available; and
- an enhanced volume incentive mechanism designed to encourage Network Rail to make commercially oriented trade-offs when deciding whether to meet unexpected demand.
5.42 In addition, ORR is considering further how to introduce more cost-reflective charging schemes in order to incentivise Network Rail to manage the network capacity, and to incentivise its customers to use that capacity, more efficiently.
5.43 In its response to our consultation Network Rail stated that we should be seeking ways to make best use of the available network capacity and to provide the best service to end users through on-rail competition. In this regard, Network Rail stated that capacity optimisation is one of the best ways to deliver value for money for funders and end users.
5.44 Network Rail considers that neither a purely market-based approach nor a completely planned system is likely to achieve this. In Network Rail’s view, the optimal solution would be a ‘reasonably’ planned system which still provides opportunities for operators to innovate. In an environment with greater on-rail
______________________________________________________________________
296 ORR (August 2015), System Operation: A consultation on making better use of the railway network. 297 The capacity charge recovers the additional Schedule 8 compensation from Network Rail to operators due to network performance issues resulting from increased traffic on the network. Franchised operators are largely protected from this increase under the terms of their franchise agreements. 298 The volume incentive mechanism consists of payments made to Network Rail in the event that, for example, passenger train miles exceed a predetermined baseline. From CP5 onwards, the volume incentive also includes a downside with symmetric payments made by Network Rail to the government if passenger train miles fall below the baseline. ORR introduced a payment floor of –£300 million and a ceiling of +£300 million in order to balance the risk of the incentive becoming inactive, against affordability concerns for both government and Network Rail. 299 Cost-reflective charges would allow Network Rail to levy higher charges on parts of the network where capacity is scarce. In its December 2015 structure of track access charges consultation, ORR stated that improving the cost-reflectivity of charges has the potential to improve outcomes by reducing costs and improving the use of the network. At this stage, ORR proposes to continue work with Network Rail to understand the drivers of costs that are fixed in the medium to long term and then to consider separately whether and how to pass any improved understanding of costs into charges. competition, the system operator role is seen by Network Rail as key to maximising capacity through timetabling and allocating train paths to operators in a non-discriminatory way.
5.45 Some stakeholders told us that inefficiencies in the optimisation of capacity have been a consequence of the lack of flexibility resulting from the detailed specification of franchise agreements and access rights. Access rights were originally prescriptive in nature in order to satisfy the concerns of train operators at the time of privatisation that protection was required against potential network degradation.
5.46 Network Rail observes that these original concerns have not been realised and supports a greater degree of flexibility in access rights as a way to achieve more efficient timetabling and, consequently, to free up additional capacity, recognising that different approaches may be appropriate for different parts of the network. ORR and the DfT are also supportive of the principle of more flexibility around the sale of access rights.
5.47 More flexible access rights may make it easier to optimise the use of network capacity by allowing Network Rail flexibility to optimise the timetable, particularly as the network becomes even more intensively used and infrastructure projects come to fruition. As highlighted below, this could also support greater flexibility in franchise specification. The counterargument is that new entrants require certainty regarding access rights and FirstGroup noted that this would be important in a framework of increased competition.
5.48 In September 2015, Network Rail published its sale of access rights policy, which sets out how Network Rail will deal with requests for the sale of access rights from those who seek to use the network. The new strategy follows extensive debate in the industry under the auspices of the Rail Delivery Group’s Contractual and Regulatory Reform Working Group.
5.49 In relation to passenger rail services, the policy states that where parts of the network are predominantly used by a single operator, Network Rail will usually only agree ‘quantum rights’ for that operator in order to provide maximum flexibility in the construction of timetables. Where parts of the network are predominantly used by more than one operator, Network Rail will consider agreeing additional specification, which may include journey time or interval protection, in order to provide greater certainty and avoid suboptimal timetable adjustments. We note that this approach balances certainty for operators with
______________________________________________________________________
300 Network Rail Access Rights Policy, September 2015. 301 Quantum rights cover passenger train slots, associated timing loads and calling patterns. flexibility and therefore has the potential to facilitate on-rail competition. The access rights policy will remain under review and will be updated, as necessary, to reflect wider industry developments and experience.\\textsuperscript{302}
5.50 In summary, the role of the system operator in identifying and allocating capacity is a key component in introducing greater on-rail competition. We welcome ORR’s system operation review and the development of an access rights policy that helps to facilitate on-rail competition in the future.
\\textit{Impact of on-rail competition on capacity identification and network enhancements}
5.51 On-rail competition can have, and has had, a positive impact on the capacity identification and maximisation process, because of the strong incentives of new entrants to identify additional capacity.
5.52 The open access applications proposed to Network Rail have often identified additional capacity in the network – allowing more services on the network – and led to efficient path allocation solutions. In general, one of the benefits of competition ‘in’ the market is that it provides incentives for the efficient use of available resources.
5.53 Competition between overlapping and parallel franchises has also provided incentives to innovate and invest in the network. For example, on the London–West Midlands route, Chiltern Railways undertook major upgrade work on the network in partnership with Network Rail, in response to faster and more frequent services launched by Virgin Trains.
5.54 As highlighted in paragraphs 3.47 and 4.34, competition from Virgin Trains on the West Coast main line and from the parallel Chiltern Railways franchise was one driver in London Midland investing in new capacity in order to grow its revenue and to limit the opportunity for scarce paths to be consumed by competitors (which would, in turn, limit its ability to expand in the future).\\textsuperscript{303} The timing of London Midland’s proposal to increase capacity coincided with the end of Virgin Trains’ moderation of competition clause in 2012 and was only made possible by the lifting of the restrictions.
5.55 London Midland minimised the requirement for new rolling stock by focusing on a modification to existing units. Services operating on key flows from Euston were accelerated from 100mph to 110mph through rolling stock modifications and a small procurement to fulfil the additional requirement at
\\textsuperscript{302} See Network Rail, Access Rights Policy, September 2015. \\textsuperscript{303} ORR/CT/14-63, \\textit{Incentivising better capacity management on GB rail: Case study evidence from other industries}, Credo, March 2015. peak times. London Midland’s project team found that this allowed it to operate two services in a single train path, as opposed to the original two. This allowed an additional service to be added into each off-peak hour in 2012 and two additional morning peak services and five evening peak services to be added from December 2014. This produced around 4,000 extra seats in the morning peak and around 8,000 in the evening peak.
5.56 In this example, competition was a driver for the capacity increase in two ways – the incentives from competition between train operators and, during the options evaluation process, competition to produce the best solution and be granted access rights.
5.57 However, as discussed in Chapter 2, under many of the current franchise agreements, franchised TOCs have limited incentives to maximise the use of capacity on routes where they operate. In particular, once a franchise agreement is under way, there may be limited incentives to increase the number of services. This disincentive is most likely where franchised TOCs have a cap and collar risk-sharing mechanism with the government or where the franchised TOC operates under a management contract with the government bearing full revenue risk (such as in the Thameslink, Southern & Great Northern franchise). Franchised TOCs that are exposed to the full revenue risk of the franchise (such as Chiltern Railways) and those with new risk-sharing mechanisms will have greater incentives to run more trains.304
5.58 We welcome the DfT’s reforms to the franchising system in order to develop franchised TOCs’ incentives to innovate responsively to passenger demand and to reform the mechanism for sharing risk between franchised TOCs and government. We note that additional flexibility is important in allowing franchised TOCs to respond to on-rail competition and, in turn, to allow the dynamic benefits of greater on-rail competition to be realised.
Access to rolling stock
Rolling stock scarcity
5.59 The ROSCOs own rolling stock and lease them to TOCs on a commercial basis. This upstream market was created in 1993 in order to promote competition and remove entry barriers.305
______________________________________________________________________
304 The Rail Delivery Group noted that, although cap and collar franchises are no longer let, operator margins are low with profit-sharing mechanisms cut in at low levels of turnover. 305 Due to the hefty investments required to manufacture a brand new piece of rolling stock, the access to these assets could in fact represent a considerable barrier to entry. This is particularly true when train companies 5.60 However, in 2009, the Competition Commission found that there was:
a restricted choice of rolling stock available to TOCs, arising partly from operational and technical restrictions on substitutability, but also because of direct or indirect specification of rolling stock in Invitations to Tender for franchises, the costs and risks involved in switching to alternative used or new stock, and the operation of the franchise system which reduces opportunities for competition.(^{306})
5.61 We understand that, currently, the availability and cost of rolling stock is still a concern and may be a barrier to entry. This seems to be a particular concern for certain rolling stock types(^{307}) and for OAOs, which have a shorter horizon and less certainty over the length of their track access rights.
5.62 However, in the near future, rolling stock is likely to become less scarce. As part of the InterCity Express Programme, new rolling stock (known as IEP units) will enter service on the East Coast main line from 2018 and on the Great Western main line from 2017. As a result, High Speed Trains (commonly known as ‘InterCity 125’ trains(^{308})) currently utilised on the Great Western route and Mk4 electric trains(^{309}) currently utilised on the East Coast main line will become available when new trains are introduced on these routes. If OAOs have an opportunity to access this rolling stock, this has the potential to improve competitive conditions for re-leased rolling stock, supplementing OAOs’ ability to procure new rolling stock.(^{310})
5.63 ORR noted in its consultation response that recent investment in rolling stock and electrification is likely to free up existing rolling stock, reducing this potential barrier to entry.
5.64 Furthermore, where operators have sufficiently long access rights, there is evidence to suggest that obtaining rolling stock is not a barrier to entry. This
______________________________________________________________________
(^{306}) Competition Commission (7 April 2009), *Rolling Stock Leasing market investigation, final report*.
(^{307}) For example, we have been told that there is a limited supply of Class 180 diesel multiple unit rolling stock currently used by Grand Central and First Hull Trains and that this constitutes a barrier to entry.
(^{308}) This is the brand name of British Rail’s high-speed train, built between 1975 and 1981.
(^{309}) Trains built between 1989 and 1992.
(^{310}) FirstGroup told us that rolling stock availability represents a constraint for introducing greater competition in the market, as the release of old stock might not be a viable option due to costs associated with extending their life cycle and bringing them up to the standards required for their continued operation. However, we note that Virgin/Stagecoach are proposing to use Mk4 intercity rolling stock in their application to run fast services from London to Edinburgh and that ScotRail is to start using High Speed Trains to improve services on longer-distance intercity routes, partly due to their popularity with passengers on the competing services operated by Virgin East Coast. has been the case in the international examples of on-rail competition that we considered in Chapter 3. In Great Britain, we also note that Alliance Rail is procuring new Pendolino units to operate its services from London to Blackpool under the Great North Western Railway brand.\\textsuperscript{311}
5.65 In relation to the potential impact on delivering government-led rolling stock renewals, such as IEP, where both franchised TOCs and OAOs are active on a route, the impact assessment commissioned by ORR also noted that the rolling stock market seemed to be reverting to operator – and ROSCO – led procurement, which is more compatible with a multi-operator railway. Moreover, we note that First Hull Trains, an OAO on the East Coast main line, has ordered five IEP units and will therefore operate the same rolling stock as the incumbent franchised TOC (which will continue to operate older Mk4 trains).
\\textit{Demand uncertainty}
5.66 Rolling stock lease costs represent one of the main cost drivers faced by train operators.\\textsuperscript{312} We therefore considered whether increased competition could lead to greater uncertainty in the demand for rolling stock, leading to a price increase.
5.67 However, in our view, if the overall effects of greater competition are considered, demand for rolling stock should not be negatively affected as a result of greater on-rail competition. As described in paragraph 5.85, on-rail competition is likely to lead to growth in passenger volumes. Therefore, despite potential shifts in franchised TOCs’ market shares, we consider there to be only a low risk that there will be a drop in demand for rolling stock. Moreover, in a more dynamic market for passenger services, the possibility of rolling stock ‘secondary trading’ taking place between operators could further insulate against any such perceived risk. This potential risk was not highlighted as a concern in any of the consultation responses received.
5.68 Furthermore, we note that increased on-rail competition could indirectly benefit the competitiveness of the rolling stock leasing market: (a) more commercially driven behaviours by train operators would support greater competition in the used/re-leased segment of the rolling stock market; (b) as seen from the recent open access applications on the East and West Coast main line services, OAOs are potential new entrants in the rolling stock market.
\\textsuperscript{311} Great North Western Railway has proposed new tilting trains, with similar traction characteristics to the rolling stock operated by the intercity incumbent on the West Coast main line.
\\textsuperscript{312} In 2013–2014, around 15 to 20% of all train services’ operating costs were driven by rolling stock leasing (ie £1.3 billion out of £8.9 billion – £6.5 billion excluding charges paid to Network Rail). (whereas franchised TOCs are not), and this could serve to discipline incumbent ROSCOs. Recent open access applications made by Alliance, Grand Central and East Coast Trains Limited for the East Coast and West Coast main lines were all predicated on ordering new rolling stock fleets.
Financial issues: funding the network and operators’ financial viability
Introduction: loss-making services and their funding mechanism
5.69 As set out in our discussion document, the rail sector is fundamental to the economy of Great Britain. This point was emphasised by the DfT, Transport Scotland, ORR and a range of respondents to the consultation, including several regional transport partnerships. In particular, a number of respondents highlighted the importance of providing services which meet social and economic needs, but which would not be commercially viable without a subsidy.
5.70 The unprofitable element of a train service operated on a route could concern:
- the entire route;
- specific stopping patterns, ie only certain stops on a route could be loss-making; or
- services operated at a particular time of day (for example, the first and last train services may be loss-making).
5.71 In order to fund unprofitable elements of services, a system of cross-subsidies has been put in place: loss-making and profitable services are often bundled together in a single franchise, so that the franchised TOC finances unprofitable services to some extent through cross-subsidy from its profitable services.
5.72 As described in Chapter 2, in 2013–2014 the government made an overall net contribution to franchised operators of £0.1 billion (as a result of £2.0 billion paid as subsidies and £1.9 billion received as premium payments). In addition,
______________________________________________________________________
313 See, for example, What is the contribution of rail to the UK economy? Oxera, prepared for the Rail Delivery Group (July 2014). 314 Most of these services are defined and specified by the government. As set out in Chapter 2, the government’s approach to service specification and procurement has evolved over the years. over the same period, the government contributed a total of £3.7 billion to the funding of the network in all franchise areas via the network grant.\\textsuperscript{315}
5.73 From an economic point of view, in order to identify and quantify loss-making services, it is necessary to consider the industry value chain as a whole. Therefore, in addition to the revenues and costs associated with running the trains, the relevant portion of expenditure and revenues associated with the management of the upstream assets, ie track, stations and other essential facilities, should be identified.
5.74 Figure 14 below provides a simplified description of the premiums paid (negative figures) or subsidies received (positive figures) by franchised TOCs (dark blue bars), as well as notional allocation of the government’s funding of the network infrastructure for each operator (light blue bars). The net government funding per operator is illustrated by combining these two components (red bars).\\textsuperscript{316}
\\textsuperscript{315} The network grant increased to £3.8 billion in 2014–2015. \\textsuperscript{316} The network grant has been allocated to each franchise area in proportion to the residual Network Rail income less expenditure calculated for each franchise. Figure 14: The contribution of government funding to Network Rail and train operators in 2013–2014 analysed by operator
Source: Analysis of data from ORR, GB rail industry financial information 2013–2014.
5.75 The figure shows that there are relatively few operators paying premiums to the government (negative dark blue bars). In absolute terms, as described above, these premiums initially offset the subsidies. However, taking into account the allocation of government infrastructure funding, there are only two franchised TOCs which receive no subsidy, ie East Coast and South West Trains (negative red bars). The impact of on-rail competition on government funds
How on-rail competition may threaten government funds
5.76 As set out above, the share of industry costs that is not met through passenger fares is financed through a mixture of direct government funding of infrastructure and cross-subsidisation between franchised TOCs through the franchise bidding process.
5.77 In the absence of suitable restructuring of the current charging arrangements, a consequence of greater on-rail competition could be to increase the level of government subsidy required. This section considers the degree to which this might happen and provides the context to our proposed approach to managing this risk as part of any implementation of greater on-rail competition.
5.78 Within the franchise bidding procedure, participants mainly compete for the market in terms of the level of subsidies (positive or negative) needed from the government to operate the rail services. An increased level of competition in the market is likely to reduce franchised TOCs’ overall revenues, because (a) consumers are partly transferred from the franchised operator to the competitor(s), and (b) prices decrease due to competition.(^{317})
5.79 Any significant reduction in premium payments could threaten:
(a) the funding of network infrastructure investment (ie new entrants ‘free-riding’ on incumbents’ investments – which could, in turn, undermine the business case for the government to make new investments(^{318})); and
(b) the funding of services deemed socially valuable even if uncommercial (ie loss-making or of limited profitability), such as PSO operations (ie ‘cream-skimming’).
5.80 This risk is currently tackled by: (a) re-mapping the franchise area to limit franchise overlaps and competition;(^{319}) and (b) moderating open access competition, by allowing entry only if it is not expected to be primarily abstractive of revenue from the franchised TOC (ie the NPA test).(^{320})
______________________________________________________________________
(^{317}) In this regard, Virgin/Stagecoach stated in their consultation response that the East Coast main line franchise has produced significantly lower revenue growth compared with other intercity franchises over the last 15 years because of open access revenue abstraction and impact on timetable optimisation.
(^{318}) For example, franchise premiums were a critical element of the business case for major investments such as the InterCity Express programme for new rolling stock.
(^{319}) Policy is implemented by the DfT in the franchise design.
(^{320}) As set out in paragraph 2.95, the NPA test is an economic assessment conducted by ORR and has the function of balancing its objectives of enhancing competition and preserving government funds. 5.81 Before considering the impact of greater on-rail competition on government funds, we note that there is a trade-off between the delivery of passenger benefits and the impact on government funds.
5.82 Some consultation respondents told us that our primary concern should not be to ensure that there is no impact on taxpayer funds, but that any impact is compensated by greater passenger benefits and efficiency in the rail sector. For example, Which? told us that the goal of the regulatory system for rail should be to deliver the quality of service that consumers are willing to pay for at the lowest possible combined cost, whether that cost is funded by passengers or taxpayers.
5.83 However, given that government funds are used for financing a range of social objectives, including investment and unprofitable but socially valuable services, we consider the impact of on-rail competition on government funds in greater detail below.
**Impact of on-rail competition on fares, costs and demand**
5.84 Increased on-rail competition would be expected to exert downward pressure on fares and therefore reduce the level of cross-subsidy to unprofitable services from profitable services (on which competition would be likely to emerge). This would therefore increase the amount of government funds that are necessary to finance the system – although it would also generate a positive impact in the form of passenger benefits.(^{321})
5.85 The magnitude of the impact may be mitigated by greater on-rail competition incentivising franchised TOCs to become more efficient (as discussed in Chapter 4). We also note that the impact may be further mitigated by greater on-rail competition generating demand growth. This could occur in two ways:
- OAOs targeting previously unmet but existing demand; and
- on-rail competition improving the quality of service, lowering fares and growing the market by leading to a transfer of passengers to rail from other transport modes.
In Chapter 3, we present evidence from Great Britain and other European countries, which suggests that greater on-rail competition can generate growth in demand.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{321}) Currently, almost 70% of the industry funding is derived from passengers (see paragraph 2.45). 5.86 We also note that our options for reform, set out in Chapter 6, seek to address the impact on government funds resulting from on-rail competition. The impact of our options for greater on-rail competition on government funds was also considered in the impact assessment commissioned by the ORR, details of which are set out in the assessment of each option considered in Chapter 6.
The impact of on-rail competition on recent franchise awards
5.87 We considered the impact of on-rail competition on historical franchise bids. We found limited empirical evidence that on-rail competition had a negative impact on franchise awards, since in a number of recent tenders for franchises, bids have increased in value notwithstanding the presence of actual or potential on-rail competition.
5.88 As an example, we note that on the East Coast main line franchise premiums increased on routes with significant current and prospective open access operations. GNER, the winner of the 1996 franchise competition, bid on the basis of an average premium of £130 million per year. In 2007, National Express won the franchise competition, bidding on the basis of an average premium of £190 million per year despite First Hull Trains having launched services in competition with the franchised TOC in 2000 and the award of access rights in 2006 for Grand Central to offer services from London to Sunderland.322
5.89 In the 2014 East Coast franchise competition, Stagecoach and Virgin bid on the basis of an average premium of £410 million per year, despite the growth of First Hull Trains and Grand Central since 2007 (including Grand Central’s introduction of services to Bradford in 2010). However, in the 2014 competition, bidders were indemnified against 80% of any revenue loss from failing to obtain sufficient train paths on the network to deliver the franchisee’s key specified services, eg as a result of new open access services commencing during the period of the franchise.
5.90 We note that it is extremely difficult to assess how high bids would have been absent on-rail competition. For example, the West Coast main line franchise has not been re-let and the East Midlands and Greater Western franchises changed in size when they were re-let.
5.91 There are also a number of examples of on-rail competition leading to franchised TOCs increasing the number of services they run, including Chiltern Railways’ main line services from London to Birmingham and London
322 We note that, for a number of different reasons, the GNER and National Express franchises ultimately failed before the completion of their franchise terms. Midland’s West Coast main line services, thus growing the value of the franchises. Moreover, we note that the most recent East Coast franchise specifies new services to destinations originally identified and made commercially viable by OAOs, such as Sunderland, again growing the value of the franchise.(^{323})
5.92 We have had some indication from the DfT of the potential impact that the approval of recent open access applications would have on the finances of the franchise holder for East Coast main line routes which, as noted in paragraph 5.89, would be indemnified for a proportion of the revenue loss should it be unable to secure the necessary train paths to deliver the key services specified in its franchise – and note that the financial impact would be significant.(^{324})
5.93 However, we note that this financial impact is largely a consequence of the current open access regime in which: (a) franchise bidders face uncertainty about the future level of open access operations at the time of bidding; (b) OAOs pay only variable track access charges; and (c) there is no mechanism for the government to levy a charge on OAOs to contribute to the cost of unprofitable but socially valuable services. The options that we propose for greater on-rail competition involving open access in Chapter 6 are specifically designed to overcome these current issues.
5.94 In this regard, Virgin/Stagecoach, the incumbent operator on the East Coast main line, told us that it was particularly concerned about the impact of greater on-rail competition in the current system in which there was no visibility at the time of franchise bidding of the level of on-rail competition that would be faced during the life of the franchise and in which there was limited ability to respond to on-rail competition given the specification of the franchise. As set out in its consultation response, Virgin/Stagecoach therefore support a greater degree of on-rail competition on long-distance routes if the current system is reformed.(^{325})
5.95 ORR stated in its consultation response that the current system carries risks for the taxpayer in that open access has an uncertain set of revenue impacts, including the potential for open access to abstract some revenue from franchised TOCs and affect revenue streams to the government. However, ORR also noted that this abstraction risk may be offset by the extent to which
(^{323}) We also note that the UK government’s stake in Eurostar was sold in 2015 at a high price (more than £750 million) despite the prospect of increased competition from other operators, including DB.
(^{324}) We note, however, that the assessment does not take into account the dynamic benefits of on-rail competition, for example in relation to passenger and efficiency benefits.
(^{325}) The Virgin/Stagecoach consultation response is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. competition from OAOs improves the performance of franchise operators and/or highlights opportunities for further market growth.
5.96 In summary, we note that the DfT, ORR and a range of train operators have highlighted concerns regarding the way in which the current system of open access is operated, particularly in relation to the uncertainty regarding the future level of open access competition at the time of franchise bidding and a limited ability to respond to such competition given franchise specification. We have therefore sought to address these concerns in designing the options for greater on-rail competition set out in Chapter 6.
The effect of greater on-rail competition on investment business cases
5.97 The business cases for new investment in infrastructure are based on the expected costs and economic benefits of the investment. It was put to us that having multiple operators on a route may undermine the business case for investment as the government is less able to forecast the utilisation of the new infrastructure (as it will not be fully specified and not operated solely by a franchised TOC).326
5.98 In particular, DfT noted that when making an investment decision, it takes account of the potential for the new revenue generated to offset, to some extent the investment costs. If an OAO enters and captures this revenue, it can have a dramatically negative impact on the investment case. The DfT also noted that it considers a variety of non-revenue related benefits which, in its view, an OAO will ignore. The DfT also stated that it tends to have a longer-term outlook than a commercial operator when considering the case for investment.
5.99 We recognise the importance of investment in the network and rolling stock in ensuring that the railway is able to meet the needs of passengers and society in the future, particularly as passenger demand continues to grow. We have therefore considered how major investment projects would be safeguarded in an environment where there is more on-rail competition and we have also considered the potential for on-rail competition to drive greater private sector investment.
Safeguarding investment
5.100 A key element of safeguarding investment in the railway is to ensure that the business cases for major projects are not adversely affected by on-rail
______________________________________________________________________
326 This risk was emphasised by FirstGroup, which mentioned that the existing strategic (public) investments were financed on the basis of the current industry situation; any changes need to take this fact into account. competition. In theory, if the business case is economically credible and the demand forecasts accurate, the investment is likely to be fully utilised on commercial intercity routes regardless of the identity of the operators.
5.101 As set out above, there is evidence that greater on-rail competition leads to growth in passenger numbers, and to more efficient discovery and use of capacity, which should boost the business case for investment. In this regard, we note the example, cited above at paragraph 4.36, of First Hull Trains seeking private sector finance to electrify the line from Selby to Hull – an initiative that both it and franchised TOCs would benefit from. Moreover, the wider economic case for investment, including socio-economic benefits, should not be adversely affected by on-rail competition.
5.102 In Chapter 6, we consider a number of safeguards and mechanisms for ensuring that greater on-rail competition does not undermine investment business cases. In summary:
- First, we note that ORR would continue to have a role in determining open access applications, including the rolling stock used. As an example, if an OAO applied to use diesel rolling stock on a route undergoing electrification upgrade work, a mechanism would be in place to prevent this.
- Secondly, there are a number of mechanisms through which the cost of investment could be recouped for the taxpayer from competing operators. For example, Arriva told us that investment costs could be recouped through rebate payments made by operators who utilise the infrastructure and who benefit from the enhancement (this was the approach taken in the Chiltern route enhancements, as discussed below at paragraph 5.106).
Driving greater private sector investment
5.103 It is important to consider the distinction between privately and publicly funded investments. Some consultation respondents argued that private investment in the railway network, under the current framework, is low relative to some other sectors.
______________________________________________________________________
327 ORR noted that this investment has the potential to benefit TransPennine Express as its Trans-Pennine services to Hull will be capable of being operated by electric trains earlier than they would otherwise.
328 Arriva agreed that there is limited and small-scale ‘genuine third-party’ investment in the infrastructure. Another consultation respondent, REGUTRAIN, noted that increased competition could affect the cost of investment in new infrastructure and the proportion between private and public investments in the sector. 5.104 Arriva also told us that if industry arrangements were developed to reduce constraints on operator business planning timescales, there would be significant opportunity to leverage genuine third party investment into the industry, with larger-scale open access acting as the catalyst for moving away from reliance on infrastructure funding by government to operators with longer-term access rights.(^{329})
5.105 Figure 15 shows that a net total of £647 million was invested by private companies (excluding Network Rail) in the rail industry during 2014–2015 (green line). This represents an increase of 53% from the previous year (51% in real terms). However, private investment in network infrastructure (ie in stations, track and signalling) is much lower and declining (brown line). In 2014–2015, less than £1 million of net private investment was made in track and signalling; in addition there was a net sale of £128 million of station assets (exceeding station investment) which made the overall private investments in the railways network negative in 2014–2015 (ie –£127 million).
**Figure 15: Private investment in the rail industry (excluding Network Rail investment)**
!\[Graph showing private investment in the rail industry\](source: ORR. Rail Finance 2014-15 Annual Statistical Release.)
5.106 We note that increased on-rail competition could drive greater private sector investment, especially on the commercially attractive intercity routes where operators have strong commercial incentives. Moreover, greater certainty in the open access application process and the possibility of longer access rights would allow operators to have a longer business planning timescale, possibly
(^{329}) Arriva noted that The Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005 (as amended) already provide the legal framework for access contracts in this respect. allowing a fair return on larger investments. There could be a number of mechanisms in a competitive environment in order to recover the costs of investment in infrastructure, for example it would be possible to charge a fee to train operators using new infrastructure. This approach was adopted in order to finance the Chiltern Railways ‘Evergreen 3’ project which enhanced capacity between London and Birmingham. A similar mechanism is proposed in the plan by First Hull Trains to electrify the line from Hull to Selby (see paragraph 4.36).
5.107 In addition to undertaking major upgrade work on the London–West Midlands route in partnership with Network Rail in response to on-rail competition, Chiltern Railways has planned new services that will run from London Marylebone to Oxford for the first time, starting in late 2016 (with services running as far as Oxford Parkway since September 2015).
5.108 This project involved constructing new track and stations at Oxford Parkway and Bicester Village. Chiltern Railways invested £130 million of the total £320 million cost of the new line and stations, with Network Rail contributing the remainder. A number of innovations are planned on the new route, including free 4G wi-fi contactless payment for services between London and Oxford Parkway. As noted in Chapter 3, the new line introduces on-rail competition between Chiltern Railways and the parallel route from London Paddington to Oxford operated by First Great Western.
5.109 A further example is Grand Central’s investment in stations. Following the extension of its operating licence in 2014, Grand Central pledged additional capital investment in order to further improve passenger facilities (ie upgrading the station building, parking facilities and waiting rooms) at Wakefield Kirkgate and Northallerton stations, in cooperation with Network Rail, local authorities and station facility owners.
Impact of on-rail competition on public funds identified from other European experiences
5.110 We considered the impact of on-rail competition on public funds identified from other European experience. As described in Chapter 3, on-rail competition has developed in a number of other European countries, ie to a limited
______________________________________________________________________
330 The Evergreen 3 project involved £250 million of infrastructure investment. Network Rail made the initial investment which Chiltern Railways is repaying by way of a facility charge. 331 The stations were specified by Chiltern Railways and built by Network Rail. 332 Under the agreement, Network Rail will provide the capital for the upgrade and recover this through a facility charge over the next 30 years, payable by the existing Chiltern Railways franchise and by subsequent franchisees. extent in Germany and, more extensively, in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy and Sweden.
5.111 In most of those countries, there is a clear separation between commercial and PSO services and competition ‘in’ the market takes place exclusively on purely commercial routes (see Chapter 3). Therefore, in these cases, the development of open access competition has only had an indirect impact on PSOs and government funds, which cannot be easily assessed. Public subsidies and funds allocated to rail passenger services directly depend on policy decisions in individual countries as to which public services to provide and how these should be financed.
5.112 For example, in some European countries (eg in Germany and Italy), a policy choice has been made to sustain the development and complete liberalisation of high-speed services with public funds (implying lower passenger fares) due to the overall positive impact on the economy this is likely to have. In Italy, the scope of PSOs has been redefined at regional and intercity level for services other than high-speed so that, effectively, the requirement to stop at certain stations has been eliminated and some prices have increased. However, the OAO in Italy told us that some regional and intercity services, traditionally covered by PSOs and subsidised by the government, could be run as commercial services, should legal barriers to open access entry be removed.
5.113 In Sweden, liberalisation and competition have been expressly supported by government. In order to sustain a greater level of competition in the market, commercial services can be modified by commercial operators agreeing with regional public authorities to run certain PSOs, applying a licensing system of ‘voluntary obligations’.
5.114 In the Czech Republic, the impact of open access competition on the revenue of incumbent operator – and, therefore, on the subsidies and public funds required to support its operation on services included in PSCs – appears to be low. Specifically, despite the high market share of OAOs operating on the route, competition has not resulted in a significant demand abstraction from
______________________________________________________________________
333 This is due to: (a) the clear conceptual identification of PSOs (which often relate to technological/ economic dimensions, ie non-high-speed services and/or commercially unprofitable services); (b) the much more limited scope of PSOs, especially for long-distance services; and (c) the fact that OAOs tend not to enter into the market and compete on those services for which the incumbent receives subsidies, although in most cases open access entry is neither restricted nor subject to an economic impact assessment. In Italy, open access entry is subject to an economic impact assessment, similar to the case in Great Britain. However, in 2012, PSOs in Italy were defined for 54% of the market (21% for long-distance services), while in Great Britain, PSOs are bundled together with profitable services in franchises which cover 99% of the market.
334 The newly established Italian regulator is considering introducing a PSO/universal service obligation levy on commercial services to compensate for this. the incumbent operator due to the significant generation of new demand and the increased connectivity that OAOs have created (see paragraph 3.80).
**Fixed access charges and the network grant**
5.115 In this section, we consider the contribution of OAOs to fixed network costs in the current framework and the potential for OAOs to pay more cost-reflective access charges.
**The contribution of OAOs to fixed network costs**
5.116 The current access charge framework scheme was not primarily designed to sustain or promote a high level of competition in the market, especially from OAOs.
5.117 As described in paragraph 2.58, OAOs currently pay only variable charges, not contributing (or contributing to a smaller extent)(^{335}) to the fixed costs of the network. This reflects the risk involved in building a commercially viable OAO operation and incentivises the efficient use of otherwise underused capacity. Moreover, compared with franchised TOCs, OAOs have marginal and limited access to the network.(^{336})
5.118 However, within a scenario of increased open access competition where OAOs enjoy access rights similar to franchised TOCs, OAOs could be asked to pay an increased contribution to network costs through increased track access charges, as considered in our options for reform set out in Chapter 6. Within a proper time frame and adopting a cost-reflective approach to setting access charges, OAOs could contribute to the fixed costs of the network through some form of mark-up.
5.119 As described in Chapter 2, ORR is currently considering as part of its structure of charges review whether OAOs should pay cost-reflective charges, which would also cover some of the fixed costs of the infrastructure they use (especially where network capacity is scarce). In order not to impose an excessive burden on OAOs, ORR is also considering possible adjustments and transitional arrangements in order to take into account the existing market differences and long-term business decision taken by OAOs which are already in the market.(^{337})
______________________________________________________________________
(^{335}) OAOs do pay for certain infrastructure enhancements, ie any directly attributable CAPEX costs.
(^{336}) See decision of the English High Court (2006 EWHC 1942 (Admin)) concerning the alleged differentiated charging policy for franchised TOCs and OAOs, considered in paragraphs 2.62 & 2.63.
(^{337}) As previously noted, European legislation permits a charge that includes a ‘mark-up’ above ‘costs directly incurred’ only if the market can bear it. 5.120 Moreover, although in general terms the franchise premiums and subsidies approximately net off each other, franchised services are still in receipt of an indirect subsidy through the network grant. Consequently, across the whole network, revenues from passengers using a franchised service do not cover the costs of providing the network.
5.121 However, the netting-off conceals the fact that profitable franchised services cross-subsidise unprofitable ones. In so far as OAOs would reduce premiums paid to government, there is a case for OAOs to contribute to loss-making services.\\textsuperscript{338} Furthermore, an OAO running an equivalent service to a franchised TOC would not currently pay FTAC and so would not make as great a contribution from ticket revenues to network costs as a franchised service.
5.122 In principle, as we discuss in Chapters 6 and 7, different compensation mechanisms could be adopted, eg a universal service levy\\textsuperscript{339} or some obligations to operate unprofitable but socially valuable services being imposed on new entrants\\textsuperscript{340} as well as incumbents or a combination of these mechanisms.
5.123 We are conscious that higher access charges and any PSO levy should not act as an unjustifiable economic barrier to entry and specifically sought the views of potential entrants on this question in our consultation. In Chapter 6, we therefore consider how access charge reform and the payment of levies could be introduced without acting as a disincentive to entry.\\textsuperscript{341}
5.124 We consider the potential for OAOs to make a greater contribution to the cost of the network through a level playing field in track access charges with franchised TOCs and the payment of a PSO levy in Chapters 6 and 7.
\\textsuperscript{338} As noted above, the actual level of contribution should account for any efficiency gain affecting the profitability of PSOs. OAOs may be able to profitably operate some of the PSO services currently subsidised.
\\textsuperscript{339} A similar system has been adopted in the UK postal sector, where Ofcom has the power to establish a Universal Service Compensation Fund (see section 44 of the Postal Services Act 2011) and in postal sectors in other European countries (eg Austria, France, Hungary and Spain). Universal access and service funds (UASFs) are also adopted in the telecoms sectors of some countries in South America, Africa and Asia. Arriva expressed support for this solution, envisaged by Article 12 of Recast Directive 2012/34. On the other hand, a consultation respondent – REGUTRAIN – suggested there could be a risk that a PSO levy might not work as an effective substitute for cross-subsidisation, if the necessary PSO funds are a large proportion of the overall industry turnover.
\\textsuperscript{340} This solution has been adopted in Sweden (see paragraph 5.113). The Railways Consultancy Ltd, in its consultation response, was of the view that OAOs could negotiate the provision of PSOs with the DfT. As a general point, the allocation of PSOs to OAOs could increase the general profitability of those services and lead to savings of public funds to the extent that the new entrants are more cost-efficient than the franchised TOCs.
\\textsuperscript{341} FirstGroup focused on the different impact that changes to access charges would have on OAOs compared with franchised TOCs, given that franchised TOCs are currently indemnified for any such changes during the franchise period. As a general point, an increase in charges would be reflected by franchised TOCs in the bidding process and most likely passed on to the government in terms of higher subsidies requested or lower premium paid. Cost-reflective access charges
5.125 In the current funding and charging model, access charges reflect the short-term variable costs imposed by operating trains on the network, but recover fixed costs from franchised operators in a way that does not closely reflect the longer-term costs of their use, or the scarcity of capacity.
5.126 As described in Figure 1, the total costs of operating the network are currently much higher than the amount raised each year through FTAC, with the differential mostly covered by direct government subsidy to Network Rail, ie via the network grant.(^{342}) Since the network grant is not directly linked to costs, almost 70% of Network Rail’s income comes from sources which are not cost-reflective (ie 62% from the network grant and 7% from FTAC).(^{343})
5.127 The existing charging structure therefore has limited ability and incentive to reduce costs and to encourage efficient decision-making both for franchised TOCs and new entrant OAOs. In particular, since the charges for using the network are not fully cost-reflective, if new entrants were to face these costs, they would not receive the right signals as to whether the benefits of running their services outweigh the (actual) costs. If charges were more cost-reflective, eg if they distinguished more between areas with higher demand/cost and lower demand/cost, this could send more effective and informative signals to new entrants.
5.128 In CP5, ORR embraced a more cost-reflective approach to access charge definition. ORR substantially increased the capacity charge, in order to ensure the recovery of network costs according to network performance. ORR also undertook a general recalibration of all charges in order to improve the extent to which charges reflect underlying infrastructure costs. ORR used up-to-date estimates on costs (eg on the electricity asset usage charge(^{344}) and coal spillage charge(^{345})) and improved its cost models (eg on the traction electricity charge(^{346}) and the variable usage charge(^{347})). Moreover, ORR considered some avoidable network costs which were not previously recovered by other
______________________________________________________________________
(^{342}) At present the network fixed costs and investments are financed by the network grant paid by government for around 89% and the fixed track access charges currently paid by franchised operators only for 11%.
(^{343}) ORR (10 December 2015), *Network Charges: A consultation on how charges can improve efficiency*, p5. Under the current system, the split between fixed access charge and network grant is not defined on the basis of an economic rationale, but mainly according to Government budgeting criteria.
(^{344}) The electricity asset usage charge mainly recovers the cost of maintenance and repair of electrification assets that vary with traffic.
(^{345}) The coal spillage charge recovers the cost of coal spillage from freight operators transporting coal.
(^{346}) The traction electricity charge recovers the cost of providing electricity for traction purposes and is now charged on the basis of metered consumption.
(^{347}) The variable usage charge recovers maintenance and repair costs that vary with traffic and is now set based on new research and evidence on how variable costs vary by vehicle. charges and reflected those costs in the charging scheme (eg a new freight-specific charge\\textsuperscript{348} was introduced).
5.129 In addition, as outlined above, ORR is working with the industry to implement a comprehensive review of Network Rail’s structure of charges aimed at removing some of the distortions in the current funding structure. The new structure of charges should be in place by the start of CP6 in 2019, before any of the changes we are proposing would come into effect.
\\textit{Franchise scope and service specification}
\\textit{Scope of franchises and public service contracts}
5.130 In Great Britain, franchises often include a bundle of profitable, potentially competitive, routes and loss-making routes. The adoption of this funding approach has resulted in the majority of passenger rail services – around 99% – being included in franchises,\\textsuperscript{349} covered by PSCs (franchise agreements), and therefore potentially considered PSOs.
5.131 A number of stakeholders are supportive of PSOs being more clearly defined in PSCs and distinguished from commercial services, as a prerequisite for introducing a higher level of on-rail competition in the market.\\textsuperscript{350} In this regard, some consultation respondents are of the view that the government could be less involved in the commercial parts of the industry with the DfT limited to franchising PSOs.
5.132 This extensive designation and allocation of unprofitable but socially valuable services, including PSOs, represents an obstacle to greater on-rail competition\\textsuperscript{351} because it allocates the great majority of the available capacity (which is a scarce resource)\\textsuperscript{352} to franchised TOCs and creates exclusive rights (and obligations), limiting market-oriented behaviour.
5.133 Due in part to the need to protect profitable services from competition, franchise overlaps have been progressively reduced in recent years. Moreover,
\\textsuperscript{348} The freight-specific charge recovers some of the network-wide fixed and variable costs that would be avoided by Network Rail in the absence of freight traffic and is payable for the haulage of coal for the electricity supply industry, spent nuclear fuel and iron ore.
\\textsuperscript{349} In 2012, the average percentage of PSOs in Europe was 65% in terms of passenger miles.
\\textsuperscript{350} This point was made by Arriva, which refers in this regard to the obligations to define PSOs under EU regulation 1370/2007 and by the Rail Delivery Group. A number of other respondents supported a clearer distinction between profitable and unprofitable services.
\\textsuperscript{351} As previously highlighted, PSO services in Great Britain are generally awarded by way of a competitive franchising process, thus resulting in competition ‘for’ the market.
\\textsuperscript{352} Currently there are two main ways in which capacity is identified: (i) DfT specification in the franchise agreements; or (ii) OAOs’ (or franchised TOCs’ additional track access) applications to Network Rail and ORR. additional commercially driven services would be likely to abstract revenue from franchised TOCs on both profitable and unprofitable services.
5.134 In most European cases considered where on-rail competition has developed, the percentage of PSO services over total services is much lower, especially on high-speed and long-distance routes where the average is around 30% against more than 80% for Great Britain (see paragraph 3.93). Furthermore, in those cases, there is often a clear-cut distinction between commercial and PSO services, i.e., the PSO services are more clearly defined to cover unprofitable but socially valuable services and open access competition focuses only on non-subsidised areas.
5.135 Some train operators told us that on routes such as the East Coast main line there would be very few, if any, PSO services. However, the majority of regional services may, in the view of operators, be classified as PSOs. We were told by operators that the data required to identify which services are PSOs and those which are not is already available. Given that the definition is a key component of introducing any levy on commercial services to fund PSOs, we consider the point further in the design of our options for greater on-rail competition in Chapter 6.
Franchise agreement specification
5.136 As described in Chapter 2, many franchise agreements in Great Britain have historically been tightly specified, even in those areas where the market could provide the right signals. A number of changes were made to the franchising programme following the Brown Review in order to maximise the benefits of competition ‘for’ the market, including allowing franchised TOCs more commercial freedom in areas such as rolling stock procurement.
5.137 However, the prescriptive nature of some franchise specifications can limit the ability of operators to adapt to passengers’ changing demands. A number of consultation respondents highlighted that the current degree of rail passenger service specification restricts the freedom of franchised TOCs to respond to competition.
5.138 In addition to limiting the potential for competition, this approach implies some hidden costs which should be considered in a broader cost/benefit analysis. These costs arise due to the lack of transparency in market dynamics and signals, the limited ability for operators to respond to market evolution and
______________________________________________________________________
353 The European countries considered are Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden. 354 First Group, Virgin/Stagecoach, Arriva and Network Rail expressed this view, as well as some consultants. consumers’ preferences and, finally, the high risk of regulatory failure associated with a highly centralised approach to market design.
5.139 While franchise specification has the potential to limit the extent to which new operators can develop commercial strategies in response to passenger demand – and the extent to which incumbent operators can respond to competition – we note the important rationale for including a degree of specification in franchise agreements. In this regard, some regional representative groups expressed concerns about the impact of greater on-rail competition on the provision of non-profitable but socially valuable services interconnectivity, especially in the event that franchise service specification is relaxed.
5.140 Franchise specification has a particularly important role in ensuring the provision of unprofitable but socially valuable services and in safeguarding service and quality levels of routes facing little competition, such as commuter services. Services that are not commercially viable but which are socially valuable often require more intervention in order to secure the desired social benefits. On commuter routes, operators may have less incentive to deliver service quality and innovation given inelastic demand, crowding and fare regulation, meaning that greater specification is required. Nevertheless, as some industry stakeholders have indicated, there is potential for more dynamic service specification to allow service offerings to evolve in line with passengers’ preferences.
5.141 On longer-distance intercity routes, it is important to balance the need for some specification (such as first and last trains) with the need to ensure that operators are able to respond to passenger demand and, where there is on-rail competition, to respond to the strategies of other operators. We consider this balance in more detail in our design of options for greater on-rail competition in Chapter 6. More generally, as stated in Chapter 2, we recognise that the franchising programme is already moving towards less tightly specified franchises.
355 Newark Business Club, Peninsula Rail Task Force, Transport for Greater Manchester, Scottish Association for Public Transport, Transport Scotland and Transport for London. Impact of on-rail competition on operators’ finances and business sustainability
‘Price war’ and operators’ financial viability
5.142 We considered the risk that on-rail competition, in driving down prices, would threaten the financial viability and sustainability of operators.
5.143 In particular, we have considered the risk that once the core franchise payment schedule had been agreed at the start of the franchise, on-rail competition could drive prices down as low as the marginal cost of providing a service.(^{356}) This would mean that ticket prices would not cover relevant fixed costs, possibly leading to an operator ceasing to be financially viable and exiting the market.
5.144 However, there are a number of factors that mitigate this concern:
- First, we note that the cost-reflective track access charges that we propose would be paid by both new entrants and incumbents (set out in further detail in the Chapter 6) would constitute a ‘price floor’ for all operators.(^{357})
- Second, TOCs do not compete only on price but also on quality and there is some degree of product differentiation in the passenger rail market, eg high-speed/traditional services; ‘no frills’ solutions and services combined with bus tickets or car rental. This may limit the intensity of price competition.
- Third, capacity constraints exist on a number of rail routes in Great Britain. This may prevent prices from falling to marginal cost as, if a price war started and more passengers were attracted to services, some trains would become full and operators would find it difficult to attract additional passengers by lowering prices.
- Finally, as discussed in the next section, we note that financial viability concerns have not forced any OAOs in Europe to exit the market.(^{358})
______________________________________________________________________
(^{356}) This would form the level below which prices could not fall as if they were to fall any lower, the operator would be better off not running the service.
(^{357}) We also note that operators may have reduced incentives to engage in predatory pricing strategies (ie by driving down prices drastically to the point at which they force a competitor to exit), as fare regulation may prevent the incumbent from recouping its losses by raising prices after the competitor exits.
(^{358}) We note that predatory pricing by dominant undertakings is prohibited under Article 102 TFEU and the Chapter II prohibition in the Competition Act 1998, creating a deterrent effect. 5.145 This potential concern was set out in our consultation document but was not raised by respondents to the consultation.
Financial viability of open access operation in continental Europe
5.146 Some consultation respondents told us that the European experience of open access competition, described in Chapter 3, has led to uncertainty regarding the financial sustainability of operators and that several OAOs have faced financial difficulties.
5.147 In the European examples considered, where few entry restrictions and no PSO obligations were in place, open access competition has resulted in downward pressure on prices in a number of European countries. This has benefited passengers but in some cases it has also created concerns about the longer-term viability of some operators.
5.148 In the Czech Republic, open access competition on the completely liberalised Prague–Ostrava route put intense downward pressure on prices and led to concerns regarding the long-term sustainability of three operators competing on the same route.
5.149 After nearly four years of operations, one of the Czech Republic’s OAOs has not yet achieved profitability, although their financial performance is improving both in terms of EBITDA and overall losses. The other OAO reported a profit for the first time in 2015. In order to put this in context, it is important to note that, in contrast to Great Britain, on the Prague–Ostrava route all three operators (the two OAOs and the incumbent) run services on a purely commercial basis (ie no direct public subsidies or premiums are paid), and the incumbent is vertically integrated with all its other services being directly awarded. The competent public authority is considering a number of policy solutions, including establishing a licensing regime accompanied by licence obligations and/or defining basic essential services to be awarded through a competitive tendering process.
5.150 Separately to this, both Czech Republic OAOs allege that the incumbent operator has abused its dominant position to undercut its competitors by
______________________________________________________________________
359 Leo Express reported in Q1 2015 an EBITDA three times greater than the same period in 2014, while its losses were halved. 360 RegioJet reported a half-year profit in 2015 of around £200,000. For 2015, the company expects that its profits will range between £0.8 million and £1.2 million. 361 These arrangements for defining minimum/essential services already exist in Great Britain. adopting a predatory pricing strategy, sustained by cross-subsidisation and that this distortionary practice has had an impact upon their profitability.\\textsuperscript{362}
5.151 In Italy, the OAO experienced financial difficulties during its start-up period;\\textsuperscript{363} however, the operator told us that it is expecting to generate profits in 2016 and, for this reason, its share capital was substantially increased in 2015. The Italian OAO also told us that its financial performance was negatively affected by what it considered to be a disproportionate level of access charges (later decreased by the newly established sector regulator) and the lack of level playing field due to the presence of a vertically integrated incumbent.\\textsuperscript{364}
5.152 Similar problems characterised the start-up period of the Austrian OAO’s operation, which achieved low unit revenues due to intense price competition with the incumbent, which the OAO alleged to have been predatory.\\textsuperscript{365} However, the OAO managed to adapt its business model in response and, after four years in operation, it is currently meeting its operating costs.\\textsuperscript{366}
5.153 In contrast, in Sweden, where long-term vertical separation has allowed a more level playing field and PSO services have been generally awarded by way of a competitive bidding process, open access competition does not seem to have created serious concerns about the longer-term viability of competing operators.
5.154 MTR, which recently commenced services on the Stockholm–Gothenburg route, told us that its revenues are showing a positive trend and are growing in line with its business plan. As set out in Chapter 3, because of the competitive pressure exerted by the new OAO, fares on the Stockholm–Gothenburg route have decreased. However, while MTR and the incumbent have offered fare discounts, they also compete on factors including service quality, and there does not appear to be any evidence of a ‘race to the bottom’ in fares. Another example relates to the incumbent, which terminated its Gothenburg–Malmö service in 2012 after an OAO introduced high-frequency services. However, after two years, the incumbent re-entered the high-speed services market, matching the new OAO’s on-board service quality (eg with free wi-fi).
5.155 We note that, in each of these countries, OAOs commenced their activities relatively recently and that new entrants in capital-intensive sectors (such as
\\textsuperscript{362} The Czech Republic’s competition authority is currently investigating this allegation. (Telephone conference calls with Czech Republic’s OAOs.)
\\textsuperscript{363} Losses amounted to €77.6 million in 2013 and €55 million in 2014.
\\textsuperscript{364} Information provided by NTV, the Italian OAO.
\\textsuperscript{365} The European Commission, Directorate General for Competition, is investigating alleged anti-competitive practices in the sector of rail passenger transport and related services, aimed at excluding competing rail passenger transport operators from the market. In October 2015, Commission officials carried out unannounced inspections. \\textit{European Commission press release}.
\\textsuperscript{366} Information provided by Westbahn. railways, but also telecoms or energy) often experience losses during their start-up period. The capital-intensive investments and entry costs that a number of European OAOs have incurred (eg the purchase of new rolling stock in the Czech Republic, Italy and Sweden) may signal the medium- to long-term business objectives of these OAOs. This approach in their business model appears contrary to a ‘hit and run’ strategy, which might risk the financial stability and sustainability of the industry.
5.156 Moreover, in the countries examined, the market entry costs of OAOs have – in contrast to the system in Great Britain – been influenced by the presence of vertically integrated incumbent holding companies.
5.157 In summary, the experience of the European OAOs shows that there have been some financial sustainability issues. However, we note that these operators are still in the early years of operation and that some of the issues may be due to the presence of vertically integrated incumbents. In Chapter 6, we have considered the potential impact of access charges and levies on financial sustainability in designing our options for greater on-rail competition.
Potential adverse effects of an increased number of operators
5.158 Greater on-rail competition would be likely to lead to a higher number of train operators (either franchised TOCs or OAOs) using the network. It has been put to us that this could create a number of operational issues, including:
- inefficient use of capacity as a result of more operators, with varied journey times and stopping patterns and using a wider range of rolling stock with different performance and reliability characteristics (see paragraphs 5.160 to 5.165);
- interconnectivity problems (paragraphs 5.166 to 5.177);
- adverse impact on performance and greater difficulty in recovery from disruption (paragraphs 5.178 to 5.183); and
- conflicting slot requests and timetabling issues, which may also affect strategically important changes to facilitate the provision of new services, such as HS2 (paragraphs 5.184 to 5.191). These operational issues have also been considered in the impact assessment commissioned by ORR. The operational impact of each option for greater on-rail competition is set out in Chapter 6.
5.159 We also note that an additional potential adverse effect of an increased number of competing operators could be the creation of a greater complexity in the system, in particular by creating:
- higher transaction and coordination costs for the industry players (paragraphs 5.196 to 5.197); and
- a negative impact on rail passengers, by a way of a more complicated ticketing structure, or by making the provision of interavailable fares more complex (paragraphs 5.198 to 5.206).
**Operational issues**
**Suboptimal use of capacity as a result of an increased mixed use of the network**
5.160 A number of consultation respondents expressed the view that having a multiplicity of operators on the network, with varied journey times and stopping patterns, using a wider range of rolling stock with different performance and reliability characteristics could lead to a suboptimal use of the existing capacity.
5.161 We are conscious that a multiplicity of operators on the network (including freight, commuter, regional and intercity services), while delivering important social objectives, reduces the number of services that can be operated relative to a theoretical maximum network capacity. We note that on two of the long-distance routes on which we are considering options for greater on-rail competition, there are already a significant number of operators. On the East Coast main line, for example, there are currently nine major operators.
5.162 However, greater on-rail competition on intercity routes would not be expected to lead to a significant increase in the complexity of operations as new operators would run intercity services using rolling stock that was approved by the ORR as having performance characteristics which would not adversely affect the timetable. There would be no change envisaged in the mix of service types (ie freight, intercity, commuter). It is therefore important that operational issues are judged on a case-by-case basis.
______________________________________________________________________
367 See ORR (31 December 2015), *Impact Assessment of the CMA’s Options for Increasing On-Rail Competition - Final Report*, p48.
368 Network Rail, Arriva and Peninsula Rail Task Force. 5.163 Network Rail told us that it did not consider that a greater number of operators would increase the costs of running the network or result in adverse performance issues (for example, in comparing the East Coast main line with the Great Western route). Nevertheless, Network Rail suggested in its consultation response that a greater mix of different services on the network would make it more important to have the right information and incentives to achieve the right balance between different types of trains and services.
5.164 In addition, Network Rail told us that increased on-rail competition should not result in less network capacity being granted to freight operators, which it highlights are of great importance in terms of both economic and social benefits generated. The need to ensure sufficient capacity for freight was also noted in the responses of some passenger train operators. A number of consultation respondents noted that trade-offs between ensuring the variety of the network’s use and capacity optimisation exist; nevertheless, a mixed use of the network was feasible, in order to serve wider economic and social objectives.
5.165 Other respondents, particularly regional transport partnerships, expressed concern that more intercity services could interfere with commuter and regional services. However, our options for greater on-rail competition set out in Chapter 6 envisage competing services using existing intercity paths and, potentially, new paths that become available from capacity enhancements. Therefore, while we are conscious of the need for a mix of services to be operated in order to ensure that the railway delivers its wider objectives, our recommendations are designed to facilitate greater on-rail competition without adversely affecting non-intercity passenger services and freight services.
Interconnectivity
5.166 Rail services competing on a larger scale would require an increased focus on interconnectivity, ie ensuring that different train operators’ service paths efficiently interconnect with each other at stations in order to exploit the full value of the network and the possible growth in demand and service frequencies. This task becomes more challenging when competing operators are different in scale.
______________________________________________________________________
369 This point was highlighted in Arriva’s response. 370 Network Rail, Arriva, Peninsula Rail task force. 371 This is because the main operator would not have direct incentives to schedule its train services so as to ease the interconnections with the services of smaller competitors. 5.167 A number of regional bodies expressed concerns that increasing competition would undermine the integrated nature of the transport networks which underpin the economic growth of their regions (eg Wales and Greater Manchester). Interconnectivity is an important characteristic for regional routes and one local transport group mentioned in its consultation response that connections (including those with buses) are already inflexible under the current framework, suggesting that the problem is compounded when there is more than one operator on a route.
5.168 Transport Scotland stressed that any arrangements to introduce greater competition on the East and West Coast main lines should not have an adverse impact on connectivity, frequency, service reach or quality within Scotland. A local transport group told us that whichever model of competition is used, connectivity should be maintained and enhanced for the benefit of the rail system, passengers and the nation as a whole, given that connectivity drives economic growth.
5.169 Network Rail told us that, in the current framework, although consideration is given to connectivity in the timetabling process, there are many thousands of possible connections that passengers can make on the network and that the degree of interconnectivity that can be achieved is limited. We also note that in all our recommended options for greater on-rail competition detailed in Chapter 6, Network Rail (or the system operator responsible for the timetabling process) would retain the ability to timetable services to ensure connections are maintained.
5.170 Moreover, passenger train operators told us that, in practice, the timetable is designed by the industry on its own in a decentralised way and is driven by the access rights of the individual operators. In this framework, it is not evident that a greater number of operators would harm connectivity. We also note that where operators are competing more intensively for passengers, they may have greater commercial incentives to attract passengers from feeder services by ensuring good connections (and to offer onward connections to their own passengers).
Performance
5.171 Operating additional rail services on an already congested network could affect network performance (in terms of punctuality and reliability), as the
______________________________________________________________________
372 See consultation responses of Powys County Council, Mid-Wales Transportation Partnership and Transport for Greater Manchester. This point was also made by Newark Business Club. 373 The Sherborne Transport Action Group. 374 The Peninsula Rail Task Force. network would be more intensively used. This is more likely to occur if no additional capacity were made available as a result of network enhancements (ie using new technology) or improved network capacity identification and management.
5.172 It was suggested to us by a TOC owner group (without open access operations) that greater on-rail competition may have an adverse effect on punctuality by increasing the difficulty of coordinating traffic on the network. Moreover, with a greater variety of services operating within a more complex timetable, any deviation from on-time operation could have a wider knock-on effect on other services and on overall punctuality. Indeed, concern about the potential for overlapping franchises creating operational conflicts formed part of the rationale behind the franchise re-mapping and simplification carried out by the SRA in the early 2000s.
5.173 We found relatively limited empirical evidence in relation to this concern. Arup (2009) examined evidence on the Public Performance Measure (PPM), which reflects punctuality, finding that some franchise re-mappings which reduced franchise overlaps may have resulted in improved punctuality. However, Arup (2009) also found that punctuality on the East Coast main line improved in the period in which open access was introduced.(^{375}) There are currently nine major passenger operators on the East Coast main line plus a number of freight operators – yet average punctuality indicators have the highest score in that area.
5.174 This is consistent with the view put to us by some industry experts that the impact of on-rail competition on performance may be route-specific.(^{376}) For example, capacity bottlenecks on the network affect different routes to varying degrees and, in turn, the impact that a greater number of operators has on punctuality. The successful operation of three franchised TOCs between Newcastle and Edinburgh – a section of the East Coast main line with less severe capacity constraints – was cited by one OAO as evidence of this. Network Rail also cited the example of London Midland and Virgin Trains competing on the West Coast main line without an adverse impact on punctuality.
5.175 The extent to which the rolling stock and stopping patterns of competing operators differ may also determine the impact of competition on performance. Similar rolling stock operating services with similar calling patterns is less
(^{375}) Arup (2009) found that PPM on the East Coast main line improved on the routes that it examined between 2004–2005 and 2008–2009 from 81 to 86.9%. Grand Central’s PPM improved to ‘around 90%’ in 2009 and First Hull Trains saw its PPM increase to 80.2% in 2009.
(^{376}) The DfT told us that, for this reason, operational issues should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. likely to create operational conflicts, although we note that a number of franchises successfully operate with a mix of rolling stock (including the Greater Western, East Midlands and East and West Coast main line franchises). In this regard, we note that greater on-rail competition would provide an incentive for operators to compete to serve key stations with the latest rolling stock. Moreover, in reviewing open access applications, ORR examines the rolling stock that OAOs plan to use to operate their proposed services and would not grant access where there would be any significant adverse impacts on performance.
5.176 It was also put to us that the ‘Schedule 8’ indemnity that is included in track access agreements incentivises operators to plan their services in a way that will avoid disruption to services of other operators. Schedule 8 is also considered by ORR to incentivise Network Rail to coordinate the services of different operators as effectively as possible.(^{377}) Compensation payable covers fare revenue losses and costs (eg the cost of running replacement bus services).
5.177 Moreover, greater on-rail competition would help to provide the correct signals and information for deciding on market trade-offs, eg between capacity maximisation and performance (ie punctuality/reliability), more effectively than a centralised process (see paragraph 4.33).
5.178 It should also be noted that other operational factors, such as the requirement to provide unprofitable but socially valuable services (eg PSOs), which may include stops at less popular but nevertheless strategic stations, and to run suburban services alongside intercity services into key terminus stations in urban areas, will have some impact on performance regardless of whether there is greater on-rail competition.
5.179 As considered in more detail in our assessment of the options for greater on-rail competition in Chapter 6, we note that the impact assessment commissioned by ORR did not identify any significant operational barriers to greater on-rail competition.
Recovery from disruption
5.180 It was put to us by some consultation respondents(^{378}) that it would be more difficult for the network to recover from service disruption with a greater
(^{377}) Schedule 8 compensates train operators for the impact of unplanned service disruption due to poor performance which is attributable either to Network Rail or other train operators.
(^{378}) Newark Business Club, SEStran and a private individual. number of competing operators having potentially conflicting commercial interests. It was also suggested that it would be necessary to designate operators of last resort.\\textsuperscript{379}
5.181 However, the system is already designed to work with multiple operators (with most routes having more than one passenger or freight operator). Network Rail actively manages the response to disruption and current rules provide arrangements for ticket acceptance across operators once a certain disruption threshold is reached. Part H of the Network Code\\textsuperscript{380} includes a requirement for operators to comply with the Railway Operational Code, which obliges operators to work together to recover from disruption, having regard to the needs of passengers and freight customers. Operators also have a range of obligations to provide passenger information during disruption, stations already show passengers all trains operating, and ORR is able to deal with inadequate responses to disruption through operators’ licences.
5.182 Moreover, the Rail Delivery Group plays an important part in promoting and developing operational best practices between passenger train companies, freight operators and Network Rail.\\textsuperscript{381} This has the effect of enhancing the proper functioning of the system and, also, minimising disruption.
5.183 Network Rail told us in its consultation response that increased competition from multiple operators may actually help performance and service recovery. This is because OAOs have a greater incentive to perform well, as they are seeking to attract new customers in new markets.
\\textit{Conflicting slot requests and timetabling}
5.184 Within the current framework, the slot allocation process prioritises existing access rights allocated within the franchise agreements. Once any additional service applications (either from open access or franchised operators) have been successful and resulted in a track access agreement (subject to ORR approval and guidance), the access rights set out in the track access agreement are converted into the working timetable through the process outlined in Part D of the Network Code.
\\textsuperscript{379} Transport Focus. \\textsuperscript{380} The Network Code is a common set of rules and industry procedures that apply to all parties with a contractual right of access to the track owned and operated by Network Rail. Those common rules and procedures are incorporated into every regulated track access agreement between Network Rail and a TOC and concern areas where common processes are necessary or preferred, such as delay attribution (Part B), timetable change (Part D), vehicle change (Part F), network change (Part G), operational disruption (Part H), changes to access rights (Part J), performance (Part L) and appeals (Part M). Access Dispute Resolution Rules are set out in the Annex. \\textsuperscript{381} The Rail Delivery Group was set up in 2011 to provide leadership to Great Britain’s rail industry, bringing together train operating companies, freight operators and Network Rail. 5.185 The timetabling and timetable recasts are managed by Network Rail and based on demand traffic forecasts which are carried out following a transparent process that includes public consultations.(^{382}) In the case of conflicting requests with equal priority, Network Rail decides which train slot to include into the timetable plan according to the criteria set in Part D of the Network Code, eg to make journey times ‘as short as reasonably possible’ and ‘enabling operators of trains to utilise their assets efficiently’. Network Rail can modify either or both train slots if timetable capacity exists.(^{383})
5.186 Greater on-rail competition may lead operators to propose timetables that include a higher number of conflicting slot requests. In an enhanced competitive environment, the system operator has to design a non-discriminatory and efficient slot allocation mechanism.
5.187 As set out in the next section, ORR is currently undertaking work with a view to improving Network Rail’s performance as a system operator, building on the commitments given in its PR13 determination. In particular, the project is looking at improving the availability of information about system operation activities, including through the publication of a system operation ‘dashboard’, and is also starting to consider how the regulation of system operation activities could be improved as part of the next periodic review.
5.188 Moreover, in the context of greater on-rail competition, different allocation systems could be considered, eg the airport slot allocation system.(^{384}) Although there may arguably be greater complexities in slot allocation in railways than in air transport (airport slots are for take-off and landing only, whereas rail slots must reserve track for the whole journey), Network Rail could take a more active role in managing the timetable, while reforms to access rights could increase flexibility, opening up more opportunities for new entry.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{382}) The Long Term Planning Process identifies capacity requirements and interventions to meet them. This process has been designed to enable Network Rail and industry stakeholders to respond flexibly to growing demand for rail services (including entirely new services), while planning for the network’s long-term capability up to 30 years ahead.
(^{383}) The Network Code also contains rules for access dispute resolution, either through mediation or a determinative process, such as the timetabling panel, for which ORR is the final appeal body.
(^{384}) Airport slot allocation is regulated by Council Regulation 95/93 (amended by Regulation 793/04 and clarified by Communications adopted in 2007 and 2008). Its main principles are: (i) transparency and non-discrimination; (ii) ‘grandfathering’ – existing users retain slots subject to rules governing the frequency (at least 80% during the summer/winter scheduling period); (iii) slot switching – slots which are not sufficiently used by air carriers are reallocated, the so-called ‘use it or lose it’ rule; (iv) promotion of new entrants’ access – if the 80% threshold is not reached, the slots go to a slot pool for allocation and 50% of the pool slots are allocated first to new entrants (defined as a carrier with only a limited presence at an airport). Finally, the airport package adopted on 1 December 2011 explicitly allows airlines to trade slots with each other at airports anywhere in the EU in a transparent way (‘secondary trading’). 5.189 An alternative slot allocation mechanism could be based on a ‘cooperative approach’, ie having the system operator facilitate agreement between parties.\\textsuperscript{385}
5.190 Finally, there have been policy proposals looking at slot auctioning mechanisms, in particular combinatorial auctions, where participants make their bids contingent on getting a set or combination of the rights being auctioned rather than having to bid for rights individually.\\textsuperscript{386} Network Rail told us that greater on-rail competition would necessitate having a bidding system for access rights in order to minimise the risk that capacity could be inefficiently left vacant.
5.191 In summary, an efficient capacity and timetabling allocation process is necessary for greater on-rail competition to deliver its potential benefits. As set out above, the current framework is designed to work with multiple operators and the mechanism for allocating capacity could be further strengthened in an environment of greater on-rail competition, as described in Chapter 6.
\\textit{Operational issues and the role of a system operator}
5.192 We note that the operational issues discussed above could be addressed by enhancing the role of the system operator, and focusing on a clear definition, and effective implementation of, the functions carried out by Network Rail.\\textsuperscript{387}
5.193 While a number of respondents,\\textsuperscript{388} mainly regional bodies, suggested that a higher number of operators in the market would increase the fragmentation and operational issues in the rail system, other consultation respondents, including Network Rail,\\textsuperscript{389} told us that these issues could be tackled by improving system operation and allowing an efficient, fair and transparent timetabling process.
5.194 As ORR sets out in its review of system operation,\\textsuperscript{390} the benefits of having an effective system operator comprise:
\\begin{itemize} \\item This is partially similar to the slot allocation system in Sweden. We note that slot allocation takes place successfully in a number of European countries with on-rail competition. \\item This is because the latter would imply the risk of allocating a set of paths that (i) would not allow TOCs to provide a viable service and/or (ii) would not allow Network Rail to have an efficient outcome in terms of interconnectivity. See Cave and Wright (2010). \\item See Cave, M, Stern, J, ‘Economics and the development of system operators in infrastructure industries’, \\textit{Utilities Policy}, 26 (2013), pp56–66. \\item ASLEF, Mid Wales Transport Partnership, Newark Business Club, Passenger Transport Executive Group, RMT, SEStran, Transport for Great Manchester and private individuals. \\item Network Rail, Arriva and private individuals. \\item ORR (2015), \\textit{System operation – A consultation on making better use of the railway network}. \\end{itemize} • achieving the most plannable capacity\\textsuperscript{391} out of the system;
• enabling all users and funders to make the right trade-offs between the cost of the network, the level of utilisation and the performance; and
• allocating capacity to the ‘right service’ so as to keep an appropriate balance between the cost of providing capacity and its value (including its non-financial value) to users and to society.
5.195 An effective system operator function would provide industry players and Network Rail with greater incentives to make efficient use of present resources. Moreover, developments in technology and regulation are also likely to have a role in achieving effective system operator capability in the future, facilitating the coordination of more services. Finally, as briefly described above, the work on developing a more flexible access rights policy is likely to assist in achieving efficient capacity allocation and performance optimisation as a consequence of a more flexible timetabling process.
\\textit{Increased complexity of the system}
\\textit{Higher transaction and coordination costs for industry actors}
5.196 Complexity could also result in higher transaction and coordination costs due to an increased number of ‘interfaces’ and ‘interactions’ within the industry, eg between the train operators, between train operators and public bodies (ie Network Rail, DfT, ORR), and also between public bodies.\\textsuperscript{392}
5.197 However, there are a number of factors which may mitigate possible concerns about an increase in transaction and coordination costs:
• First, as in other network industries (eg energy, telecoms and aviation), additional transaction costs resulting from an increased number of operators may be more than offset by efficiency and consumer welfare gains unlocked by greater competition (see Chapter 4).
• Second, an Oxera report (2010)\\textsuperscript{393} found that rail sector transaction costs, while significant in absolute terms, may not be significant when compared
\\textsuperscript{391} The number of trains that could run over a route, during a specific time period.
\\textsuperscript{392} This issue has been raised by Network Rail within the consultation process. Moreover, the ARUP/Oxera (2010) report for the ‘Value for Money’ investigation, ‘Review of rail cross-industry interfaces, incentives and structures’, considers a number of case studies of areas of the system where transaction costs or incentive misalignments exists, in particular within the performance regime, stations, timetabling, long-term planning through consultations and others.
\\textsuperscript{393} Ibid. with the greater efficiencies resulting from vertical separation and competition.\\textsuperscript{394}
- Third, within the current rail industry framework, additional transaction and coordination costs, resulting from an increased number of operators, do not seem to be significant in magnitude:
(a) The Oxera (2010) report did not reach a view on the exact value of transaction costs itself, but cited a paper by Merket which found that overall transaction costs within UK TOCs in 2007 were no more than 5% of TOC operating costs.\\textsuperscript{395}
(b) The report takes into consideration transaction costs due to the vertical disintegration of the industry (ie separation between upstream and downstream operations), which are not relevant for assessing the case for greater on-rail competition in Great Britain, where a framework of vertical separation is already in place.
(c) Some transaction costs resulting from an increased number of operators may be reflected as ‘diseconomies of density’ and already well considered in the industry analytical framework.
(d) Network Rail told us that it does not consider that the East and West Coast main lines are materially more expensive to run than a main line with fewer operators, such as Great Western.
- Fourth, an enhanced and effective system operation function, including an effective Network Code, would also reduce transaction costs associated with an increased number of interfaces and interactions by aligning the market players’ incentives providing the right signals to decide upon trade-offs.
- Lastly, we note that the level of transaction costs depends to a degree on the extent of public intervention in the market, ie the nature and scope of interactions between train companies and public bodies, and between public bodies. Greater competition in the market would be expected to result in a more decentralised approach to coordination, ie through market signals and decentralised use of disperse information rather than public
\\textsuperscript{394} This outcome has been supported by a number of case studies within the rail industry (albeit many of the transaction costs discussed were related to vertical separation) and through inter-industry comparisons with energy and aviation.
\\textsuperscript{395} Measured in terms of costs of management and administrative staff. Merket, R, ‘Changes in transaction costs over time – the case of franchised train operators in Britain’, \\textit{Research in Transportation Economics}, 29 (2010), pp52–59. information gathering and central planning. This would reduce the magnitude of ‘publicly driven’ transaction costs.
Retail issues: ticketing complexity and interavailability
5.198 Transport Focus told us that passengers struggle with the complexity of existing ticketing arrangements. A number of other consultation respondents have argued that increasing on-rail competition could exacerbate passengers’ confusion about the fare structure that applies. However, many respondents also recognised the passenger benefits that new types of fare (eg advance tickets) have delivered. Transport Focus suggested that increased competition would need to be accompanied by measures to address the concerns that passengers have about ticketing complexity.
5.199 We acknowledge that there is a degree of complexity in ticketing in the current system and that there may be scope for passenger confusion where there is a choice between operators in the current system (eg where franchises overlap). However, we note that much of this complexity results from the range of fares available and applies even on routes where there is a single operator. We consider that these issues are likely to reduce over time as new technology, including smart cards and mobile ticketing, is rolled out.
5.200 Moreover, a number of examples of ticketing complexity cited were on commuter and regional routes, where most passengers buy a ticket for travel on the day. The options for greater on-rail competition that we recommend in Chapter 6 are focused on long-distance intercity routes where, as noted below, the majority of passengers book their tickets in advance. In this regard, we were not told of any concerns about ticketing complexity resulting from current open access services or from competition on high-speed routes in Europe. We also note the significant passenger benefits available from the sale of new tickets including carnet and advance tickets (which were introduced following strong passenger demand) and that greater flexibility in ticketing will allow operators to match passenger preferences more closely.
5.201 We also note that operators would have commercial incentives to ensure that information regarding their services is made available. This model works well in other sectors, such as airlines, where there is often a greater choice of operators than would be the case in our recommended options, which would see a choice of two or three operators. Lastly, we note that ORR would also
______________________________________________________________________
396 See, for example, Mid Wales Transportation Partnership, SEStran and Sherborne Transport Action Group. continue to have a consumer protection role in ensuring that ticket information is clearly presented to passengers.
5.202 In summary, we are mindful of the importance of passenger clarity regarding their choice of operator. As this is fundamental to ensuring effective competition, we also consider this question in designing our options for greater on-rail competition in Chapter 6.
Interavailability of tickets
5.203 As many passengers value the ability to change their travel plans, we have considered how competition may allow passengers to continue to ‘turn up and go’, ie boarding the first train service available.
5.204 In order to overcome this problem, interavailable tickets have been developed. The passenger pays for a ticket which can be used on any of the various competing train operators’ services, rather than dedicated tickets which are only valid on a single operator. Analysis by ORR indicates that passengers like this facility and the value and flexibility it offers. On many routes, passengers do not have the option of buying a dedicated ticket for travel on a competing operator. However, where passengers have a choice between a dedicated and interavailable fare, interavailable fares account, on average, for 37.5% of revenue, suggesting that many passengers value the option of cheaper dedicated tickets.(^{397}) Revenue from interavailable tickets is allocated among the train companies using a computerised system known as ‘ORCATS’.(^{398})
5.205 Although TOCs have an incentive to compete for passengers using dedicated fares, they cannot currently compete on price to attract passengers who value interavailable fares.(^{399})
5.206 However, the following should be noted:
- Fewer passengers require interavailable tickets services on intercity routes where, generally speaking, on-rail competition has the greatest potential to develop. Analysis by ORR indicates that in 2013–2014,
______________________________________________________________________
(^{397}) ORR retail market review, emerging findings, June 2015. See, also, consultation response by Transport Focus.
(^{398}) ORCATS (Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services) is a computer system used on passenger railways in Great Britain. It is used for revenue sharing on interavailable tickets between train operators when a ticket or journey involves trains operated by multiple operators. It approximates the split between train operators based on factors such as journey time.
(^{399}) As noted in paragraph 2.79, interavailable fares are set by the lead operator (ie the operator with the greatest commercial interest on a certain route) and must be observed by all train operators selling tickets for that journey or operating a service on some or all of the route. approximately 41% of passenger receipts came from interavailable journeys made on London and South East/ regional routes in comparison with 32% from interavailable journeys made on long-distance services.\\textsuperscript{400}
- In the case of OAOs, the percentage of passengers’ journeys using dedicated and non-interavailable tickets is higher, eg over 60% of all Grand Central journeys in 2013–2014.\\textsuperscript{401} ORR noted in the emerging findings of its retail market review that while passengers benefit from the flexibility provided by interavailable fares, passenger take-up of this type of fare is at least 10% lower for longer-distance, intercity travel and that there may therefore be merit in relaxing the obligations on TOCs to create and sell interavailable fares on all routes.\\textsuperscript{402} This reflects the significant financial savings that passengers can achieve by purchasing dedicated tickets on long-distance routes.
- ‘Mobile’ and ‘smart ticketing’ solutions could help to tackle the problem of allocating revenue from interavailable tickets as they would increase the incentives on operators to compete for passengers as their revenues would directly reflect passengers carried, allowing for a closer link between actual passengers and revenue than is currently possible under the ORCATS revenue allocation mechanism.\\textsuperscript{403} A number of consultation respondents expressed their support for ‘smart ticketing’ solutions as an option to enhance competition in this sector.\\textsuperscript{404}
- In order to address the concerns that interavailability limits the ability of train operators to compete on price, passengers could be offered greater choice on interavailable tickets. For example, a discount could be given if they buy non-interavailable tickets and passengers could pay to ‘upgrade’ to non-interavailable tickets when they require more flexibility (a system that would be much easier to administer in an environment of ‘smart ticketing’).
\\textsuperscript{400} ORR retail market review, emerging findings, June 2015, p37. The analysis is based on revenues from all ticket sales. The level of interavailability is measured as a percentage of train operator revenues earned from passenger journeys made on routes defined as interavailable (those with at least 5% of total route revenue allocated to more than one operator).
\\textsuperscript{401} AECOM analysis.
\\textsuperscript{402} In particular, relaxing the obligation to create interavailable fares could mitigate the need for such extensive TOC collaboration and provide increased incentives for innovation to be delivered through competition and normal response to market forces – ORR retail market review, emerging findings, June 2015, paragraph 5.15.
\\textsuperscript{403} Smart ticketing, such as Transport for London’s Oyster card, allows individual passenger journeys to be recorded and different charges levied according to origin, destination and time of day or season.
\\textsuperscript{404} See Rail Delivery Group, Transport Focus, Peninsula Rail Task Force, MDS Transmodal Ltd and certain individual respondents. Transport Focus and a respondent with experience of operating OAO services elsewhere in Europe suggested that passengers could ‘tap in’ by using smartcard readers when boarding a train so that revenues generated from interavailable fares can be effectively allocated between operators. 5.207 In considering our options for reform in Chapter 6, we also note that, if industry agreement were achieved, interavailable tickets could be retained as an option for passengers even if greater on-rail competition were introduced.
Conclusions
5.208 In this chapter we have considered the potential technical, economic and policy obstacles to greater competition in the passenger rail market in Great Britain and considered possible ways to overcome these obstacles.
5.209 The potential obstacles that we have considered fall into three main categories:
- access to infrastructure, network capacity and rolling stock;
- funding the network and loss-making services, and the financial sustainability of operators;
- an increase in the number of operators, which might lead to operational issues and to greater complexity of the system.
5.210 We have carefully considered the evidence on each of these obstacles including through discussions with the DfT, ORR, Network Rail, franchised TOCs and OAOs, passenger groups and regional transport partnerships.
5.211 We do not consider that any of the obstacles identified are insurmountable and summarise our conclusions in Table 5 below.
5.212 We cross-refer to our analysis of these issues in discussing the design of options for greater on-rail competition in Chapter 6 and also cite the technical and legal feasibility analysis for each of the four specific options conducted in the impact assessment commissioned by ORR. Table 5: Summary of potential obstacles/risks from greater on-rail competition and mitigating factors
| Potential obstacle / risk from greater on-rail competition | Mitigating factors | Other regulatory or policy actions (Chapter 6 – Other recommendations to support greater competition, paragraphs 6.65–6.80) | Assessment necessary for the reform options (Chapter 6 – Assessment framework, paragraphs 6.81–6.84) | |----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Access to infrastructure, network capacity and rolling stocks | Lack of level playing field (obstacle)\
*Paragraphs 5.7–5.14* | Vertical separation and non-discriminatory framework to access the network (ie Sale of Access Rights Panel)\
Non-discriminatory obligations at retail level (ie Ticketing Settlement Agreement) | Review of structure of access charges to create a more level playing field | It is unlikely to be an obstacle to greater on-rail competition – no need for further assessment in Chapter 6 | | | Network capacity scarcity (obstacle)\
*Paragraphs 5.15–5.58* | Increased competition using existing capacity\
Expected network enhancements increasing available capacity (eg ERMTS, HS2, stations upgrades)\
On-rail competition giving incentives to identify additional capacity | Flexible access rights\
Review of access charges to better reflect value of capacity (ie enhanced capacity charge or charges reflecting scarcity)\
Redesign of franchise contract scope, clearly defining profitable services and PSOs | It is not a material obstacle to greater on-rail competition because of possibility of competing under capacity constraints. However reform options should be evaluated assessing their impact on:
- utilisation of capacity and interconnectivity
- cost efficiency at the upstream network level | | | Rolling stock scarcity (obstacle)\
*Paragraphs 5.59–5.68* | Future additional availability of rolling stock (ie as a consequence of IEP programme)\
Further private investment in rolling stock, especially when long-term access rights are granted | Longer access rights, incentivising further private investments | It is unlikely to be an obstacle to greater on-rail competition - No need for further assessment in Chapter 6 | | Funding the network/ loss-making services and financial sustainability of operators | Impact on funding of unprofitable services (risk)\
*Paragraphs 5.76–5.96* | Positive impact of on-rail competition on productive efficiency implying the possibility of reducing the overall scope of loss-making services\
On-rail competition having a positive impact on demand growth (ie previously unmet demand, transfer from other transport modes)\
Limited empirical evidence of negative impact of on-rail competition on recent franchise awards | Alternative to current cross-subsidies (eg PSO levy)\
Structure of charges (ie cost-reflective/symmetric, OAOs making greater contribution in return for greater access)\
Redesign of franchise contract scope (profitable services vs PSOs)\
Reducing risk in franchise bids through greater *ex ante* clarity of future level of on-rail competition | Impact on government funds\
Social inclusion and connectivity | | Potential obstacle / risk from greater on-rail competition | Mitigating factors | Other regulatory or policy actions (Chapter 6 – Other recommendations to support greater competition, paragraphs 6.65–6.80) | Assessment necessary for the reform options (Chapter 6 – Assessment framework, paragraphs 6.81–6.84) | |----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Impact on funding of network investments (risk) | Balanced business case for new investments to be neutral to identity of train operators Greater private investment in network could be incentivised by increased on-rail competition | Longer access rights, incentivising further private investment Funding mechanisms aimed at recovering investment costs (ie access charge on new investments, rebate mechanisms) Structure of charges (ie cost-reflective/symmetric, correctly remunerating the use of the network) | Impact on government funds Social inclusion and connectivity | | Tight specification of franchised services (obstacle) | On-rail competition would put competitive pressure on train companies, giving incentives to match the demand/consumer preferences | Relax franchise service specification, especially in area where market could provide correct signals | Cost efficiency at passenger level | | ‘Price war’ and financial unsustainability for train operators (risk) | Competition on quality and product differentiation limit ‘race to the bottom’ in fares Level playing field in UK prevents anticompetitive exclusive pricing strategy (eg predatory pricing) from incumbent TOCs | Review of access charges in a cost-reflective way (building a price floor) | Impact on government funds Security of supply |
**Potential adverse effects of an increased number of operators**
Operational issues (risks):
- suboptimal use of capacity
- interconnectivity
- performance
- recovery from disruption
- conflicting slot requests
In many cases, competition would not imply a higher complexity of operations in the network as a number of different operators are already active There are regulatory tools in place aimed at coordinating operations and minimising operational issues ORR and Network rail would in any case keep a degree of control on operational issues, assessing possible trade-offs with competition enhancements Limited empirical evidence that on-rail competition has negative impact on performance
Network Rail as enhanced system operator Alignment of industry incentives through market signals and decentralised coordination (eg Rail Delivery Group) Alternative slot allocation mechanisms
Coordination issues and transaction costs Utilisation of capacity and interconnectivity | Potential obstacle / risk from greater on-rail competition | Mitigating factors | Other regulatory or policy actions (Chapter 6 – Other recommendations to support greater competition, paragraphs 6.65–6.80) | Assessment necessary for the reform options (Chapter 6 – Assessment framework, paragraphs 6.81–6.84) | |----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Higher transactions costs (obstacle) | Possible higher transaction costs are not significant compared against efficiency gains | Alignment of industry incentives through market signals and decentralised coordination (eg Rail Delivery Group) Alternative slot allocation mechanisms | Coordination issues and transaction costs | | Retail issues: | Passenger preference for interavailable tickets is more limited on intercity routes | Policy measures to raise consumers awareness and address possible higher retail complexities Mobile/smart ticketing solutions and greater flexibility (ie possibility to spot upgrade/discount on non-interavailable/interavailable season tickets) | Passenger experience | | • Ticketing complexity (risk) | | | | | • Ticket interavailability (obstacle) | | | | | Paragraphs 5.198–5.207 | | | | 6. Options for reform
Introduction
6.1 In our discussion document, we set out the following four lead options:
- Option 1: existing market structure, but significantly increased open access operations.
- Option 2: two franchisees for each franchise.
- Option 3: more overlapping franchises.
- Option 4: licensing multiple operators, subject to conditions (including public service obligations).
6.2 In this chapter we first describe the options on which we consulted in detail. We then assess and compare each option in the light of consultation responses we have received and against an assessment framework, taking into account our goals (set out in Chapter 1), the benefits of competition (discussed in Chapters 3 and 4), and the obstacles and risks (discussed in Chapter 5).
6.3 In Chapter 7, we set out our conclusions and recommendations, including the steps and timings necessary for our recommended options to be implemented.
Approach to assessing the options
6.4 In assessing the costs and benefits of the four options, we refer to the findings of the impact assessment undertaken on behalf of ORR by two consultancies, Arup and Oxera, with considerable technical, legal and economic expertise and knowledge of the railway sector. The impact assessment examined the legal and operational feasibility of each option. It also undertook both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the options, considering the impact on passenger outcomes (such as fares and service quality), meeting social objectives (such as investment and accessibility), wider benefits (such as facilitating economic growth), impact on industry costs and efficiency and impact on rail industry funding and affordability. In doing so, we take account of the further consultation responses received following the
______________________________________________________________________
405 ORR (31 December 2015), Impact assessment of the CMA’s options for increasing on-rail competition: Final Report. 406 The impact assessment follows DfT’s standard Webtag guidance. publication of the impact assessment (which are published alongside this policy document).
6.5 In order to consider the incremental benefits\\textsuperscript{407} of the options we compare them against a baseline counterfactual of a continuation of the current system under which franchises are awarded in the framework adopted following the recommendations of the Brown Review with some incremental improvements.\\textsuperscript{408} This is consistent with the approach taken in the impact assessment, which used as its baseline a ‘do minimum’ scenario in which government policy on franchising broadly continues the existing arrangements.
6.6 The key assumptions made in the impact assessment are set out in Box 3.
\\textsuperscript{407} A number of consultation responses, including the DfT’s, noted that it was important to consider the incremental benefits of any options for reform relative to the current framework.
\\textsuperscript{408} For example, we reflect that the franchising system is continuing to evolve with franchises becoming less tightly specified and being designed to better incentivise innovation by franchised TOCs (see paragraphs 2.106 & 2.107). Box 3: Key assumptions in the impact assessment
The methodology used to model the impact of the options structured around three main mechanisms through which competition impacts can occur:
- **Price benefits**: entrants competing on price, but offering a similar product;
- **Efficiency gains**: from new entry of more efficient operators that encourage efficiency in incumbents; and/or
- **Service benefits**: entry on the basis of a differentiated product which better matches passenger preferences.
The underlying assumptions include:
- Entrant fares – evidence on existing OAO fares
- Track access charges – as stated in ORR’s CP5
- PSO levy – estimated from existing franchise premiums based on the proportion of total franchise revenue earned by each service group in the ‘do minimum’ scenario and calculated as an implied premium per passenger km
- Some operator costs (staff, rolling stock) – evidence on OAO costs
- Timetable scenarios
These assumptions are applied to standard rail industry demand and revenue models to generate quantified estimates of:
- Fares and passenger revenue
- Journey times
- Operator costs
- Franchise premiums
Non-quantified impacts include impacts on product offering and service quality, impact on the efficiency of Network Rail, positive or negative spillovers outside the intercity routes considered.
**Addressing potential barriers to competition**
6.7 In developing the four options, we have considered the potential financial, operational and implementation barriers to increasing competition outlined in Chapter 5. The options have been designed to achieve the maximum benefits of competition while mitigating the potential negative effects.
6.8 In developing the options, we also considered the proposals for on-rail competition prepared for ORR by Martin Cave and Janet Wright in 2010, the proposals in the 2011 and 2013 ORR consultations and lessons from the experience of on-rail competition in Europe (described in Chapter 3). We have
______________________________________________________________________
409 Cave, M and Wright, J (2010), *Options for increasing competition in the Great Britain rail market: on-rail competition on the passenger rail market and contestability in rail infrastructure investment – Final report to the Office of Rail Regulation.* considered how our preferred options could be implemented, and in doing so have assessed their technical, economic and commercial feasibility.
**Scope and timing**
6.9 In assessing the options, we focus on those parts of the network in Great Britain where they are likely to deliver the greatest benefits. We consider these to be the three main intercity routes: the East Coast main line, the West Coast main line and the ‘Great Western’ route linking London with South West England and South Wales.
6.10 We consider these routes to have the most potential for greater on-rail competition because they are the most financially viable, they have the fewest interconnections, and because passengers using long-distance services tend to be more willing to book in advance rather than primarily valuing a ‘turn up and go’ service.(^{410}) We consider there may also be greater potential for operators to compete on price and quality by introducing dedicated fares and differentiated service offerings on these routes.(^{411})
6.11 We note, however, that some elements of our proposed options could be applied nationally, for example, to allow for open access growth elsewhere (with the Midland main line intercity route in particular being another candidate if it were isolated from the wider East Midlands franchise). This focus on the potential for on-rail competition on long-distance intercity routes is in line with the practice in other European countries.
6.12 We consider that there may be potential for the options to be implemented on HS2 given the premium nature of the product, the potential for service differentiation and the fact that many HS2 services will continue onward to different final destinations using the classic network.(^{412}) We note that many of the examples of on-rail competition in other European countries are on dedicated high-speed lines.
6.13 The opening of Phase 2 of HS2 in around 2033 might also create potential for on-rail competition. Services will operate in a ‘Y’ shape from the West Midlands up towards Manchester and the North West and up towards Leeds and the North East. We understand that it is possible that different operators
______________________________________________________________________
(^{410}) Franchise premiums paid for intercity routes are indicated in Figure 14. The proportion of advance tickets bought for intercity routes is considered in paragraph 5.206.
(^{411}) We consider that branding and distinctive product offerings such as those of Virgin Trains and the long-distance OAOs are good examples in this regard.
(^{412}) Virgin/Stagecoach noted in its consultation response that HS2 could be one pilot route for greater on-rail competition. FirstGroup noted in its response that there is a challenge as to how HS2 capacity will be allocated, used and charged for and that planning for this will need to start now. might run the ‘easterly’ and ‘westerly’ parts of the route, creating the potential for on-rail competition between London and the West Midlands.
6.14 We note that the government has not yet decided whether HS2 will be franchised or the number of operators that will run on HS2. In deciding whether to implement on-rail competition on HS2 in the future, we note that policymakers may take account of a range of other factors in addition to the potential benefits of on-rail competition (eg in relation to achieving lower fares) including the impact of on-rail competition on the HS2 business case (considered in Chapter 5) and capacity utilisation. HS2’s eventual dedicated track access and charging structure will also be a relevant consideration.
6.15 To protect existing and imminent franchisees against uncertainty and risk of significant, unforeseen revenue abstraction as a result of policy changes, we would not envisage any of these options coming into effect until after the end of the current rail franchise terms (or, where new franchise tenders are imminent, after the terms of those franchises about to be tendered), which would mean 2023 at the earliest.
6.16 In addition, we note that there are a number of difficulties in introducing on-rail competition on commuter routes – for example (a) capacity constraints on routes to London and other major urban centres, and (b) the particular desire of commuters to take the first available train, which implies greater dependence on interavailable tickets and hence less price competition.
6.17 We consider that implementing options to increase competition on regional routes would come with challenges as these routes are typically less profitable than the intercity routes which are the focus of this report. This may mean, for example, that OAOs would not by themselves choose to run services in these areas.
**Option 1 – existing market structure, but significantly increased open access operations**
6.18 In this option, the existing system would be adapted to allow a significantly increased role for open access alongside franchised TOCs. For example, there could be a 70:30 allocation of capacity between the franchised TOC and an OAO. In return for greater access to the network, OAOs would be required to pay an appropriate share of the costs of network infrastructure and to pay proportionately towards unprofitable but socially valuable services by way of a universal service levy or other appropriate funding mechanism, to avoid cream-skimming, as described in paragraph 5.79. 6.19 This would allow the current franchising framework to continue broadly as it operates today, but support a significant increase in the role of open access. Under this option, we envisage that OAOs would make a similar contribution to network costs (following reforms to access charges) and the funding of loss-making services as incumbent franchised TOCs. Option 1 would also provide the government with flexibility to adjust the balance between franchised TOCs and OAOs in a more revenue-neutral way by, for instance, increasing or reducing the allocation to OAOs once the actual impacts on pilot franchises are observed.
6.20 An alternative to establishing a new source of revenue for the funding of socially desirable but unprofitable services, through a PSO levy or other appropriate mechanism, would be for a reduction in government funds from greater on-rail competition being funded from general taxation. There may be some arguments in principle for this – for example it may be viewed as less ‘distortionary’ for funding of unprofitably but socially valuable services to be borne by the economy as whole, rather than the rail sector alone.\\textsuperscript{413} In this regard, we note in paragraphs 5.81 to 5.83 that there is a trade-off between the benefits of on-rail competition in terms of consumer surplus and the impact on government funds. However, given that current government policy is to ensure that taxpayers do not fund a greater proportion of the operation of the network, we have proposed options that seek to address the reduction in government funds from on-rail competition.
6.21 In view of current capacity constraints, an expanded role for open access could be achieved over time by using new capacity which is expected to become available in the longer term (see Chapter 5) and/or through reducing the proportion of services that are allocated to franchises specified by the DfT.
6.22 In order for OAOs to retain full freedom to adapt their operations in a commercial manner, and on the basis that there will be no obligation for OAOs to apply to run train paths, in this option we envisage that all or the vast majority of unprofitable but socially valuable services in a franchise area would need to be undertaken by the franchised TOC.\\textsuperscript{414} This would include the unprofitable but socially valuable aspects (ie essentially unprofitable destinations, unprofitable stops, and unprofitable stopping times) and the less profitable routes and connections which are valuable for social reasons but which may not be prioritised by a purely commercial operation.
\\textsuperscript{413} A ‘distortion’ may be considered to arise in this sense if a tax such as a PSO levy raised the price of travelling, and some marginal passengers who would have otherwise done so chose not to travel by rail, or not to travel at all.
\\textsuperscript{414} An alternative would be for them to be ‘bundled’ with profitable paths as part of any allocation process. 6.23 Nonetheless, it may be more efficient for an OAO to undertake some of these services, for example by adding an extra stop to one of its services when there are no franchised TOC operated services passing at a particular time, running an extra service late at night or early in the morning when balancing its rolling stock location in preparation for the next day, or taking into account calling times at stations for interconnecting regional services.
6.24 Moreover, OAOs might be able to operate some of the unprofitable but socially valuable services currently provided by franchised TOCs and subsidised by the government in a commercially viable way. This could generate cost savings for the government and would, therefore, go some way to compensate for revenue abstraction from franchised TOCs. In this scenario, unprofitable but socially valuable services could be allocated to an OAO by an enhanced system operator.415
6.25 Option 1 would be implemented in conjunction with changes to the structure of track access charges so that OAOs pay charges which are reflective of the fixed and variable costs of the infrastructure they use in return for greater access to the network. In this framework, OAOs and franchised TOCs would face broadly similar risks and broadly similar charges.
6.26 A mechanism would also need to be established for allocating rights to the OAOs or operators within a franchise area in the likely event that more than one company wanted to operate those rights. As considered further in paragraphs 7.44 to 7.47, there are a number of possible allocation mechanisms which could be used, including an administrative process or an auction.
**Designing a PSO levy or other appropriate funding mechanism**
6.27 OAOs would contribute to the funding of unprofitable but socially valuable services, which would continue to be provided within franchises, through the payment of a PSO levy.
6.28 In our discussion document we considered that a levy could be calculated on a per-passenger-mile, per-train, or per-carriage basis. Some further work on the design of a levy has since been undertaken by the ORR for the purpose of the impact assessment but, as noted in Chapter 7, further design work is required.
______________________________________________________________________
415 Alternatively, the franchised TOC could sell these obligations to run unprofitable but socially valuable services in a secondary market for such services – although we note that there are potential legal barriers to this (see paragraph 6.60). 6.29 In the absence of a developed model for a PSO levy at this stage, the impact assessment models an approach in which OAOs are charged based on the level of abstraction from franchises estimated using the MOIRA model, in conjunction with an estimated share of franchise premiums associated with the service from which abstraction occurs. The levy itself was modelled on a pound-per-passenger-mile basis.
6.30 In order to overcome short-term barriers to entry, the levy that OAOs pay could be phased in over time to allow OAOs a reasonable period within which to establish a viable commercial operation.
6.31 Arriva, the parent company of one current OAO, Grand Central, and one proposed service which has been granted access rights, Alliance Rail, stated in response to our consultation that:
> Article 12 of Directive 2012/34 allows operators of commercial services to support clearly defined PSOs by way of payment of a levy. Arriva is supportive of arrangements of commercial operators to be charged a levy in accordance with Article 12 in order to support PSOs and has discussed such mechanisms with DfT.
6.32 While we consider a PSO levy to be a leading candidate for funding unprofitable but socially valuable services under Option 1, we recognise that there may be alternative methods for OAOs to contribute to the funding of these services. For example, an auction of OAO paths, which could also be used for path allocation, could raise revenue to supplement higher access charges paid by OAOs.
**Option 2 – two franchisees for each franchise**
6.33 This option would see suitable franchises tendered such that there would be two operators for each existing franchise area. Appropriate design of these franchises would ensure on-rail competition between franchised TOCs on all, or the majority of, flows by taking routes currently operated by only one
______________________________________________________________________
416 MOIRA is a standard model of the rail industry supply side, used to estimate the likely level of abstraction as a consequence of a new operator’s entry. MOIRA is used jointly with the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook database, which models the rail demand side by identifying and quantifying demand drivers.
417 Further detail is set out at section 7.6.1 of the impact assessment.
418 This is also suggested as a possibility by ORR in its consultation response (see paragraph 31). The DfT told us that, in its view, while a short-term phasing-in period may be appropriate, the context is that the levy is intended to manage the overall risks for taxpayers and the short time should therefore be limited to what is absolutely necessary.
419 Arriva’s consultation response to the CMA.
420 This possibility was noted by Virgin/Stagecoach. operator and sharing them between two operators running similar services but with lower frequencies. This would incentivise competition between these operators.
6.34 There are a number of ways this could be implemented, which were modelled in the impact assessment:
(a) two franchises of similar size in terms of revenue, number of services, and number of unprofitable but socially valuable routes;
(b) asymmetric franchises, for example with a 60:40% split in terms of service frequencies and unprofitable but socially valuable routes;
(c) one ‘anchor franchisee’ responsible for the vast majority of unprofitable but socially valuable services and, most likely, some degree of profitable services, and one other franchisee responsible for the remainder of services, which would all be profitable.
6.35 The chosen specification would need to strike the right balance between the benefits of competition from operators competing directly and the risk of operators engaging in tacit collusion to set fares.
6.36 Under Option 2(a), with two equal franchises, there would be on-rail competition on the majority of flows operated. This may create stronger downward pressure on fares than Options 2(b) and 2(c) and therefore a larger impact on government funds. Higher track access charges and greater efficiency may mitigate this effect, and some socially desirable but less profitable service aspects in the areas where the franchises were run could be ‘bundled’ into franchises which were profitable overall. This point is considered further in our assessment of the options below.
6.37 Another potential concern under Option 2(a) is that the franchised TOCs engage in tacit collusion. There are a number of factors that may facilitate tacit collusion, including there being two symmetric operators in the market, the existence of barriers to entry to the market, possible cross-ownership and other links between competitors and observability of fares and service offerings. This may enable operators to align their commercial strategies and to sustain a collusive outcome.
6.38 The consideration regarding symmetry in franchise design and the stability of any collusive outcome can be outlined using an indicative example:
______________________________________________________________________
421 See section 7.5 of the impact assessment. 422 The split could be more asymmetric (eg 80:20). (a) If there were two services operated by different companies leaving one after another on the same flow, eg London–York, both operators would have a good idea of the cost of running that service, and the demand from passengers at that time. Both operators would therefore know an ideal ‘monopoly’ price to set, from which they would both benefit as long as they both charged it.
(b) If the second operator were to set a significantly lower price and was able to attract more passengers and, therefore, make a higher profit at the expense of the first operator, which lost customers, the first operator would realise that the second operator was deliberately undercutting it. Each operator would be unlikely to take such action in order to avoid a price war.
(c) This can be contrasted with a situation with two operators running more dissimilar services, eg one directly to York and another to York but continuing on to another station on track which had not been electrified and so requiring the second operator to use diesel-powered rolling stock. If the second operator lowered its price, it would be harder for the first operator to be sure that this was a deliberate attempt to win its customers rather than a change in diesel prices or some other cost associated with diesel rolling stock which it did not face. The first operator may therefore respond to the change in prices, sparking a price war.
6.39 The possibility of tacit collusion was highlighted in Cave and Wright (2010), although few consultation respondents raised the concern.(^{423})
6.40 Option 2(b) would seek to address the problem of potential tacit collusion by implementing a degree of asymmetry between the operators. Other factors are also relevant, including the degree of product differentiation between the operators. As we note in paragraph 3.105, Spain is proposing to introduce duopoly competition on certain long-distance routes and is planning to ensure that the operators are asymmetric in order to mitigate the risk of collusion.
6.41 We note that asymmetric operators would be less likely to collude because they would have different cost structures and may have different business models.
(^{423}) One exception was Prof Juan Montero on behalf of REGUTRAIN, who noted that duopoly situations may result in tacit collusion – although, as considered in paragraph 3.105 – duopoly competition was considered the most practical first step in introducing on-rail competition in Spain. 6.42 We also note that the greater the degree of asymmetry, the more limited the extent of on-rail competition would be. This would limit the potential passenger benefits, although it would also reduce the impact on government funds.
6.43 Option 2(c) would seek to maintain a degree of competition between asymmetric operators while providing unprofitable but socially valuable services in a coherent manner.
Option 3 – more overlapping franchises
6.44 A franchise overlap occurs where two franchised TOCs provide some, but often not all, of the same services along a route or in their area of operation. Current examples are listed in Table 3 of Chapter 2.
6.45 The SRA, the body responsible for franchising from 2001 to 2006, decided to reduce the number of franchise overlaps in the Great Britain passenger rail sector.\\textsuperscript{424} As described in Chapter 3, the stated rationale for this was primarily to ensure there was only one operator at each London terminal, with the intention of improving coordination of traffic and so improving punctuality and other KPIs.\\textsuperscript{425,426}
6.46 This option would reverse the SRA’s policies by redesigning the franchise map to encourage more overlapping franchises. It would therefore create more flows on which there would be competition between franchised operators.\\textsuperscript{427}
6.47 Competition between franchised TOCs may reduce the franchise premiums attached to bids, although we note in Chapter 3 that there is some evidence to suggest that franchised TOCs exposed to on-rail competition – notably London Midland and Chiltern Railways – have generated value in a more competitive environment. The fact that the government would retain control over where and when competition takes place would reduce uncertainty for bidders.
6.48 Unprofitable but socially valuable services would be provided, as under the current system, by franchised TOCs.
\\textsuperscript{424} SRA franchising policy announcement, 19 December 2001. The SRA reduced the number of franchises from 26 to 19.
\\textsuperscript{425} SRA Strategic Plan 2003, p65.
\\textsuperscript{426} We note that the SRA did not eventually fully implement the policy of there being a single operator at each London Terminus. Following consultation multiple operators remained at stations including Euston and King’s Cross. Nonetheless, the number of overlaps between franchised TOCs did reduce at this time.
\\textsuperscript{427} The DfT told us that more franchise overlaps might, in any event, be created in the future as part of a wider policy decision to reduce the size of some of the current franchises in order to reduce the level of financial risk in the system. 6.49 Less detailed specification of franchises would be particularly beneficial under this option as it would allow the benefits of competition to extend beyond price competition to service provision that better reflected passenger demand and innovations that franchised TOCs could deliver, including investment in new technology. Less detailed specification would also allow franchised TOCs to better respond to the competitive incentives to reduce costs.
**Option 4 – licensing multiple operators, subject to conditions (including public service obligations)**
6.50 While the previous three options retain franchising, the fourth option is more radical, marking a significant departure from the current system in Great Britain.
6.51 Under Option 4, certain franchise areas would move from using a system of franchises to one using ‘licences’. In this option, operators are likely to be similar to OAOs, but subject to a licensing regime which would place some restrictions and obligations on their activities.
6.52 These licences would seek to ensure that unprofitable but socially valuable services would still be provided, but would do so in a less prescriptive manner, by allowing market forces to decide which operators would be best placed to undertake them.
6.53 We note that licensing or ‘authorisation’ regimes are used in a number of regulated UK industries such as energy, water, telecoms and postal services in order to require providers to undertake social activities which they may be unlikely to provide otherwise. This can cover both quality of service obligations and also requirements which ensure a minimum service for consumers.428
6.54 There are a number of ways such licences could be implemented in the passenger rail sector. We have considered the following options:
(a) **Administratively designed licences (Option 4(a))**: this approach would mandate that if an operator wanted to operate (profitable) services between destinations A and B, at time C, it would have to stop at intermediate stop X; would have to operate a service to nearby destination Y; and/or would have to run an additional service at time D. A planning body
______________________________________________________________________
428 For example, in fixed-line telecoms and postal services, authorisation regimes oblige incumbents to provide a universal service to all customers. BT is required to offer a universal service, and mobile providers which hold spectrum licences are often required to provide threshold levels of coverage at designated fees, in particular to give greater coverage to rural customers who might not otherwise be offered a service. – potentially the DfT, ORR or the system operator function of Network Rail – would need to design the licences so that they produced an acceptable level of service and a coherently connected timetable in a financially viable framework. Depending on changes to access charges, it may be that some of the licences would need to have a subsidy attached.
For example, licence conditions could require that any operator running a train between London and Manchester on the West Coast main line between 3pm and 4pm would have to stop at a less heavily used station such as Stoke-on-Trent, and/or would have to run at least one train between London and Birmingham at 11pm. There could be a number of other licence conditions, designed such that all the unprofitable but socially valuable services as well as all the profitable routes were being utilised, would be undertaken. It would not specify which, or how many, operators provided these services, unlike in a franchise system.
(b) Licences with an associated ‘number’ of social obligations (Option 4(b)): under this approach, alongside the licensed right to operate a service between A and B, there would be a condition that the operator must supply a certain number of unprofitable but socially valuable services, but without specifying where these were. There would need to be a ‘list’ of unprofitable but socially valuable routes drawn up by a central body from which operators could select. A trading system or platform could be implemented so that operators could trade these obligations between themselves, or could subcontract them to third parties.429,430
An example of this approach would be a licence obligation which stated that any operator running a service between London and Manchester on the West Coast main line between 3pm and 4pm would need to run at least one unprofitable but socially valuable service each week, which it could choose from a list of such flows identified by the planning body. Again, unlike a franchise approach, the operators could use these licence obligations to put together a set of services designed by themselves rather than by a planning body.
6.55 The funding arrangements under Option 4 would need to be carefully considered. If the profitable rights were greater or equal in value to the unprofitable
429 This approach has been used in energy policy to require energy companies to insulate certain numbers of homes and to build specified capacities of renewable energy generation. 430 We note that trading of infrastructure capacity is prohibited by Article 38 of Directive 2012/34/EU. Further legal analysis of whether this would prevent a system of trading paths or slots such as we envisage here would need to be undertaken. If so, exemptions to this Directive may need to be sought. responsibilities, no subsidy would be needed; the unprofitable parts could be funded through cross-subsidy.
6.56 At a route level, in the areas where we are suggesting that more on-rail competition could deliver the greatest benefits, we consider it likely that unprofitable but socially valuable services could be funded through licence obligations. This is because these routes pay considerable premiums and so are profitable enough overall to fund the unprofitable but socially desirable services within them.
6.57 If there were shortfalls in funding under Option 4, however, these could be made up in a variety of ways, including by universal service levies on licensed operators (similar to the levy proposed for OAOs in Option 1), by increasing the number of unprofitable services that licensees were required to provide under Option 4(b), or by raising revenue through the auction used to allocate access rights.
6.58 These two sub-options bear some similarities to other options we have considered. Option 4(a) would be similar to a franchising system except that the specification would be much less detailed and the level at which licence obligations would be attached to access rights would be much more detailed. This option could be described as comprising ‘bundles of mini franchises’. Option 4(b) bears considerable similarity to the OAO component of Option 1, as services would be provided by commercial operators with considerable freedom to innovate and to tailor their services to customer demand, but these commercial operators would undertake social obligations themselves.
6.59 Under both sub-options, a mechanism would also be needed to allocate the scarce track access rights to operators. As mentioned under Option 1, this could be by way of an auction or an administrative process, as used in Sweden. As this option has no franchising component, and is also the most market-based option, we briefly consider the possibilities for using an auction-based approach for the allocation of capacity, the timetabling of services or the selling of bundles of paths. Box 4: Rail capacity and auctions
The potential for train timetables to be drawn and operations to be allocated between companies by means of an auction process has garnered substantial attention from economists and auction theorists over the past 30 or so years. It was considered directly at the time of privatisation in Great Britain. We discuss this in more depth in the Appendix.
Our overall conclusion is that it is unlikely that an overall timetable can be drawn, or train service operation allocated in real time through an auction process. However, taking a timetable which has been designed by a central body and auctioning bundles of paths within it is likely to be possible and may achieve many of the potential benefits of an auction approach to facilitating competition.
6.60 Secondary trading would enable operators to exchange paths between themselves in order to optimise the efficiency of their operations. Further work would be required to identify how secondary trading of paths could be designed to remain compliant with European legislation.431
6.61 Suggestions regarding auctioning bundles of paths were made in the consultation response by Virgin/Stagecoach and Network Rail.
6.62 As indicated in both responses, there would need to be rules in place to ensure that under Option 4 there was competition present on all or the majority of flows. This would effectively mean preventing operators gaining control of collections of rights which would allow them to exercise market power and so raise prices. If an auction mechanism were used, this would be likely to be best implemented through caps on the number of paths companies could win in particular areas.
6.63 For the trading-based Option 4(b), a mechanism would also need to be designed to decide which operators were assigned responsibility for particular unprofitable but socially valuable routes, as these would differ in how costly they were to provide or finance.
6.64 We consider that with multiple operators on each route, greater operational complexity may require a strengthened role for the system operator. This is also noted in the impact assessment’s analysis of Option 4. An improved system operator function is a general recommendation we make below – but may be particularly important for this option.
431 We understand this prohibition aims to prevent an unintended operational consequence of secondary trading, in terms of capacity reallocation not being supervised (and authorised) by the relevant infrastructure manager and this leading to inefficient use of rail capacity or inefficient interconnections. Other recommendations to support greater competition
6.65 In our discussion document, we set out a number of more general ideas that could usefully be adopted alongside any of the options for greater on-rail competition coming into effect after 2023:
- reducing the level of detailed specification of franchise contracts (paragraphs 6.67 to 6.70);
- reforming the structure of access charges (paragraphs 6.71 to 6.78);
- improving incentives to facilitate better responsiveness of Network Rail in its ‘system operator’ function (paragraph 6.79); and
- encouraging the use of smart ticketing so that real passenger journeys are tracked within the system (paragraph 6.80).
6.66 In our evaluation of the options we assume that these changes (which are all under active consideration by DfT and ORR) would also be implemented.
Detailed specification of operators’ obligations
6.67 We are conscious of the need for a degree of franchise specification, for example on commuter routes and on services which mainly deliver social objectives. We also note that a degree of specification is needed to ensure that certain services (eg appropriate first and last trains) are provided on commercial intercity routes.
6.68 However, we consider that the degree of specification in some of the current franchise agreements may significantly restrict the ability of franchised TOCs to manage their businesses commercially. We were told by certain operators that they are taking the role of ‘service delivery contractors’ rather than commercial operators. This detailed specification of services is likely to limit the ability of franchised TOCs to tailor their services to passenger demand (eg by adjusting service frequencies and introducing innovations), particularly as market dynamics evolve during the course of a franchise.(^{432}) It may also restrict the ability of a franchised TOC to reduce costs. In turn, this may lower
______________________________________________________________________
(^{432}) Virgin/Stagecoach noted that in order to achieve the benefits of greater on-rail competition, real flexibility should be given to franchisees. Arriva noted that where greater on-rail competition is allowed, operators of commercial services would be better placed to respond to commercial market opportunities and would need the flexibility and freedom to do so (which would, in turn, free government to focus on areas where the taxpayer is at risk or where broader policy aims need to be addressed). ORR also said that the prescriptive nature of some franchise specifications can limit the ability of operators to adapt to passengers’ changing demands. This point was also noted in the impact assessment which stated that prescriptive franchise specifications can limit the scope for operators to innovate to maximise revenue or reduce costs. customers’ satisfaction. We were also told by some franchised TOCs that service specification blunts their incentives to run additional trains.
6.69 As set out in Chapter 2, the Rail Group is in the process of undertaking reforms to the system (most notably in the recent East Anglia Invitation to Tender).\\textsuperscript{433} This changing approach is welcome. In this regard, we note that where franchise specification is less detailed, we have seen evidence of operator-led innovation, service improvement and growth.\\textsuperscript{434}
6.70 In order to realise fully the benefits of on-rail competition it is particularly important to ensure that franchises are not over-specified.\\textsuperscript{435} For example, in Option 1, the franchisee would need sufficient flexibility to respond to open access competition, while in Options 2 and 3, the specification should be sufficiently flexible to allow the franchised TOCs to compete on factors other than price. This is a point that has been made to us by franchised TOCs which face competition from existing or potential OAOs.
\\textit{Reforming the structure of access charges}
6.71 We consider that a number of benefits to passengers and taxpayers could be delivered by reforming the structure of access charges.
6.72 As described in Chapter 2, ORR is currently conducting a review of the structure of access charges paid to Network Rail. ORR has identified four gaps in the current charging regime: (a) a limited ability to drive down costs; (b) a lack of specific and strong incentives to provide and allocate capacity most efficiently; (c) a potential inability to support effective competition between different types of passenger train operator; and (d) complexity.
6.73 Reforming the access charging structure would create a more level playing field in terms of the risks and charges faced by franchised TOCs and OAOs (eg by requiring OAOs to pay charges that are reflective of the fixed and variable costs of the infrastructure that they use and reviewing the indemnity that franchised TOCs enjoy against changes in track access charges during their franchises).
\\textsuperscript{433} We also note that in response to our consultation the DfT stated that there are benefits from specification and that they aim to strike a balance between the benefits of specification and the ability of operators to innovate and provide new approaches to serving passengers. The DfT also told us that franchising policy, which will be applicable to future franchises, has become less restrictive in terms of both the bidding process and in allowing franchised TOCs to develop improvements during the lifetime of a franchise.
\\textsuperscript{434} We cite the example of Chiltern Railways in Chapter 3.
\\textsuperscript{435} Supplementary responses by the Rail Delivery Group and Virgin/Stagecoach following publication of the impact assessment. Implementing cost-reflective access charges would also facilitate the implementation of reforms to increase competition. Under the current framework, if competition is introduced while the government continues to subsidise infrastructure through the network grant and fares fall, reducing franchise premiums, government may be left to provide funding for this shortfall through a higher network grant. If operators paid cost-reflective access charges this problem would be mitigated as a new, larger revenue stream would be created.
We note that changes in this regard are already taking place. In the summer 2015 Budget the government announced that it will change the way in which it channels public money through the industry, directing it through the franchised TOCs, rather than straight to Network Rail in the form of a network grant. This has the stated aim of encouraging Network Rail to focus firmly on the needs of train operators and, through them, passengers – encouraging customers of the railway to demand efficiency and improvements that matter to them and making the best use of scarce capacity on the rail network.\\footnote{HM Treasury (July 2015), \\textit{Summer Budget 2015}, HC264, paragraph 1.255.}
Introducing access charges which were reflective not just of the resource costs of infrastructure used by operators, but of the opportunity cost, or value, would also allow scarcity to be reflected in the allocation of train paths, increasing the efficiency of the track allocation process.\\footnote{We note that ORR is consulting on (a) an infrastructure costs package, which would lead to higher charges in more costly parts of the network and (b) a value-based capacity package, which would see higher charges where capacity is scarce.}
This ability of reformed access charges to mitigate the impact on funding the network and unprofitable but socially desirable services is demonstrated in the MVA report for the 2011 ORR consultation.\\footnote{See, MVA Consultancy (in association with Leeds University’s ITS), Report for ORR (22 July 2011), Assisting Decisions: Modelling the Impacts of Increased On-rail Competition through Open Access Operation.} MVA modelled a number of different access charges when applied in conjunction with a significant expansion of open access operations on the East Coast main line. One such scenario is shown in Figure 16 below:\\footnote{These access charges were: (i) ‘As Now’, with franchisees paying the current level of FTAC and OAOs not paying anything; (ii) ‘Proportionate Allocation’, where OAOs paid a share of the current FTAC; (iii) a ‘Peak Capacity Charge’, where OAOs paid a 50% higher charge for peak slots; (iv) an ‘Auctioning of Slots’ option where OAOs paid 90% of their profits as bids in auctions for slots; and (v) an ‘FO Opportunity Cost’ option where OAOs pay the difference between the revenue the franchised TOC receives if it faced competition and if it did not.} 6.78 In the MVA report, FTAC charging options 2, 3 and 4 involve access charges where operators do not only pay the accounting costs of using the network, but also pay towards the opportunity cost of the access rights that they are using. This would mean they would pay more for more valuable access rights such as those at peak times on high-demand routes. As can be seen from the chart above, this has the potential to lower the cost to government of increasing competition and losing revenue from premium payments.\\textsuperscript{440}
\\textit{Network Rail’s incentives as system operator}
6.79 We consider that the incentives placed on Network Rail in its role of ‘system operator’ should be sharpened in order to ensure that current infrastructure provides the highest feasible number of train paths for a given level of performance and cost.\\textsuperscript{441} As set out in Chapter 5, evidence shows that new entrants have greater incentives to put pressure on Network Rail to accommodate new entry and therefore to optimise the use of the network. ORR is currently reviewing Network Rail’s role as a system operator. We see the strengthening of the system operator role as important to our options for reform as enhanced coordination of the network would be important for
\\textsuperscript{440} Another scenario showed that the costs to government could actually be negative following the introduction of competition under some access charge systems, meaning that premiums would increase. However, this appeared to be driven largely by the choice of a scenario with an OAO running without competition on a large number of flows.
\\textsuperscript{441} We recognise that there can be a trade-off between the number of services run on a route and punctuality and other KPIs, due to the decreased capacity in the system to respond to service interruptions such as broken down trains. managing the greater number of operators on the network. This is discussed further in Chapter 7.
**Smart ticketing**
6.80 We consider that the implementation of smart ticketing systems, which monitor the actual trains that passengers take, would be beneficial as it would allow revenue to be more accurately apportioned to operators.(^{442}) The current ORCATS model, described in paragraph 5.204, allocates revenue from passengers travelling on interavailable tickets based on estimates of passenger demand and therefore blunts incentives for operators to attract more passengers.(^{443})
**Assessment of the options**
6.81 Our discussion document considered the advantages and disadvantages of four options for greater on-rail competition at a high level. We have built upon the factors discussed and the comments we have received during our consultation to produce the assessment framework outlined in Box 5 below.
6.82 The options assessment framework takes into account the risks and obstacles to greater on-rail competition described in Chapter 5, as well as the benefits identified in Chapters 3 and 4. We cross-refer to these chapters in our assessment where appropriate.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{442}) This point was made by a number of consultation respondents, including Virgin/Stagecoach.
(^{443}) As described in paragraph 5.206, passengers’ preference for interavailable tickets is stronger on commuter services than on the intercity routes. Box 5: Options assessment framework
1. **Passenger and efficiency benefits**
- (a) Lower prices and fares
- (b) Improved overall passenger experience, including service quality, choice and complexity
- (c) Greater cost efficiency at the passenger services level
- (d) Dynamic or innovation benefits
2. **Funding and risk**
- (a) Taxpayer funding – impact on government funds
- (b) Impact on risk for government and operators
- (c) Impact on investment incentives
3. **Network considerations, including operational issues**
- (a) Impact on coordination and the level of transaction costs
- (b) Utilisation of capacity and interconnectivity
- (c) Impact on efficiency at the upstream network management level
- (d) Impact on safety
4. **Wider social benefits**
- (a) Externalities generated: regional economic growth and environmental benefits
- (b) Impact on social inclusion and connectivity
5. **Ease of implementation, including legal and operational feasibility** Scale of policy and regulatory changes required
6.83 In the following paragraphs, we use the five elements of the framework to assess each of the four options against the base case scenario of the reformed franchising system continuing with incremental improvements.(^{444})
6.84 In assessing the options, we refer to the impact assessment which considered many of the elements in our assessment framework.
**Passenger and efficiency benefits**
6.85 In Chapter 3, we found that greater on-rail competition may be expected to bring passenger benefits in terms of lower prices or fares, improved quality of service and greater innovation. In Chapter 4, we also found evidence to suggest that greater on-rail competition may be expected to lead to cost efficiencies at the passenger service and upstream network levels.
(^{444}) The base case is described in more detail in paragraph 6.5. 6.86 The importance of examining these potential benefits was highlighted to us in consultation responses, for example from passenger and consumer groups. An additional factor relevant to the passenger experience highlighted in consultation responses was the level of complexity faced by consumers in purchasing tickets or planning their journey. We therefore also consider this in our assessment.
Lower prices and fares
6.87 The impact of each option on fares may relate to factors such as:
- The degree of on-rail competition introduced, as the greater the number of flows on which there is an overlap, the more flows there are on which price competition would occur.
- The extent to which operators compete, including:
- the respective business models of the operators, including the extent of product/service differentiation;
- the degree of freedom from specification of services (with greater freedom allowing more scope to lower fares, change business models and generate cost efficiencies); and
- the charges and levies paid by operators.
- Whether firms could collude tacitly or otherwise to limit competition.
6.88 Options 1, 2 and 4 would each create direct competition between operators on many flows, while Option 3 would be likely to result in competition on a more limited number of overlaps.
6.89 In the baseline scenario, the degree of price competition between operators is relatively limited as many operators face no (or limited) on-rail competition on the flows they operate and are constrained in their ability to respond to competition where it exists by franchise specification and ticketing rules.
6.90 Option 4 would lead to the lowest degree of specification, as services on the long-distance routes would be entirely or mostly comprised of OAO-type operators. We consider that this is likely to result in the highest degree of
______________________________________________________________________
445 Responses by Transport Focus and Which? 446 Responses by Transport Focus, Which? and others. 447 Respondents to our consultation generally agreed with these conclusions, for example, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport noted that operators remain franchisees in Options 2 and 3 with the limited risk and price innovation this implies. Virgin/Stagecoach argued that that the franchise service obligations and fare agreements could restrict the benefits of competition in these options. price competition. In Option 1, an OAO that was free from franchise specification would compete with the franchised TOC on a significantly expanded scale relative to the base case. In contrast, Options 2 and 3 would retain competition between franchised TOCs subject to franchise specification.
6.91 We note in paragraph 6.37 that Option 2 may create a risk of tacit collusion between operators. The likelihood of this concern arising depends on the degree of symmetry of the operators in terms of their size, cost base and business models. A more asymmetric split between operators is likely to reduce the risk of coordination between operators – although it would also reduce the degree of competition. We also note that the government would retain the ability to specify the types of services run by both operators (eg in terms of their rolling stock, calling patterns and strategy) and that operators might therefore be differentiated. In summary, while there is a risk of coordination between operators in Option 2, there is scope for this risk to be addressed.
6.92 We do not consider that tacit collusion would be a considerable concern under Option 1 as the franchised TOC and OAO would be differentiated in terms of their scale and business model. In Option 3, franchised TOCs would only overlap with other operators for part of their routes, reducing the risk of collusion. In Option 4, there would be multiple operators which may have different business models (eg to target premium or low-cost segments of the market), therefore reducing the risk of coordination.
6.93 The modelling in the impact assessment suggested that average price impacts from competition would primarily depend on the proportion of flows on which competition was introduced in the indicative scenarios they modelled. The modelling suggests that Option 1 would have a greater impact on fares than Options 2 and 3:
- The average impacts of the scenarios modelled for Option 1 on the East Coast and West Coast main lines range from 2.5% to 5.2% while for Option 2 the respective reductions range between 1.9% and 3.6%.
______________________________________________________________________
448 The modelling approach uses ‘exogenous’ fare assumptions based on past evidence of comparisons between fares on flows with and without competition. The modelling assumed fares would be 10 to 20% lower for OAOs on flows with on-rail competition under Option 1, and 5 to 10% lower for franchised TOCs on flows with competition under Options 1, 2 and 3. The scenarios modelled led to a combination of flows with and without competition, and so average price reductions on the routes modelled varied accordingly.
449 This is the average of the overall results for the East Coast and West Coast main lines in the ‘low’ and ‘high’ scenarios reported in Table 25 of the impact assessment, compared with the average of ‘low’ and ‘high’ scenarios for symmetric and asymmetric options modelled on the East Coast and West Coast main lines in Table 26. We note that the Option 2 asymmetric East Coast main line scenario does, however, have greater fare reductions than the East Coast main line Option 1 scenario. • The modelling of the Great Western main line finds overall fare reductions under Option 1 of between 1.4% and 2.9%, compared with reduction of between 0.6% and 1.3% under Option 3.
6.94 Taking these considerations into account, we therefore expect fares to fall the most under Option 4, followed by Option 1, Option 2 and then Option 3 (with fares falling relative to the base case under all four options).
**Improved overall passenger experience**
6.95 We consider that the factors set out in paragraph 6.87 which we considered important for driving price competition are most significant in determining the passenger experience, since operators facing strong competitive pressure and with minimal specification are more likely to compete strongly on quality.
6.96 As discussed in Chapter 5, we note that passengers may face a greater degree of complexity if their choice of operator increases, potentially leading to confusion (e.g., making it more difficult for passengers to buy the best available ticket for their journey). This is likely to increase with the number of operators on a route, and also with how frequently operators’ services change. However, this must be balanced with the passenger benefits of new fare types, including lower fares and products which better match demand. We concluded in Chapter 5 that these issues are less likely to arise on long-distance routes, where most passengers plan their journeys in advance. There are also mechanisms for dealing with difficulties from complexity.
6.97 We consider that Option 4 has the potential to give passengers the best experience, as having multiple operators with the scope to set their own business models would create the strongest incentives for operators to differentiate their services and compete on quality. Option 1 would deliver these benefits to a degree as the OAO would be free from specification (and the franchised TOC could respond by introducing service quality improvements if its franchise specification allowed it to do so). Options 2 and 3 may create an improved passenger experience relative to the base case, although this would depend on the freedom for the franchised TOCs are free to introduce service quality improvements. The impact is likely to be more limited in Option 3 than in Option 2 given the more limited degree of on-rail
______________________________________________________________________
450 As noted above, the impact of Option 4 was assessed qualitatively rather than quantitatively. Our conclusions are based on our own assessment framework, taking account of the qualitative considerations in the impact assessment.
451 For example, Transport Focus suggested that complexity could be addressed through mechanisms such as better provision of information for passengers. competition. We consider that all four options would lead to an improvement compared with the base case.
**Greater cost efficiency at the passenger services level**
6.98 We consider that there is the potential for efficiencies to be achieved at the train operating level, which – in an environment of enhanced competition in the market – may be passed on to consumers through service quality improvements or lower fares.
6.99 As discussed in Chapter 4, efficiency gains are likely to be achieved by increasing open access competition. We also consider that there would be potential for improved efficiency from greater on-rail competition between franchised TOCs, although these effects may be lower (in particular given service specification and staff TUPE arrangements). In addition, any economies of density may be lost when services within a route are run by multiple operators, rather than one operator.
6.100 The impact assessment used similar assumptions and included potential adverse impacts on efficiencies due a reduction in economies of density in its analysis. As noted in Chapter 4, under Option 1, where OAOs expand, total industry costs fell under most of the scenarios.(^{452}) The results for Options 2 and 3, in which greater on-rail competition between franchised TOCs is introduced, were more mixed.(^{453}) Efficiencies were not quantitatively modelled for Option 4, although the qualitative assessment suggested that Option 4 would create the strongest incentives for operators to reduce costs.
6.101 In summary, we consider that the extent of efficiency benefits would primarily be driven by the degree of open access operations relative to franchised services and degree of on-rail competition between operators. We consider that overall Option 4, followed by Option 1, then Option 2 and finally Option 3 would be most successful in this regard. We also consider that all four options would lead to an improvement in comparison with the base case.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{452}) Total industry costs fell for the ‘central’ and ‘high’ scenarios on the East Coast, West Coast and Great Western main lines, and for the ‘low’ scenario on the East Coast main line. However, for the low scenario on the West Coast and Great Western main lines, costs rose. The ‘high’, ‘low’ and ‘central’ scenarios reflect the assumptions used, in this case with respect to cost efficiency gains resulting from competition. Further detail of the modelling and assumptions used is set out in Chapter 6 of this document.
(^{453}) For Option 2, total industry costs were higher in the low scenarios for the East Coast and West Coast main lines, higher in the central scenario for the East Coast main line and did not change on the West Coast main line under the central case scenario. Costs fell under the high scenarios for the East Coast and West Coast main lines. For Option 3, which was modelled only on the Great Western main line, total industry costs rose in the low scenario, fell marginally in the central scenario, and fell slightly in the high scenario. Dynamic or innovation benefits
6.102 We would expect the scope for dynamic competition and innovation to increase with the degree of on-rail competition between operators and with the level of freedom from detailed franchise specification.
6.103 The impact assessment considered that increased competition would be likely to lead to innovation benefits, and highlighted that OAOs have introduced innovations in Great Britain and Europe to date. It also considered that Option 4 has the most scope to attract new operators to the Great Britain rail market and so may increase the likelihood of increased innovation.
6.104 With the greatest freedom to introduce innovation, we would expect Option 4 to achieve the most significant benefits in terms of dynamic competition, followed by Option 1, then Option 2, then Option 3. We consider that all four options would lead to an improvement in comparison with the base case.
Overall
6.105 Our assessment above suggests that Option 4, followed by Option 1 then Option 2 and finally Option 3, would be most successful in delivering passenger benefits. We consider that each of these options would deliver benefits relative to the base case on long-distance intercity routes.
Funding and risk
6.106 As discussed in Chapter 5, greater on-rail competition may be expected to reduce government funds from franchise premiums. In relation to risk, we also note that, in the base case, franchised TOCs face uncertainty at the time of franchise bidding as to the extent of on-rail competition that they will face during their franchise. More generally, changing economic circumstances and shocks to the system may lead to the failure of a franchise (as happened twice on the East Coast main line).
Taxpayer funding – impact on government funds
6.107 Option 1 seeks to address this through OAOs making a greater contribution to the cost of the network through higher access charges and by way of a PSO levy. The implementation of these mechanisms is considered further in Chapter 7.
______________________________________________________________________
454 See p26 of the impact assessment. 455 See p46 of the impact assessment. 456 See p123 of the impact assessment. 6.108 As noted in paragraph 6.29, in the absence of a developed model for a PSO levy, the impact assessment models an approach in which OAOs are charged based on the level of abstraction from franchises in conjunction with an estimated share of franchise premiums associated with the service from which abstraction occurs. The levy itself was modelled on a pound-per-passenger-mile basis. This modelled PSO levy almost entirely offsets the impact on government funds in most scenarios measured, for example leading to a 3% fall in government income under the central scenario on the East Coast main line, and an equivalent 4% reduction on the West Coast main line. The impact was, however, greater on the Great Western main line, where a 15% reduction occurred under the central scenario.\\textsuperscript{457}
6.109 The DfT told us in its supplementary consultation response that the impact assessment does not propose any deliverable operational model for a PSO levy. In its view, further work should be undertaken regarding the design of deliverability of the PSO levy before a significant programme of reform to introduce greater on-rail competition is introduced. We discuss further work that should be undertaken in relation to the design of the levy in Chapter 7.
6.110 As noted above, we are aware of the limitations of the quantitative modelling in the impact assessment, but note that it provides a broad indication of the likely direction of the impact of the options. In relation to government funds, we also note that there are factors not modelled which might have resulted in a lower impact on government funds than estimated:
- OAOs are sufficiently profitable such that they may be able to pay a higher PSO levy and remain profitable.\\textsuperscript{458}
- If higher, cost-reflective, access charges are introduced, OAOs would pay higher access charges than are modelled by the impact assessment.
6.111 Option 2 is also likely to reduce government funds to a degree by lowering franchise premiums (with the impact depending on the extent of on-rail competition created in the design of the franchise split). However, as noted above, higher and more cost-reflective access charges would help to mitigate this effect. The government would also retain control of the flows on which on-rail competition would take place and, through franchise specification, the scope for the franchised TOCs to compete. As noted in Chapter 5, any impact on government revenue would need to be balanced by policymakers against improvements in consumer surplus.
\\textsuperscript{457} Tables 34–36 of the impact assessment. \\textsuperscript{458} Ibid. 6.112 The impact assessment estimated that the impact on funding under Option 2 on the East Coast and West Coast main lines was slightly higher than under Option 1, with a 7% and 3–4% reduction, respectively, under central assumptions. The Great Western main line was not modelled for this option.
6.113 Option 3 would have a more limited impact on government funds as the degree of franchise overlap would be more limited. The impact assessment found a relatively small impact on government funds, with a reduction of 2% of premium on the Great Western main line.
6.114 Option 4 would end franchising on the long-distance routes on which it was implemented, but the ‘licence’ system would be designed to ensure that all PSO services within the main line routes are provided by the OAO-type operators. Revenue raised from the auction mechanism (if this were the approach used), could be used to fund unprofitable but socially valuable services in other loss-making areas which are currently subsidised through franchise premiums on other parts of the network. The impact assessment did not model Option 4 quantitatively, but it noted that auction revenue raised from this process would be lower than that raised under franchising, as monopoly rents could not be raised to the same extent, and that licence auctions may therefore raise less revenue than franchising.
6.115 Overall, we consider that Option 1 has the potential to address the impact on government funds from greater on-rail competition, although noting that further work is needed on the PSO levy (we also note, however, that no such mechanism to address the impact of on-rail competition is available to policymakers today). Option 2 would be expected to have some impact on government funds, with Option 3 having a lesser impact. Further work would be required to examine the impact of Option 4 on government funds, although we note that significant funds could be raised from the auction of paths and that the system would subsequently function without ongoing central government involvement.
Impact on risk for government and operators
6.116 Government and operators face risks both under the options and the base case. Under the base case, there is a risk of there being an insufficient number of bidders for franchises. As discussed in paragraphs 2.113 to 2.115,
______________________________________________________________________
459 Tables 37 and 38 of the impact assessment. 460 Table 39 of the impact assessment. this risk was noted by the NAO in 2015 and Public Accounts Committee in 2016.
6.117 The possibility of franchise failure, at which point the government may be required to step in as ‘operator of last resort’, is another risk under the current system.\\textsuperscript{461}
6.118 By creating uncertainty for bidders, open access applications in the current framework may risk both the intensity of competition for a franchise and, if OAOs enter, the financial viability of a franchise. TOC owner groups also face the risk of losing key franchises which may mean that they are out of the market for a number of years, making it difficult for owner groups to balance risk across their portfolios.
6.119 We note that the options that we propose offer policymakers additional tools for strengthening the current system and addressing risks. In particular, Option 1 seeks to address the risk from open access applications by coordinating the timing of applications with franchise bidding rounds and seeking to address funding issues. Both Option 1 and Option 2 also create smaller franchises, potentially lowering barriers to entry and helping owner groups to balance risk across their portfolios.\\textsuperscript{462}
6.120 As we have noted, a potential concern with Option 1, using a PSO levy approach, is that OAOs may struggle to be financially viable if paying such a levy.\\textsuperscript{463} However, OAOs responding to our consultation told us that they would be willing to pay such a levy in return for greater access to the network and, as noted in paragraph 6.30, the levy could be introduced over time. The modelling work in the impact assessment is consistent with this, with OAOs forecast to be profitable in the scenarios modelled, even after PSO levy payments.\\textsuperscript{464} The impact assessment does, however, note that operators’ profitability would be dependent on the relative treatment of OAOs and franchised TOCs in terms of charging and funding.\\textsuperscript{465}
6.121 Under Options 2 and 3, the risks facing operators and government would be similar to those under the base case. However, as noted above, Option 2 may reduce the risk to operators of failing to win franchise competitions, as by
\\textsuperscript{461} The government’s obligation to ensure continuity of services applies only to franchised services.
\\textsuperscript{462} As noted in paragraph 2.113, the risk of there being an insufficient number of bidders for franchises was identified by the NAO.
\\textsuperscript{463} This was mentioned in consultation responses from Prof Juan Montero on behalf of REGUTRAIN, who considered that it was doubtful if the universal service obligation levy principle successfully applied to telecoms in Spain could be extrapolated to become a substitute for the very significant cross-subsidies implemented under the franchise model in the rail industry in Great Britain.
\\textsuperscript{464} Ibid, p97.
\\textsuperscript{465} Ibid, p98. splitting current franchises, competitions may take place more frequently. Security of supply considerations may be reduced as if one franchise were to fail, the other franchised TOC on the route, rather than the government, may be able to operate the failing franchised TOC’s services. As discussed further in paragraph 6.171, the application of UK merger control to the award of franchises would also create a risk in Option 3 as bidders with overlapping services would face detailed competition scrutiny.
6.122 Under Option 4, a dynamic commercial market with multiple intercity operators would result and firms may enter and exit the market over time. This may involve some new risks for operators within the market, but this risk may not be substantially more severe than operators face under the base case, from franchise failure, OAO applications or from failure to win franchise competitions. Option 4 may reduce the security of supply risk, as there would be a greater number of intercity operators within a franchise area.
**Impact on investment incentives**
6.123 We consider the impact of greater on-rail competition on investment business cases and the potential for greater private investment to be incentivised in the network in a more commercial environment in paragraphs 5.97 to 5.109.
6.124 By increasing the scale of open access operations, Option 1 could incentivise greater private investment in the network. As considered in Chapter 3, on-rail competition may increase demand for rail travel, unlocking considerable social benefits and incentivising further investment.
6.125 We consider that Option 2 would be very similar to the base case in terms of investment incentives as franchising would be retained. There may be some impact on government funds, but increased passenger use of infrastructure would be likely to yield passenger and wider social benefits. Option 3 would be very similar in this regard, but with less pronounced effects. We do not consider that the incentives for operator investments would change considerably from the base case.
6.126 We consider that under Option 4, the creation of a more dynamic, market-based system may provide strong incentives for operators to invest, particularly if long-term access rights are granted to operators. This may represent a significant opportunity for harnessing private sector investment in the network in the longer term. Overall
6.127 Overall, we consider that while Options 1 and 2 would be associated with some impact on funding and risk, they have potential to address some of the risks in the current system. We consider that Option 3 would lead to limited change from the base case. The risks in Option 4 are more difficult to model at this stage, although we note that this option has the potential to drive longer-term reductions in risk for government by creating a self-sustaining commercial model of operation.
Network considerations, including operational issues
6.128 As set out in Chapter 5, there are a number of potential adverse effects which could result from an increase in a number of operators on the network, including coordination and operational issues. In this section we consider the operational impact of the four options. We also consider the degree to which the options would incentivise efficiency at the upstream infrastructure provision level, the degree to which track capacity would be most efficiently used and whether there would be any impacts on safety.
Impact on coordination and the level of transaction costs
6.129 In Chapter 5, we concluded that there may be some operational issues in introducing greater on-rail competition, although no barriers were found to be insurmountable.
6.130 By introducing an OAO competing with the intercity franchised TOC, Option 1 may create some additional operational risk. However, as discussed above, we found that this risk would be manageable and would not be significantly greater than in the current system in which multiple franchised TOCs, OAOs and freight services operate on the network.
6.131 In Options 2 and 3, the government would, through franchise specification, retain operational control over the competing franchised TOCs. As such, there would only be minor implications for operational control and performance.
6.132 In Option 4, a strong system operator function would be required in order to manage the timetables of multiple intercity train operators. Changes to timetables and licences would have to be coordinated over time and with major projects. However, while the operational risk is higher than in the other options, we do not consider the issues to be insurmountable.
6.133 In relation to transaction costs, we consider that challenges in coordination issues in the rail network, and the transactions costs involved in internalising these, would increase with an increase in the number of operators on the network, and the dynamism of the market. We therefore consider that transaction costs would be highest under Option 4, followed by Option 1, followed by Option 2 then Option 3, then the base case. However, as set out in Chapter 6, given the low magnitude of transaction costs currently in the industry, we do not consider that the magnitude of these differences would be very significant.
Utilisation of capacity and interconnectivity
6.134 We discuss the impact of on-rail competition on capacity utilisation and interconnectivity in Chapter 6.
6.135 The impact assessment considered that Option 1 and Option 4 may more efficiently match services to demand, and that OAOs have in the past successfully put pressure on Network Rail to find capacity, while Option 2 and Option 3 would be similarly effective to the base case in this regard.
6.136 We consider that Option 4, if designed appropriately, would yield the best use of capacity and provision of interconnectivity, as it would be based on market signals and would give the flexibility for services to change in response to demand.
6.137 Option 1 would achieve benefits in this respect as it has the next greatest degree of open access services, which creates incentives to utilise capacity efficiently in response to market signals and to ensure connectivity. Option 2 and Option 3 are unlikely to lead to significant changes in this area.
Impact on efficiency at upstream network management level
6.138 The impact assessment considered this in its general considerations but did not model it explicitly. Its qualitative assessment suggested that competition downstream may be likely to have an impact on efficiency upstream. It also suggested that Option 4 provides strong incentives for operators to engage with Network Rail to ensure that it delivers performance and enhancements in a cost effective way.
______________________________________________________________________
466 This point was also made by The Railways Consultancy Ltd. 467 See the impact assessment, Chapter 9, sections on Product – Level of Service and Capacity. As discussed in paragraphs 5.32–5.36, even in scenarios when track capacity is full, there may be the possibility to more fully utilise train capacity, particularly at off-peak times. 468 See, for example, the impact assessment, Chapter 5.5, Review of Evidence on the Impact of Competition – Impacts on Network Rail Incentives and Behaviour, p47 and Table 20 – Non-Quantified Impacts, p61. 469 Ibid. 6.139 The potential for the options to generate efficiencies upstream depends on the intensity of on-rail competition and the degree of commercial freedom and incentives afforded to operators. We therefore consider that Option 4, followed by Option 1, would result in the strongest incentives to achieve upstream efficiencies. Options 2 and 3 may have a limited impact in this regard.
**Impact on safety**
6.140 Safety was cited by many consultation respondents as an important criterion against which the options should be assessed.(^{470})
6.141 Rail safety is a primary policy objective both at European and national level. An effective European regulatory framework for safety is in place as well as detailed national legislation and a safety management system.(^{471}) Moreover a European Railway Agency, an independent national safety authority (in the UK, ORR) and an independent accident investigation body (the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB)(^{472}) in the UK) have been established in all member states.
6.142 Europe’s railways are among the safest in the world and Great Britain now has one of the safest railways in Europe.(^{473}) Consistent with the existing legislation and policy, safety is the primary consideration in the Great Britain rail sector.
6.143 We have not received any evidence that any of the four options under consideration would reduce safety on the railway. The options that we are considering would be implemented within the relevant national and European
______________________________________________________________________
(^{470}) Safety was raised as an important consideration in relation to rail by at least ten consultation respondents. However, none of these raised specific safety concerns in respect to particular options. See, for example, Network Rail’s supplementary consultation response. A minority of respondents considered that there was no way to increase competition without adversely impacting on safety, see for example, ASLEF. We do not consider that there is any evidence of this in relation to the four options under consideration.
(^{471}) The Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC: (a) creates a regulatory framework for the maintenance of safety management systems; (b) defines clear responsibilities between various players (operators, infrastructure providers, national safety authorities, etc); (c) develops common safety targets and common safety methods (developed by the European Railway Agency); (d) establishes safety authorities and accident investigation bodies, such as ORR in Great Britain. On this basis, ORR has worked with the DfT and the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) to develop the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 (as amended in 2011 and 2013), which implements the European Railway Safety Directive and provides the regulatory regime for rail safety. In addition there are a number of further national measures, as the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997, which cover a wide range of safety issues, such as prevention of unauthorised access to the railway infrastructure or providing adequate braking systems; the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 which required the installation of a form of train protection on the railways; and the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010, which brings the requirement to hold a licence and certificate to drive a train into force by 2018.
(^{472}) The RAIB independently investigates accidents to improve railway safety, and inform the industry and the public.
(^{473}) See ORR, UK NSA Annual Safety Report 2014 (September 2015); and ORR (July 2015), Health and safety report for 2014-15. safety legislation. In considering implementation, policymakers in Great Britain will be required by the relevant legislation to ensure that no steps are taken which would compromise safety.
**Overall**
6.144 Taking the above factors into consideration, we consider that Options 1 and 4 would lead to better outcomes at the network level than Options 2, 3 and the base case.
6.145 While Options 1 and 4 may lead to small increases in transaction costs, we consider they may also increase connectivity and capacity utilisation, and reduce infrastructure costs the most. Options 2 and 3 would see savings in infrastructure costs compared with the base case, but may also see higher transaction costs. Options 2, 3 and the base case would be the same in terms of capacity use and interconnectivity as they would all be based on centrally designed franchises.
**Wider social benefits**
6.146 As discussed in Chapters 3 and 5, there are a number of wider social considerations associated with the use of the rail network. In some cases this means that services are socially desirable even when they may not be profitable. In this section we assess the ability of the options to generate wider social and economic benefits.
*Externalities generated: regional economic growth and environmental benefits*
6.147 As discussed in Chapter 3, rail travel may generate wider economic benefits, for example by facilitating regional growth and reducing congestion on road networks. Rail may also help environmental sustainability when rail is less polluting than alternative forms of travel.
6.148 We consider that Options 1 and 4 would be most effective at generating the external benefits provided by the rail network. This is because they have the potential to grow demand by lowering fares and improving service quality. These options could also capture unmet demand at poorly served destinations by making better use of market signals. These options may also take passengers from more polluting forms of travel such as air and road where a degree of intermodal competition exists, and may also reduce congestion on these other transport routes which is in turn likely to have economic benefits. This is consistent with the findings of the 2011 MVA Report for ORR (discussed in Chapter 3), which modelled significant benefits from open access operations on the East and West Coast main lines. 6.149 Options 2 and 3 would be likely to generate some wider economic benefits compared with the base case, as price competition increases passenger volumes. This would, however, be lower than under Options 1 and 4.
6.150 The impact assessment modelled the environmental and wider economic benefits of the options. It suggested that Option 1 would have a greater impact than Option 2 and Option 3, and that all options produce positive results relative to the base case:
- Option 1 was found to produce benefits valued at between £144 million and £221 million on the East Coast and between £324 million and £671 million on the West Coast main line, in comparison with Option 2 which produced £131 million and £266 million and £59 million and £119 million, respectively, depending on how Option 2 is implemented.
- Option 1 was found to produce £50–£97 million on the Great Western main line, in comparison with £21–£41 million on the same line for Option 3.
**Impact on social inclusion and connectivity**
6.151 We consider that all the options would be the same in this respect, as franchise design under Options 1, 2 and 3, and licence design under Option 4 lead to the same pattern of service provision for less profitable but socially desirable services. Options 2 and 3 may, however, provide the simplest means to achieve these objectives. Some respondents emphasised the benefits of franchise-based options in safeguarding regional services, and considered that Option 1 might be less successful in this respect.(^{474})
**Overall**
6.152 We therefore consider that in terms of wider social benefits, the appropriate ranking would be Option 4 followed by Option 1, then Option 2, Option 3 and the base case due to the revitalised role the rail network could play for the UK.
**Ease of implementation, including legal and technical feasibility**
**Scale of policy and regulatory changes required**
6.153 There is a degree of variation in the policy and regulatory challenge in implementing any of the options. It was put to us during our consultation that
(^{474}) Response by SEStran. we should consider the costs related to implementation of the options and whether these outweighed the net benefits generated by the options in comparison with the base case scenario.\\textsuperscript{475}
6.154 The impact assessment found that Options 2 and 3 could be implemented under the current framework. It found that Option 1 was legally and operationally feasible, although further examination of the PSO levy would be required. In relation to Option 4, the assessment found that while there would be significant challenges in implementation, these were not considered to be insurmountable.
6.155 Option 1 would require a change to the structure of track access charges and the introduction of a PSO levy. The former is already under way but, as noted above, the PSO levy would require careful design and possibly primary legislation. A system for allocating paths to an OAO would also have to be designed. However, we have not received any evidence to suggest that these challenges are insurmountable.
6.156 Options 2 and 3 could be delivered within the current legal framework, although a change of franchise policy and, potentially, franchise design, would be required. Option 3 could be implemented gradually as new franchises came up for renewal.
6.157 We note that there is the potential for outcomes similar to those envisaged in Option 3 to begin to arise under current policy conditions in some areas, as the DfT may seek to reduce the size of some current franchises in order to reduce the level of financial risk in the system.
6.158 Option 4 would require an overhaul of the current system in areas where it was implemented, including the design of licences and a mechanism for auctioning train paths.\\textsuperscript{476}
6.159 The base case does not include significant implementation challenges, as the current franchise framework is already in place.
6.160 Overall, we consider that Options 2 and 3 would be the most straightforward to implement as they could be introduced under the current legal framework. Option 1 would require some further steps to implementation, with Option 4 requiring an overhaul of the current system.
\\textsuperscript{475} See, for example, Network Rail’s consultation response.
\\textsuperscript{476} Virgin/Stagecoach stated in their consultation response that, while Option 4 would be more difficult to implement than Options 1–3, they did not agree that it would require a major overhaul and be operationally complex. 6.161 We consider the steps required to implement our preferred options in Chapter 7.
**Overall assessment**
**Impact assessment modelling**
6.162 The impact assessment produced quantitative estimates of the overall impact of the options measured in terms of NPV of the costs and benefits for Options 1 to 3.
6.163 The quantitative assessment aimed to consider the likely direction and broad magnitude of the impacts under a range of scenarios intended to be indicative of the type of service pattern and other impacts that could result under each of the options.
6.164 The impact assessment found that all three options modelled led to positive net benefits relative to the base case in central assumption scenarios.(^{477}) Measured in terms of NPV of costs and benefits over a 20-year appraisal period,(^{478}) the findings (in 2010 prices) were as follows:
- Option 1 would generate £489 million of benefits under the central case assumptions on the East Coast main line, £915 million on the West Coast main line and £262 million on the Great Western main line.
- Option 2 was modelled as producing £95–£236 million of benefits on the East Coast main line and £151–£166 million on the West Coast main line.(^{479})
- Option 3 under the central case assumptions was modelled as producing an NPV on the Great Western main line of £56 million.(^{480})
______________________________________________________________________
(^{477}) Network Rail’s consultation response suggested that the NPV of the options seem relatively low when compared with the industry overall revenue. We consider that a better comparator in this regard would be route-level revenue for the main line routes. Comparisons are not straightforward as the impact assessment’s findings are in 2010 prices and are discounted. However, by way of context, the *Rail Industry Financials 2013-14* provides some comparisons. Revenue on the East Coast main line in 2013–2014 was £717 million, on the West Coast (Virgin Trains) £954 million and on First Great Western, £891 million. We therefore consider that the scale of benefits modelled in the impact assessment under the central case scenarios for Option 1 are similar to a full year’s revenue on the East Coast and West Coast main lines and therefore not insignificant.
(^{478}) These comprise: (a) impacts on users (due to changes in fares and journey time); (b) impact on non-users (due to changes in car use); (c) impact on operators (due to changes in operating costs/efficiency and in passenger revenues); and (d) impact on government funds (due to changes in franchise premium payments, in revenue from access charges and levy and from indirect tax).
(^{479}) Figures for Option 2 are ranges under the central case as both symmetric and asymmetric sub-options were modelled. The impact assessment modelled Option 2 on the East and West Coast main lines only.
(^{480}) The impact assessment modelled Option 3 on the Great Western main line only. 6.165 Option 4 was deemed too difficult to model quantitatively in the time available due to the uncertain nature of the service patterns and exact regulatory framework which it would entail.
6.166 As set out in Box 3, a number of potential impacts of the proposed options, which we considered in our assessment framework, were not quantified in the impact assessment. Non-quantified impacts include impacts on product offering and service quality, impact on the efficiency of Network Rail and positive and negative spillovers outside the intercity routes considered. Some of these may have made the net benefits of the options greater, while others may have had a negative impact on the net benefits.
6.167 The DfT raised this as a particular concern, noting that no fewer than ten distinct relevant issues were explicitly excluded from the quantification of impacts. A number of other consultation respondents raised methodological concerns about the impact assessment. We have taken these concerns into account in the weight that we have placed on the modelling in the impact assessment in our overall analysis which, as noted in paragraph 6.163, aimed to consider the likely direction and broad magnitude of the impacts.
Conclusions – our preferred options
6.168 For ease of understanding we summarise our assessment of the options in Box 6 below. We note that this representation is indicative and intended as an aid to understanding rather than a definitive marking.
______________________________________________________________________
481 These aspects are, however, qualitatively considered in Chapter 9 of the impact assessment. Network Rail told us that the financial value of these impacts could potentially be quite significant and could materially alter the outcome of the impact assessment. In particular, Network Rail stressed that the impact on freight operators of the four options has not been assessed at all.
482 See responses by the DfT, Virgin/Stagecoach, Network Rail, Alliance Rail and the Rail Delivery Group. Box 6: Summary of options against assessment criteria
| | 1 – Greater Open Access | 2 – Split franchises | 3 – Overlapping franchises | 4 – Licence system | 0 – Base case | |--------------------------|-------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------|--------------| | Passenger and efficiency benefits | ✓ ✓ ✓ | ✓ ✓ | ✓ | ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ | - | | Funding and risk | × | × | - | × | - | | Considerations within the network, including operational issues | ✓ | - | - | ✓ | - | | Wider social/economic benefits | ✓ ✓ | ✓ ✓ | ✓ | ✓ ✓ ✓ | - | | Implementation ease | xx | x | x | xxx | - |
6.169 Overall, we found that Option 1 would be likely to generate significant passenger, efficiency and wider economic benefits as a result of competition between two large-scale train operators on key routes, one of which would be an OAO that was not subject to franchise specification. Option 1 also has the advantage of addressing the funding challenge from open access, which is also a feature of the current system. We did not find any legal or operational barriers to implementing Option 1, although the design of a levy to mitigate the impact of greater competition on government funds would require further design work and possibly primary legislation. Option 1 received support from a number of stakeholders.(^{483})
6.170 We also found that Option 2 could provide benefits by introducing on-rail competition on key routes. Although the scope of the benefits – particularly those arising from dynamic competition – may be reduced by both operators remaining as franchised TOCs subject to franchise specification, Option 2 could generate large-scale on-rail competition and is implementable under the current legal framework. Given the diversity of the network in Great Britain, Option 2 may also have the potential to deliver benefits on parts of the network where Option 1 is less suitable.
6.171 We consider that Option 3 would produce lower passenger and efficiency benefits than Options 1 and 2 given the limited degree of on-rail competition that it would generate.(^{484}) The application of UK merger control to the award of
(^{483}) Arriva, FirstGroup, Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, Centre for Policy Studies.
(^{484}) We note that this option received support from only a small number of respondents. The ORR noted that Option 3 may be appropriate on some parts of the network, and could be implemented under the existing framework. franchises would create a risk as bidders with overlapping services would face detailed competition scrutiny, possibly reducing their appetite for bidding and, consequently, the intensity of competition for the franchise award.
6.172 Option 4 has the potential to generate the strongest on-rail competition, with three or more fully commercial operators competing on key flows, subject to licence conditions. This option would require an overhaul of the current system in areas where it was implemented, including the design of licences and a mechanism for auctioning train paths. Although these barriers do not appear to be insurmountable, further work would be required to fully develop the framework.
6.173 In Chapter 7, we set out our final recommendations and consideration of the steps required to implement our preferred options. 7. Recommendations and next steps
Introduction
7.1 In this chapter we set out our recommendations for achieving greater on-rail competition and the key steps for implementing our preferred options to introduce greater on-rail competition.
7.2 As described in Chapter 2, the rail industry is complex and changes to the structure of the industry are ongoing. We are conscious of the importance of ensuring that the key stages in implementing our recommendations are coordinated with developments in the sector, such as the recommendations following the Shaw report into the future of Network Rail, ORR’s structure of charges review and the development of HS2.
7.3 The publication of this policy document does not mark the end of the CMA’s engagement in this area. The recommendations we have set out are for the long term and the CMA will continue to engage with policymakers, regulators and other stakeholders to advocate the report’s recommendations and to consider further development of the options, as appropriate.
7.4 We also encourage industry participants and stakeholders to continue to consider the benefits that greater on-rail competition may bring, and to consider further ways in which opportunities to expand on-rail competition for the benefit of passengers and wider UK productivity may be pursued.
7.5 In setting out next steps, we focus first on general recommendations to lay the foundations for a dynamic, competitive industry, and then on the key steps for implementation of our options to introduce greater competition. In order to give future policymakers flexibility in a rapidly evolving sector, we do not attempt to set out the precise mechanisms by which the options would be implemented or the exact form which the options would take. We recommend that these questions are addressed through further discussions with government, the regulator, the industry and passenger groups.
General recommendations: laying foundations for a dynamic, competitive industry
7.6 In this section, we consider the steps required to implement the four general recommendations set out in Chapter 6 that we consider to be key to enabling full realisation of the benefits of greater on-rail competition. These were:
- further reducing the level of specification of franchise contracts wherever possible; • reforming the structure of access charges so that charges are more cost-reflective;
• improving incentives for Network Rail in its ‘system operator’ function to manage traffic and capacity more efficiently and to become more responsive to customer demands; and
• encouraging the use of smart ticketing so that real passenger journeys are tracked within the system and potential distortions by the ORCATS system are removed.
Further reducing the level of detailed specification of franchise contracts
7.7 We recommend that, as noted in paragraphs 6.67 to 6.70, the government’s current direction of travel towards less tightly specified franchises continues and that further consideration is given to the appropriate level of specification on franchises where there is a degree of on-rail competition.
Reforming the structure of access charges
7.8 As set out in paragraphs 6.71 to 6.78, we consider that a number of benefits to passengers and taxpayers could be delivered by reforming the structure of access charges. These issues are being considered as part of ORR’s structure of charges review.
7.9 We also note that the government is changing the way in which it channels public money through the industry, directing it through the TOCs instead of the network grant, with the stated aim of encouraging Network Rail to focus firmly on the needs of train operators and, through them, passengers.485
7.10 We support these steps and consider that they are important in laying foundations for a more competitive, dynamic sector.
Improving the ‘system operator’ function
7.11 As set out in paragraph 6.79, we consider that an enhanced system operator would provide benefits for the rail network, by efficiently managing network capacity and assisting decisions regarding path allocation and investment decisions on the network.
7.12 Improving the system operation activities would be particularly beneficial if greater on-rail competition were introduced, as an enhanced system operator
485 HM Treasury (July 2015), Summer Budget 2015, HC264, paragraph 1.255. would facilitate the allocation of train paths between competing operators and minimise the potential adverse operational effects of an increased number of operators.
7.13 Again, we note that positive steps are already under way:
- ORR is currently conducting a review of system operation activities; and
- Network Rail has consulted on an initial system operation dashboard in order to improve the information available about how the system is operated. ORR’s findings will feed into its PR18 work, which is now under way.
**Encouraging the use of smart ticketing**
7.14 As set out in paragraph 6.80, we consider that smart ticketing has the potential to strengthen the incentives of operators to compete by allowing revenue from interavailable ticket sales to be apportioned to operators based on the actual journeys taken. This would, in turn, encourage operators to compete to attract these customers, and would provide incentives to raise quality and to meet customer demands.(^{486})
7.15 Again, we note that some developments in this area are already under way. As of June 2015, 14 operators already offered smart cards to passengers.(^{487}) Moreover, the provisional findings of the ORR’s retail market review included short-term recommendations to continue promoting and developing innovative ticketing solutions such as smart card and mobile ticketing.
**Recommended options for reform**
7.16 We set out our preferred options for reform in paragraphs 6.168 to 6.172. In this section we consider the steps required to implement these options.
7.17 We note that Option 1 and Option 4 share some similarities, with their benefits primarily coming from OAO-type operators, and some similar implementation steps such as establishing mechanisms for allocating paths to operators.
7.18 We also consider that the options we have set out are not exhaustive, and that industry, policymakers and regulators are likely to develop further
______________________________________________________________________
(^{486}) We note that improvements in this regard would be beneficial under the existing system where there are overlaps between franchises, and between franchised and open access services.
(^{487}) TOCs innovative ticket formats comprise smartcards (eg the C2C smartcard, the TSGN ‘key’), as well as contactless payment cards, mobile phone ticketing and e-tickets. See Tables 3 and 4 in ORR’s *Retail market review, emerging findings.* proposals for implementing increased competition between operators on the network, taking the spirit of these options forward and adapting to changes in the management of the network in the future.
7.19 Taking these considerations into account, we recommend that the foundations for introducing greater on-rail competition are introduced through our general recommendations.
7.20 We consider that the first opportunity for implementation of significantly greater on-rail competition would come on the East Coast main line franchise in 2023. However, there will be future opportunities to expand on-rail competition on these routes, with the subsequent West Coast main line franchise expected to be awarded in 2025 and the subsequent Great Western main line franchise expected to be awarded in 2026.
7.21 We note that the reformed structure of track access charges will come into effect in 2019. Moreover, given the links to the charging regime, the PSO levy would ideally be in place by the time that the new structure of track access charges is implemented in March 2019. It may therefore be possible to address some of the funding issues in open access applications from 2019 onwards. However, we note that capacity constraints might limit the scale of open access prior to 2023 (at which point capacity could be allocated to OAOs as part of the next East Coast franchise).
**Recommended option: Option 1, a significantly greater role for open access on intercity routes**
7.22 We consider that Option 1 is the lead option for introducing greater on-rail competition on key intercity routes for the benefit of passengers and wider society. This option could be piloted in one franchise area before being extended to other areas.
7.23 The first intercity franchise for which an Invitation to Tender will be issued following the implementation of the new structure of track access charges – and which would allow time for the other necessary implementation steps – is the next East Coast main line franchise, which will commence in 2023.
______________________________________________________________________
488 The Invitation to Tender for the West Coast main line franchise will be issued in November 2016, which would be too soon to put in place the necessary steps for greater on-rail competition. However, the Invitation to Tender for the Great Western franchise will be issued in January 2018 and may create an opportunity for policymakers to increase on-rail competition by splitting the franchise. As noted in Chapter 6, the DfT is already considering reducing the size of certain franchises. We note, however, that implementing Option 1 would not be feasible in the 2018 award of the Great Western franchise as the steps required, including the new structure of charges, will not be in place until 2019. 7.24 It would also form the first step in any future transition into the licensing model proposed under Option 4.
7.25 In order to implement Option 1, a number of changes are required which we consider in turn below:
- Reform of the structure of track access charges to create a level playing field between OAOs and franchised TOCs.
- Designing a PSO levy (or other appropriate funding mechanism) and implementing the required legislation.
- Providing capacity for OAOs on the relevant routes.
- Establishing a system for allocating paths to OAOs.
- Legislation to allow path trading (desirable but not strictly necessary).
Reform of the structure of track access charges
7.26 The first stage of this process is already under way. ORR’s review of the structure of track access charges has identified a potential inability to support effective competition between different types of passenger train operator as a gap in the current system. ORR is therefore consulting on proposals for OAOs to make a greater contribution to network costs, particularly where capacity is scarce and most valuable. ORR’s consultation notes that such changes might allow for a better allocation of capacity between OAOs and franchised TOCs, which may lead funders to be relatively neutral between them in terms of the revenue impacts on the taxpayer.489
7.27 As part of the review, ORR is considering whether OAOs should pay cost-reflective charges, thus covering some of the fixed costs of the infrastructure they use. In order not to impose an excessive burden on OAOs and to take into account the existing market differences and long-term business decision taken by OAOs which are already in the market. ORR is also considering possible adjustments and transitional arrangements.
7.28 Moreover, it its review of charges consultation document, ORR notes that the government is considering allowing some exposure of franchised operators to changes in track access charges within franchise periods.
489 ORR (10 December 2015), Network Charges: A consultation on how charges can improve efficiency. Designing and legislating for a PSO levy or other appropriate funding mechanism
7.29 We envisage a PSO levy being introduced to allow OAOs to contribute to the costs of unprofitable but socially desirable services, both on the routes on which they operate and in other areas. While we consider a PSO levy as the lead option for addressing the funding issue, we recognise that other appropriate funding mechanisms could be used as well, for example an auction of paths or slots for open access.(^{490})
7.30 Primary legislation is likely to be required to implement a PSO levy to mitigate the impact of greater on-rail competition on government funds, as the levy would be government imposed and distinct from the track access charges set by ORR.
7.31 EU legislation provides for member states to employ a levy to compensate for PSOs, but its imposition is discretionary, and the government has not transposed the relevant legislation into UK law to date.(^{491}) Transposing the relevant EU legislation may be an alternative to making primary legislation in the UK. However, further work is needed to establish whether the levy under EU legislation would raise sufficient funds to compensate for the loss of government funding as it only permits the recovery of the cost of operating PSOs. The levy would need to be designed carefully to ensure that its fits with EU legislation regardless of whether it is imposed by primary legislation or the transposition of EU legislation.
7.32 It is important that the design and implementation of the levy is coordinated with ORR’s proposals for the structure of track access charges.(^{492}) Therefore, while primary legislation would fall to the DfT, we envisage that ORR and the DfT would work together closely in the design of the levy.
7.33 There are a number of aspects of a levy to consider, in particular:
- how the levy would be charged, for example on a per-passenger mile, per-train, or per-carriage basis;
______________________________________________________________________
(^{490}) Virgin/Stagecoach noted in their consultation response that paths could be auctioned for a one-off lump sum payment for ten years of access every ten years, accompanied by a guarantee that no further open access would be permitted during the franchise term. Over time, franchised operations could be reduced in order to move towards Option 4.
(^{491}) Article 12 of Directive 2012/34/EU allows the authority responsible for passenger rail transport in an EU member state to impose a levy on rail operators providing passenger services to contribute to the financing of PSOs laid down in PSCs that have been awarded according to European law.
(^{492}) In this regard, we note that ORR’s December 2015 consultation on the structure of track access charges refers to the possibility of a PSO levy to address the funding of loss-making services. whether and how the levy would change over time, for example whether it would increase over time as OAOs establish their services;
- the interaction of the levy with Article 12 of the Recast Directive,(^{493}) including how to ensure the levy would be designed precisely enough to ensure it would not overcompensate for the cost of PSOs (which would not be compatible with Article 12 of the Recast Directive); and
- other more detailed considerations regarding the practical arrangements for charging the levy.
7.34 In terms of timing, the design and introduction of legislation for a PSO levy or other appropriate funding mechanism would need to be undertaken in advance of the implementation of Option 1 on an intercity franchised route in order to give bidders a clear understanding of the new framework. Any levy would need to be in place as soon as possible so as to inform open access entry decisions.
7.35 Given the links to the charging regime, ideally the levy should be in place by the time the new structure of charges is implemented in March 2019. In order for a PSO levy or other appropriate funding mechanism to be ready in time for 2019, development and drafting of legislation would need to begin a number of years in advance, potentially as part of a future Markets or Transport Bill.
7.36 We recognise that designing a PSO levy or other appropriate funding mechanism that meets the objectives of funding unprofitable but socially desirable services while not deterring entry by OAOs requires further work. However, we consider that this is both technically and legally feasible, as discussed in Chapter 6.
7.37 While OAOs responding to our consultation stated that they would be willing to pay a levy in return for greater access to the network, care would be needed to ensure that the levy did not act as an unjustifiable barrier to entry. It may also be appropriate to consider whether any levy should apply to current OAOs with small-scale operations focused on previously unserved destinations.
7.38 The DfT and ORR are best placed to take forward the design of the PSO levy, with the CMA providing input, as appropriate. We recognise that there are considerable complexities and challenges in relation to this issue, which will require further work to fully consider.
(^{493}) Directive 2012/34/EU. Providing capacity for OAOs on the network
7.39 In order to facilitate a significantly expanded role for open access, Option 1 requires paths to be available on the relevant routes for OAOs. As set out in Chapter 5, we understand that while electrification programmes and other short-term enhancements will deliver some additional capacity, this is unlikely to be sufficient alone to facilitate full-scale open access operations in addition to current franchised services. In the longer term, ERTMS may deliver additional capacity, although the magnitude of this is still not clear.\\textsuperscript{494}
7.40 Towards the end of current intercity franchises we envisage franchise design being undertaken with the intention of leaving significant commercial flows available to OAOs. We anticipate that for the East Coast main line franchise beginning in 2023, this would mean the DfT taking this into account in advance of the intended issue of the franchise expression of interest documents for the East Coast in August 2021.\\textsuperscript{495} This is likely to mean preparations beginning by early 2020 at the latest.
7.41 In terms of implementation, this would require the DfT to design a smaller franchise on the East Coast main line. This is likely to involve:
- First, the identification of elements of service provision which are unprofitable (or less commercial) but which are socially valuable.
- Second, franchise designers at the DfT would need to design a franchise such that all, or as many as possible, of these aspects were included within the franchise. A number of the more profitable service aspects would also be bundled into the franchise in order to ensure competition with the OAO on commercial flows.
- Third, consideration would need to be given to the services which OAOs would be likely to provide based upon this proposed franchise pattern.
7.42 It would also be necessary to ensure that the OAO’s access rights were coordinated with the timing of the franchise bidding process in order to provide certainty for bidders regarding the future level of on-rail competition.\\textsuperscript{496} Consideration should also be given to whether the OAO’s access rights would expire at the end of the franchise (with another competition for open access rights potentially taking place at this point).
\\textsuperscript{494} As noted in Chapter 5 and 6, HS2 may deliver greater capacity on the West Coast main line after 2026. \\textsuperscript{495} DfT, Rail Franchise Schedule. \\textsuperscript{496} Measures would need to be put in place to ensure that the franchise operator and OAO did not have commercial links, while also ensuring that the franchise bidding market is not undermined. 7.43 We also note that it is important to retain flexibility to make changes to access rights during the course of the franchise in order to respond to changing market dynamics and changes in competitive dynamics. In order to give Network Rail the possibility of changing timetables over time, access rights could become more flexible during the course of the contract.
Establishing a system for allocating paths to OAOs
7.44 It would be necessary to establish a mechanism for allocating the paths reserved for open access. A system for allocating paths would be likely to be best carried out by ORR or a more developed system operator function undertaken by Network Rail. The design of this system could be undertaken by ORR or the DfT.
7.45 There are a number of possibilities as to how paths could be allocated. For example, there could be an economic assessment of OAOs’ proposals (for example, by ORR), within which the PSO levy that an OAO would be willing to pay could be one assessment criteria. Alternatively, a bidding or auction process could be used (discussed further in the context of Option 4 in paragraphs 6.59 to 6.61). This could create a source of revenue for funding unprofitable but socially desirable services elsewhere on the network.
7.46 As with the design and implementation of the PSO levy or other appropriate funding mechanism, it would be important for this system to be in place before the Invitation to Tender is issued for the franchise on which it would be implemented. For new OAO applications taking advantage of new capacity prior to the first significant intercity franchise award in 2023, this would mean being in place by 2020.
7.47 These approaches would involve substantial policy design and consultative work with industry. The scale of this task is likely to be determined by the number of paths which would be transferred to OAOs and the number of operators which expressed interest.
Legislation to allow path trading
7.48 Although not a prerequisite for implementing Option 1, the ability of operators to trade paths could enhance the scope of on-rail competition by allowing operators to trade paths as competition between them develops. In practice there is likely to be a need for a system of supervision of path trading to ensure that operators are not able to achieve control of groups of routes which give them market power and raise prices. 7.49 We note that trading of infrastructure is prohibited by Article 38 of Directive 2012/34/EU, which specifically prohibits the trading of infrastructure between applicants for that capacity. Further legal analysis of whether this would prevent a system of trading paths or slots such as we envisage here would need to be undertaken. If so, exemptions to this Directive may need to be sought.
7.50 Network Rail’s system operator function is likely to be the best placed organisation to run a supervised system for path trading. Design of this system could be undertaken by ORR or the DfT. However, this proposal would be likely to need primary legislation and so design may need to be undertaken by the DfT.
7.51 This proposal is likely to be most significant for full-scale implementation of Option 1, which we consider would take place at the earliest at 2023. In order for franchised operators to fully understand the context in which they were bidding, this feature, if it were to be implemented as part of Option 1, would ideally be in place by 2020.
7.52 We consider that this aspect of implementation would, if pursued as part of Option 1, involve substantial policy design and consultative work with industry. The scale of this task is likely to be determined by the number of paths which would be transferred to OAOs and the number of operators which expressed interest.497
7.53 As noted in paragraph 7.43, flexible access rights would, in any event, allow adjustments to the timetables of the franchised TOC and OAO to be made over time.
A vision for the longer term: Option 4, a licensing system for operators on main intercity routes
7.54 Option 1 could be extended towards the model of competition in Option 4 in the future. For example, instead of a TOC operating 70% of train paths for intercity services and an OAO the remaining 30%, three OAOs of a similar size could be licensed to operate all the paths.
7.55 This is an ambitious proposal and would require an overhaul of the current system.
497 While it would be significant, based on our experience of reforms in other markets, for example the trading of airport slots, it is likely to be achievable. • The design of an auction or other process for allocating paths, including the design of licences themselves and a decision between administratively designed licences or a trading-based system of allocation, or a similar variant.
• The adaptation of national legislation regarding the licence system and fine-tuning with the EU framework.
**Design of an auction for allocating paths**
7.56 The implementation of this option will depend on the process used to allocate paths to operators. We envisage that this would be likely to be based primarily around auctions for a form of licence. Effective auction design would therefore be central to successful implementation.
7.57 In Chapter 6, we set out two sub-options within Option 4 regarding the form that licences might take:
• The first is for ‘administratively designed licences’, where a planning body would design licences so that they produced an acceptable level of service and a coherently connected timetable in a financially viable way.
• A second approach would be to have a licences with an associated number of social obligations where operators would have to provide a certain ‘number’ of unprofitable but socially valuable services which was tied, for example proportionally, to the profitable services they would run. These services could be chosen from a ‘list’ drawn up by a central planning body, and ideally a trading system or platform would allow these obligations to be traded between operators.
7.58 In Chapter 6, we considered that a system of auctioning bundles of paths or ‘mini franchises’ may be the most practical and effective way forward. This mechanism would be intended to be used for both allocating capacity and ensuring provision of unprofitable but socially desirable services, either through bundling with paths, or through raising revenue to help pay for their provision, or through a combination of the two.
7.59 Given that we recommend that Option 4 is only implemented after the introduction of Option 1, the policy work regarding design of an auction and associated choices would be likely to take place in the early 2020s. The design could be informed by the experience of allocating paths to OAOs under Option 1.
7.60 Designing an auction to allocate all paths on a route would present a number of challenges. However, we consider that an iterative process increasing in ambition and moving in this direction over time, as we recommend in this chapter, would provide a feasible method for industry, policymakers and regulators to undertake this task.
*Adaptation of national legislation regarding the licence system, and compatibility with the EU framework.*
7.61 The licensing system for multiple operators we propose under Option 4 is an ambitious, fully competitive solution, which would be much more advanced than other systems currently operating in Europe.
7.62 In order to implement such a system a number of amendments to domestic legislation, in the form of the Railways Act 1993, are likely to be necessary. This may include the licensing of operators and with the role of a system operator as possibly distinct from the current network operator role.(^{498})
7.63 Although the principles underlying this option, and our other recommendations, are broadly in line with current EU legislation and the expected direction of travel, engagement with EU institutions would be necessary in order to establish the compatibility of the licensing system with EU law. In particular, it would be necessary to ensure compliance of Option 4 with the Recast Directive(^{499}) and any forthcoming EU legislation.
7.64 The DfT would be well placed to pursue such steps if it were minded to do so, given the requirement for primary legislation and policy engagement with EU institutions. In practice, this would be likely to be undertaken in consultation and conjunction with ORR and the industry.
7.65 The work to design the legislative process and interaction with EU institutions would need to begin some years in advance of implementation, for example in the early 2020s.
*Our parallel recommendation: introducing Option 2 where it has the potential to deliver benefits on the network*
7.66 In parallel to our main recommendations, we also recommend considering the introduction of Option 2 on areas of the network where it has potential to deliver greater benefits. This would allow policymakers a choice of tools to achieve greater on-rail competition in the future. Option 2 would be implemented under the existing regulatory framework.
(^{498}) See section 6.5 of the impact assessment.
(^{499}) Directive 2012/34/EU. 7.67 The franchises on which the option was implemented would need to be redesigned in order to ensure that there is appropriate competition between the two franchised TOCs on the selected routes, while retaining operational integrity.
7.68 Key steps for using Option 2 where it has the potential deliver benefits are as follows:
- Identifying the routes where it would deliver the greatest potential benefits.
- Redesigning franchises to increase competition between franchised TOCs.
- Reforming the structure of access charges so that charges are more cost-reflective.
Identifying the routes where these options would deliver the greatest potential benefits
7.69 This process would be undertaken by franchising and other regulatory bodies in conjunction with the industry and other stakeholders. The exercise would need to be completed in advance of the issuance of the expression of interest documents for the franchise(s) on which it were implemented (2021 in the case of the East Coast main line).
Redesigning franchises to facilitate greater on-rail competition
7.70 Services on the relevant routes would need to be divided between two franchises to ensure the provision of desired services and to achieve the desired degree of competition between the operators. This would require the franchise-letting body, the DfT, to redesign franchises in advance of tendering them.
7.71 This exercise would be similar to that required in redrawing franchise maps to allow Option 1 to be implemented. However, the process may be simpler as the dynamic of competition between a franchised TOC and an OAO would not need to be considered to the same extent and it would not be necessary to identify each PSO service.
7.72 Consideration would also need to be given to accommodating current OAOs and in dealing with future open access applications. Reforming the structure of access charges so that charges are more cost-reflective
7.73 Option 2 could have a significant impact on government funds if extensive competition were introduced and no other changes to the industry framework were made. However, this impact could be mitigated by reducing the extent of on-rail competition (eg splitting the franchise 85:15). Moreover, reforming the structure of access charges to make them more cost-reflective, and therefore higher on key intercity routes where capacity is limited, could create an additional source of revenue for the government.
Conclusions on our recommendations and next steps
7.74 Overall, we conclude that implementation of our options may be expected to bring benefits to passengers and the wider economy. We conclude that these options are feasible and we have identified a number of steps by which a process towards establishing greater on-rail competition can be undertaken.
7.75 Our general recommendations seek to lay the foundations for greater on-rail competition. We note that many of these initial steps, for example access charges reform, smart ticketing and reducing franchise specification, are already underway.
7.76 We further recommend that Option 1 – a greater role for OAOs – is implemented in the medium term and that this could in turn lead to movement towards a system along the lines of Option 4, based upon multiple competing, licensed operators. Meanwhile we recommend that Option 2 be considered in parallel as a potential means to introduce competition between franchised TOCs on parts of the network where this may be most beneficial and as an alternative tool for policymakers.
Next steps
7.77 The publication of this policy document does not mark the end of our engagement in this area. The recommendations we have set out are for the long term and we will continue to engage with policymakers and regulators as appropriate to discuss how the benefits of on-rail competition can be harnessed on the network in the future.
7.78 We also encourage industry participants and stakeholders to continue to consider the benefits that greater on-rail competition could deliver, and to consider further ways in which opportunities to expand on-rail competition for the benefit of passengers and wider UK productivity may be pursued.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1847-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 237,
"total-input-tokens": 477141,
"total-output-tokens": 133476,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
89,
1
],
[
89,
89,
2
],
[
89,
5088,
3
],
[
5088,
5088,
4
],
[
5088,
9063,
5
],
[
9063,
11783,
6
],
[
11783,
14307,
7
],
[
14307,
16478,
8
],
[
16478,
19625,
9
],
[
19625,
21698,
10
],
[
21698,
23799,
11
],
[
23799,
26823,
12
],
[
26823,
28913,
13
],
[
28913,
31339,
14
],
[
31339,
33879,
15
],
[
33879,
36134,
16
],
[
36134,
38408,
17
],
[
38408,
40399,
18
],
[
40399,
42969,
19
],
[
42969,
45176,
20
],
[
45176,
47376,
21
],
[
47376,
50072,
22
],
[
50072,
52443,
23
],
[
52443,
55615,
24
],
[
55615,
57814,
25
],
[
57814,
60530,
26
],
[
60530,
63166,
27
],
[
63166,
65065,
28
],
[
65065,
67816,
29
],
[
67816,
70844,
30
],
[
70844,
73429,
31
],
[
73429,
76006,
32
],
[
76006,
78756,
33
],
[
78756,
81086,
34
],
[
81086,
83373,
35
],
[
83373,
86060,
36
],
[
86060,
88368,
37
],
[
88368,
90376,
38
],
[
90376,
93526,
39
],
[
93526,
95186,
40
],
[
95186,
99409,
41
],
[
99409,
102977,
42
],
[
102977,
105613,
43
],
[
105613,
107735,
44
],
[
107735,
110572,
45
],
[
110572,
112732,
46
],
[
112732,
114488,
47
],
[
114488,
116980,
48
],
[
116980,
119532,
49
],
[
119532,
120284,
50
],
[
120284,
122417,
51
],
[
122417,
125021,
52
],
[
125021,
127424,
53
],
[
127424,
130734,
54
],
[
130734,
132558,
55
],
[
132558,
135317,
56
],
[
135317,
137907,
57
],
[
137907,
140443,
58
],
[
140443,
143139,
59
],
[
143139,
145809,
60
],
[
145809,
148081,
61
],
[
148081,
150969,
62
],
[
150969,
154169,
63
],
[
154169,
156470,
64
],
[
156470,
159552,
65
],
[
159552,
162232,
66
],
[
162232,
164968,
67
],
[
164968,
167836,
68
],
[
167836,
169968,
69
],
[
169968,
172693,
70
],
[
172693,
173222,
71
],
[
173222,
176348,
72
],
[
176348,
178441,
73
],
[
178441,
181219,
74
],
[
181219,
183388,
75
],
[
183388,
185776,
76
],
[
185776,
188198,
77
],
[
188198,
190692,
78
],
[
190692,
193855,
79
],
[
193855,
196448,
80
],
[
196448,
199286,
81
],
[
199286,
201579,
82
],
[
201579,
203939,
83
],
[
203939,
206353,
84
],
[
206353,
209073,
85
],
[
209073,
211390,
86
],
[
211390,
214376,
87
],
[
214376,
217691,
88
],
[
217691,
218097,
89
],
[
218097,
220913,
90
],
[
220913,
222791,
91
],
[
222791,
225272,
92
],
[
225272,
227910,
93
],
[
227910,
230743,
94
],
[
230743,
234227,
95
],
[
234227,
236227,
96
],
[
236227,
236588,
97
],
[
236588,
238368,
98
],
[
238368,
240060,
99
],
[
240060,
242155,
100
],
[
242155,
244540,
101
],
[
244540,
247670,
102
],
[
247670,
250395,
103
],
[
250395,
252347,
104
],
[
252347,
255015,
105
],
[
255015,
256956,
106
],
[
256956,
258816,
107
],
[
258816,
261845,
108
],
[
261845,
263833,
109
],
[
263833,
266676,
110
],
[
266676,
269778,
111
],
[
269778,
271753,
112
],
[
271753,
273716,
113
],
[
273716,
274288,
114
],
[
274288,
276576,
115
],
[
276576,
278833,
116
],
[
278833,
281946,
117
],
[
281946,
285118,
118
],
[
285118,
288324,
119
],
[
288324,
291231,
120
],
[
291231,
293811,
121
],
[
293811,
296432,
122
],
[
296432,
298988,
123
],
[
298988,
301615,
124
],
[
301615,
304122,
125
],
[
304122,
305630,
126
],
[
305630,
308114,
127
],
[
308114,
311328,
128
],
[
311328,
312396,
129
],
[
312396,
314280,
130
],
[
314280,
317129,
131
],
[
317129,
320838,
132
],
[
320838,
324281,
133
],
[
324281,
327298,
134
],
[
327298,
330301,
135
],
[
330301,
332829,
136
],
[
332829,
335263,
137
],
[
335263,
337846,
138
],
[
337846,
341188,
139
],
[
341188,
343912,
140
],
[
343912,
346604,
141
],
[
346604,
349191,
142
],
[
349191,
352304,
143
],
[
352304,
355162,
144
],
[
355162,
357245,
145
],
[
357245,
358519,
146
],
[
358519,
359135,
147
],
[
359135,
361885,
148
],
[
361885,
364140,
149
],
[
364140,
366773,
150
],
[
366773,
369684,
151
],
[
369684,
372247,
152
],
[
372247,
374796,
153
],
[
374796,
376687,
154
],
[
376687,
379424,
155
],
[
379424,
382594,
156
],
[
382594,
385131,
157
],
[
385131,
388855,
158
],
[
388855,
392153,
159
],
[
392153,
395248,
160
],
[
395248,
397866,
161
],
[
397866,
400146,
162
],
[
400146,
402630,
163
],
[
402630,
405102,
164
],
[
405102,
408371,
165
],
[
408371,
410456,
166
],
[
410456,
412814,
167
],
[
412814,
415381,
168
],
[
415381,
417981,
169
],
[
417981,
420814,
170
],
[
420814,
423336,
171
],
[
423336,
426429,
172
],
[
426429,
429931,
173
],
[
429931,
432876,
174
],
[
432876,
435539,
175
],
[
435539,
438072,
176
],
[
438072,
440676,
177
],
[
440676,
443423,
178
],
[
443423,
446858,
179
],
[
446858,
448338,
180
],
[
448338,
451763,
181
],
[
451763,
454676,
182
],
[
454676,
457064,
183
],
[
457064,
459054,
184
],
[
459054,
460229,
185
],
[
460229,
462487,
186
],
[
462487,
465330,
187
],
[
465330,
467885,
188
],
[
467885,
470881,
189
],
[
470881,
473373,
190
],
[
473373,
476097,
191
],
[
476097,
478430,
192
],
[
478430,
480912,
193
],
[
480912,
483622,
194
],
[
483622,
486219,
195
],
[
486219,
489008,
196
],
[
489008,
491096,
197
],
[
491096,
493709,
198
],
[
493709,
496492,
199
],
[
496492,
499397,
200
],
[
499397,
502343,
201
],
[
502343,
504236,
202
],
[
504236,
505690,
203
],
[
505690,
507599,
204
],
[
507599,
509978,
205
],
[
509978,
513096,
206
],
[
513096,
515828,
207
],
[
515828,
518890,
208
],
[
518890,
521037,
209
],
[
521037,
523689,
210
],
[
523689,
526119,
211
],
[
526119,
529097,
212
],
[
529097,
531512,
213
],
[
531512,
533939,
214
],
[
533939,
536448,
215
],
[
536448,
540109,
216
],
[
540109,
542498,
217
],
[
542498,
544604,
218
],
[
544604,
547086,
219
],
[
547086,
550017,
220
],
[
550017,
551994,
221
],
[
551994,
554540,
222
],
[
554540,
555379,
223
],
[
555379,
557696,
224
],
[
557696,
559767,
225
],
[
559767,
562165,
226
],
[
562165,
564920,
227
],
[
564920,
567004,
228
],
[
567004,
569839,
229
],
[
569839,
572173,
230
],
[
572173,
574889,
231
],
[
574889,
577290,
232
],
[
577290,
579472,
233
],
[
579472,
581848,
234
],
[
581848,
584114,
235
],
[
584114,
585961,
236
],
[
585961,
588289,
237
]
]
} |
e49488af8ce460575707ea2274e7885738de3e13 | Complaints about DWP:
Numbers of complaints recorded by DWP businesses between 1\\textsuperscript{st} April and 30\\textsuperscript{th} September 2013
| Recorded complaints | | |-----------------------------|-------| | Stage 1 | 33,609| | Stage 2 | 1,372 | | Total number of recorded complaints | 34,981|
Number of complaints recorded by the Independent Case Examiner’s (ICE) Office between 1\\textsuperscript{st} April 2013 and 30\\textsuperscript{th} September 2013
| ICE Complaints | | |-----------------------------------------|-------| | Number of DWP complaints received | 1,316 | | Number of DWP complaints accepted for investigation | 315 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1849-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1305,
"total-output-tokens": 243,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
742,
1
]
]
} |
27be73b5d3ce5d9567cff17bdca6e0ca860aac35 | STUDENT AWARDS AGENCY SCOTLAND
A GUIDE TO COMPLAINTS Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS) is committed to providing a high-quality customer service. We want to know if something goes wrong or if you are dissatisfied with our service. We want to use the information received on complaints to help us improve.
We are committed to making our service easy to use and, in line with our statutory equalities duties. We will ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to help you access and use our services. This guide can be printed in other languages and formats (such as large print, audio and Braille).
This guide describes our Complaints Handling Procedures and how to make a complaint. It also tells you about our service standards and what you can expect from us.
| WHAT IS A COMPLAINT? |
A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about our action or lack of action or about the standard of service provided by us.
| WHAT YOU CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT |
The definition of a complaint is very broad and the list is not exhaustive. A complaint may involve more than one service and can be made about things like:
- a delay in responding to an enquiry or request
- our failure to provide a service
- a request for a service or information that we have not actioned
- the quality and standard of service
- treatment by or attitude of a staff member
- our failure to follow proper administrative process
- our policy
| WHAT IS NOT A COMPLAINT |
There are some things we cannot deal with through our complaints handling procedure. These include:
- a disagreement about a student funding decision (see appeals guide)
- a routine first-time request for a service
- a request for information or an explanation of policy or practice
- Freedom of Information or Data Protection request decisions
- legal proceedings or judgements WHO CAN COMPLAIN?
Anyone can make a complaint. We understand that there may be reasons why a student is unable or reluctant to make a complaint therefore, we accept complaints from representatives, friends or relatives.
IMPORTANT: If you are acting as a representative, we will not provide you with information we hold about a student until you provide us with written consent from the student agreeing to you acting on their behalf. Please see the attached form.
HOW DO I COMPLAIN?
By completing the attached form. Tell us:
- your full name, address and student reference number
- as much as you can about the complaint
- what has gone wrong
- how you want us to resolve the matter
You can send this to us by email: [email protected]
In writing: Student Awards Agency Scotland, Complaints and Appeals Team, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, EH11 3UT Please clearly mark your letter ‘Complaint’.
You can also complain by telephone: 0300 555 0505 and we will ask you for further information.
You can also visit us at the above address.
HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO MAKE A COMPLAINT?
It is easier for us to resolve complaints if you make them quickly. Please talk to a member of our staff so that they can try to resolve any problems on the spot.
Normally, you must make your complaint within six months of:
- the event you want to complain about or
- finding out that you have a reason to complain but no longer than 12 months after the event itself
We may consider a complaint after the time limit in exceptional circumstances. Please tell us why the time limit should not apply to your complaint. OUR TWO STAGE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
| STAGE ONE - FRONTLINE RESOLUTION | We aim to resolve complaints quickly, this could mean an on-the-spot apology and explanation if something has clearly gone wrong and immediate action taken to resolve the issue. Our decision at stage one is normally made within five working days and it will be reviewed independently from the area where the complaint occurred. We will contact you if we cannot make a decision in that time and agree an extension of time.
If we cannot resolve your complaint at this stage, we will explain why and tell you what you can do next. We might suggest that you take your complaint to stage two.
| STAGE TWO - INVESTIGATION | Stage two deals with two types of complaint - those that have not been resolved at stage one and those that are complex and require detailed investigation.
When using stage two we will:
- acknowledge receipt of your complaint within three working days
- give you a full response to the complaint within 20 working days
We will agree revised time limits and keep you updated on progress if our investigation will take longer than 20 working days
| WHAT IF I AM STILL NOT SATISFIED? | If you are still not satisfied with our decision after we have investigated your case, or the way we dealt with your complaint, you can ask the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) to look at it.
The SPSO cannot normally look at:
- a complaint that has not gone through our two stage complaints procedure (please make sure it has done so before contacting SPSO)
- events that happened, or that you became aware of, more than 12 months ago
- a matter that has been or is being considered in court You can contact SPSO:
In person: SPSO 99 McDonald Road Edinburgh EH7 4NS
By post: Freepost SPSO
Freephone: 0800 377 7330 Website: www.spso.org.uk
RECORDING, MONITORING AND REVIEWING COMPLAINTS
We have a system for recording complaints, their outcomes and any resulting action, which allows us to identify opportunities to improve our services. Our Management Board and Executive Team are provided with information on complaints received and about patterns or trends that suggest we should change our procedures. We publish details in our annual reports.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1850-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 8062,
"total-output-tokens": 1473,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
54,
1
],
[
54,
1832,
2
],
[
1832,
3462,
3
],
[
3462,
5145,
4
],
[
5145,
5703,
5
]
]
} |
7f6eea1adf14c92f269e8e2e961ee88bbf5c6351 | Guidance on complaints handling procedures for licence holders, 2015
“Improving the passengers’ experience”
## Contents
1. Introduction 3
- Summary 3
- Background and ORR’s approach 4
- Contents of the guidance 6
2. Purpose and scope 7
- Summary 7
- Purpose 7
- Scope 7
- Definition of a complaint 8
- Ownership of complaints 9
- The role of Transport Focus and London TravelWatch 11
3. Complaints handling core standards 13
- Summary 13
- Approving CHPs 13
- Core Standard 1: Feedback mechanisms and response 14
- Core Standard 2: Structures, people, and processes 26
- Core standard 3: Organisational culture 30
4. Compliance monitoring 33
- Summary 33
- ORR’s monitoring approach 33
Annex A: Licence condition 6: Complaint Handling 36 Annex B: Glossary 38
1. Introduction
Summary
This chapter explains Office of Rail and Road's(^1) approach and what we think a good complaints handling procedure should achieve and why. We also summarise what is contained in the following chapters of the guidance.
______________________________________________________________________
Aims of the guidance
Train and station licence holders are required, by their operating licence, to have Complaints Handling Procedures (CHPs) which have been approved by the ORR.
This document provides guidance on what ORR will look for when exercising this approval role and when monitoring for continuing compliance. The guidance is designed to support licence holders in:
- providing an easily accessible complaints handling service to customers;
- developing and maintaining sound customer-centric complaints handling protocols and practices;
- using empirical data and evidence relating to complaints to drive through service improvements; and
- understanding how we will regulate in this area.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) From 16 October 2015 our legal name is changed to Office of Rail and Road. Background and ORR’s approach
1.1 Rail users - passengers and freight - are paying a growing share of the cost of running and investing in the network and services. They have rising expectations of services, and expect the industry to give them value for their money and to respond to their needs. When problems arise it is important that there are appropriate means to make complaints and seek compensation and redress for poor service. We also believe that it is essential that management information and insight from complaints is used to identify systemic and recurring problems and to identify areas when services should be improved.
1.2 Train and station licence holders are required, by their operating licence, to have Complaints Handling Procedures (CHPs) which have been approved by ORR. This document provides guidance on what ORR will look for when exercising this approval role and when monitoring for continuing compliance. The licence condition is included at Annex A to this guidance.
1.3 ORR has a number of duties set out in section 4 of the Railways Act 1993(^2), which we must balance when exercising our functions. These include: “to protect the interests of users of railway services”, and “to promote the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of railway passengers”.
1.4 The industry recognises the importance of a good complaints handling procedure. It is a means by which licence holders deliver protection for consumers and gain insight into how their business is working from the perspective of those who use their services. An easily accessible complaints system empowers consumers to seek answers or redress when things go wrong. The information provided by complaints, as well as passenger feedback more generally, enables licence holders to identify root causes of dissatisfaction and take action to improve the customer experience.
1.5 We have seen that a number of licence holders make significant efforts to ensure that they have an effective framework in place to understand and improve the experience of their customers. It has been encouraging to see complaints handling being recognised more
(^2) Railways Act 1993: [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/contents](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/contents) broadly as being part of the approach to improving customer experience, and not just a process.
1.6 We want to support these initiatives through our regulatory approach.
1.7 A good complaints handling procedure should:
- resolve individual complaints promptly and fairly, taking account of the reasonable interests of the complainant, including providing compensation as appropriate; and
- lead to continuous improvement, so that in the medium term the root causes of complaints are addressed and systemic solutions are put in place.
1.8 We want to see organisational cultures that support and encourage these objectives and embedded arrangements that effectively regulate themselves, minimising the need for our direct involvement. We are committed to working with the industry to achieve this outcome, but will take action where we need to.
The core standards
1.9 Our expectations of licence holders are centred on three core service standards which are intended to assist licence holders in understanding what we will look for in a good CHP. The three core standards cover:
- feedback mechanisms and response;
- people, process and structure; and
- organisational culture. 1.10 The core standards have been drafted at a sufficiently high level to enable licence holders to develop approaches that suit their own particular business models and the needs of their passengers.
1.11 We consider there to be significant benefits to an approach that focuses more on how an organisation is structured and managed around complaints handling, in order to deliver outcomes for the passenger and less on detailed commitments. Such an approach should enable licence holders to respond to the needs of their own particular markets whilst enabling change in line with evolving technological developments and passenger expectations.
Contents of the guidance
1.12 Below, we provide a summary of what is contained in the guidance.
Chapter 2 - provides guidance on what we mean by a complaint and who is responsible for handling a complaint.
Chapter 3 - provides detail on the three core standards that are intended to help licence holders understand what we would look for in approving a CHP.
Chapter 4 - describes our approach to the on-going monitoring of CHPs.
Annex A - Contains a copy of Condition 6 of the licence.
Annex B - Glossary of terms and abbreviations 2. Purpose and scope
Summary
This chapter provides guidance on the purpose of these guidelines and who they apply to. It sets out what we mean by a complaint and who is responsible for handling a complaint. It provides specific guidance on the position of Network Rail and the role of Transport Focus (TF) and London TravelWatch (LTW).
Purpose
2.1 This guidance provides licence holders with a best practice framework for handling passenger complaints. The guidance is designed to support licence holders in:
- providing an easily accessible complaints handling service to customers;
- developing and maintaining sound customer-centric complaints handling protocols and practices;
- using empirical data and evidence relating to complaints to drive through service improvements; and
- understanding how we will regulate in this area.
2.2 Licence holders may propose whatever procedure best suits the needs and expectations of their customers and the requirements of their business. This document provides high level guidance on what ORR will expect to see reflected in any complaints handling procedure submitted to it for approval, set out in the form of a set of core standards. We also set out how we will monitor for continuing compliance.
2.3 Licence holders are, therefore, asked to ensure that they familiarise themselves with the contents of this document.
Scope
2.4 This guidance applies to all licence holders who have a complaints handling obligation in their licence (see Annex A). 2.5 Relevant licence holders should ensure that all complaints handling staff (including outsourced staff) are made fully aware of the contents of the licence holder’s CHP and that there are processes in place to monitor continuing staff awareness and compliance.
**Welsh language**
2.6 In line with existing legal obligations, licence holders that provide rail services in Wales should ensure that information on complaints is provided in both English and Welsh.
**Definition of a complaint**
2.7 For the purposes of these guidelines a complaint is defined as:
“Any expression of dissatisfaction by a customer or potential customer about service delivery or company or industry policy”
2.8 Although all expressions of dissatisfaction are deserving of a response, we recognise that a distinction should be drawn between a complaint and feedback for the purpose of establishing clarity around what is within the scope of regulation.
2.9 Feedback can take the form of comments which are neutral, positive or negative, about services provided by a licence holder or representatives without necessarily requiring corrective action, change of services or formal review of a decision. Feedback may, however:
- adversely affect the reputation of a licence holder; and
- influence future service reviews and delivery methods.
2.10 Feedback can take many forms, including the use of social media platforms, online forums or dedicated consumer websites. Sometimes complainants will use feedback to make what could be characterised as a complaint. It is important that licence holders have mechanisms by which such communications can be identified and dealt with in accordance with this guidance. We will look for evidence of how this will be achieved when approving CHPs. 2.11 Licence holders should also give discretion to customer-facing staff to resolve certain types of complaint on the spot, without reference to senior management. Sensitive and swift on-the-spot handling of difficult situations may help to avoid a large number of written complaints, but at the same time deliver satisfaction to the passenger. We do not expect such face-to-face on-the-spot resolution to be considered as a complaint for compliance or data recording purposes.
Claims Allocation and Handling Agreement
2.12 The Claims Allocation and Handling Agreement(^3) (CAHA) requires the approval of arrangements for publicising information on how to make an insurance claim against an operator. CAHA is not within the scope of this guidance.
Ownership of complaints
2.13 A complaint about a specific train, ticket office or station shall be owned by the licence holder responsible for that train, ticket office or station. A complaint about a delay will be owned by the licence holder on whose train the passenger was travelling when the delay occurred. This holds true even where the impact of the delay arises on another part of the journey i.e. where a delay leads to a missed connection or results in a dispute over ticket validity on a later train.
2.14 On a multi-leg journey where delays occur on more than one train service the complaint should be handled in accordance with the guidance on complaints relating to multiple-licence holders below.
2.15 A complaint about a ticket sale will be owned by the licence holder which sold the ticket. A complaint against a third party ticket retailer should be handled by the third party retailer.
(^3) For further details relating to CAHA – please see link below: http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/licensing/licensing-railway-operators/licence-obligations 2.16 The licence holder that owns a complaint will be responsible for responding to the passenger and for paying any compensation and/or gestures of goodwill in respect of that complaint, in line with that licence holder’s CHP. The licence holder which owns a complaint about a delay or cancellation will be responsible for the payment of any compensation under their Passenger Charter or National Rail Conditions of Carriage (NRCoC), as appropriate.
Complaints relating to third party suppliers
2.17 Third party supplier relationships are an integral aspect of service delivery and provision for licence holders. From time to time licence holders may receive complaints which relate to a third party supplier on matters such as security personnel; cleaning and catering staff; revenue protection services; suppliers of rail replacement services; or car parking providers. In circumstances where licence holders receive such a complaint, they should work with their supplier to coordinate a response. The complainant should not be required to contact the third party supplier, though are free to do so should they prefer to have their complaint answered directly.
2.18 Licence holders would not be expected to intervene in relation to substantive issues in appeals processed by the Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service, although licence holders are expected to have oversight of how the service is operating and to deal appropriately with any trends identified. British Transport Police have their own complaints handling mechanism and are therefore excluded from the scope of this guidance.
2.19 In coordinating a response the licence holder should be aware of their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). More detail on confidentiality and data protection are contained in chapter 3.
Complaints relating to multiple licence holders
2.20 The national rail system is an integrated network and it is important that network benefits are maintained for passengers. Passengers with a complaint may not know which train company to contact, or they may have a complaint which involves more than one licence holder. In these circumstances, it is essential that the complaint is handled in a coherent and coordinated manner. We cover this in more detail in chapter 3 below.
**Complaints relating to Network Rail**
2.21 Network Rail has a unique role as the infrastructure provider all licence holders need to work constructively and collaboratively with Network Rail in the resolution of passenger complaints.
2.22 Network Rail customer relations will handle complaints relating to:
- services provided by Network Rail at the stations which it operates (Managed Stations); and
- Network Rail as infrastructure operator (for example, complaints from local residents about line-side fencing, or complaints from car users about a level crossing).
2.23 Complaints about Network Rail as a supplier (for example, where a signal failure causes delay) will be handled by the receiving licence holder in line with their own CHP.
**The role of Transport Focus and London TravelWatch**
2.24 As a condition of their licence, licence holders must consult with Transport Focus (TF) and London TravelWatch (LTW) when they establish or make any material change to their CHPs. Changes can be made at the initiative of the licence holder or where ORR has required the licence holder to carry out a review and has determined a change needs to be made. Appeals
Transport Focus
2.25 Rail passengers, who are unhappy with the outcome of their complaint to a licence holder, can contact TF(^4) which may be able to pursue the complaint on the passenger’s behalf. TF is able to deal with complaints about rail journeys anywhere in Great Britain, with the exception of services handled by LTW.
London TravelWatch
2.26 LTW(^5) deals with all services operated or licensed by Transport for London (TfL), which includes London Underground Limited (LUL). In addition, LTW deals with:
- journeys wholly within the London railway area; and
- complaints about incidents that occur at specific stations within the London railway area.
2.27 LTW also manages complaints regarding Eurostar and will manage Crossrail services as they open.
2.28 More detail about how appeals should be dealt with by licence holders is contained in chapter 3.
(^4) Further information about TF can be found at the link below: [www.transportfocus.org.uk](http://www.transportfocus.org.uk)
(^5) Further information about LTW can be found at the link below: [www.londontravelwatch.org.uk](http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk) 3. Complaints handling core standards
Summary
This chapter provides more detail on the core standards that we would look to see within a good complaints handling framework. The guidance and examples we provide are intended to assist licence holders in submitting a CHP to us for approval.
Approving CHPs
3.1 Licence holder’s CHPs should be constructed around the three core standards that we describe within this chapter. Each core standard is drafted at a sufficiently high level to enable licence holders to develop approaches that suit their own particular business models. They, however, contain some best practice principles including those that derive from legal obligation, for example licence holders’ responsibilities toward data protection. When approving CHPs we will look for ways in which the licence holder intends to adopt these best practice principles into its complaints handling procedures.
3.2 The three core standards cover:
- feedback mechanisms and response (for individual complaints and system wide);
- people, process and structure; and
- organisational culture. 3.3 The diagram below summarises what we would expect to see covered within a CHP under each core standard.
**Feedback mechanisms and response**
- **Accessibility and reach** – The means available to passengers to provide feedback and the ease of doing so, taking into account the needs of all customers including those with different types of disabilities.
- **Putting things right** – How a licence holder demonstrates that it is listening, responding and is flexible to passengers’ needs for individual complaints and systemic issues.
- **Acting fairly and proportionately** – How a licence holder ensures objectivity, consistency and fairness.
**Structure, people and processes**
- **How the organisation is structured to put its CHPs into place**, including identified roles and chains of accountability.
- **Training programmes** and communication strategies
- **Published service standards in respect of complaint handling**
- **Reporting and reviewing arrangements** – how the licence holder assures itself of and measures the ongoing effectiveness of its arrangements including internal criteria for assessing this and audit arrangements.
**Organisational culture**
- **Governance, policy and leadership** – including the degree to which the top team are engaged with complaints handling.
- **How the top team ensures feedback is acted upon and embedded** into the organisation’s strategies and approach as part of a commitment to continuous improvement.
- **The extent to which the customer experience sits at the heart of the organisation’s vision**.
*Figure 1: What we would expect to see under each core standard*
**Core Standard 1: Feedback mechanisms and response**
3.4 Effective complaint handling demonstrates that licence holders have customers at the heart of what they do. A good customer-focused CHP takes into account the needs and expectations of the complainant.
**Promoting awareness**
3.5 Details on how and to whom a passenger should complain should be made available in the licence holder’s major publications, be prominently displayed at stations on websites and via social media. At multi-operator stations, publicity should make clear the different contact points for complaints about different services. Complaint forms should also be made available on the request of a passenger, for example, on trains which carry guards or conductors.
3.6 Material relating to the promotion of complaints handling should be free from any industry-jargon and be presented in plain English.
3.7 Publicity material must contain details of where a complainant should go to if not satisfied with the response provided by the licence holder currently and as appropriate:
- TF;
- LTW; and
- Any relevant Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) bodies(^6).
**Easily accessible to all**
3.8 The complaints handling process should be simple to understand and easy for the passenger to use. It should be clear how a complaint can be made, to whom it should be addressed, and what the essential information is that a complainant needs to provide.
3.9 We discuss below the requirement on licence holders to publish complaints service standards. These should be easy for the passenger to understand and should give the passenger a clear explanation of what to expect from the complaints handling process.
**Access routes**
3.10 There should be a choice of access routes for complainants, for example, those illustrated in the diagram below.
______________________________________________________________________
(^6) The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive requires Member States to ensure that ADR is available “for any dispute regarding contractual obligations that a consumer has with a business”. While it doesn’t require businesses to sign-up to use ADR, it does require them to provide consumers with information about the relevant ADR bodies for the sector, and whether they will use ADR in an attempt to settle the dispute. The Directive is implemented by the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Amendment) Regulations 2015. In person
3.11 Designated customer contact points are a useful access route for the passenger. All customer-facing rail staff, including sub-contracted staff, should be trained to receive and pass on complaints.
Websites
3.12 As a minimum, ORR would expect to see the following:
- The complaints page should be accessible within 2 clicks of the landing/home page and contain clear details about how to contact the licence holder.
- Provision for those who are visually or hearing impaired.
- A link to the licence holder’s complaint handling service quality standards (see core standard 2 below).
3.13 Licence holders are encouraged to include Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on a complaints page as this can often be a useful reference point for complainants and may satisfy the needs of the passenger and other general website users. Where FAQs are present on a website, the passenger should still be able to make a complaint about the same matter.
**Social media platforms**
3.14 The emergence of social media creates a number of challenges for licence holders, most notably in relation to the manner in which they manage their online presence. Many licence holders have a social media presence and regularly engage with followers.
3.15 Many passengers use social media platforms such as Twitter to make a complaint or indicate their frustrations or dissatisfaction.
3.16 We expect licence holders to have a social media policy in place to ensure that passengers are fully aware of:
- the licence holder’s approach to social media;
- the scope and opportunity for passengers to make a complaint via social media platforms; and
- the extent to which the licence holder engages with its social media followers.
3.17 Where the circumstances of the complaint on social media lend themselves to an investigation, the licence holder should assist the complainant in making a formal complaint, which will then be dealt with in accordance with the licence holder’s CHP. The complainant should be asked whether their feedback should be treated as a formal complaint and be advised of what that means in terms of processes and timescales.
**Call centres or customer relations teams**
3.18 Licence holders should ensure that they publish and adhere to minimum opening hours for their customer service departments, during which passengers should be able to speak to a member of staff by telephone. Licence holders should, as a minimum, accept telephone complaints between the hours of 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. At all other times licence holders should ensure that callers are met with a recorded message which clearly sets out opening times.
Respecting equality and diversity
3.19 It is essential that no one is excluded from lodging a complaint. A flexible approach is likely to be necessary to meet the needs of a diverse customer base and we will look for provision, within a licence holder’s CHP, for those with particular needs. This could include elements such as staff training or provision of complaints information and responses in accessible formats, for example.
3.20 Licence holders should also ensure that carers, support workers and guardians are able to act/advocate on behalf of a passenger with the passenger’s permission/authority (see also section immediately below relating to data protection and privacy).
3.21 The examples provided above are for guidance purposes only. All licence holders should ensure that they obtain independent legal advice in relation to their general duties under the Equality Act 2010 (the Equalities Act) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the DDA) respectively, as to their impact on licence holders’ CHPs.
Respecting complainant confidentiality
Privacy Policy
3.22 We expect all licence holders to have a customer-facing privacy policy which should be available on the website of the licence holder and upon request from a complainant. Areas we would expect to see covered in a privacy policy are set out in the diagram below.
______________________________________________________________________
7 For further details of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 – please see link below: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents Adherence to the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)
3.23 Licence holders should ensure that complainants’ confidentiality is protected. Personal details or details about complaints should not be divulged to third parties, except with the written consent of the complainant.
3.24 All licence holders should ensure that they have written processes and procedures in place which fully adhere to the DPA. Licence holders are expected to carefully consider the manner in which complainant details, including sensitive details, are collected, used and stored. This is particularly relevant in relation to: (a) complaints involving more than one licence holder; (b) the sharing of information with TF and LTW; and (c) the sharing of information with third party suppliers.
3.25 Licence holders cannot pass on a complainant’s personal details (or any details which would allow the complainant to be identified) to anyone else, without the complainant’s permission.
3.26 The ORR may wish to conduct research with complainants to learn more about their experiences. Data protection concerns must be properly addressed to allow this. Licence holders should consider ways in which the complainant could be advised of this eventuality, for example by informing complainants that they could be contacted by the regulator and providing a tick-box option to opt-out if the complainant does not wish to be contacted.
3.27 Data protection provisions should not act against the timeliness of being able to respond to a passenger’s concerns. We therefore expect licence holders to consider ways in which the complainant can be asked to provide that permission at initial contact perhaps by way of a question on, for example, web-based forms.
3.28 The information above is for guidance purposes only. All licence holders should ensure that they obtain independent legal advice in relation to their duties under the DPA and should also be guided by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)(^8).
**Complaints relating to multiple licence holders**
3.29 A complainant should not have to submit a complaint to more than one party in circumstances where a complaint involves more than one licence holder.
3.30 The receiving licence holder should (where reasonably practical) coordinate a single response on behalf of all of the licence holders involved. Sometimes this may not be sensible if the bulk of the issues rest with another licence holder. In this instance, it may be in the best interest of the complainant to receive a response directly from the party primarily responsible. In this case it is acceptable for the receiving licence holder to make arrangements to have the complaint passed to the more appropriate party in line with the licence holder’s obligations under the DPA. The complainant should be informed when their complaint is transferred to another party.
**Response times**
3.31 Licence holders must provide all complainants with an acknowledgement and complaint reference/tracking number as appropriate and to make a full response to 95% of all complaints within 20 working days.
______________________________________________________________________
(^8) Further details relating to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) can be found at the link below: [https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/) 3.32 Where licence holders have set themselves and then published more challenging targets, they should aim to provide full responses to at least 90% of complaints within that published target.
3.33 Licence holders should give discretion to customer-facing staff to resolve certain types of complaint immediately, without reference to senior management. Sensitive and swift on-the-spot handling of difficult situations may help to avoid a large number of written complaints, but at the same time deliver satisfaction to the passenger. ORR does not expect face-to-face on-the-spot resolution to be recorded for data management purposes.
3.34 Where a licence holder receives a sudden or unexpectedly large increase in the volume of complaints, the above timeframes may be replaced with an obligation to use reasonable endeavours to comply with them. The licence holder should set out in its CHPs the circumstances in which it would put these emergency timescales in place and the steps it will take to advise affected complainants. The licence holder must inform ORR, TF and LTW when such a circumstance occurs; including the reason; the expected duration of the emergency timescales; the plans in place to remedy the situation; the procedures in place to ensure that the quality of responses is maintained; and any steps taken to advise affected complainants.
3.35 This enables TF and LTW to advise passengers accordingly and for ORR to effectively carry out its role in monitoring for compliance.
3.36 Speed is clearly not the only determinant of an effective response. We discuss what we mean by a ‘fair and full investigation’ and ‘effective resolution’ below.
**Keeps complainant informed of progress**
3.37 Communication with the complainant is an important on-going process whilst the complaint is under investigation. At the outset, the complainant should be advised of the complaints process and the target timescales for a response.
3.38 Where complaints cannot be answered fully within published timescales, licence holders must ensure that the complainant is made aware of any potential delays and provide regular updates to the complainant after the target response time has elapsed. These updates should provide meaningful information about progress being made with the complaint and should give the complainant the option to speak to someone directly should they so choose. Licence holders should aim to agree new timescales with the complainant as appropriate.
**A full and fair investigation**
3.39 In approving licence holders’ CHPs we will expect to see investigative processes which are tailored and proportionate to the issues raised. We set out below the six steps that we would expect to see in an investigatory process although acknowledge that some complaints can be resolved immediately or on-the-spot and the full investigative process would not, in those instances, be appropriate or necessary. An effective response and resolution
3.40 Licence holders should provide a full written response to all complaints in plain English and free of rail industry jargon, initials or acronyms. Licence holders remain free to make their own judgements on what is appropriate to the circumstances of the complaint and the complainant, for example, in the tone and the level of formality. adopted. It is possible that, for example, a response could be appropriately dealt with by telephone (even if the original contact was in writing).
3.41 The passenger should be signposted to TF or LTW and ADR after they have received the second substantive response from the licence holder, even if the licence holder continues to engage with the complainant with the objective of resolving the complaint itself.
3.42 Licence holders must ensure that all complaints are resolved by which we mean **there are no outstanding actions required on the part of the licence holder**.
**Dealing with frivolous or vexatious complaints**
3.43 At times, licence holders may wish to terminate correspondence with a particular complainant before full resolution has been reached. This should be a decision of last resort, only taken if the licence holder believes the complainant’s on-going communication to be frivolous or vexatious.
3.44 A complaint can be treated as frivolous or vexatious even where the complainant may not be satisfied with the licence holder’s response. The decision as to whether a complaint is frivolous or vexatious should only be taken by a senior manager within the organisation and should be well documented. The complainant should also be advised of the contact details of LTW or TF and ADR, as appropriate.
3.45 Licence holders should have internal procedures that clearly define the circumstances in which correspondence will be terminated and provide guidance to staff on the authorisation required. Licence holders should record complaints that have been terminated in a way which allows them to monitor and examine the number of complaints terminated and the reasons why.
**Compensation**
3.46 Where the complaint is about a train delay or cancellation, licence holders should, as a minimum, provide compensation in line with the NRCoC or, on terms agreed within their franchise. Licence holders should ensure that complainants are given compensation as a form of remedy if this is an appropriate option and equally have the autonomy/discretion to go beyond the compensation thresholds should they wish to do so.
3.47 Our research(^9) found that almost three quarters (72%) of passenger respondents to a survey had little or no awareness of their rights to compensation. Licence holders must promote and raise awareness of compensation rights amongst passengers and we look for ways in which licence holders are doing this as part of our routine work and also when approving CHPs.
**Escalation of complaints**
3.48 We will look for a licence holder to demonstrate how it identifies and deals with complaints that require escalation through the management chain, including where a passenger has asked for their complaint to be escalated. Licence holders are expected to set out in their procedures: (a) the criteria for escalation; (b) how the complaint escalation process works; (c) the associated timescales; and (d) the relationship between the escalation process and the complainant’s right of appeal by way of TF and LTW (see below).
**Appeals to TF and LTW - handling protocols**
3.49 Licence holders must establish an appeals handling protocol with TF or LTW where TF or LTW require a protocol. This should include a commitment to review the protocol in the light of experience and/or at agreed intervals. This protocol should include the speed of response and how the appeal will be managed within the organisation. Both of these areas are set out in more detail below.
**Management of the appeal**
3.50 The protocols should, as a minimum, include the:
- main point of contact (member of staff) and an alternative point of contact (member of staff);
______________________________________________________________________
(^9) Passenger Compensation and refunds for delays and cancellations report 2014: [http://orr.gov.uk/publications/reports/rail-passenger-compensation-and-refund-rights](http://orr.gov.uk/publications/reports/rail-passenger-compensation-and-refund-rights) agreed channels for escalating appeals within the respective bodies; arrangements for the supply of additional/updated information; and arrangements for timeframe slippages / backlogs.
**Speed of response**
3.51 The licence holder should undertake to:
- provide acknowledgement to TF and LTW within **3 working days** of notification of the appeal;
- respond to a request for copies of case correspondence from TF or LTW **within 5 working days of the request**; and
- respond to TF and LTW appeal submissions within **10 working days** or a maximum of 20 working days where an appeal is complex.
3.52 Where the above requirements cannot be met, licence holders must agree a reasonable alternative timeframe with TF or LTW. All reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that the above timescales are honoured.
3.53 Licence holders should also ensure that the above appeal timescale apply to third parties acting on their behalf, for example, outsourced contact centres.
**Core Standard 2: Structures, people, and processes**
3.54 The following core standard provides an overview of what a well-managed complaint handling operational model should cover. It contains guidance on what we would expect to see around staffing, training and processes, including the engagement of senior staff and the implementation of quality assurance protocols. It also identifies the importance of transparency, including the establishing and publication of complaints service standards. Organisational structure and people
3.55 Central to the efficient and effective management of complaints is an appropriate organisational structure and staffing.
3.56 Some licence holders may use third parties to handle their complaints. Licence holders remain responsible for compliance with their CHPs even where that function is outsourced. Licence holders should, therefore, ensure that all outsourced service providers are capable of delivering a good complaints handling service and that this is fully reflected in any service level agreement. Licence holders should, for example, seek assurance that all relevant staff have received complaints handling training and ensure that they consistently uphold complaint handling service standards as determined by the licence holder.
Training and development
3.57 Licence holders must have comprehensive staff training programmes and training plans in place for all customer facing staff. For complaint handling staff and managers this should include a commitment to provide staff with complaints handling training that covers: customer service, complaints investigation and resolution skills. There should also be a commitment to retrain at periodic intervals or in response to evidence that complaints are not being dealt with effectively.
3.58 Licence holders must ensure that complaint handling staff have the capabilities and competencies (knowledge, skills, experience and abilities) needed to deliver a good complaint handling service. This should be embedded in the organisation’s overall recruitment and training strategies respectively.
**Processes and protocols**
**Record Keeping**
3.59 All licence holders should have in place written procedures relating to the management of complaint records, including:
- the types of complaint/complainant records that will be kept;
- the format in which records will be kept e.g. in hard copy or electronic form; and
- the length of time records will be kept.
3.60 Licence holders should ensure that there is a process for recording all complaints on a customer complaints database or Customer Relationship Management system (CRM), whether complaints are handled by themselves or third party suppliers. Licence holders should ensure that they have appropriate access to third party supplier systems for the purposes of monitoring passenger satisfaction with the service provided.
3.61 All complaints should be recorded in such a way that the information can also be analysed for service improvement opportunities. It should be accessible for regulatory monitoring purposes, for example, as part of an on-going compliance discussion with the licence holder. Data should also be maintained in a format capable of conforming with ORR’s core data requirements.
**Quality assurance framework/quality controls**
3.62 All licence holders should have quality controls relating to complaints handling. This should include quality checks to ensure all customer communications are of a high standard. The identification of systemic weaknesses
3.63 Customer complaints should be collated centrally and used as a source of intelligence. This can help identify the scale and trends in dissatisfaction which could escalate into something more serious.
3.64 Complaints about individual staff members should always be carefully looked at to identify the wider context surrounding the particular instance. For example, the individual's working pattern should be investigated to see if there are fatigue issues and where an individual has been working alone, the health and safety implications both to the individual and the customer should be considered.
3.65 Where complainants allege they have sustained an injury as a result of the licence holder's operations, consideration should be given to whether the incident is reportable to ORR under the Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR).
Complaint handling service standards
3.66 All licence holders should establish and publish service standards in relation to complaints handling. Service standards should be written with the customer in mind and should be free of industry jargon. These provide a statement of what the complainant can expect from the complaints process and provide licence holders with a metric by which success can be measured. The following illustration indicates the sort of components we would expect to see in a published service level commitment. 3.67 A number of these commitments may already be adopted by licence holders and published in their Passenger Charters.
3.68 Licence holders may also wish to promote other types of insight they gather, and how this information is used to make improvements to the passenger experience, in their passenger facing documents.
**Core standard 3: Organisational culture**
3.69 This core standard provides an overview of what we will wish to see in terms of overall organisational culture, in particular the mechanisms by which complaints data is used to shape and inform service improvements and address root causes of complaints.
**Organisational ownership and commitment**
3.70 An organisation which values complaints as a way to deliver insight on the performance of its business and a way to increase passenger satisfaction is likely to gain reputational and commercial advantage. Complaints handling processes should be subject to high level governance and accountability with an overarching shared vision for complaints handling forming part of the culture of the organisation. As part of this, management information on complaint volumes, trends and underlying causes should be regularly viewed at Board level so that systemic issues can be identified and addressed.
3.71 Learning from complaints is a powerful way of increasing trust and confidence amongst passengers. If a passenger knows that their complaint has helped to improve service delivery, it will encourage repeat engagement to the benefit of the business.
3.72 We are keen to see that licence holders adopt values which in turn shape behaviour in relation to complaints handling.
3.73 A licence holder could demonstrate such a commitment by, for example, showing:
- a link between strategic, service and team plans that help all staff to understand the central importance of complaints handling and the cycle of continuous improvement; and/or
- having commitments to include complaints handling in key strategies or operational plans.
3.74 We give some non-exhaustive examples of how this could be demonstrated below.
**Example 1:**
Complaints handling could be a key proposition within marketing and publicity plans which detail the importance of listening to passengers and using complaints themes and trends to improve the quality of service offered. Example 2:
Customer engagement plans could include introducing a service improvement panel made up of, for example, a cross section of past complainants including those with special needs or English as a second language.
Example 3:
Contingency plans could take into account the need to ensure that sufficient resources are directed to complaints handling and complaint prevention where there have been major timetable delays due to overrunning engineering works or weather. 4. Compliance monitoring
Summary
This chapter sets out how ORR expects to monitor on-going compliance with licence holders’ CHPs and the steps that ORR might take when concerned that individual CHPs may not be supporting our objective of continuous improvements in passengers’ experience of rail.
ORR’s monitoring approach
4.1 We do not intend to carry out detailed annual reviews of licence holders’ CHPs, but we reserve the right to do this where there is evidence of systemic issues not being addressed or a significant decrease in service performance. In addition, we will continue to monitor for compliance and the effectiveness of individual CHPs by the scrutiny of evidence such as:
- Core data sets, including information on the number, type, and underlying cause of complaints.
- The ease with which passengers can make complaints, for example the accessibility of website information, passenger information leaflets provided at stations and information made available through social media.
- Other relevant information published by licence holders such as the level of proactivity around communicating entitlements to compensation.
- Feedback from TF and LTW and other third parties including, for example, the results of mystery shopping exercises.
- Bespoke research conducted by ORR or in conjunction with TF and LTW.
- Consumer insight gained by way of individual consumer complaints made to ORR, TF and LTW.
4.2 Where there is evidence to suggest that a licence holder is not achieving compliance and/or a CHP is not supporting our objective of continuous improvements in passengers’ experience of rail, we may:
- Request additional information.
- Require a licence holder to conduct a review of its CHP and report findings to ORR.
- Carry out an independent audit as described below.
4.3 An independent audit could cover:
- A representative sample of complaints received including those not resolved by the licence holder and taken up by TF or LTW.
- Complaints that have required licence holders to seek legal advice.
- The complaints handling management system including how complaints are recorded and tracked from initiation to completion.
- Evidence that robust feedback mechanisms exist to both identify and address systemic issues and improve company policies and processes.
- Evidence that the Board is aware of and understands the volume, type and reasons for passenger complaints and is taking sufficient action to address issues.
- How the licence holder satisfies itself that its staff are competent to carry out complaint handling, including any training material and guidance provided to staff.
- Details of quality control and internal audit processes.
- Evidence of how a licence holder monitors the sensitivity of its staff to equality and diversity issues and how shortfalls are addressed.
- The commissioning of independent research to further investigate evidence of potential non-compliance.
4.4 As a matter of standard practice, we will raise our concerns with the licence holder prior to taking any of these measures.
4.5 Where (following engagement with the licence holder) we continue to have concerns, we will consider taking action in accordance with our enforcement policy(^\\text{10}).
(^{10}) We are currently reviewing our Economic enforcement policy – details of which can be found at the following link: http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/health-and-safety/health-and-safety-enforcement/enforcement-policy 4.6 We intend to publish CHPs approval letters on our website, highlighting what we consider to be good practice and innovation amongst licence holders to encourage shared learning and insight across industry. The development of new complaints handling datasets provides us with an opportunity to present meaningful data which, when combined with narrative, will present a more representative picture of complaints handling across the sector. Annex A – Licence condition 6: Complaint Handling
The licence holder shall establish and thereafter comply with a procedure for handling complaints relating to Licenced activities from its customers and potential customers (the “Complaints Procedure”).
The licence holder shall not establish, or make any material change (save in respect of paragraph 3(b)), to the Complaints Procedure unless and until:
(a) Transport Focus and, where appropriate, London TravelWatch has been consulted; and (b) The licence holder has submitted the Complaints Procedure, or (as the case may be) the proposed change, to ORR and ORR has approved it.
Where ORR requires the licence holder to carry out a review of the Complaints Procedure or any part of it or the manner in which it has been implemented, with a view to determining whether any change should be made to it, the licence holder shall:
(a) promptly carry out a review and submit a written report to ORR setting out the results or conclusions; and (b) make such changes to the Complaints Procedure, or the manner in which it is implemented, as ORR may reasonably require after ORR has received a report under paragraph (a) above and consulted the licence holder, Transport Focus and, where appropriate, London Travel Watch.
The licence holder shall:
(a) send a copy of the Complaints Procedure and of any change to it to ORR and Transport Focus and, where appropriate, London Travel Watch; (b) in a place of reasonable prominence at each station at which trains operated by the licence holder are scheduled to call, display or procure the display of a notice giving the address from which a current copy of the Complaints Procedure may be obtained; and
(c) Make available free of charge a current copy of the Complaints Procedure to any person who requests it. Annex B: Glossary
**ADR Directive** – Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive
**CAHA** – Claims Allocation and Handling Agreement
**CHPs** – Complaints Handling Procedures
**CRMs** – Customer Relationship Management Systems
**DDA** – Disabilities Discrimination Act 1995
**DPA** – Data Protection Act 1998
**Equality Act** – The Equality Act 2010
**ICO** – Information Commissioner’s Office
**LTW** – London TravelWatch
**LUL** – London Underground Limited
**NRCoC** – National Rail Conditions of Carriage
**ORR** – Office of Rail and Road
**TF** – Transport Focus
**RIDDOR** – Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
**TfL** – Transport for London
For a detailed glossary of terms access the following link [http://orr.gov.uk/glossary](http://orr.gov.uk/glossary)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1851-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 38,
"total-input-tokens": 60873,
"total-output-tokens": 11769,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
109,
1
],
[
109,
813,
2
],
[
813,
1858,
3
],
[
1858,
4154,
4
],
[
4154,
5337,
5
],
[
5337,
6522,
6
],
[
6522,
8025,
7
],
[
8025,
9796,
8
],
[
9796,
11629,
9
],
[
11629,
13831,
10
],
[
13831,
15092,
11
],
[
15092,
16244,
12
],
[
16244,
17339,
13
],
[
17339,
19599,
14
],
[
19599,
21357,
15
],
[
21357,
22128,
16
],
[
22128,
23881,
17
],
[
23881,
25509,
18
],
[
25509,
26802,
19
],
[
26802,
28795,
20
],
[
28795,
30997,
21
],
[
30997,
31725,
22
],
[
31725,
32106,
23
],
[
32106,
34161,
24
],
[
34161,
36066,
25
],
[
36066,
37543,
26
],
[
37543,
38704,
27
],
[
38704,
40547,
28
],
[
40547,
42012,
29
],
[
42012,
43106,
30
],
[
43106,
44343,
31
],
[
44343,
44820,
32
],
[
44820,
46453,
33
],
[
46453,
48297,
34
],
[
48297,
48740,
35
],
[
48740,
50341,
36
],
[
50341,
50551,
37
],
[
50551,
51349,
38
]
]
} |
9e5190988bbe90d5862621cc3730e3e080d2ccaf | Policy for handling comments and complaints
Paul Davies, Operations Director
May 2019
1. Introduction
This document sets out The National Archives’ policy for handling comments and complaints made about our services and facilities.
Listening to what our users have to say is essential to improving the quality of our services. We want to know when we do things well and what aspects of our service our users appreciate; but we also want to know when things go wrong or when users feel that our service can be improved. This gives us a chance to make things better and enhance the user experience of The National Archives.
We value your comments and complaints so that we can:
- keep doing things that please you and give credit to our staff
- know if things have gone wrong and put them right for you
- learn the lessons, and improve our services
2. Who does this policy apply to?
2.1 The policy applies to all those we serve or have dealings with, however regularly, including members of the public, commercial organisations and other government bodies. It also applies to contractors, suppliers and any other individual or organisation that has business with The National Archives.
2.2 The term user is employed in its widest sense within this policy to encompass people or organisations who use any of our services, whether visiting, writing, emailing, telephoning or accessing The National Archives’ online services.
2.3 This policy excludes complaints made about Freedom of Information (FoI) access requests which are handled separately. For information and procedures relating to FoI requests, please see the following page: http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/freedom-of-information/making-a-freedom-of-information-request/
This policy also excludes complaints arising under the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015. For information and procedures relating to the investigation of these this type of complaints, please see our complaints about re-use pages: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector-information/complaints-about-re-use/psi-complaints/
This policy also excludes complaints made about The Gazette, which is managed by The National Archives under a concessionary contract with The Stationery Office. For information and procedures relating to the investigation of this type of complaint, please see our complaints procedure page: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/contact-us/complaints-procedure/ 3. **What is a complaint?**
We define a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction with our service, no matter how expressed and whether justified or not, that requires a response or further action on the part of The National Archives.
4. **Our principles**
We aim to follow the principles of good practice described in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Complaint Handling (10 February 2009).
We try to make our processes:
- easy to access and understand
- clear and simple to use
- responsive to the reasonable needs of complainants
- prompt, with established time limits for action (see 6.2 below), and keeping people informed of progress, especially when investigations take longer than expected
- fair, with an opportunity for a full and impartial investigation
- proportionate to the matters complained about
- informative, by using lessons learnt from complaints to improve services and by reviewing the results of such changes.
**Our pledges to you**
When we respond to your complaints you can expect us to:
- take your concerns seriously
- give you the name of the member of staff responsible for dealing with the complaint at each stage of the procedure
- be factually correct
- deal with your complaint promptly
- avoid jargon
- answer all your points of concern
- be flexible in the way that we communicate with you
- give the reasons for the decision reached on a complaint Policy for handling comments and complaints
- explain the next steps available if you are still dissatisfied and provide contact details (address, telephone and e-mail)
Users who make a complaint can be assured that they will not be subjected to discrimination or retaliation as a result of complaining.
Our complaints process will be:
- frank and open
- impartial, avoiding any bias in favour of any party.
- thorough, finding out the relevant facts, taking views from people involved on both sides of the complaint and verifying explanations where possible.
- equitable, treating people in similar circumstances in similar ways.
5. How to comment or complain
We welcome views on our service and will respond to comments and complaints, however presented, whether in person, in writing, by telephone, email or other channels (for example, social media such as Twitter).
We provide comments and complaints forms, which can be returned through our suggestion boxes, by post, by email or handed to any member of staff.
Our information leaflet “Putting things right” explains how to comment or complain about our services, and how we will respond.
The comments and complaints reporting facility on our website does not require users to have email facilities: https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/contact-us/your-views/
Further help can be obtained by contacting our Customer Service and Complaints Team (tel 0208 392 5363, email [email protected] or write to the Quality Manager, Operations Directorate, The National Archives, Kew, Surrey TW9 4DU) who will advise how complaints can be taken forward and explain our complaints procedure.
6. How The National Archives responds to Comments and complaints
6.1 Our aim is to resolve complaints as soon as we are aware of them, and this means that the member of staff who first deals with a complaint is responsible for:
either Policy for handling comments and complaints
resolving the problem personally, if it is within their area of responsibility, ensuring that complaints handling staff in the Customer Services and Complaints Team are kept fully informed for monitoring and recording purposes
or
where this is not possible, for passing the complaint to our complaints handling staff to take forward.
(Initial responsibility for investigating and responding to complaints will usually lie with the part of the organisation which is the subject of the complaint, but our Customer Service and Complaints Team monitors complaints handling across The National Archives to ensure that they are handled consistently well and maintains a central record of complaints. This team is responsible for providing data and information about complaints to The National Archives’ Chief Executive and Executive Team.)
6.2 Procedures
A member of the Customer Service and Complaints Team will acknowledge receipt of your comment or complaint within three working days (the day the complaint is received being Day 0). They will usually respond to you in writing, sometimes to confirm information given in a telephone call but also to let you know who will deal with your complaint. This will usually either be the Customer Service and Complaints Team or the department about which you have complained. The complaints handling team will ask the relevant department(s) to assist them to look into matters and respond fully to your concerns. If they think that a meeting or a telephone call may help to resolve your complaint, they will offer that option.
A full response will normally be sent to you within ten working days. The complaint response will explain how to take matters forward if you are dissatisfied.
If your complaint requires us to implement another policy (such as a disciplinary policy) as part of the investigation, we will write to let you know that this is happening, and how long it is likely to take. In situations where the process is lengthy, we will keep you informed of progress at least once every four weeks. If you are dissatisfied with our response, you can, within two calendar months from the date of our final response to your complaint, ask for an independent internal review.
This will be carried out by the Chief Executive’s Office, which reports directly to the Chief Executive. Staff in the Chief Executive’s Office will contact you within five working days of receipt of your request. They will appoint a case reviewer and tell you who this is as soon as possible. The scope of the review will be agreed by you and the case reviewer. A draft report will usually be sent to you within 20 working days (the day the scope is agreed being Day 0). If the case reviewer is unable to complete the draft report within that time, they will explain the reasons why and tell you when you can expect a response. You will usually have ten working days to check the draft report for factual accuracy. The draft report will then go before the Chief Executive for consideration. After consideration, and usually within a further ten working days, you can expect a formal written response from the Chief Executive.
An independent internal review may also be requested at any stage if you wish to complain through an independent channel, although it should be understood that such a request may Policy for handling comments and complaints
automatically bring to a halt any work already under way to investigate the complaint elsewhere in The National Archives.
If you are dissatisfied with the final response from the Chief Executive, you can refer your complaint to our independent complaints reviewer, ch&i associates. The complaints review service is entirely independent of The National Archives and can be contacted at:
ch&i associates ltd 253 Park Lane Macclesfield SK11 8AA
Telephone 0330 133 1492
Email [email protected]
http://www.chi-assoc.com/
Should you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the external review, you can ask a Member of Parliament to raise your case with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
6.3. Redress
When our services do not meet our published standards, we aim to make amends in a way that is appropriate to the problems experienced. Redress will always include:
- an apology
- an explanation of what happened and why
and where appropriate:
- we will take action to put things right
- we will give an assurance that the same thing will not happen again and take steps to ensure this
Since most services at The National Archives are provided without charge, redress will not normally take the form of a financial payment. However, we will consider the question of reimbursement if our mistakes or poor service have caused you additional expense or financial loss. We can only consider claims that are supported by evidence of loss. In addition, in unusual circumstances, we will consider whether a consolatory payment is appropriate in recognition of anxiety or distress caused to you. Because we are dealing with public funds, such payments will be small.
6.4 Treating The National Archives’ staff fairly
When you compliment our service or our staff we will pass on your comments to the staff and managers concerned. We will also pass on unfavourable comments so that our staff can learn from them and try to provide a better service.
The National Archives has a responsibility to ensure that members of staff are treated fairly if a complaint is made against them. They are entitled to:
- be informed immediately and fully of any complaint made about them and asked for their comments
- be kept informed of progress in the investigation of the complaint
- be told the outcome of the complaint investigation and the reasons for it
If a member of staff makes a complaint about a user of our services, or a counter-complaint in response to a complaint, the matter will be looked into by our Customer Service and Complaints Team or a manager from a different department. In the case of a counter-complaint, a separate investigating officer will be assigned to look into it, to ensure fairness.
6.5 Feedback
We welcome any comments on the fairness and efficiency of the complaints procedures and the effectiveness of The National Archives’ replies to complaints. We will ask people who have made a complaint whether they are satisfied with the way their complaint was handled and the outcome. Sometimes we will use surveys to do this. We will take account of all feedback in annual reviews of our procedures.
7. How The National Archives responds to requests for information
If a complaint includes, or later leads to a request for information (for example, details of a policy, or documents from our files), we may be obliged to treat that request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoI). FoI requests are handled separately from complaints and, while this will not affect the way that we respond to your complaint, it may lead to your receiving separate responses.
You can find out more information about making FoI requests on our website at http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/freedom-of-information/making-a-freedom-of-information-request/
8. Confidentiality
We respect the need for confidentiality when a complaint is made, both for the complainant and for members of staff who have a complaint made against them. We aim to investigate complaints with sensitivity, preserve confidentiality, and to share information only when it is a necessary part of the investigation. Policy for handling comments and complaints
Some information about complaints will be published (see 11 below) but this will not include any personal details of a confidential or sensitive nature. If a complaint is referred to the Independent Complaints Reviewer, the ICR may need to have access to confidential information as part of their investigation. However, strict rules of confidentiality are observed by the ICR Office.
9. **Staff training**
Receiving and responding to comments and complaints about our service is an integral part of providing the service. We will train our staff in our complaints procedures and ensure they understand the value of comments and complaints, so that they can carry out their roles and responsibilities with confidence.
10. **Policy for dealing with unreasonably persistent enquiries**
Our staff will treat people in a courteous, fair and proportionate manner and we expect similar courtesy and reasonable behaviour in return. Very occasionally, we will refuse to respond to a complaint. This will only happen if the person making the complaint is insulting or abusive towards our staff or if they refuse to accept that their complaint has been dealt with despite a thorough investigation on our part. We will only do this where it is absolutely necessary, and we will write to the person concerned to explain why we believe this to be the case. You can find out more information about unreasonably persistent enquiries on our website at [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/persistent-enquiries-policy.pdf](http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/persistent-enquiries-policy.pdf)
11. **Recording and publishing statistical information**
In accordance with The National Archives’ transparency agenda (see [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/transparency/our-public-services/](https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/transparency/our-public-services/)), we will regularly publish anonymised information about the complaints we have received, which will include:
- Online satisfaction levels
- Onsite satisfaction levels
- Satisfaction levels from the legislation.gov.uk website
- Complaints feedback
- Examples of comments, requests, compliments and complaints and actions taken to improve our services.
In addition, the Independent Complaints Reviewer produces an annual statement that is included in The National Archives’ Annual Report and Accounts.
12. **Review of policy and procedures**
We will review the complaints policy and procedures bi-annually. Complaints Process
01. Complaint Received
- Day 0
02. Acknowledgement Sent
- Day 3
03. Is another policy invoked?
- Yes: Holding reply sent
- No: Full reply sent
04. Full reply sent
- Day 10 (except where other policy invoked)
05. Internal review request received
- Day 0
06. Acknowledgement sent
- Day 5
07. Scope of review agreed
- Day 0
08. Draft reply sent
- Day 20
09. Draft checked by complainant
- Day 30
10. Formal response from CEO
- Day 40
11. Complainant refers to ICR
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1852-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 18578,
"total-output-tokens": 3711,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
88,
1
],
[
88,
2488,
2
],
[
2488,
3919,
3
],
[
3919,
5813,
4
],
[
5813,
9194,
5
],
[
9194,
11092,
6
],
[
11092,
13380,
7
],
[
13380,
15931,
8
],
[
15931,
16446,
9
]
]
} |
4c077ccc062234aeaf8a3ff8f4629339e5ceeea1 | Complaints handling & Community Engagement Standards
July 2015 Complaints handling and Community Engagement Standards
Introduction
These standards are issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The DPP is the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which is the principal public prosecution service for England and Wales. The DPP operates independently under the superintendence of the Attorney General who is accountable to Parliament for the work of the CPS.
These standards set out the benchmarks of quality that we strive to deliver in prosecuting crime for the public. The standards are an important way in which we can demonstrate our values of treating everyone with respect, being independent and fair, being honest and open, behaving professionally and striving for excellence.
These standards replace the previous Core Quality Standards document in respect of complaints handling and community engagement and sit alongside the CPS: Casework Quality Standards.
Overarching principles
1. The work of all those employed by the CPS should be carried out in a way that accords with the CPS Code of Conduct and the CPS Values, both published on our website: www.cps.gov.uk
2. The CPS has an Independent Assessor of Complaints who reports to the CPS Board on compliance with the standards. The CPS Community Accountability Forum scrutinises CPS policies to ensure we receive feedback on our case handling procedures, policies and practices. Each operational unit reports twice a year on its compliance with these standards through the certificate of assurance.
3. We are responsible for making decisions and dealing with our work in a way that is:
- Fair to victims and witnesses and in accordance with the Victims Code
- Fair to suspects and defendants
- Proportionate to what is required to achieve a just outcome
- Responsive to the concerns of the communities we serve
4. Prosecutors make decisions in accordance with:
- the law
- the Code for Crown Prosecutors (Insert Link)
- guidance issued by the Attorney General
- relevant policies and guidance issued by the DPP Standard 1: Complaints handling
We will provide a service that complies with the principles of effective complaints handling.
The benchmarks of quality are:
1. Responding to complaints effectively, sensitively, fairly and thoroughly.
2. Getting it right, taking account of the rights of complainants by acting in accordance with relevant law and providing clear governance to complaints management.
3. Being victim focused, listening to complainants and providing an accessible complaints service with clear and simple procedures.
4. Being open and accountable, providing honest evidence based explanations as well as publishing clear information and service standards.
5. Acting fairly and proportionately, without discrimination ensuring that complaints are investigated thoroughly and decisions are proportionate, appropriate and fair.
6. Putting things right, acknowledging mistakes and apologising where appropriate with prompt and proportionate remedies.
7. Seeking continuous improvement, by regularly reviewing and using all feedback and the lessons learnt from complaints to improve service design and delivery. Standard 2: Community engagement
We will engage with communities so that we are aware of their concerns when we make decisions and develop policies and practices.
The benchmarks of quality are:
08. Having in place effective governance and reporting arrangements that assist in the management of national and local priorities and that quality assure and monitor community engagement e.g. Local Scrutiny and Involvement Partnerships.
09. Explaining our role and consulting on our business priorities with local communities and diverse groups, particularly those defined as having protected characteristics in the Equality Act (2010).
10. Responding proactively to feedback to help set local and national priorities that impact positively on casework quality.
11. Working with partners such as the police, courts, police and crime commissioners, locally elected officials and third sector organisations as appropriate to respond to the priorities that emerge in neighbourhoods and communities.”
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1853-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 7499,
"total-output-tokens": 992,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
64,
1
],
[
64,
2125,
2
],
[
2125,
3255,
3
],
[
3255,
4251,
4
],
[
4251,
4251,
5
]
]
} |
7972b04ebf7f287f171cc9e3b1fae2eb5bd1c24d | Forestry Statistics 2020 A compendium of statistics about woodland, forestry and primary wood processing in the United Kingdom
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 [email protected] Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236 Website: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/ Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 1: Woodland Area and Planting ........................................................................... 8 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9 Key findings ....................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Woodland Area ........................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Certified woodland area ............................................................................................. 19 1.3 Land use ....................................................................................................................... 22 1.4 National Forest Inventory .......................................................................................... 24 1.5 Area of Farm Woodland ............................................................................................. 41 1.6 New planting and publicly funded restocking ............................................................. 43 1.7 Felling .......................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 2: UK-Grown Timber ............................................................................................ 59 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 60 Key findings ....................................................................................................................... 61 2.1 Wood production ......................................................................................................... 62 2.2 Deliveries of UK-grown roundwood ......................................................................... 72 2.3 Sawmills - All Mills .................................................................................................... 77 2.4 Sawmills - Larger Mills ............................................................................................... 87 2.5 Pulp & paper ............................................................................................................... 97 2.6 Wood-based panels .................................................................................................... 101 2.7 Miscellaneous products ............................................................................................. 105 2.8 Exports ....................................................................................................................... 109 2.9 Certification ............................................................................................................... 110 2.10 Woodfuel and pellets ............................................................................................... 114
Chapter 3: Trade .................................................................................................................. 119 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 120 Key findings ....................................................................................................................... 121 3.1 Apparent consumption of wood in the UK ................................................................. 122 3.2 Apparent consumption of wood products in the UK .................................................. 125 3.3 Flow of recovered paper ............................................................................................ 127 3.4 UK import quantities by product ........................................ 128 3.5 UK export quantities by product ........................................ 130 3.6 UK import values by product ........................................... 132 3.7 UK export values by product ........................................... 134 3.8 Origin of wood imports .................................................. 136
Chapter 4: Carbon .............................................................. 139 Introduction ........................................................................ 140 Key findings ........................................................................ 141 4.1 Forest carbon stock ......................................................... 142 4.2 Woodland Carbon Code .................................................. 144 4.3 Public Opinion of Forestry - climate change ....................... 149
Chapter 5: Environment ....................................................... 151 Introduction ........................................................................ 152 Key findings ........................................................................ 152 5.1 Populations of wild birds ................................................ 153 5.2 Public Opinion of Forestry - tree health ............................. 156 5.3 Woodland types and habitats .......................................... 159
Chapter 6: Social ................................................................. 161 Introduction ........................................................................ 162 Key findings ........................................................................ 163 6.1 Visits to woodland - household surveys ............................ 164 6.2 Visits to woodland - on-site surveys ................................. 176
Chapter 7: Employment & Businesses .................................... 179 Introduction ........................................................................ 180 Key findings ........................................................................ 181 7.1 Employment: Annual Business Survey (ABS) .................... 182 7.2 Employment in primary wood processing .......................... 183 7.3 Health & safety .............................................................. 184 7.4 Establishments in the primary wood processing industries .... 187 7.5 VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses ............................ 188 Introduction
Forestry Statistics is a compilation of statistics on woodland, forestry and primary wood processing in the UK.
Where possible, statistical information in this publication covers the whole of the United Kingdom, and is broken down to give figures for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, there are some topics for which data are currently only available for some parts of the UK, and these tables are labelled accordingly.
The tables within each chapter (including data for charts), along with longer time series (for some topics) are available to download in spreadsheet format from the Statistics Data Downloads page at www.forestrsearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Further information on data sources and methodology are provided in the Sources chapter.
Selected statistics from this publication are provided in "Forestry Facts and Figures 2020", available at www.forestrsearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/.
We also publish a range of other Official Statistics, available at www.forestrsearch.gov.uk/statistics/.
Statistical release practices
We aim to release statistics as soon as they are available. All of our National Statistics and other Official Statistics publications are available on our website www.forestrsearch.gov.uk/statistics/. Release dates are published on our website for the year ahead. Publications are made available at 9.30 am on the day of release.
Statistical revisions policy
Revisions to statistics can occur when further data become available or errors are corrected. We will normally revise statistics when the figures next appear in any publication. However, if the revision is significant (i.e. resulting in a major change to the published figures), a note showing the revisions will be published as soon as possible on the Forest Research website and distributed to all known recipients. In addition, the web versions of any current publications affected will be revised. See our full revisions policy at www.forestrsearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf for further information. Quality
Summary information on quality is available in the Sources chapter of this publication. More details are provided in quality reports for individual topics, available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
National Statistics Status
National Statistics status means that our statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value, and it is our responsibility to maintain compliance with these standards.
The continued designation of these statistics (Forestry Statistics and Forestry Facts & Figures) as National Statistics was confirmed in March 2012 following an assessment by the UK Statistics Authority (now the Office for Statistics Regulation) against the Code of Practice for Statistics.
Since the latest assessment of these statistics in 2012, we have made improvements including:
- Expansion of content to cover data on additional topics, including woodland types and habitats, felling and public opinion on tree health.
- The addition of key findings at the start of each chapter, to provide users with a brief overview of the statistics.
- Provision of more detailed information on the methodology used, particularly in relation to the estimation of woodland area. Sources
Background information on the statistics presented in this release are available in the Sources chapter. This covers the data sources and methodology used to produce the statistics, information on quality measures and on any revisions to historic data and links to further information.
Further details on quality are provided in quality reports for selected topics and for individual surveys, available from our Quality web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/
As a National Statistics output, this publication concentrates on topics for which the data meet National Statistics quality standards. However some topics outside the scope of National Statistics are included, to give a more rounded picture; any such tables are footnoted as "outside the scope of National Statistics". This means that they have not been subject to National Statistics quality assurance procedures, but does not necessarily imply that they are of poorer quality. This edition of Forestry Statistics includes the following tables and charts that are outside the scope of National Statistics:
- Table 1.2: Woodland area in the UK (time series);
- Tables 1.6 to 1.11, figures 1.3 to 1.4b: National Forest Inventory;
- Table 1.15: Felling licences;
- Tables 1.16a and 1.16b: Statutory Plant Health Notices;
- Table 2.4a: Softwood availability forecasts;
- Table 2.4b: Hardwood availability forecasts;
- Table 2.30: Recycled wood used for woodfuel;
- Tables 4.1 to 4.3b, Figure 4.1: Carbon;
- Table 5.2 and Figure 5.2: Tree health;
- Tables 5.3a and 5.3b: Woodland types and habitats;
- Tables 6.1 to 6.6, Figure 6.1: Social;
- Tables 9.1 to 9.6, Figures 9.1 to 9.7: International forestry. Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 1: Woodland Area and Planting
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: Country Introduction
This chapter contains statistics on:
- UK woodland area;
- certified woodland area;
- areas of new planting and restocking; and
- felling.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included in addition to UK totals. International comparisons are provided in the International Forestry chapter. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Figures on woodland area and certified woodland area at March 2020 and on new planting and restocking for the period 2019-20 were previously published in "Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2020 edition", released on 14 June 2020. Some figures for new planting in 2019-20 and for Statutory Plant Health Notices in Scotland have been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Woodland Areas and Planting: Felling section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all woodland area and planting tables, along with longer time series (where available) can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at https://www.forestrsearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2020 is estimated to be 3.2 million hectares. This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland.
- Of the total UK woodland area, 0.86 million hectares (27%) is owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service (in Northern Ireland).
- The total certified woodland area in the UK at 31 March 2020 is 1.39 million hectares, including all Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales/Forest Service woodland. Overall, 43% of the UK woodland area is certified.
- 13.7 thousand hectares of new woodland were created in the UK in 2019-20, with conifers accounting for 57% of this area. 1.1 Woodland Area
Woodland is defined in UK forestry statistics as land under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20% (25% in Northern Ireland), or having the potential to achieve this. The definition relates to land use, rather than land cover, so integral open space and felled areas that are awaiting restocking are included as woodland. Further information, including how this UK definition compares with the international definition of woodland, is provided in the Sources chapter.
Statistics on woodland area are used to inform government policy and resource allocation, to provide context to UK forestry and land management issues and are reported to international organisations. They are also used in the compilation of natural capital accounts.
Increases in woodland area result from the creation of new woodland. This can be achieved through new planting or by natural colonisation of trees on land near existing woodland. Further information is available in the section on New Planting.
Decreases in woodland area result from the conversion of woodland to other land uses. Regulatory approval is usually required before trees can be felled. Felling approval will normally require the area to be restocked, but there are some cases in which trees may be permanently removed, generally for environmental reasons. The permanent removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development.
Most public sector woodland is managed by Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Forest Service (FS) in Northern Ireland. Other public sector woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) is included with privately owned woodland as “private sector” in this release.
The Natural Resources Wales woodland areas relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. There is approximately 900 hectares of woodland on National Nature Reserves and other land managed by Natural Resources Wales that is not included in the Natural Resources Wales figures. 1.1.1 Area of Woodland: 2020
The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2020 is estimated to be 3.2 million hectares (Table 1.1). Of this total, 1.5 million hectares (46%) is in Scotland, 1.3 million hectares (41%) is in England, 0.3 million hectares (10%) is in Wales and 0.1 million hectares (4%) is in Northern Ireland.
Conifers account for around one half (51%) of the UK woodland area, although this proportion varies from around one quarter (26%) in England to around three quarters (74%) in Scotland. Table 1.1 Area of woodland by ownership & forest type at 31 March 2020
| Forest type and ownership¹,² | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-----------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | **Conifers** | | | | | | | FE/FLS/NRW/FS | 151 | 98 | 426 | 55 | 730| | Private sector | 190 | 54 | 653 | 8 | 905| | **Total** | 340 | 152 | 1,079 | 64 | 1,635| | **Broadleaves** | | | | | | | FE/FLS/NRW/FS | 64 | 19 | 41 | 7 | 131| | Private sector | 907 | 138 | 347 | 48 | 1,440| | **Total** | 971 | 158 | 388 | 55 | 1,571| | **Total** | | | | | | | FE/FLS/NRW/FS | 215 | 117 | 467 | 62 | 861| | Private sector | 1,097 | 192 | 1,000 | 56 | 2,345| | **Total** | 1,311 | 309 | 1,467 | 118 | 3,206|
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter.
4. Figures for Northern Ireland are obtained from the Northern Ireland Draft Woodland Register.
5. Broadleaves include coppice and coppice with standards. 1.1.2 Area of woodland: changes over time
The 3.2 million hectares of woodland in the UK in 2020 (Table 1.1) represents 13% of the total land area. This comprises 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland (Table 1.2). Table 1.2 Woodland area in the United Kingdom
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 1086 | ~15 | .. | .. | .. | .. | | c1350| ~10 | .. | ~4 | .. | .. | | 17thC | ~8 | .. | ~4 | ~1.5 | .. | | 19053| 5.2 | 4.2 | 4.5 | 1.1 | 4.7| | 1924 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.6 | 1.0 | 5.0| | 1947 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 6.6 | 1.7 | 5.9| | 1965 | 6.8 | 9.7 | 8.4 | 3.1 | 7.4| | 1980 | 7.3 | 11.6 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 9.0| | 1995-99 | 8.4 | 13.8 | 16.4 | 6.0 | 11.3| | 1998 | 9.5 | 14.4 | 16.7 | 6.0 | 12.0| | 2020 | 10.1 | 14.9 | 18.8 | 8.6 | 13.2|
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Notes:
1. Percentage of the total surface area excluding inland water. The total surface areas, excluding inland water, are taken from the UK Standard Area Measurements (published by the Office for National Statistics).
2. Estimates for England and Scotland before 1905 come from a variety of sources, including the Domesday Survey of England, Scottish Woodland History (TC Smout ed, 1997) and Roy maps c1750.
3. For Northern Ireland, 17th century figure is estimate for all Ireland, 1905 figure is estimate for Province of Ulster 1908, 1947 figure assumes no change from 1939-40 Census.
4. 1998 figures shown for England, Wales and Scotland have been revised from those originally published to produce estimates that are consistent with subsequent data from the National Forest Inventory.
5. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter.
6. Figures for Northern Ireland are obtained from the Northern Ireland Draft Woodland Register.
7. .. Denotes data not available.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 1.1 shows woodland area by country since 1998. Woodland area in the UK has risen by around 290 thousand hectares since 1998, an increase of 10% over the period.
**Figure 1.1 Area of woodland, 1998-2020**
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Notes:
1. Woodland areas for England, Wales and Scotland shown in this figure are based on data from the National Forest Inventory. The trends shown take account of areas of new planting and identifiable permanent woodland loss. Areas of woodland loss that are not yet identifiable (e.g. conversion of woodland for the restoration of open habitats) are not accounted for. Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at [https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/).
2. Figures for 1998 to 2009 for England, Wales and Scotland were revised from those initially published, to produce results that are consistent with the National Forest Inventory and enable comparisons over time. 1.1.3 Woodland area by ownership
Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and the Forest Service in Northern Ireland owned or managed 27% of the total woodland area in the UK in 2020 (Table 1.3). This proportion ranged from 16% of the woodland area in England to 53% in Northern Ireland. Table 1.3 Area of woodland in the UK by ownership, 2016-2020
| Ownership | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |--------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|--------| | FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodland¹ | | | | | | | 2016 | 215 | 117 | 470 | 62 | 864 | | 2017 | 214 | 117 | 469 | 62 | 863 | | 2018 | 214 | 117 | 470 | 62 | 863 | | 2019 | 215 | 117 | 468 | 62 | 862 | | 2020 | 215 | 117 | 467 | 62 | 861 | | Private sector woodland² | | | | | | | 2016 | 1,091 | 190 | 965 | 50 | 2,295 | | 2017 | 1,092 | 191 | 968 | 50 | 2,301 | | 2018 | 1,093 | 192 | 976 | 50 | 2,311 | | 2019 | 1,094 | 192 | 988 | 51 | 2,326 | | 2020 | 1,097 | 192 | 1,000 | 56 | 2,345 | | Total woodland | | | | | | | 2016 | 1,305 | 307 | 1,435 | 112 | 3,159 | | 2017 | 1,306 | 308 | 1,438 | 112 | 3,164 | | 2018 | 1,307 | 309 | 1,446 | 113 | 3,175 | | 2019 | 1,309 | 309 | 1,456 | 113 | 3,187 | | 2020 | 1,311 | 309 | 1,467 | 118 | 3,206 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter.
4. Northern Ireland figures are obtained from the Northern Ireland Draft Woodland Register.
5. Areas as at 31 March. 1.2 Certified woodland area
Certified woodland in the UK has been independently audited against the UK Woodland Assurance Standard. Forestry certification schemes are owned by international non-governmental organisations and exist to promote good forest practice. They offer product labels to demonstrate that wood or wood products come from well-managed forests.
Figures for certified woodland areas are often used as an indicator of sustainable forest management. However, it should be noted that woodland that is not certified may also be managed sustainably.
Most changes to the certified woodland area figures over time are a result of new areas being certified or certificates not being renewed upon expiry. Temporary changes can also occur if there is a time lag between expiry and renewal.
Statistics on certified timber are provided in Chapter 2. 1.39 million hectares of woodland in the UK were certified in March 2020 (Table 1.4). This represented 43% of the total UK woodland area, 25% in England, 47% in Wales, 59% in Scotland and 55% in Northern Ireland.
Table 1.4 Woodland area certified, March 2020
| Ownership | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|------| | FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodland¹ | 215 | 117 | 467 | 62 | 861 | | Private sector woodland² | 109 | 29 | 392 | 3 | 533 | | **Total woodland area certified**| **323** | **146** | **859** | **66** | **1,394** |
Source: Forest Stewardship Council, Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. All certified woodland in 2020 is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme, with many woodlands certified under both schemes.
4. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC and PEFC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified.
5. All Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales WGWE/Forest Service woodland is certified. The Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/ Welsh Government Woodland Estate /Forest Service areas are the latest areas, as shown in Table 1, rather than the areas shown on certificates.
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads webpage. Figure 1.2 presents certified woodland area by country since December 2001, with figures for earlier years revised for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory. This shows an increase in certified woodland area of around 330 thousand hectares (31%) since December 2001, with most of this increasing occurring in the early 2000s.
The 1.39 million hectares of certified woodland in the UK at March 2020 represents a 0.4% decrease on the previous year.
**Figure 1.2 Area of certified woodland, 2001-2020**
Source: Forest Stewardship Council, Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Notes:
1. All certified woodland is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme, with many woodlands certified under both schemes.
2. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC and PEFC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified.
3. Figures for earlier years were revised for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory. 1.3 Land use
Not all land that is owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and the Forest Service in Northern Ireland is woodland; other land uses include agricultural land, mountain areas and moorland.
The woodland areas and land areas shown for Natural Resources Wales relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. There is approximately 900 hectares of woodland on National Nature Reserves and other land managed by Natural Resources Wales that is not included in the Natural Resources Wales figures.
Woodland accounted for 79% of all Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service land in the UK at 31 March 2020 (Table 1.5). This proportion was highest in Wales (95%) and lowest in Scotland (74%). Table 1.5 Land use of FE, FLS, NRW and FS¹, 2016-2020
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Woodland | | | | | | | 2016 | 215 | 117 | 470 | 62 | 864| | 2017 | 214 | 117 | 469 | 62 | 863| | 2018 | 214 | 117 | 470 | 62 | 863| | 2019 | 215 | 117 | 468 | 62 | 862| | 2020 | 215 | 117 | 467 | 62 | 861| | Other land² | | | | | | | 2016 | 38 | 7 | 170 | 13 | 228| | 2017 | 39 | 7 | 169 | 13 | 227| | 2018 | 39 | 6 | 169 | 13 | 227| | 2019 | 39 | 6 | 166 | 13 | 224| | 2020 | 39 | 6 | 166 | 13 | 224| | Total land area | | | | | | | 2016 | 253 | 124 | 640 | 75 | 1,092| | 2017 | 253 | 124 | 638 | 75 | 1,090| | 2018 | 253 | 123 | 639 | 75 | 1,090| | 2019 | 253 | 123 | 634 | 75 | 1,085| | 2020 | 253 | 123 | 634 | 75 | 1,085|
Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE).
2. "Other land" includes agricultural land and areas of moorland and mountain.
3. Areas as at 31 March. 1.4 National Forest Inventory
This section contains interim results from the National Forest Inventory (NFI). The statistics are based on field survey data combined with information from the NFI woodland map, which is a spatial representation of woodland areas in Great Britain.
Figures presented in this chapter are interim estimates at 31 March 2012, published in the NFI "50-year forecast of softwood timber availability" and "50-year forecast of hardwood timber availability" reports, released in April 2014. Both reports are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
The figures presented in Tables 1.6 to 1.9 (and Figures 1.3, 1.4a and 1.4b) relate to stocked areas. These differ from the woodland areas presented in earlier tables, as stocked areas exclude felled areas and (for private sector land) areas of integral open space.
The figures on growing stock presented in Tables 1.10 and 1.11 form the basis for the softwood and hardwood availability forecasts (see Tables 2.4a and 2.4b).
Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
1.4.1 Woodland area by age: conifers
Table 1.6 presents the area of conifers, broken down by age class, ownership and country.
61% of the coniferous woodland area in Great Britain was occupied by stands of 40 years old or younger (Table 1.6). A further 9% of stands were aged over 60 years. Table 1.6 Stocked woodland area in GB by ownership and age class: Conifers
| Age class (years) | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | FE/FLS/NRW¹ | | | | | | 0-20 | 33 | 24 | 76 | 134| | 21-40 | 38 | 25 | 145 | 208| | 41-60 | 39 | 25 | 111 | 176| | 61-80 | 12 | 7 | 25 | 44 | | 81-100 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 11 | | 100+ | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | | All age classes | 128 | 82 | 367 | 576| | Private sector² | | | | | | 0-20 | 17 | 8 | 126 | 151| | 21-40 | 54 | 22 | 231 | 306| | 41-60 | 83 | 15 | 116 | 214| | 61-80 | 19 | 1 | 18 | 38 | | 81-100 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 11 | | 100+ | 3 | 1 | 9 | 12 | | All age classes | 179 | 47 | 505 | 732| | Total | | | | | | 0-20 | 51 | 32 | 202 | 285| | 21-40 | 92 | 46 | 376 | 514| | 41-60 | 123 | 39 | 227 | 389| | 61-80 | 31 | 8 | 43 | 82 | | 81-100 | 7 | 2 | 12 | 22 | | 100+ | 3 | 1 | 12 | 16 | | All age classes | 307 | 129 | 872 | 1,308|
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data).
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
4. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
1.4.2 Woodland area by age: broadleaves
Table 1.7 presents the area of broadleaves, broken down by age class, ownership and country.
Around one half (53%) of the broadleaved area was occupied by stands of 40 years old or younger (Table 1.7). More than one quarter (28%) of stands were aged over 60 years. Table 1.7 Stocked woodland area in GB by ownership and age class: Broadleaves
| Age class (years) | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW¹** | | | | | | 0-20 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 25 | | 21-40 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13 | | 41-60 | 13 | 2 | 4 | 19 | | 61-80 | 13 | 2 | 4 | 19 | | 81-100 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | | 100+ | 10 | 3 | 5 | 18 | | **All age classes** | **54** | **16** | **32** | **102** | | **Private sector²** | | | | | | 0-20 | 217 | 30 | 84 | 332| | 21-40 | 227 | 33 | 84 | 344| | 41-60 | 145 | 22 | 58 | 225| | 61-80 | 117 | 15 | 22 | 154| | 81-100 | 92 | 11 | 9 | 112| | 100+ | 51 | 10 | 7 | 67 | | **All age classes** | **849** | **121** | **265** | **1,235** | | **Total** | | | | | | 0-20 | 225 | 37 | 95 | 357| | 21-40 | 232 | 36 | 90 | 357| | 41-60 | 157 | 24 | 63 | 244| | 61-80 | 130 | 17 | 26 | 173| | 81-100 | 97 | 12 | 11 | 119| | 100+ | 61 | 12 | 12 | 85 | | **All age classes** | **902** | **137** | **297** | **1,337** |
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data).
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
4. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
1.4.3 Woodland area by age: Summary
Figure 1.3 presents the age profile of woodland in Great Britain for conifers and for broadleaves. It shows that broadleaves are more evenly distributed across the age classes than conifers.
Figure 1.3 Age profile of woodland in GB
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data).
Notes:
1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
2. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.4.4 Woodland area by species: conifers
Table 1.8 presents the area of conifers, broken down by principal species, ownership and country.
Sitka spruce accounts for around one half (51%) of the conifer area in Great Britain (Table 1.8), followed by Scots pine (17%) and larches (10%). Sitka spruce is less dominant in England, accounting for just one quarter (26%) of the conifer area there. Table 1.8 Stocked woodland area in GB by ownership and principal species: Conifers
| Principal species | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW¹** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 49 | 50 | 225 | 323| | Scots pine | 17 | 2 | 45 | 64 | | Corsican pine | 27 | 2 | 2 | 30 | | Norway spruce | 7 | 5 | 11 | 23 | | Larches | 10 | 12 | 26 | 48 | | Douglas fir | 10 | 5 | 5 | 20 | | Lodgepole pine | 4 | 3 | 49 | 56 | | Other conifers | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | | **All conifers** | **128** | **82**| **367** | **576**| | **Private sector²** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 32 | 27 | 282 | 341| | Scots pine | 45 | 1 | 109 | 154| | Corsican pine | 14 | 0 | 1 | 15 | | Norway spruce | 21 | 3 | 15 | 38 | | Larches | 30 | 8 | 39 | 78 | | Douglas fir | 15 | 3 | 7 | 25 | | Lodgepole pine | 3 | 1 | 39 | 44 | | Other conifers | 19 | 2 | 8 | 29 | | **All conifers** | **179** | **47**| **505** | **732**| | **Total** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 80 | 77 | 507 | 665| | Scots pine | 61 | 3 | 154 | 218| | Corsican pine | 40 | 2 | 3 | 46 | | Norway spruce | 27 | 8 | 25 | 61 | | Larches | 40 | 20 | 66 | 126| | Douglas fir | 25 | 9 | 12 | 46 | | Lodgepole pine | 8 | 4 | 88 | 100|
### 1.4.5 Woodland area by species: broadleaves
Table 1.9 presents the area of broadleaves, broken down by principal species, ownership and country.
The most commonly occurring broadleaved species in Great Britain are birch (accounting for 18% of broadleaf woodland), oak (16%) and ash (12%) (Table 1.9). Birch is more dominant in Scotland, accounting for 43% of the broadleaf area there. Table 1.9 Stocked woodland area in GB by ownership and principal species: Broadleaves
| Principal species | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW¹** | | | | | | Oak | 16 | 3 | 3 | 21 | | Beech | 13 | 2 | 1 | 15 | | Sycamore | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | | Ash | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | | Birch | 6 | 2 | 11 | 19 | | Sweet chestnut | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | Hazel | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | Hawthorn | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Alder | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | Willow | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Other broadleaves | 14 | 9 | 15 | 38 | | **All broadleaves** | **54** | **16** | **32** | **102** | | **Private sector²** | | | | | | Oak | 151 | 23 | 23 | 198| | Beech | 59 | 5 | 15 | 78 | | Sycamore | 74 | 9 | 21 | 105| | Ash | 120 | 18 | 15 | 153| | Birch | 90 | 11 | 116 | 217| | Sweet chestnut | 28 | 0 | 0 | 28 | | Hazel | 64 | 14 | 8 | 86 | | Hawthorn | 57 | 8 | 8 | 73 | | Alder | 30 | 10 | 16 | 56 | | Willow | 41 | 11 | 13 | 65 | | Other broadleaves | 133 | 12 | 29 | 174| | **All broadleaves** | **849** | **121** | **265** | **1,235** | | **Total** | | | | | | Oak | 167 | 26 | 26 | 219| | Tree Type | FE | FLS | NRW | Total | |-------------------|-----|-----|-----|-------| | Beech | 72 | 6 | 15 | 94 | | Sycamore | 75 | 9 | 22 | 106 | | Ash | 123 | 19 | 16 | 157 | | Birch | 96 | 12 | 128 | 236 | | Sweet chestnut | 28 | 0 | 0 | 29 | | Hazel | 65 | 14 | 8 | 87 | | Hawthorn | 57 | 8 | 8 | 73 | | Alder | 31 | 10 | 17 | 58 | | Willow | 41 | 11 | 13 | 65 | | Other broadleaves | 146 | 21 | 44 | 212 | | **All broadleaves** | **902** | **137** | **297** | **1,337** |
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014).
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
4. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.4.6 Woodland area by species: summary
Figures 1.4a and 1.4b show that, whilst the conifer area is dominated by a small number of species (Sitka spruce and Scots pine together account for around two thirds of the conifer area), broadleaves are more varied.
Figure 1.4a Principal tree species in GB by stocked area: Conifers
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014).
Notes:
1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
2. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 1.4b Principal tree species in GB by stocked area: Broadleaves
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014).
Notes:
1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
2. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.4.7 Growing stock by species: conifers
Growing stock is the volume of timber in living trees. It is also often referred to as the standing volume.
Table 1.10 presents the volume of coniferous growing stock, broken down by principal species, ownership and country.
The total volume of coniferous growing stock in Great Britain in 2012 was 355 million m$^3$ overbark standing (Table 1.10).
Sitka spruce accounted for around one half (51%) of the conifer growing stock, followed by Scots pine (15%) and larches (10%). This largely reflects the distribution of species by area (see Table 1.8). Table 1.10 Growing stock in GB by ownership and principal species: Conifers
| Principal species | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW¹** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 8.9 | 11.1 | 52.1 | 72.0 | | Scots pine | 4.0 | 0.5 | 8.8 | 13.3 | | Corsican pine | 5.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 6.4 | | Norway spruce | 1.7 | 1.5 | 3.5 | 6.7 | | Larches | 1.7 | 2.7 | 4.8 | 9.2 | | Douglas fir | 2.7 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 5.4 | | Lodgepole pine | 0.8 | 0.6 | 8.2 | 9.6 | | Other conifers | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 3.6 | | **All conifers** | **26.8**| **19.4**| **80.2**| **126.4** | | **Private sector²** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 11.4 | 9.5 | 88.0 | 108.9 | | Scots pine | 14.7 | 0.3 | 24.5 | 39.4 | | Corsican pine | 4.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 5.3 | | Norway spruce | 7.1 | 1.3 | 5.9 | 14.4 | | Larches | 10.7 | 3.3 | 12.3 | 26.3 | | Douglas fir | 6.4 | 1.6 | 3.5 | 11.5 | | Lodgepole pine | 1.0 | 0.3 | 7.4 | 8.7 | | Other conifers | 7.6 | 1.1 | 3.0 | 11.7 | | **All conifers** | **63.7**| **17.9**| **146.7**| **228.4** | | **Total** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 20.3 | 20.6 | 140.0 | 180.9 | | Scots pine | 18.6 | 0.8 | 33.3 | 52.7 | | Corsican pine | 10.2 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 11.7 | | Norway spruce | 8.8 | 2.8 | 9.4 | 21.1 | | Larches | 12.4 | 6.0 | 17.1 | 35.6 | | Douglas fir | 9.1 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 16.9 | | Lodgepole pine | 1.8 | 0.9 | 15.5 | 18.3 | | Other conifers | 9.1 | 2.2 | 4.1 | 15.4 |
### 1.4.8 Growing stock by species: broadleaves
Table 1.11 presents the volume of broadleaved growing stock, broken down by principal species, ownership and country.
The total volume of broadleaved growing stock in Great Britain in 2012 was 245 million m$^3$ overbark standing (Table 1.11).
Oak (28%), ash (16%) and beech (12%) accounted for the majority of the broadleaved volume. To some extent, this reflects the distribution of species by area (see Table 1.9). Table 1.11 Growing stock in GB by ownership and principal species: Broadleaves
| Principal species | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW¹** | | | | | | Oak | 3.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 4.4| | Beech | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 3.4| | Sycamore | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2| | Ash | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.5| | Birch | 0.5 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 2.3| | Sweet chestnut | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1| | Hazel | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1| | Hawthorn | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0| | Alder | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2| | Willow | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0| | Other broadleaves | 1.3 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 3.3| | **All broadleaves** | **8.7** | **1.9** | **3.9** | **14.5** | | **Private sector²** | | | | | | Oak | 51.7 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 65.0| | Beech | 19.8 | 1.6 | 5.2 | 26.6| | Sycamore | 16.2 | 2.4 | 4.8 | 23.4| | Ash | 30.1 | 6.9 | 2.8 | 39.8| | Birch | 11.3 | 1.2 | 8.5 | 20.9| | Sweet chestnut | 7.7 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 7.9| | Hazel | 5.0 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 6.4| | Hawthorn | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 3.4| | Alder | 6.8 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 10.8| | Willow | 4.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 6.5| | Other broadleaves | 16.0 | 1.1 | 2.6 | 19.6| | **All broadleaves** | **172.3** | **25.4** | **32.9** | **230.6** | | **Total** | | | | | | Oak | 55.0 | 8.1 | 6.3 | 69.4| | Beech | 22.6 | 2.0 | 5.3 | 29.9| | Tree Type | Area (ha) | Height (m) | Diameter (cm) | Volume (m³) | |-------------------|-----------|------------|---------------|-------------| | Sycamore | 16.4 | 2.4 | 4.9 | 23.6 | | Ash | 30.5 | 7.0 | 2.8 | 40.3 | | Birch | 11.8 | 1.3 | 10.1 | 23.2 | | Sweet chestnut | 7.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 8.0 | | Hazel | 5.1 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 6.5 | | Hawthorn | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 3.4 | | Alder | 6.9 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 11.0 | | Willow | 4.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 6.5 | | Other broadleaves | 17.2 | 1.8 | 3.8 | 22.9 | | **All broadleaves** | **181.0** | **27.3** | **36.8** | **245.1** |
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014).
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE).
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.5 Area of Farm Woodland
Agricultural Censuses run by Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and the devolved administrations collect annual information on the land-use of farms. Table 1.12 below shows the area of woodland on farms.
The area of farm woodland in the UK has increased from 0.8 million hectares in 2010 to 1.0 million hectares in 2019 (Table 1.12). Slightly over one half (51%) of all farm woodland was in Scotland in 2019, with a further 37% in England, 11% in Wales and the remaining 2% in Northern Ireland.
Table 1.12 Area of farm woodland, 2010-2019
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2010 | 295 | 69 | 400 | 10 | 774| | 2011 | 305 | 44 | 426 | 11 | 786| | 2012 | 308 | 63 | 445 | 11 | 827| | 2013 | 325 | 63 | 467 | 10 | 865| | 2014 | 331 | 76 | 479 | 11 | 897| | 2015 | 348 | 78 | 524 | 11 | 961| | 2016 | 370 | 89 | 502 | 16 | 978| | 2017 | 369 | 93 | 560 | 16 | 1,037| | 2018 | 372 | 97 | 532 | 16 | 1,016| | 2019 | 379 | 109 | 529 | 16 | 1,033|
Source: June Agricultural Census - Defra, The Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive.
Notes:
1. Changes in the area of farm woodland over time indicate a change in the area of farm land that is reported as woodland and do not necessarily indicate a change in woodland area.
2. Figures include estimates for farm woodland that is not in receipt of grant aid. Figure 1.5 Area of farm woodland, 1981-2019
Source: June Agricultural Census - Defra, The Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive.
Notes:
1. Changes in the area of farm woodland over time indicate a change in the area of farm land that is reported as woodland and do not necessarily indicate a change in woodland area.
2. Figures include estimates for farm woodland that is not in receipt of grant aid. 1.6 New planting and publicly funded restocking
New planting
New planting is the creation of new areas of woodland by planting trees on land that was not previously woodland. The statistics presented here also include new woodland that is created by natural colonisation of trees on land near existing woodland. Statistics on new planting are used to inform government policy and resource allocation and are used in producing annual estimates of woodland area.
There are a number of factors that can affect the level of new planting in the UK. These include:
- choices by landowners reflecting their own motivation and needs;
- the costs and availability of land for conversion to woodland;
- the availability of grants for new planting, the level of grant payments available and the awareness of grants among potential recipients;
- the tax benefits available from owning woodland;
- expected future markets for wood products such as timber and woodfuel;
- income from payments for ecosystem services, particularly carbon storage;
- national and local initiatives, for example on biodiversity, green infrastructure and water management.
Restocking
Restocking is the replacement of trees on areas of woodland that have been felled; this can be done either through replanting or natural regeneration. The statistics presented here include felled areas that have been restocked by both natural regeneration and replanting.
As restocking takes place on woodland that has been previously harvested and it is a condition of most felling licences that the area is restocked, restocking rates are mainly driven by harvesting levels (with a time lag, usually of around 2 years, between harvesting and restocking). Figures for timber harvesting (wood production) are available in the UK-Grown Timber chapter.
Economic factors, including grant rates, may have some effect on the species choice at restocking. In addition, the precise timing of restocking may be affected by weather conditions. This release only covers publicly funded restocking, that is:
- restocking of Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service Woodland and
- grant aided restocking of private sector woodland.
Grant support for restocking of conifers changed with the introduction of Rural Development Contracts in Scotland in 2008 and again with the introduction of the Forestry Grant Scheme in 2015. This will have led to a reduction in the proportion of private sector restocking that is grant aided and therefore reported for Scotland.
Grant support in England is now provided by the Countryside Stewardship scheme, which opened for applications in early 2016. Funding for restocking under Countryside Stewardship is only available under limited circumstances (through the tree health grant). The restoration (and restocking with native species) of PAWS (plantations on ancient woodland sites) is also supported by the HS2 Woodland Fund. No estimate has been made for restocking in England that is no longer supported by grants and therefore restocking in England in recent years is under-reported in this release and other statistics. 1.6.1 New planting
13.7 thousand hectares of new woodland were created in the UK in 2019-20 (Table 1.13a). Conifers accounted for 57% of the new planting area in 2019-20.
Table 1.13a New planting by forest type
| Year (ending 31/3) | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | **Conifers** | | | | | | | 2015-16 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 1.90 | 0.00 | 1.93| | 2016-17 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 3.22 | 0.08 | 3.56| | 2017-18 | 0.24 | 0.10 | 4.68 | 0.11 | 5.13| | 2018-19 | 0.42 | 0.32 | 7.27 | 0.10 | 8.12| | 2019-20 | 0.24 | 0.04 | 7.43 | 0.06 | 7.77| | **Broadleaves** | | | | | | | 2015-16 | 0.82 | 0.08 | 2.73 | 0.05 | 3.68| | 2016-17 | 1.05 | 0.24 | 1.54 | 0.13 | 2.96| | 2017-18 | 1.26 | 0.10 | 2.46 | 0.10 | 3.92| | 2018-19 | 1.00 | 0.35 | 3.94 | 0.14 | 5.42| | 2019-20 | 2.10 | 0.04 | 3.61 | 0.14 | 5.90| | **Total** | | | | | | | 2015-16 | 0.82 | 0.11 | 4.63 | 0.05 | 5.61| | 2016-17 | 1.15 | 0.41 | 4.76 | 0.21 | 6.52| | 2017-18 | 1.50 | 0.20 | 7.14 | 0.21 | 9.05| | 2018-19 | 1.42 | 0.67 | 11.21 | 0.24 | 13.54| | 2019-20 | 2.34 | 0.08 | 11.05 | 0.20 | 13.66|
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. Private sector new planting figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid.
2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year.
3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 to 2019-20.
4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known).
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. In 2019-20 most new planting (97%) took place on private sector land (Table 1.13b).
Table 1.13b New planting by ownership
| Year (ending 31/3) | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | **FC/FLS/NRW/FS** | | | | | | | 2015-16 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.71 | 0.00 | 0.71 | | 2016-17 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 1.06 | 0.00 | 1.08 | | 2017-18 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.87 | | 2018-19 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 1.03 | 0.00 | 1.06 | | 2019-20 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.27 | 0.05 | 0.42 | | **Private sector**| | | | | | | 2015-16 | 0.82 | 0.10 | 3.93 | 0.05 | 4.90 | | 2016-17 | 1.13 | 0.41 | 3.70 | 0.21 | 5.45 | | 2017-18 | 1.50 | 0.20 | 6.27 | 0.21 | 8.18 | | 2018-19 | 1.39 | 0.67 | 10.19 | 0.24 | 12.48 | | 2019-20 | 2.24 | 0.08 | 10.78 | 0.15 | 13.24 | | **Total** | | | | | | | 2015-16 | 0.82 | 0.11 | 4.63 | 0.05 | 5.61 | | 2016-17 | 1.15 | 0.41 | 4.76 | 0.21 | 6.52 | | 2017-18 | 1.50 | 0.20 | 7.14 | 0.21 | 9.05 | | 2018-19 | 1.42 | 0.67 | 11.21 | 0.24 | 13.54 | | 2019-20 | 2.34 | 0.08 | 11.05 | 0.20 | 13.66 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. Private sector new planting figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid.
2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year.
3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity.
For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England... and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 to 2018-19.
4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known).
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page.
Figure 1.6 shows areas of new planting by country since the year ending March 1976. Trends in new planting rates have been influenced by changes to regulations and the incentives available to land owners.
In recent years, areas of new planting in the UK have dropped to lows of under 6 thousand hectares in 2009-10 and in 2015-16 and have risen to highs of around 13 thousand hectares in 2011-12, 2013-14, 2018-19 and 2019-20. These fluctuations are likely to have been influenced by changes in grant schemes across the UK.
At 13.7 thousand hectares in 2019-20, the current level of new planting is similar to the level reported in 2018-19. This current level does represent an increase of 0.8% from the previous year. This is the smallest increase recorded since levels rose sharply after the 2015-16 planting season.
For further information, see the New Planting and Restocking section of the Sources chapter. Figure 1.6 New planting in the UK, 1976-2020
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. Private sector figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid.
2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year.
3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 to 2019-20.
4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known). 1.6.2 Restocking
A total of 14.8 thousand hectares of publicly funded restocking were reported in the UK in 2019-20 (Table 1.14a).
Table 1.14a Publicly funded restocking by forest type
| Year (ending 31/3) | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | **Conifers** | | | | | | | 2015-16 | 2.17 | 1.19 | 5.99 | 0.74 | 10.09 | | 2016-17 | 2.03 | 1.16 | 9.09 | 1.15 | 13.42 | | 2017-18 | 1.58 | 0.97 | 8.14 | 0.85 | 11.53 | | 2018-19 | 1.26 | 1.04 | 9.12 | 0.72 | 12.14 | | 2019-20 | 2.11 | 0.92 | 8.19 | 0.69 | 11.91 | | **Broadleaves** | | | | | | | 2015-16 | 1.14 | 0.58 | 1.83 | 0.07 | 3.62 | | 2016-17 | 0.97 | 0.54 | 1.99 | 0.17 | 3.66 | | 2017-18 | 0.47 | 0.70 | 1.52 | 0.08 | 2.77 | | 2018-19 | 0.39 | 0.66 | 2.07 | 0.11 | 3.23 | | 2019-20 | 0.63 | 0.58 | 1.69 | 0.03 | 2.92 | | **Total** | | | | | | | 2015-16 | 3.31 | 1.76 | 7.82 | 0.81 | 13.71 | | 2016-17 | 3.00 | 1.70 | 11.07 | 1.31 | 17.09 | | 2017-18 | 2.04 | 1.67 | 9.66 | 0.94 | 14.30 | | 2018-19 | 1.65 | 1.70 | 11.19 | 0.83 | 15.37 | | 2019-20 | 2.74 | 1.50 | 9.88 | 0.71 | 14.83 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. No estimates are available for restocking without grant aid.
2. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
3. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration (where known).
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. Table 1.14b Publicly funded restocking by ownership
| Year (ending 31/3) | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | **FC/FLS/NRW/FS** | | | | | | | 2015-16 | 2.30 | 1.47 | 6.55 | 0.75 | 11.06 | | 2016-17 | 2.39 | 1.44 | 6.67 | 1.25 | 11.74 | | 2017-18 | 2.04 | 1.55 | 5.78 | 0.86 | 10.23 | | 2018-19 | 1.57 | 1.22 | 7.15 | 0.79 | 10.72 | | 2019-20 | 2.48 | 1.48 | 5.35 | 0.62 | 9.93 | | **Private sector**| | | | | | | 2015-16 | 1.02 | 0.30 | 1.27 | 0.06 | 2.65 | | 2016-17 | 0.61 | 0.26 | 4.41 | 0.06 | 5.34 | | 2017-18 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 3.87 | 0.08 | 4.07 | | 2018-19 | 0.08 | 0.48 | 4.05 | 0.04 | 4.65 | | 2019-20 | 0.26 | 0.02 | 4.52 | 0.09 | 4.89 | | **Total** | | | | | | | 2015-16 | 3.31 | 1.76 | 7.82 | 0.81 | 13.71 | | 2016-17 | 3.00 | 1.70 | 11.07 | 1.31 | 17.09 | | 2017-18 | 2.04 | 1.67 | 9.66 | 0.94 | 14.30 | | 2018-19 | 1.65 | 1.70 | 11.19 | 0.83 | 15.37 | | 2019-20 | 2.74 | 1.50 | 9.88 | 0.71 | 14.83 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. No estimates are available for restocking without grant aid.
2. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
3. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration (where known).
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. Figure 1.7 shows reported areas of restocking by country since the year ending March 1976. It indicates an increase in restocking rates during the period. Over the same period, there has been a general increase in UK wood production (see UK-Grown Timber chapter).
The reported area of restocking fell significantly after a peak of 19 thousand hectares in 2006-07. This followed changes to grant support for restocking in Scotland, that resulted in some non-grant aided Sitka spruce restocking being excluded from the estimates. Results from the Forestry Commission's Nursery Survey (an annual survey of forest nurseries in Great Britain) indicate that, following a dip in the 2009/10 planting year, sales of Sitka spruce plants to Scotland have been relatively stable in recent years.
The chart shows a dip in the area of restocking in 2015-16, following changes to grant schemes across the UK. Reported restocking has continued to fall in England, where grant aid is now only available in very limited circumstances. The reported area of publicly funded restocking in the UK in 2019-20 represents a 4% decrease from the previous year and remains below the level reported for 2016-17. For further information, see the New Planting and Restocking section of the Sources chapter. Figure 1.7 Restocking in the UK, 1976-2020
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. Private sector figures are based on areas for which grants were paid during the year.
2. Estimates of areas planted without grant aid are also included (where possible) up to 2009-10, but no estimates are available since then. As a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity.
3. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
4. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration.
5. Restocking by natural regeneration in non-clearfell areas may be under-represented. 1.7 Felling
Felling
Approval for the felling (cutting down) of trees in the UK is granted through felling licences issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service in Northern Ireland.
Felling licences may be conditional (where felling approval is granted subject to replanting) or unconditional (where tree felling is approved without the requirement to replant). Unconditional licences are routinely issued for silvicultural thinning operations and in these cases no woodland loss takes place. However, an unconditional felling licence without the requirement to replant may be issued if there are overriding environmental considerations, for example to enable the restoration of important habitats.
The removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development (including for windfarms). In this case, a felling licence is not required.
The removal of trees might also be required through a Statutory Plant Health Notice (SPHN). A SPHN may require the felling and destruction of infected trees or containment of infested material on site, and is issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service to prevent the spread of pests and diseases. Similar actions are also required within the public woodland estate managed by these organisations. There is no legal requirement for woodland to be restocked after felling under a SPHN.
Since 2010/2011, SPHNs have mainly been issued to attempt to slow down the spread of Phytophthora ramorum, first found in the UK in 2002 on viburnum, and in 2009 on Japanese larch, a significant sporulating host resulting in a dramatic upsurge in the disease.
Statutory felling of infected P. ramorum infected larch does not apply within the designated P. ramorum management zone in south west Scotland where the high levels of infection and proportion of larch in the area make this unfeasible. However, felling licences are still required, and movement licences are required to stop spread out of this area. In Wales’ P. ramorum Core Disease Zone SPHNs are still served to contain material on site, but felling still requires a felling licence.
Further information on felling and Statutory Plant Health Notices is provided in the Sources chapter. Woodland loss
Information on unconditional felling licences that do not relate to thinning may be seen as an indication of the level of woodland loss on land that is not owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service. However, the data relates only to felling licences issued, so does not provide information on whether the felling actually took place (or the timing of the felling). In addition, felling licences do not cover woodland loss that is authorised under planning regulations.
The National Forest Inventory report "Preliminary estimates of the changes in canopy cover in British woodlands between 2006 and 2015" (August 2016) has reported:
- 3.3 thousand hectares of observed permanent woodland loss between 2006 and 2015;
- a further 0.7 thousand hectares of ground under development and 0.2 thousand hectares of newly established habitats;
- 69% of the clearfelled area observed in 2006 had been restocked by 2012, leaving around 33.9 thousand hectares of woodlands in transition and open areas;
- 63% of the area observed as clearfelled between 2006 and 2009 had been restocked by 2012, leaving around 28.6 thousand hectares of woodlands in transition and open areas.
These are interim estimates that are likely to underestimate the final position; updated estimates will be available when results from the NFI second cycle field survey are released.
Further information is available in the report at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/. 1.7.1 Felling licences
Table 1.15 shows the area covered by unconditional felling licences issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry and Natural Resources Wales in the last 10 years. The figures do not include unconditional felling licences issued to permit thinning of woodlands. The table covers woodland in England, Scotland and Wales that is not owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland or Natural Resources Wales only; it does not cover felling that is exempt from felling licence approval (such as authorisations for felling under planning regulations, felling required under a Statutory Plant Health Notice or felling that is approved on condition that the area is restocked).
A total of 0.3 thousand hectares of woodland in England, 0.3 thousand hectares of woodland in Scotland and 0.1 thousand hectares in Wales was covered by unconditional felling licences (with no requirement to restock) in the year to March 2020.
Table 1.15 Area of private sector woodland covered by unconditional felling licences(^1,2), 2010-11 to 2019-20
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |----------|---------|-------|----------|-----| | 2010-11 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.6 | | 2011-12 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.7 | | 2012-13 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.9 | | 2013-14 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | | 2014-15 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | | 2015-16 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | | 2016-17 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | | 2017-18 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | | 2018-19 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | | 2019-20 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.6 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales
Notes:
1. Felling licences issued in the period. Excludes areas exempt from felling licence approval and licences issued for thinning.
2. From April 2019 Felling Permissions, issued under the Forestry and Land Management Act (Scotland )2018, have replaced Felling Licences in Scotland
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.7.2 Statutory Plant Health Notices
Table 1.16a shows the number of sites where a Statutory Plant Health Notice has been served in the UK between 2010-11 and 2018-19. For Scotland, the figures now show the number of Statutory Plant Health Notices issued, rather than number of sites.
All woodland, including sites owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service in Northern Ireland are covered. As Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued in the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, the figures presented here do not cover all felling of infected larch.
A total of 635 sites were served with Statutory Plant Health Notices between April 2018 and March 2019.
Table 1.16a Number of sites where a Statutory Plant Health Notice has been served(^1), 2010-11 to 2018-19
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|------| | 2010-11 | 114 | 46 | 1 | 10 | 171 | | 2011-12 | 131 | 90 | 15 | 16 | 252 | | 2012-13 | 168 | 89 | 44 | 15 | 316 | | 2013-14 | 244 | 272 | 55 | 15 | 599 | | 2014-15 | 140 | 71 | 17 | 17 | 245 | | 2015-16 | 73 | 57 | 32 | 3 | 165 | | 2016-17 | 75 | 53 | 65 | 0 | 193 | | 2017-18 | 43 | 153 | 70 | 14 | 280 | | 2018-19 | 136 | 215 | 284 | 0 | 635 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Note:
1. The number of sites where infection of larch by Phytophthora ramorum has been confirmed, or where there is sufficient suspicion of infection and a Statutory Plant Health Notice has been served on the landowner. For Scotland, figures relate to the number of Statutory Plant Health Notices issued.
2. Excludes felling within the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, where Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Areas requiring felling under Statutory Plant Health Notices totalled 3.9 thousand hectares in 2018-19 (Table 1.16b). Around one half (49%) of the area to be felled in 2018-19 was in Wales, 36% was in Scotland and 15% in England.
Table 1.16b Felling areas under Statutory Plant Health Notices(^1), 2010-11 to 2018-19
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland(^2) | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------|---------|-------|----------------|------------------|------| | 2010-11 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 2.3 | | 2011-12 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.1 | | 2012-13 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 2.5 | | 2013-14 | 0.8 | 4.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 6.1 | | 2014-15 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | | 2015-16 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 2.6 | | 2016-17 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.7 | | 2017-18 | 0.1 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 1.7 | | 2018-19 | 0.6 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 3.9 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Note:
1. The area that is required to be felled within the Statutory Plant Health Notice.
2. Felling areas in Scotland relate to larch only.
3. Excludes felling within the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, where Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 2: UK-Grown Timber
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: Country Introduction
This chapter covers the production of timber from woodland and the primary processing of harvested wood to give basic wood products.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included, in addition to UK totals, where possible.
International comparisons of timber production are available in the International Forestry chapter. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Timber originating from conifers is known as softwood and that from broadleaves is known as hardwood. Please refer to the Glossary for a definition of other terms used in this chapter.
Figures for 2019 were previously published in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 Provisional Figures", released on 14 May 2020. Some figures have been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Timber section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all UK-grown timber tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings for 2019 are (with percentage changes from 2018):
**Removals**(^1) (harvesting) of UK roundwood:
- 9.8 million green tonnes of softwood (-14%);
- 0.9 million green tonnes of hardwood (+4%).
**Deliveries**(^1) of UK roundwood to wood processors and others:
- Total: 11.1 million green tonnes of roundwood (softwood and hardwood) (-3%), of which:
- Sawmills: 6.0 million green tonnes (-7%);
- Wood-based panels: 1.3 million green tonnes (+9%);
- Integrated pulp and paper mills: 0.5 million green tonnes (-5%);
- Woodfuel: 2.6 million green tonnes (unchanged);
- Other uses, including round fencing, shavings and exports of roundwood: 0.7 million green tonnes (-3%).
**Production** of wood products in the UK included:
- 3.5 million cubic metres of sawnwood (-6%);
- 3.2 million cubic metres of wood-based panels (+5%);
- 3.9 million tonnes of paper and paperboard (-1%).
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) The difference between total removals and deliveries reported here (around 0.4 million green tonnes in 2019) is likely to reflect a number of factors, including changes in stock levels and the different data sources and methodologies used. 2.1 Wood production
Wood production (also referred to as removals) refers to the harvesting of roundwood (trunk and branch wood) from coniferous (softwood) and non-coniferous (hardwood) trees. Figures are generally expressed here in green tonnes (weight when freshly felled).
Removals should not be confused with deliveries, which are the quantities of UK-grown roundwood that is delivered to processors (mills) or for other uses (such as woodfuel and exports). Deliveries statistics are presented in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. A comparison of removals and deliveries of UK softwood roundwood is provided in the Sources chapter.
The figures on removals of UK roundwood are used to monitor trends in the UK forest sector. The data is also used alongside figures for standing volume (the volume of standing trees) and increment (the growth rate of standing trees) to compile natural capital accounts for inclusion in the UK Environmental Accounts released by the Office for National Statistics.
The data are derived from a number of sources:
- FE/FLS/NRW/FS figures are obtained from Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and Forest Service administrative systems;
- Private sector softwood figures are obtained from the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey;
- Total hardwood figures are estimated from hardwood deliveries figures, which are compiled from surveys of the UK-grown timber industry, trade associations and expert estimates. 2.1.1 Summary: wood production
It is estimated that a total of 10.7 million green tonnes of roundwood was removed from UK woodlands in 2019.
Softwood accounted for most (92%) removals from UK woodland and totalled 9.8 million green tonnes in 2019 (Table 2.1a). This represented a 14% decrease on the previous year’s figure.
Hardwood removals totalled 0.9 million green tonnes in 2019 (Table 2.1b).
Private sector woodlands accounted for 60% of softwood production and 92% of hardwood production in 2019.
Table 2.1a Softwood production, 2010-2019
| Year | FE/ FLS/ NRW/ FS¹ woodland | Private sector² woodland | Total softwood | |------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|----------------| | 2010 | 4,625 | 4,633 | 9,258 | | 2011 | 4,870 | 5,186 | 10,056 | | 2012 | 4,836 | 5,259 | 10,095 | | 2013 | 5,084 | 5,852 | 10,936 | | 2014 | 4,900 | 6,627 | 11,527 | | 2015 | 4,691 | 5,968 | 10,659 | | 2016 | 5,011 | 5,734 | 10,745 | | 2017 | 4,761 | 6,075 | 10,836 | | 2018 | 4,522 | 6,827 | 11,349 | | 2019 | 3,937 | 5,864 | 9,801 |
Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, industry surveys, industry associations.
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland).
2. Private sector: removals from all other woodland (including some publicly owned woodland). Table 2.1b Hardwood production, 2010-2019
| Year | FE/ FLS/ NRW/ FS¹ woodland | Private sector² woodland | Total hardwood³,⁴ | |------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------| | 2010 | 70 | 464 | 534 | | 2011 | 75 | 465 | 540 | | 2012 | 55 | 478 | 533 | | 2013 | 78 | 453 | 531 | | 2014 | 71 | 465 | 536 | | 2015 | 73 | 492 | 565 | | 2016 | 68 | 528 | 596 | | 2017 | 85 | 652 | 737 | | 2018 | 88 | 746 | 835 | | 2019 | 68 | 801 | 869 |
Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, industry surveys, industry associations.
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland).
2. Private sector: removals from all other woodland (including some publicly owned woodland).
3. Most hardwood production in the UK comes from private sector woodland; the figures are estimates based on reported deliveries to wood processing industries and others.
4. The increase in hardwood removals between 2016 and 2017 is largely attributed to a revised estimate for deliveries of UK grown hardwood used for woodfuel (see Table 2.6). This new estimate should not be interpreted as an increase in a single year.
Data: Longer time series of the above table, including estimates by country (England/ Wales/ Scotland/ Northern Ireland) are available from the Data downloads web page at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. 2.1.2 Origin of private sector softwood removals
It is estimated that 70% of all softwood removals from private sector woodlands were harvested in Scotland, 21% in England, 8% in Wales and the remainder in Northern Ireland in 2019 (Table 2.2).
Despite a 14% decrease in private sector softwood removals in the UK in the latest year, the total for 2019 remains higher than the level at the beginning of the decade.
Table 2.2 Private sector softwood removals by country, 2010-2019
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2010 | 678 | 427 | 3,471 | 57 | 4,633 | | 2011 | 738 | 501 | 3,894 | 53 | 5,186 | | 2012 | 847 | 611 | 3,761 | 40 | 5,259 | | 2013 | 929 | 695 | 4,205 | 23 | 5,852 | | 2014 | 1,165 | 739 | 4,691 | 33 | 6,627 | | 2015 | 1,052 | 686 | 4,203 | 28 | 5,968 | | 2016 | 1,013 | 643 | 4,043 | 34 | 5,734 | | 2017 | 961 | 783 | 4,295 | 36 | 6,075 | | 2018 | 1,130 | 628 | 5,022 | 47 | 6,827 | | 2019 | 1,221 | 486 | 4,112 | 44 | 5,864 |
Source: Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey
Data: Longer time series of the above table, including estimates for hardwood removals and for removals from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands are available from the Data Downloads web page at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. 2.1.3 Origin of FE/FLS/NRW/FS removals
Information on removals from Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Forest Service (FS) woodlands is obtained from administrative systems.
A total of 3.9 million green tonnes of softwood was removed from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands in 2019, a 13% decrease from the 2018 figure (Table 2.3). This represents the lowest level in the last decade.
Over one half (54%) of FE/FLS/NRW/FS softwood removals in 2019 occurred in Scotland, 23% in England, 13% in Wales and 9% in Northern Ireland.
Table 2.3 FE/FLS/NRW/FS softwood removals by country, 2010-2019
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2010 | 1,142 | 644 | 2,434 | 405 | 4,625 | | 2011 | 1,185 | 689 | 2,566 | 430 | 4,870 | | 2012 | 1,154 | 663 | 2,627 | 392 | 4,836 | | 2013 | 1,188 | 693 | 2,819 | 384 | 5,084 | | 2014 | 1,064 | 722 | 2,749 | 365 | 4,900 | | 2015 | 1,023 | 692 | 2,644 | 333 | 4,691 | | 2016 | 1,146 | 778 | 2,745 | 343 | 5,011 | | 2017 | 1,087 | 660 | 2,666 | 349 | 4,761 | | 2018 | 1,048 | 696 | 2,438 | 339 | 4,522 | | 2019 | 905 | 525 | 2,143 | 364 | 3,937 |
Source: Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Forest Service (FS).
Data: Longer time series of the above table, including estimates for hardwood removals and for removals from private sector woodlands are available from the Data Downloads web page at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. 2.1.4 Softwood availability forecast
The National Forest Inventory "50-year forecast of softwood availability" and "50-year forecast of hardwood availability" were published in April 2014. They are forecasts of potential availability rather than production, as they do not take account of management objectives, financial factors or the state of markets, all of which will affect the level of and timing of harvesting.
More information on the forecasts and detailed breakdowns are available on the National Forest Inventory web pages at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
The forecasts are outside the scope of National Statistics, but are provided here to give more context to the data on wood production.
As these forecasts were produced in 2014, they do not take into account any of the findings from the 'preliminary estimates of the changes in canopy cover in British woodlands between 2006 and 2015', released in August 2016.
The key assumptions underpinning the headline softwood forecast scenario include:
- Private woodland is managed in a way that maximises total production.
- The estate of Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales is managed according to current management plans; note that Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, and Natural Resources Wales intend to cap production below the level set out in Table 2.4a.
Under the above scenario, softwood availability for Great Britain averages 15.2 million cubic metres a year over the 50-year period 2013 to 2061 (Table 2.4a). The majority (66%) of this softwood is projected to come from private sector woodland. Table 2.4a Softwood availability forecasts
| Annual average in the period | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | FE/FLS/NRW¹ | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 1,632 | 1,082 | 4,220 | 6,933 | | 2017 - 2021 | 1,330 | 991 | 3,658 | 5,980 | | 2022 - 2026 | 1,211 | 895 | 3,516 | 5,622 | | 2027 - 2031 | 1,159 | 778 | 3,789 | 5,726 | | 2032 - 2036 | 1,066 | 934 | 3,215 | 5,216 | | 2037 - 2041 | 1,013 | 794 | 2,936 | 4,744 | | 2042 - 2046 | 1,055 | 531 | 2,730 | 4,316 | | 2047 - 2051 | 1,014 | 585 | 3,280 | 4,879 | | 2052 - 2056 | 828 | 495 | 2,886 | 4,209 | | 2057 - 2061 | 1,250 | 679 | 2,339 | 4,269 | | Private sector² | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 2,945 | 901 | 5,708 | 9,554 | | 2017 - 2021 | 3,225 | 949 | 6,997 | 11,171 | | 2022 - 2026 | 2,903 | 1,087 | 7,830 | 11,820 | | 2027 - 2031 | 2,986 | 775 | 8,910 | 12,671 | | 2032 - 2036 | 2,850 | 736 | 8,847 | 12,433 | | 2037 - 2041 | 2,224 | 679 | 8,133 | 11,035 | | 2042 - 2046 | 1,848 | 490 | 6,527 | 8,865 | | 2047 - 2051 | 1,523 | 521 | 4,986 | 7,030 | | 2052 - 2056 | 1,431 | 734 | 5,679 | 7,845 | | 2057 - 2061 | 1,603 | 694 | 5,627 | 7,924 | | Total softwood | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 4,577 | 1,983 | 9,928 | 16,487 | | 2017 - 2021 | 4,555 | 1,940 | 10,656 | 17,151 | | 2022 - 2026 | 4,113 | 1,982 | 11,346 | 17,442 | | 2027 - 2031 | 4,145 | 1,553 | 12,700 | 18,398 | | Period | Softwood | Greenwood | Total | Total | |--------------|----------|-----------|-------|-------| | 2032 - 2036 | 3,916 | 1,670 | 12,062| 17,649| | 2037 - 2041 | 3,237 | 1,473 | 11,069| 15,779| | 2042 - 2046 | 2,903 | 1,021 | 9,257 | 13,181| | 2047 - 2051 | 2,537 | 1,106 | 8,266 | 11,909| | 2052 - 2056 | 2,259 | 1,229 | 8,566 | 12,054| | 2057 - 2061 | 2,853 | 1,373 | 7,966 | 12,193|
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014)³
Notes:
1. The estate of Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is assumed to be managed according to current management plans; note that Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales intend to cap production below the level set out in Table 2.4a.
2. Private woodland is assumed to be managed in a way that maximises total production.
3. More recent softwood availability forecasts, covering a 25 year period only, are available from the NFI web pages at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
4. To convert softwood ‘overbark standing’ into green tonnes multiply by 0.818. See the Sources chapter for more details on conversion factors.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 2.1.5 Hardwood availability forecast
The key assumptions underpinning the headline hardwood forecast scenario include:
- In private woodland, harvesting is limited to areas with evidence of recent thinning activity.
- The estate of Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales is managed according to current management plans.
Under the above scenario, hardwood availability for Great Britain averages 1.6 million m$^3$ a year over the 50-year period (Table 2.4b). The majority (89%) of this hardwood is projected to come from private sector woodland. If these woodlands were managed to maximise total production, the forecast would be much higher, as illustrated in the full National Forest Inventory report available at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/).
Table 2.4b Hardwood availability forecasts
| Annual average in the period | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | FE/FLS/NRW$^1$ | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 126 | 12 | 9 | 147| | 2017 - 2021 | 92 | 11 | 9 | 111| | 2022 - 2026 | 110 | 17 | 10 | 137| | 2027 - 2031 | 86 | 12 | 10 | 108| | 2032 - 2036 | 99 | 14 | 15 | 128| | 2037 - 2041 | 129 | 19 | 24 | 172| | 2042 - 2046 | 189 | 56 | 31 | 276| | 2047 - 2051 | 116 | 19 | 40 | 175| | 2052 - 2056 | 134 | 28 | 45 | 208| | 2057 - 2061 | 146 | 28 | 64 | 237| | Private sector$^2$ | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 122 | 20 | 83 | 225| | 2017 - 2021 | 333 | 46 | 139 | 519| | 2022 - 2026 | 538 | 77 | 193 | 808| | 2027 - 2031 | 720 | 100 | 233 | 1,054| | Period | 2032 - 2036 | 2037 - 2041 | 2042 - 2046 | 2047 - 2051 | 2052 - 2056 | 2057 - 2061 | Total hardwood | |----------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|----------------| | | 825 | 1,047 | 1,915 | 1,678 | 1,254 | 645 | 249 | | | 115 | 153 | 243 | 227 | 198 | 139 | 32 | | | 262 | 367 | 586 | 675 | 554 | 343 | 92 | | | 1,202 | 1,567 | 2,743 | 2,580 | 2,006 | 1,127 | 373 | | Total hardwood | | | | | | | 1,330 | | 2013 - 2016 | 249 | 32 | 92 | 277 | 1,162 | 791 | 249 | | 2017 - 2021 | 425 | 58 | 148 | 203 | 244 | 167 | 631 | | 2022 - 2026 | 648 | 94 | 203 | 945 | 227 | 406 | 92 | | 2027 - 2031 | 806 | 112 | 244 | 391 | 599 | 1,364 | 1,162 | | 2032 - 2036 | 923 | 130 | 277 | 1,330 | 2,104 | 715 | 1,738 | | 2037 - 2041 | 1,176 | 171 | 391 | 2,755 | 1,388 | 406 | 1,738 | | 2042 - 2046 | 2,104 | 299 | 616 | 2,214 | 791 | 167 | 3,019 | | 2047 - 2051 | 1,795 | 246 | 715 | 2,214 | 1,388 | 406 | 2,755 | | 2052 - 2056 | 1,388 | 227 | 599 | 1,364 | 791 | 167 | 2,214 | | 2057 - 2061 | 791 | 167 | 406 | 1,364 | | | 1,364 |
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014)
Notes:
1. The estate of Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is assumed to be managed according to current management plans.
2. In private woodland, harvesting is assumed to be limited to areas with evidence of recent thinning activity. If these woodlands were managed to maximise total production, the forecast would be much higher, as illustrated in the full National Forest Inventory report available at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/).
3. To convert hardwood ‘overbark standing’ into green tonnes multiply by 0.900. See the Sources chapter for more details on conversion factors.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 2.2 Deliveries of UK-grown roundwood
Figures for deliveries relate to the quantity of UK-grown roundwood that is delivered to processors (mills) or for other uses (such as woodfuel and exports). They are expressed in green tonnes (weight when freshly felled). Statistics on roundwood deliveries are used to monitor trends in the supply of, and demand for, UK-grown wood.
Deliveries should not be confused with removals, which are the quantities of roundwood that is harvested from UK woodland. Removals statistics are presented in Tables 2.1 to 2.3. A comparison of removals and deliveries of UK softwood roundwood is provided in the Sources chapter.
The data are derived from a number of sources, including surveys of the UK-grown timber industry, trade associations and expert estimates. 2.2.1 Softwood deliveries
In 2019, deliveries of UK roundwood (softwood and hardwood) totalled 11.1 million green tonnes, a 3% decrease from the previous year (Tables 2.5 and 2.6).
Most UK roundwood deliveries (92%) were softwood and totalled 10.2 million green tonnes in 2019 (Table 2.5). 5.9 million green tonnes (58% of UK softwood deliveries) were used by sawmills, a 7% decrease from the previous year. A further 1.9 million green tonnes were used for wood fuel (unchanged from 2018), 1.3 million green tonnes were used to produce wood-based panels (a 13% increase), 0.5 million green tonnes by integrated pulp and paper mills (a 5% decrease), and 0.6 million green tonnes for other uses, including round fencing, shavings and exports of roundwood (a 7% decrease).
The increase in softwood deliveries for woodfuel in recent years reflects an increase in wood use for heating and energy production in the UK (see the Sources chapter for further information).
Table 2.5 Deliveries of UK-grown softwood, 2010-2019
| Year | Sawmills | Pulp mills | Wood-based panels | Fencing | Wood fuel¹ | Other² | Exports | Total | |------|----------|------------|-------------------|---------|------------|--------|---------|-------| | 2010 | 5,611 | 428 | 1,375 | 349 | 900 | 135 | 467 | 9,265 | | 2011 | 5,855 | 453 | 1,417 | 363 | 900 | 145 | 585 | 9,718 | | 2012 | 6,069 | 461 | 1,269 | 338 | 1,000 | 154 | 535 | 9,826 | | 2013 | 6,403 | 465 | 1,263 | 332 | 1,250 | 191 | 640 | 10,543| | 2014 | 6,721 | 465 | 1,283 | 317 | 1,500 | 176 | 437 | 10,899| | 2015 | 6,164 | 435 | 1,334 | 288 | 1,600 | 164 | 276 | 10,261| | 2016 | 6,507 | 423 | 1,248 | 277 | 1,550 | 178 | 231 | 10,415| | 2017 | 6,571 | 442 | 1,059 | 283 | 1,600 | 170 | 331 | 10,456| | 2018 | 6,322 | 486 | 1,210 | 255 | 1,900 | 174 | 264 | 10,611| | 2019 | 5,883 | 464 | 1,316 | 262 | 1,900 | 183 | 201 | 10,210|
Source: industry surveys, industry associations. Notes:
1. Woodfuel derived from stemwood, includes estimates of roundwood use for biomass energy. The figures are estimated by the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics and make use of woodfuel data reported in the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey.
2. Includes shavings and poles. Quantities for some uses are estimates by the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics.
Figure 2.1 Deliveries of UK-grown softwood, 1994-2019
Source: industry surveys, industry associations. 2.2.2 Hardwood deliveries
There was a total of 0.9 million green tonnes of UK hardwood deliveries in 2019 (Table 2.6). The majority of UK hardwood deliveries (81% in 2019) were used for woodfuel.
Table 2.6 Deliveries of UK-grown hardwood, 2010-2019
| Year | Sawmills | Pulp mills | Wood-based panels | Woodfuel | Other | Total | |------|----------|------------|-------------------|----------|-------|-------| | 2010 | 74 | 0 | 1 | 400 | 59 | 534 | | 2011 | 80 | 0 | 1 | 400 | 59 | 540 | | 2012 | 74 | 0 | 2 | 400 | 57 | 533 | | 2013 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 58 | 531 | | 2014 | 76 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 60 | 536 | | 2015 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 91 | 565 | | 2016 | 74 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 122 | 596 | | 2017 | 65 | 0 | 0 | 600 | 71 | 737 | | 2018 | 67 | 0 | 1 | 700 | 68 | 835 | | 2019 | 76 | 0 | 0 | 700 | 93 | 869 |
Source: industry surveys, industry associations.
Notes:
1. Figures are based on processing industries’ purchases of hardwood grown in the UK and estimates for woodfuel and other uses.
2. Woodfuel reported here is derived from stemwood and includes estimated roundwood use for biomass energy.
3. The apparent increase in woodfuel from 2016 to 2017 reflects a new estimate of the level of hardwood deliveries for woodfuel and should not be interpreted as an increase in a single year.
4. Other includes round fencing and roundwood exports. Figure 2.2 Deliveries of UK-grown hardwood, 1994-2019
Source: industry surveys, industry associations.
Notes:
1. Other includes round fencing and roundwood exports.
2. The apparent increase in woodfuel from 2016 to 2017 reflects a new estimate of the level of hardwood deliveries for woodfuel and should not be interpreted as an increase in a single year. 2.3 Sawmills - All Mills
Data are collected by Forest Research in an annual Sawmill Survey. The following section includes summary results, covering number of mills, consumption and production are available for all mills.
In addition, there are also more detailed figures for larger mills only. The threshold defining larger mills was changed for the collection of 2016 data, from annual sawnwood production of 10 thousand m$^3$ to annual sawnwood production of 25 thousand m$^3$. Further information on this change is provided in the section on Larger Mills within this chapter and in the Sawmill Survey section of the Sources chapter.
Consumption units are given in green tonnes. For production, the units used are m$^3$ sawnwood. For conversion factors between different units, see the Timber section of the Sources chapter. 2.3.1 Summary: consumption & production
In 2019, sawmills in the UK consumed a total of 6.2 million green tonnes of softwood, a 6% decrease from 2018 (Table 2.7a). A further 0.1 million green tonnes of hardwood were consumed by UK sawmills in 2019. Most of the logs, 5.9 million green tonnes softwood and 0.1 million green tonnes hardwood, were grown in the UK.
Despite a drop in the levels of softwood consumption in the UK in the last 2 years, the 2019 figure remains above the level earlier in the decade.
Table 2.7a Consumption by UK sawmills, 2010-2019
| Year | UK grown soft wood | Imported soft wood | Total soft wood | UK grown hardwood | Imported hardwood | Total hardwood | |------|-------------------|-------------------|----------------|-------------------|------------------|---------------| | 2010 | 5,611 | 103 | 5,715 | 74 | 19 | 93 | | 2011 | 5,855 | 125 | 5,980 | 80 | 20 | 100 | | 2012 | 6,069 | 124 | 6,194 | 74 | 17 | 92 | | 2013 | 6,403 | 126 | 6,528 | 73 | 13 | 87 | | 2014 | 6,721 | 159 | 6,880 | 76 | 14 | 90 | | 2015 | 6,164 | 182 | 6,345 | 75 | 14 | 89 | | 2016 | 6,507 | 209 | 6,716 | 74 | 17 | 91 | | 2017 | 6,571 | 267 | 6,837 | 65 | 13 | 79 | | 2018 | 6,322 | 325 | 6,647 | 67 | 13 | 80 | | 2019 | 5,883 | 343 | 6,227 | 76 | 13 | 89 |
Source: Sawmill Survey A total of 3.5 million m$^3$ of sawnwood was produced in the UK in 2019, a 6% decrease from 2018.
In addition to producing sawnwood, sawmills also generate other products. Further information on other products produced by larger mills are provided in Tables 2.18 and 2.18a.
**Table 2.7b Sawnwood production by UK sawmills, 2010-2019**
| Year | Softwood production | Hardwood production | |------|---------------------|---------------------| | 2010 | 3,050 | 47 | | 2011 | 3,223 | 51 | | 2012 | 3,358 | 48 | | 2013 | 3,532 | 45 | | 2014 | 3,713 | 47 | | 2015 | 3,447 | 46 | | 2016 | 3,621 | 47 | | 2017 | 3,720 | 41 | | 2018 | 3,618 | 41 | | 2019 | 3,410 | 47 |
Source: Sawmill Survey 2.3.2 Number of sawmills by size
A total of 150 sawmills processed UK roundwood in 2019 (Table 2.8). Most mills (83%) produced less than 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood (softwood and hardwood) during the year.
Over the past ten years, the number of active sawmills has reduced by 20%. Most of this decrease has occurred in the smallest size categories.
Table 2.8 Number of sawmills by size category of mill, 2010-2019
| Year | < 1 | 1 - \<5 | 5 - \<10 | 10 - \<25 | 25 - \<50 | 50 - \<100 | 100+ | Total | |------|-----|--------|---------|----------|----------|-----------|------|-------| | 2010 | 73 | 51 | 13 | 24 | 8 | 10 | 9 | 188 | | 2011 | 70 | 50 | 13 | 23 | 9 | 7 | 12 | 184 | | 2012 | 69 | 48 | 14 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 11 | 180 | | 2013 | 67 | 45 | 14 | 17 | 13 | 6 | 13 | 175 | | 2014 | 69 | 40 | 14 | 17 | 13 | 8 | 12 | 173 | | 2015 | 66 | 42 | 16 | 17 | 12 | 6 | 12 | 171 | | 2016 | 60 | 41 | 16 | 20 | 6 | 10 | 13 | 166 | | 2017 | 60 | 41 | 13 | 22 | 5 | 10 | 12 | 163 | | 2018 | 60 | 35 | 12 | 21 | 8 | 7 | 12 | 155 | | 2019 | 56 | 35 | 13 | 20 | 8 | 6 | 12 | 150 |
Source: Sawmill Survey Notes:
1. Categories are based on total sawnwood production (softwood and hardwood), in thousand m$^3$.
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page at: https://www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/ 2.3.3 Number of sawmills by country
Around one half (54%) of the 150 active sawmills in 2019 were in England, around one third (32%) were in Scotland, 8% in Wales and 6% in Northern Ireland (Table 2.9).
Table 2.9 Number of sawmills by country, 2010-2019
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2010 | 98 | 17 | 64 | 9 | 188| | 2011 | 96 | 16 | 63 | 9 | 184| | 2012 | 95 | 15 | 61 | 9 | 180| | 2013 | 92 | 15 | 59 | 9 | 175| | 2014 | 92 | 15 | 57 | 9 | 173| | 2015 | 92 | 15 | 55 | 9 | 171| | 2016 | 89 | 14 | 54 | 9 | 166| | 2017 | 88 | 13 | 53 | 9 | 163| | 2018 | 83 | 12 | 51 | 9 | 155| | 2019 | 81 | 12 | 48 | 9 | 150|
Source: Sawmill Survey
Data: Longer time series of the above table, and for mills in England by region, are available from the Data downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. 2.3.4 Number of sawmills by type of wood sawn
Around two thirds (67%) of the 150 active sawmills in 2019 processed softwood only (Table 2.10). A further 27% processed both softwood and hardwood, and the remainder processed only hardwood.
Table 2.10 Number of sawmills by type of wood sawn, 2010-2019
| Year | Softwood only | Hardwood only | Both | Total | |------|---------------|---------------|------|-------| | 2010 | 122 | 10 | 56 | 188 | | 2011 | 120 | 10 | 54 | 184 | | 2012 | 118 | 11 | 51 | 180 | | 2013 | 118 | 11 | 46 | 175 | | 2014 | 115 | 9 | 49 | 173 | | 2015 | 112 | 9 | 50 | 171 | | 2016 | 109 | 9 | 48 | 166 | | 2017 | 109 | 10 | 44 | 163 | | 2018 | 102 | 9 | 44 | 155 | | 2019 | 101 | 8 | 41 | 150 |
Source: Sawmill Survey 2.3.5 Consumption of softwood by size of mill
Despite accounting for only 17% of all sawmills (see Table 2.8), those with total annual sawnwood production of 25 thousand m$^3$ or more accounted for 85% of the total softwood consumed by sawmills in 2019 (Table 2.11).
Table 2.11 Consumption of softwood by size category of mill, 2010-2019
| Year | < 1 | 1 - \<5 | 5 - \<10 | 10 - \<25 | 25 - \<50 | 50 - \<100 | 100 + | Total | |------|-----|--------|---------|----------|----------|-----------|-------|-------| | 2010 | 33 | 184 | 155 | 744 | 537 | 1,373 | 2,689 | 5,715 | | 2011 | 32 | 176 | 156 | 685 | 615 | 830 | 3,486 | 5,980 | | 2012 | 33 | 172 | 184 | 539 | 738 | 1,133 | 3,395 | 6,194 | | 2013 | 36 | 173 | 177 | 476 | 804 | 777 | 4,085 | 6,528 | | 2014 | 36 | 146 | 173 | 486 | 833 | 1,090 | 4,117 | 6,880 | | 2015 | 31 | 156 | 204 | 553 | 795 | 801 | 3,805 | 6,345 | | 2016 | 28 | 142 | 199 | 588 | 372 | 1,117 | 4,270 | 6,716 | | 2017 | 29 | 152 | 152 | 692 | 339 | 1,352 | 4,122 | 6,837 | | 2018 | 32 | 127 | 134 | 626 | 585 | 1,009 | 4,134 | 6,647 | | 2019 | 30 | 127 | 169 | 639 | 550 | 831 | 3,881 | 6,227 |
Source: Sawmill Survey Notes:
1. Categories are based on total sawnwood production (softwood and hardwood), in thousand m$^3$.
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data downloads web page at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/ 2.3.6 Consumption of softwood by mills in each country
Mills in Scotland consumed around one half (48%) of the 6.2 million green tonnes of softwood delivered to UK sawmills in 2019 (Table 2.12). A further 32% was consumed by mills in England, 11% in Northern Ireland and 9% in Wales.
Table 2.12 Consumption of softwood by country, 2010-2019
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2010 | 1,694 | 583 | 2,909 | 528 | 5,715 | | 2011 | 1,726 | 634 | 3,078 | 543 | 5,980 | | 2012 | 1,821 | 654 | 3,191 | 528 | 6,194 | | 2013 | 1,879 | 702 | 3,416 | 532 | 6,528 | | 2014 | 1,982 | 711 | 3,657 | 530 | 6,880 | | 2015 | 1,917 | 655 | 3,243 | 531 | 6,345 | | 2016 | 1,984 | 737 | 3,437 | 558 | 6,716 | | 2017 | 2,089 | 691 | 3,475 | 583 | 6,837 | | 2018 | 2,030 | 648 | 3,329 | 640 | 6,647 | | 2019 | 1,993 | 561 | 2,994 | 678 | 6,227 |
Source: Sawmill Survey
Data: Longer time series of the above table, and for mills in England by region, are available from the Data downloads web page at: https://www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/ 2.3.7 Production of sawn softwood by size of mill
UK sawmills produced a total of 3.4 million m$^3$ of sawn softwood in 2019, a 6% decrease from the 2018 figure (Table 2.13).
Sawmills with total annual sawnwood production of 25 thousand m$^3$ or more accounted for 85% of the total sawn softwood produced by sawmills in 2019.
Table 2.13 Production of sawn softwood by size of mill, 2010-2019
| Year | < 1 | 1 - \<5 | 5 - \<10 | 10 - \<25 | 25 - \<50 | 50 - \<100 | 100 + | Total | |------|-----|--------|---------|----------|---------|-----------|-------|-------| | 2010 | 19 | 105 | 84 | 395 | 304 | 693 | 1,450 | 3,050 | | 2011 | 18 | 101 | 86 | 374 | 335 | 443 | 1,867 | 3,223 | | 2012 | 18 | 100 | 95 | 314 | 393 | 564 | 1,874 | 3,358 | | 2013 | 20 | 100 | 93 | 287 | 429 | 404 | 2,200 | 3,532 | | 2014 | 20 | 84 | 91 | 282 | 448 | 563 | 2,224 | 3,713 | | 2015 | 18 | 90 | 111 | 296 | 466 | 422 | 2,045 | 3,447 | | 2016 | 17 | 82 | 106 | 338 | 186 | 597 | 2,296 | 3,621 | | 2017 | 17 | 88 | 77 | 384 | 178 | 647 | 2,328 | 3,720 | | 2018 | 19 | 73 | 65 | 355 | 311 | 468 | 2,327 | 3,618 | | 2019 | 18 | 72 | 80 | 349 | 306 | 382 | 2,203 | 3,410 |
Source: Sawmill Survey Notes:
1. Categories are based on total sawnwood production (softwood and hardwood), in thousand m$^3$.
Data: Longer time series of the above table, are available from the Data downloads web page at: [https://www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/](https://www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/) 2.3.8 Production of sawn softwood by mills in each country
1.7 million m$^3$ (49%) of sawn softwood was produced by sawmills in Scotland in 2019 (Table 2.14). A further 33% was produced by mills in England, 10% in Northern Ireland and the remaining 8% in Wales.
Table 2.14 Production of sawn softwood by country, 2010-2019
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2010 | 927 | 291 | 1,556 | 275 | 3,050 | | 2011 | 954 | 316 | 1,663 | 291 | 3,223 | | 2012 | 1,001 | 326 | 1,743 | 288 | 3,358 | | 2013 | 1,026 | 349 | 1,869 | 289 | 3,532 | | 2014 | 1,091 | 354 | 1,981 | 286 | 3,713 | | 2015 | 1,056 | 324 | 1,783 | 284 | 3,447 | | 2016 | 1,093 | 366 | 1,867 | 294 | 3,621 | | 2017 | 1,159 | 319 | 1,917 | 326 | 3,720 | | 2018 | 1,122 | 308 | 1,837 | 351 | 3,618 | | 2019 | 1,108 | 266 | 1,684 | 351 | 3,410 |
Source: Sawmill Survey
Data: Longer time series of the above table, and for mills in England by region, are available from the Data downloads web page at: https://www.forestrsearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/ 2.4 Sawmills - Larger Mills
The following, more detailed, tables are available for larger mills (those producing at least 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood annually) only.
These larger mills are estimated to account for 85% of all sawn softwood produced in 2019 (see Table 2.13).
The threshold for inclusion in the more detailed survey of larger sawmills was raised from 10 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood production to 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood production in 2016. In order to provide consistent time series, data presented in this section for 2015 is also restricted to sawmills that produced at least 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood.
The tables cover the following topics:
- Source of softwood logs;
- Sawn softwood product markets;
- Other softwood products; and
- Sawmill employment. 2.4.1 Softwood consumption and production
Total softwood consumption by the 26 sawmills covered by the detailed sawmill survey in 2019 was 5.3 million green tonnes (Table 2.15). Sawn softwood production by these mills was 2.9 million m$^3$ and other softwood products (chips, bark, sawdust, etc) amounted to 2.5 million tonnes.
Sawmills in Scotland accounted for around one half (48%) of all softwood consumption by larger mills. A further 31% was consumed by mills in England, 12% in Northern Ireland and the remaining 8% in Wales.
Table 2.15 Larger mills$^1$, 2019: softwood consumption and production
| Large mills | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Number of mills | 10 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 26 | | Consumption (thousand green tonnes) | 1,652 | 434 | 2,538 | 638 | 5,262 | | Sawnwood production (thousand m$^3$) | 928 | 198 | 1,435 | 329 | 2,891 | | Other products (thousand tonnes) | 573 | 239 | 1,331 | 332 | 2,476 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed) Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood (softwood and hardwood). 2.4.2 Source of softwood logs
Of all softwood sawlogs consumed by larger sawmills in 2019, 54% came from Scotland, 21% from England, 13% from Wales and 6% from Northern Ireland (Tables 2.16 and 2.16a). The remaining 7% were imported from other countries. The proportion of softwood sawlogs from Scotland has declined over the last 5 years, whilst the proportion of imported logs has increased.
96% of softwood sawlogs used by Scottish mills in 2019 came from Scotland. The corresponding proportions of mills' log use coming from within the same country were 60% for England, 72% for Wales and 46% for Northern Ireland.
Table 2.16 Larger mills(^1), 2019: source of softwood logs
| Source | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-----------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|--------| | England | 989 | 30 | 94 | 0 | 1,113 | | Wales | 358 | 315 | 0 | 0 | 673 | | Scotland | 305 | 78 | 2,444 | 12 | 2,839 | | Northern Ireland| 0 | 0 | 0 | 294 | 294 | | Total UK logs | 1,652 | 423 | 2,538 | 306 | 4,919 | | Other countries | 0 | 12 | 0 | 332 | 343 | | Total log consumption | 1,652 | 434 | 2,538 | 638 | 5,262 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood). Table 2.16a Larger mills(^1), 2015-2019: source of softwood logs
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | Other countries | Total | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----------------|-------| | 2015 | 19 | 13 | 60 | 4 | 3 | 100 | | 2016 | 20 | 14 | 59 | 5 | 4 | 100 | | 2017 | 20 | 14 | 57 | 4 | 5 | 100 | | 2018 | 20 | 13 | 57 | 5 | 6 | 100 | | 2019 | 21 | 13 | 54 | 6 | 7 | 100 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood). 2.4.3 Sawn softwood product markets
In 2019, 37% of sawn softwood produced by larger sawmills was used for fencing, 30% for construction, 26% for packaging and pallets, and the remaining 7% went to all other markets (Tables 2.17 and 2.17a).
Table 2.17 Larger mills(^1), 2019 sawn softwood product markets
| Product market | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Construction | 19 | 16 | 40 | 29 | 30 | | Fencing | 53 | 30 | 27 | 36 | 37 | | Packaging/ pallets | 24 | 45 | 24 | 26 | 26 | | Other | 4 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | | Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100|
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed) Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood).
Table 2.17a Larger mills(^1), 2015-2019: sawn softwood product markets
| Year | Construction | Fencing | Packaging/ pallets | Other | Total | |------|--------------|---------|--------------------|-------|-------| | 2015 | 27 | 36 | 30 | 6 | 100 | | 2016 | 28 | 35 | 30 | 7 | 100 | | 2017 | 32 | 36 | 24 | 8 | 100 | | 2018 | 33 | 36 | 24 | 7 | 100 | | 2019 | 30 | 37 | 26 | 7 | 100 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed) Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood). 2.4.4 Other softwood products
Sawmills were asked to estimate the quantity of other products (excluding sawnwood) that they generated from softwood and sold to different industries. The figures presented below are based on these estimates.
Other softwood products amounted to 2.5 million tonnes in 2019 (Table 2.15). Around one third (36%) of other softwood products were sold to wood processing industries in the form of chips and 17% were sold to these industries in sawdust and other formats (Table 2.18). A further 20% of other products were sold to bio-energy (including pellet manufacturers), 19% were sold to others and 8% were used internally for heat or energy. Table 2.18 Larger mills(^1), 2019: other softwood products
| Destination and type of product(^2) | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |--------------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Sold to wood processing industries | | | | | | | Wood chips | 46 | 60 | 37 | 0 | 36 | | Bark | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Sawdust & other | 21 | 24 | 18 | 0 | 17 | | Total | 67 | 84 | 54 | 0 | 53 | | Sold to bio-energy (incl pellet manufacturers) | | | | | | | Wood chips | 11 | 4 | 17 | 18 | 15 | | Bark | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Sawdust & other | 0 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 5 | | Total | 12 | 4 | 22 | 36 | 20 | | Other sales | | | | | | | Wood chips | 3 | 0 | 6 | 20 | 7 | | Bark | 9 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 9 | | Sawdust & other | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 3 | | Total | 16 | 11 | 19 | 34 | 19 | | Internal use for heat/energy | | | | | | | Wood chips | 4 | 0 | 3 | 30 | 7 | | Bark | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | Sawdust & other | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | Total | 5 | 1 | 5 | 31 | 8 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood). The proportions of other products that were reported as sold to wood processing industries have shown an overall reduction over the last five years (Table 2.18a).
Table 2.18a Larger mills(^1), 2015-2019: other softwood products by destination
| Year | Sold to wood processing industries | Sold to bio-energy (incl pellet manufacturers) | Other sales | Internal use for heat/energy | Total(^2) | |------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------------|------------| | 2015 | 60 | 21 | 17 | 2 | 100 | | 2016 | 58 | 21 | 19 | 2 | 100 | | 2017 | 56 | 22 | 19 | 3 | 100 | | 2018 | 46 | 24 | 25 | 5 | 100 | | 2019 | 53 | 20 | 19 | 8 | 100 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood).
2. Total includes sales of firewood and other products disposed of as waste. 2.4.5 Sawmill employment
There were estimated to be 2.7 thousand full-time equivalent staff employed directly by sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m$^3$ of sawnwood in 2019 (Tables 2.19 and 2.19a).
Table 2.19 Larger mills$^1$, 2019: sawmill employment
| Employment type | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |--------------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-------| | Direct | | | | | | | Line & production workers | 777 | 152 | 1,039 | 252 | 2,220 | | Managerial & administrative staff | 166 | 15 | 113 | 101 | 395 | | Haulage of logs to the mill | 58 | 0 | 16 | 2 | 76 | | Total direct employment | 1,001 | 167 | 1,168 | 355 | 2,691 | | Others$^2$ | | | | | | | Line & production workers | 20 | 0 | 56 | 0 | 76 | | Managerial & administrative staff | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Total contract employment | 20 | 0 | 56 | 0 | 76 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood (softwood and hardwood).
2. 'Others' refers to others undertaking work for the sawmill, including contractors and their employees.
3. The results exclude any employment on harvesting, and any employment at the site not directly related to the sawmill (e.g. exclude work producing pallets or other wood products from sawn wood).
4. Excludes haulage employment on contract. Table 2.19a Larger mills(^1), 2015-2019: sawmill employment
| Employment | Line & production workers | Managerial & administrative staff | Haulage of logs to the mill | Total employment | |------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------| | Direct | | | | | | 2015 | 2,341 | 394 | 44 | 2,779 | | 2016 | 2,456 | 384 | 45 | 2,885 | | 2017 | 2,369 | 428 | 79 | 2,875 | | 2018 | 2,368 | 416 | 75 | 2,859 | | 2019 | 2,220 | 395 | 76 | 2,691 | | Others(^2) | | | | | | 2015 | 58 | 0 | .. | 58 | | 2016 | 50 | 2 | .. | 52 | | 2017 | 76 | 3 | .. | 79 | | 2018 | 50 | 0 | .. | 50 | | 2019 | 76 | 0 | .. | 76 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood).
2. Excludes haulage employment on contract.
3. .. Denotes data not available. 2.5 Pulp & paper
Statistics on inputs to the pulp & paper industry only cover the integrated pulp & paper mills in the UK that use UK roundwood. There were four such mills until 2003, three from 2004 and two from spring 2006. Figures on inputs are provided by the Confederation of Forest Industries (Confor).
Figures on production of pulp and paper are provided by the Confederation of Paper Industries, and cover all paper production in the UK, not just from mills using UK roundwood. 2.5.1 Inputs for the integrated pulp & paper mills
The integrated pulp & paper mills in the UK consumed a total of 0.5 million tonnes of material (all softwood) in 2019, a 3% decrease from the 2018 total (Table 2.20).
UK roundwood represented 88% of the inputs for the integrated pulp & paper mills in 2019, with the remaining 12% coming from sawmill products.
Table 2.20 Inputs for the integrated pulp & paper mills¹, 2010-2019
| Year | UK roundwood² | Sawmill products | Total | |------|---------------|------------------|-------| | 2010 | 428 | 98 | 526 | | 2011 | 453 | 99 | 552 | | 2012 | 461 | 79 | 540 | | 2013 | 465 | 83 | 548 | | 2014 | 465 | 97 | 562 | | 2015 | 435 | 101 | 536 | | 2016 | 423 | 82 | 505 | | 2017 | 442 | 61 | 503 | | 2018 | 486 | 55 | 541 | | 2019 | 464 | 61 | 525 |
Source: Confor
Notes:
1. Excludes inputs of recycled paper and cardboard. All inputs are softwood.
2. UK roundwood derived from stemwood. Figure 2.3 Inputs to integrated pulp and paper mills
Source: Confor 2.5.2 Production of paper
Figures for the production of paper (Table 2.21) are provided by the Confederation of Paper Industries. They cover all paper production from UK mills, not just those using UK roundwood. Most UK paper production uses recovered waste paper or imported pulp.
A total of 3.9 million tonnes of paper and paperboard was produced in the UK in 2019, a decrease of 1% from the previous year. Packaging materials accounted for 49% of the total UK paper production in 2019, graphic papers (including newsprint) for 24%, and sanitary and household papers for 20%.
Table 2.21 Production of paper and paperboard, 2010-2019
| Year | Graphic papers (incl newsprint) | Sanitary & household papers | Packaging materials | Other | Total paper & paperboard | |------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------|-------|-------------------------| | 2010 | 1,637 | 729 | 1,640 | 294 | 4,300 | | 2011 | 1,669 | 766 | 1,600 | 307 | 4,342 | | 2012 | 1,616 | 795 | 1,798 | 271 | 4,480 | | 2013 | 1,636 | 802 | 1,851 | 272 | 4,561 | | 2014 | 1,544 | 768 | 1,801 | 284 | 4,397 | | 2015 | 1,053 | 772 | 1,894 | 251 | 3,970 | | 2016 | 897 | 730 | 1,800 | 250 | 3,677 | | 2017 | 918 | 734 | 1,935 | 270 | 3,858 | | 2018 | 962 | 738 | 1,904 | 291 | 3,894 | | 2019 | 918 | 762 | 1,884 | 287 | 3,851 |
Source: Confederation of Paper Industries 2.6 Wood-based panels
Wood-based panels include oriented strand board (OSB), wood chipboard and cement bonded particleboard (which are all types of particleboard), and medium density fibreboard (MDF) and other fibreboard (which are both types of fibreboard).
Statistics on wood-based panels are provided by the Wood Panel Industries Federation (WPIF). 2.6.1 Inputs for wood-based panel products
Table 2.22 and Figure 2.4 provide statistics on the inputs to mills that produce wood-based panels in the UK. The mills used a total of 3.9 million tonnes of material in 2019, representing a 3% increase from 2018. The inputs in 2019 comprised 1.3 million green tonnes of roundwood (34%), 1.5 million green tonnes of sawmill products (38%), 1.0 million tonnes of recycled wood fibre (25%) and 0.1 million tonnes of imports (3%).
Table 2.22 Softwood inputs to wood-based panel mills, 2010-2019
| Year | UK roundwood(^1) softwood | UK roundwood(^1) hardwood | Sawmill products | Imports(^2) softwood | Imports(^2) hardwood | Recycled wood fibre(^3,4) | |------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------| | 2010 | 1,375 | 1 | 1,631 | 7 | 2 | 1,120 | | 2011 | 1,417 | 1 | 1,779 | 0 | 1 | 952 | | 2012 | 1,269 | 2 | 1,851 | 0 | 2 | 909 | | 2013 | 1,263 | 0 | 1,709 | 0 | 0 | 853 | | 2014 | 1,283 | 0 | 1,809 | 0 | 0 | 812 | | 2015 | 1,334 | 0 | 1,687 | 12 | 5 | 852 | | 2016 | 1,248 | 0 | 1,749 | 10 | 29 | 838 | | 2017 | 1,059 | 0 | 1,726 | 0 | 22 | 923 | | 2018 | 1,210 | 1 | 1,566 | 30 | 75 | 877 | | 2019 | 1,316 | 0 | 1,468 | 43 | 78 | 984 |
Source: Wood Panel Industries Federation
Notes:
1. UK roundwood derived from stemwood.
2. Imports include roundwood, wood products and products from imported wood.
3. Recycled wood fibre is wood fibre recovered from both pre- and post-consumer wood waste for use in wood-based panel production. It comprises wood originally grown in the UK and wood originally grown in forests outside the UK.
4. Quantities are as delivered, with an assumed average moisture content of 25%. To convert to green tonnes (assuming moisture content of 52%), multiply by 1.56. Figure 2.4 Inputs to wood-based panel mills
Source: Wood Panel Industries Federation.
Note:
1. Recycled wood fibre data not available before 1999. 2.6.2 Production of wood-based panel products
Total production of wood-based panels in 2019 was 3.2 million m$^3$, a 5% increase from 2018 (Table 2.23). Over three quarters (77%) of wood-based panel products produced in the UK in 2019 were particleboard (including oriented strand board (OSB)).
The marked decrease between 2011 and 2012 largely results from the closure of a panel mill in 2012.
Table 2.23 Wood-based panel production, 2010-2019
| Year | Particleboard$^1$ | Fibreboard$^2$ | Total | |------|------------------|----------------|-------| | 2010 | 2,594 | 776 | 3,370 | | 2011 | 2,625 | 759 | 3,384 | | 2012 | 2,215 | 788 | 3,003 | | 2013 | 2,276 | 756 | 3,032 | | 2014 | 2,319 | 749 | 3,068 | | 2015 | 2,324 | 756 | 3,080 | | 2016 | 2,349 | 684 | 3,033 | | 2017 | 2,501 | 675 | 3,176 | | 2018 | 2,355 | 724 | 3,079 | | 2019 | 2,495 | 751 | 3,246 |
Source: Wood Panel Industries Federation
Notes:
1. Includes Oriented Strand Board (OSB).
2. Includes Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF).
3. Changes in the mix of materials used and type of product produced can result in apparent discrepancies between the trends for inputs (Table 2.22) and production. 2.7 Miscellaneous products
Softwood
Data for softwood fencing are obtained from the Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers. Figures for other uses are reported by manufacturers or are estimated by representatives of the wood processing industries.
1.9 million green tonnes of UK softwood were estimated to have been used directly for woodfuel (including biomass energy) in 2019, unchanged from the level in the previous year (Table 2.24). A further 262 thousand green tonnes of UK softwood were consumed by round fencing manufacturers and 183 thousand green tonnes for other uses in 2019.
Table 2.24 Miscellaneous uses of UK softwood roundwood, 2010-2019
| Year | Fencing | Woodfuel¹ | Other² | Total | |------|---------|-----------|--------|-------| | 2010 | 349 | 900 | 135 | 1,384 | | 2011 | 363 | 900 | 145 | 1,408 | | 2012 | 338 | 1,000 | 154 | 1,492 | | 2013 | 332 | 1,250 | 191 | 1,773 | | 2014 | 317 | 1,500 | 176 | 1,992 | | 2015 | 288 | 1,600 | 164 | 2,052 | | 2016 | 277 | 1,550 | 178 | 2,006 | | 2017 | 283 | 1,600 | 170 | 2,053 | | 2018 | 255 | 1,900 | 174 | 2,329 | | 2019 | 262 | 1,900 | 183 | 2,346 |
Source: Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers, industry associations.
Notes:
1. Woodfuel derived from stemwood. Includes estimates of roundwood use for biomass energy. The figures are estimated by the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics and make use of woodfuel data reported in the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey.
2. Includes shavings and poles. Quantities for some uses are estimates by the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics. Hardwood
An estimated 700 thousand green tonnes of UK hardwood were used for woodfuel (including biomass energy) in 2019. A further 30 thousand green tonnes were estimated to have been consumed by round fencing manufacturers and 63 thousand green tonnes for other uses, including exports. 2.7.1 Softwood round fencing manufacturers
There were 46 active round fencing manufacturers in 2019 (Table 2.25).
Around two thirds of round fencing manufacturers (65%) consumed less than 5 thousand green tonnes of softwood annually.
Table 2.25 Number of softwood round fencing manufacturers by size category(^1), 2010-2019
| Year | < 1 | 1 - \<5 | 5 - \<10 | 10 + | Total | |------|-----|--------|---------|------|-------| | 2010 | 21 | 24 | 13 | 6 | 64 | | 2011 | 21 | 24 | 10 | 8 | 63 | | 2012 | 21 | 21 | 11 | 7 | 60 | | 2013 | 20 | 22 | 11 | 7 | 60 | | 2014 | 18 | 21 | 10 | 7 | 56 | | 2015 | 15 | 19 | 10 | 6 | 50 | | 2016 | 17 | 16 | 11 | 6 | 50 | | 2017 | 16 | 17 | 9 | 7 | 49 | | 2018 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 6 | 46 | | 2019 | 14 | 16 | 10 | 6 | 46 |
Source: Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers
Notes:
1. Categories are based on total softwood consumption, in thousand green tonnes.
Data: Longer time series of the number of softwood round fencing manufacturers, by size category and by country (England/ Wales/ Scotland/ Northern Ireland) are available from the Data downloads web page at: [https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/). 2.7.2 Roundwood purchased by softwood round fencing manufacturers
A total of 288 thousand green tonnes of softwood (UK grown and imported) was purchased by softwood fencing manufacturers in 2019 (Table 2.26). This represents an increase of 4% from the 2018 total of 276 thousand green tonnes.
Table 2.26 Total roundwood purchased(^2) by size category(^1) of softwood round fencing manufacturers, 2010-2019
| Year | < 1 | 1 - \<5 | 5 - \<10 | 10+ | Total | |------|-----|--------|---------|-----|-------| | 2010 | 7 | 63 | 86 | 213 | 369 | | 2011 | 8 | 65 | 60 | 250 | 383 | | 2012 | 8 | 57 | 69 | 226 | 360 | | 2013 | 7 | 57 | 79 | 204 | 346 | | 2014 | 7 | 54 | 74 | 201 | 335 | | 2015 | 6 | 46 | 79 | 185 | 316 | | 2016 | 7 | 41 | 78 | 177 | 303 | | 2017 | 6 | 45 | 71 | 185 | 307 | | 2018 | 6 | 37 | 71 | 162 | 276 | | 2019 | 6 | 40 | 76 | 166 | 288 |
Source: Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers
Notes:
1. Categories are based on total softwood consumption, in thousand green tonnes.
2. This table includes purchases of both UK grown and imported softwood, whereas table 2.24 relates to UK grown softwood only.
Data: Longer time series of roundwood purchased by round fencing manufacturers, by size category and by country (England/ Wales/ Scotland/ Northern Ireland) are available from the Data downloads web page at: [https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/). 2.8 Exports
UK softwood exports in 2019 consisted of 154 thousand green tonnes of sawlogs and 46 thousand green tonnes of industrial roundwood (excluding sawlogs), giving a total of 201 thousand green tonnes of roundwood (Table 2.27). The quantity of softwood roundwood exports decreased by 24% between 2018 and 2019.
The UK also exported 109 thousand tonnes of softwood chips in 2019, a 3% decrease from the previous year.
Table 2.27 Summary of softwood exports, 2010-2019
| Year | Industrial roundwood(^1) | Sawlogs | Total roundwood | Chips | |------|---------------------------|---------|----------------|-------| | 2010 | 301 | 166 | 467 | 136 | | 2011 | 415 | 171 | 585 | 158 | | 2012 | 405 | 130 | 535 | 142 | | 2013 | 379 | 260 | 640 | 126 | | 2014 | 228 | 209 | 437 | 151 | | 2015 | 75 | 202 | 276 | 86 | | 2016 | 48 | 183 | 231 | 51 | | 2017 | 124 | 207 | 331 | 92 | | 2018 | 67 | 197 | 264 | 112 | | 2019 | 46 | 154 | 201 | 109 |
Source: industry associations Notes:
1. Includes all roundwood other than sawlogs. 2.9 Certification
Forest certification assesses forest management practices against an agreed standard and awards a label to those forest products that meet the standard. In order for products to achieve certification, both forest management practices and the Chain of Custody, which tracks timber from forest to retail outlet, must be assessed.
The following tables provide information on the level of certified wood produced in the UK (Table 2.28) and the number of sawmills and round fencing manufacturers holding Chain of Custody certificates (Table 2.29).
Estimates of the certified softwood removals in the UK by country, are also provided (Table 2.28a). As these figures are relatively new and the quality of data at this level is still improving, these estimates are currently labelled as experimental statistics.
Information on areas of certified woodland is provided in Chapter 1. 2.9.1 Volume certified
70% of private sector softwood removals in 2019 were from certified woodlands (Table 2.28). The percentage of private sector softwood removals that are certified has fluctuated over recent years; industry experts have indicated a general reduction in the level of certification amongst smaller estates and an increase in production from larger estates.
As nearly all removals from Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and Forest Service woodland are certified, this equates to around 82% of all softwood removals in 2019 from certified sources.
77% of sawmills' roundwood consumption in 2019 was certified. For round fencing manufacturers, 69% of total softwood consumption was certified.
Table 2.28 Per cent of volume certified, 2010-2019
| Year | Softwood removals from private sector woodland | Total softwood removals¹ | Consumption (softwood and hardwood) by sawmills | Consumption (softwood) by round fencing manufacturers | |------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | 2010 | 73 | 87 | 83 | 62 | | 2011 | 72 | 85 | 80 | 61 | | 2012 | 70 | 84 | 81 | 60 | | 2013 | 76 | 87 | 83 | 55 | | 2014 | 72 | 84 | 80 | 69 | | 2015 | 69 | 83 | 80 | 71 | | 2016 | 66 | 82 | 81 | 70 | | 2017 | 75 | 86 | 79 | 71 | | 2018 | 71 | 82 | 78 | 61 | | 2019 | 70 | 82 | 77 | 69 |
Source: Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Forest Service (FS) and industry surveys
Notes:
1. Includes all removals from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodland. Experimental statistics providing a country breakdown of softwood removals from certified woodlands in 2019 indicate that 91% of softwood removals from woodlands in Northern Ireland were certified, 87% from Wales, 86% from Scotland and 70% from England.
Table 2.28a Per cent of volume certified by country(^1): softwood removals, 2019
| Country | Softwood removals from Private sector woodland | Total softwood removals(^2) | |--------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | England | 48 | 70 | | Wales | 73 | 87 | | Scotland | 78 | 86 | | Northern Ireland | 17 | 91 | | UK | 70 | 82 |
Source: Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Forest Service (FS) and industry surveys
Notes:
1. These figures are currently experimental statistics.
2. Includes all removals from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodland. 2.9.2 Chain of custody certificates
Sawmills and round fencing manufacturers were also asked whether they held a Chain of Custody certificate. 71% of sawmills for which the certification status was known held a Chain of Custody certificate in 2019 (Table 2.29). This proportion varied with size of mill, from 20% for mills producing less than 5 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood to 100% for those producing 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood or more. Around two thirds (69%) of round fencing manufacturers for which the certification status was known held a Chain of Custody certificate.
Table 2.29 Chain of custody certificates, 2019
| Mills | Mills holding certificate | Mills without certificate | Certification status not known | Total$^1$ | |----------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------| | Sawmills$^2$ (size of mill$^3$) | | | | | | < 5 | 4 | 16 | 71 | 91 | | 5 - < 25 | 20 | 4 | 9 | 33 | | 25 + | 26 | 0 | 0 | 26 | | All sawmills | 50 | 20 | 80 | 150 | | Round fencing manufacturers| 11 | 5 | 30 | 46 |
Source: industry surveys Notes:
1. Includes non-respondents to survey in current year.
2. For large sawmills (those producing at least 25 thousand m$^3$) that did not report whether or not they held a certificate or did not respond to the 2019 survey, the certification status was obtained from the FSC database, where possible.
3. Categories are based on total sawnwood production (softwood and hardwood), in thousand m$^3$. 2.10 Woodfuel and pellets
Wood from various sources can be used for fuel, including roundwood, chips and sawdust from wood processing, specific products such as pellets and briquettes, and recycled wood.
The following pages provide data on:
- recycled wood used for woodfuel (Table 2.30 below);
- woodfuel supply by sawmills and round fencing manufacturers (Table 2.31); and
- wood pellet production (Table 2.32) and feedstock (Table 2.33).
In addition, estimates of roundwood used directly for woodfuel are provided in tables 2.5 and 2.6. 2.10.1 Recycled wood used for woodfuel
Estimates of recycled wood used for woodfuel have been obtained from the Wood Recyclers' Association. In 2019, it is estimated that around 2.4 million tonnes of recycled wood were used for woodfuel, an increase of 14% from the 2018 estimate of around 2.1 million tonnes.
Table 2.30 Recycled wood used for woodfuel(^1), 2010-2019
| Year | Total | |------|--------| | 2010 | 0.55 | | 2011 | 0.59 | | 2012 | 0.76 | | 2013 | 0.83 | | 2014 | 1.34 | | 2015 | 1.45 | | 2016 | 1.55 | | 2017 | 1.66 | | 2018 | 2.10 | | 2019 | 2.39 |
Source: Wood Recyclers Association
Notes:
1. Post consumer recovered wood, comprising wood originally grown in the UK and wood originally grown in forests outside the UK.
2. Figures from 2014 relate to capacity, rather than consumption.
3. Quantities are as delivered, with an assumed average moisture content of 25%. To convert to green tonnes (assuming moisture content of 52%), multiply by 1.56.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. 2.10.2 Woodfuel supply by sawmills and round fencing manufacturers
An estimated 752 thousand green tonnes (mainly softwood) of woodfuel were supplied by sawmills in 2019 and a further 77 thousand green tonnes were supplied by round fencing manufacturers (Table 2.31). Around two thirds (69%) of the total woodfuel supplied was sold to bioenergy.
Table 2.31 Woodfuel supply(^1) by sawmills and round fencing manufacturers, 2015-2019
| | Sales to bioenergy | Sales as firewood | Used internally for heat/energy | Total | |------------------|--------------------|-------------------|---------------------------------|--------| | Sawmills | | | | | | 2015 | 612 | 12 | 45 | 669 | | 2016 | 581 | 14 | 65 | 660 | | 2017 | 620 | 15 | 96 | 731 | | 2018 | 633 | 7 | 152 | 792 | | 2019 | 528 | 17 | 206 | 752 | | Round fencing manufacturers | | | | | | 2015 | 51 | 7 | 2 | 60 | | 2016 | 57 | 7 | 1 | 65 | | 2017 | 55 | 7 | 3 | 66 | | 2018 | 52 | 8 | 4 | 65 | | 2019 | 43 | 10 | 25 | 77 |
Source: Sawmill Survey, Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers Notes:
1. Material reported as sales/use for woodfuel but may have been used for other purposes. 2.10.3 Wood pellets
Wood pellets and briquettes are processed wood products that can be made from roundwood, sawmill products and/or recycled wood. Some of the wood used to make wood pellets and briquettes will be accounted for elsewhere in this release (e.g. in Tables 2.30 and 2.31). Wood pellets and briquettes are often used for woodfuel, but pellets may also be used for other purposes (such as horse bedding or cat litter).
A total of 298 thousand tonnes of wood pellets and briquettes are estimated to have been produced in the UK in 2019. This represents a 7% increase from the 2018 estimate of 279 thousand tonnes.
Table 2.32 Wood pellet production, 2010-2019
| Year | Total | |------|--------| | 2010 | 197 | | 2011 | 244 | | 2012 | 278 | | 2013 | 301 | | 2014 | 354 | | 2015 | 343 | | 2016 | 329 | | 2017 | 287 | | 2018 | 279 | | 2019 | 298 |
Source: Survey of UK Pellet and Briquette Production A total of 570 thousand tonnes of feedstock was used to produce wood pellets in the UK in 2019, a 16% decrease from the total for 2018 (Table 2.33).
The overall decrease in feedstock reflects a change in the composition of pellets. Roundwood fell by 32% in the latest year and accounted for over one half (54%) of the feedstock in 2019 (down from 67% in 2018). Correspondingly, there was a 16% increase in sawmill products and other feedstock.
Table 2.33 Wood pellet feedstock, 2015-2019
| Year | Roundwood | Sawmill products¹ | Total | |------|-----------|-------------------|-------| | 2015 | 332 | 290 | 621 | | 2016 | 377 | 320 | 697 | | 2017 | 354 | 295 | 648 | | 2018 | 453 | 226 | 679 | | 2019 | 307 | 263 | 570 |
Source: Survey of UK Pellet and Briquette Production Notes:
1. May also include wood from other sources (e.g. energy crops, arboriculture arisings and recycled wood).
2. Tonnes as delivered. Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 3: Trade
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: None Introduction
This chapter contains information about UK imports and exports of wood products, and about the level of apparent consumption estimated from data for UK production, imports and exports.
Information on imports and exports mainly comes from the Overseas Trade Statistics compiled by HM Revenue & Customs. Estimates are provided at a UK level only. International comparisons of apparent consumption are provided in the International Forestry chapter. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Figures for 2019 were previously published in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 Provisional Figures", released on 14 May 2020. Some figures for 2019 and earlier years have been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Trade section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all trade tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
UK imports:
- 7.0 million cubic metres of sawnwood in 2019, a 2% decrease from the 2018 figure;
- 3.7 million cubic metres of wood-based panels in 2019, a 6% decrease from 2018;
- 8.9 million tonnes of wood pellets in 2019, an increase of 11% from 2018;
- 5.2 million tonnes of paper in 2019, a 5% decrease from 2018.
- The total value of wood product imports in 2019 was £8.3 billion, representing a 1% increase from 2018; of which £4.1 billion was pulp and paper.
- Sawn softwood, particleboard, fibreboard, and paper and paperboard were overwhelmingly imported from EU countries in 2019.
- Sawn hardwood and wood pulp imports originated from a range of both EU and non-EU countries in 2019.
- The vast majority of UK imports of plywood and wood pellets in 2019 came from countries outside the EU.
- Apparent consumption of wood in the UK was 56.7 million m³ WRME underbark in 2019, representing a 1% increase from the previous year.
UK exports:
- The total value of wood product exports in 2019 was £1.7 billion, a 5% decrease from 2018; of which £1.5 billion was pulp and paper. 3.1 Apparent consumption of wood in the UK
Apparent consumption is the amount of timber used as wood and wood products by people and industries in the United Kingdom. It is calculated as total United Kingdom production plus imports, minus exports. Apparent consumption differs from actual consumption by the extent of changes in the level of stocks. It is not practical to collect information on actual consumption.
As table 3.1 covers a broad range of products (including secondary processed wood products), volumes are expressed in wood raw material equivalent (WRME) underbark. WRME volumes represent the amount of wood that would have been required to make the product.
UK production of roundwood totalled 10.8 million m$^3$ WRME underbark in 2019 (Table 3.1). A further 49.9 million m$^3$ WRME underbark of wood and wood products were imported to the UK and 3.9 million m$^3$ WRME underbark were exported, giving apparent consumption of 56.7 million m$^3$ WRME underbark. This represented a 1% increase in apparent consumption from the previous year. These figures exclude recycled wood and recovered paper (see Table 3.3 for statistics on recovered paper).
Imports accounted for 81% of all wood (production + imports) in the UK in 2019. Table 3.1 Apparent consumption of wood(^1) in the UK, 2010-2019
| Year | UK production(^2) | Imports | Exports | Apparent Consumption | |------|---------------------|---------|---------|----------------------| | 2010 | 9.6 | 41.6 | 5.5 | 45.8 | | 2011 | 10.0 | 40.6 | 5.2 | 45.5 | | 2012 | 10.1 | 39.6 | 6.5 | 43.2 | | 2013 | 10.8 | 42.2 | 6.2 | 46.8 | | 2014 | 11.2 | 47.0 | 4.8 | 53.4 | | 2015 | 10.6 | 49.3 | 4.1 | 55.8 | | 2016 | 10.7 | 49.6 | 3.8 | 56.5 | | 2017 | 10.9 | 50.3 | 4.2 | 57.0 | | 2018 | 11.2 | 49.1 | 3.9 | 56.3 | | 2019 | 10.8 | 49.9 | 3.9 | 56.7 |
Source: Industry surveys, industry associations, UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs) and conversion factors to Wood Raw Material Equivalent (WRME).
Notes:
1. Excludes recovered paper.
2. UK production of roundwood is estimated from deliveries to wood processing industries and others, as in tables 2.5 and 2.6. Figure 3.1 Apparent consumption of wood(^1) in the UK, 1999-2019
Source: Industry surveys, industry associations, UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs) and conversion factors to Wood Raw Material Equivalent (WRME).
Notes:
1. Excludes recovered paper.
2. UK production of roundwood is estimated from deliveries to wood processing industries and others, as in tables 2.5 and 2.6. 3.2 Apparent consumption of wood products in the UK
Table 3.2 provides volumes of UK production, trade and apparent consumption in selected wood products. It differs from table 3.1 in terms of both coverage (table 3.1 covers a wider range of wood and wood products, including secondary processed products) and in terms of units (wood raw material equivalents in table 3.1, volumes of product in table 3.2).
UK production accounted for 34% of the UK sawnwood market, 50% of the UK wood-based panel market and 47% of the UK paper market in 2019 (Table 3.2). Table 3.2 Apparent consumption of wood products\\textsuperscript{1,2} in the UK, 2019
| Product | UK production | Imports | Exports | Apparent consumption | |--------------------------------|---------------|---------|---------|----------------------| | **Sawnwood\\textsuperscript{3}** (thousand m\\textsuperscript{3}) | | | | | | Coniferous | 3,410 | 6,437 | 193 | 9,654 | | Non-Coniferous | 47 | 603 | 22 | 627 | | **Total** | 3,456 | 7,040 | 215 | 10,281 | | **Woodbased panels** (thousand m\\textsuperscript{3}) | | | | | | Veneer sheets | 0 | 53 | 2 | 51 | | Plywood | 0 | 1,453 | 86 | 1,367 | | Particleboard | 2,495 | 1,247 | 234 | 3,508 | | Fibreboard | 751 | 897 | 62 | 1,586 | | **Total** | 3,246 | 3,650 | 384 | 6,512 | | **Paper & paperboard** (thousand tonnes) | | | | | | Graphic papers | 918 | 2,509 | 352 | 3,075 | | Sanitary & household papers | 762 | 313 | 7 | 1,068 | | Packaging materials | 1,884 | 2,237 | 336 | 3,785 | | Other paper & paperboard | 287 | 129 | 129 | 287 | | **Total** | 3,851 | 5,188 | 824 | 8,215 |
Source: Industry surveys, industry associations, UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs).
Notes:
1. Excludes other wood products, e.g. fuelwood and round fencing.
2. Excludes roundwood and intermediate products (e.g. sawmill products, pulp and recovered paper) to avoid double-counting.
3. Includes sleepers. 3.3 Flow of recovered paper
UK production of recovered paper (the amount recovered from businesses and households in the UK) totalled 7.3 million tonnes in 2019 (Table 3.3) a decrease of 3% from 2018. Imports fell by 31% and exports decreased by 4% between 2018 and 2019, resulting in a 1% fall in apparent consumption over this period.
Table 3.3 Flow of recovered paper, 2010-2019
| Year | UK production | Imports | Exports | Apparent consumption¹ | |------|---------------|---------|---------|------------------------| | 2010 | 8,003 | 115 | 4,388 | 3,730 | | 2011 | 8,036 | 177 | 4,479 | 3,733 | | 2012 | 8,099 | 160 | 4,447 | 3,812 | | 2013 | 7,901 | 184 | 4,248 | 3,837 | | 2014 | 8,014 | 136 | 4,436 | 3,714 | | 2015 | 7,912 | 305 | 4,881 | 3,336 | | 2016 | 7,825 | 125 | 4,932 | 3,018 | | 2017 | 7,772 | 107 | 4,733 | 3,147 | | 2018 | 7,539 | 120 | 4,530 | 3,129 | | 2019 | 7,348 | 83 | 4,327 | 3,104 |
Source: Confederation of Paper Industries, UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs). Notes:
1. Apparent consumption of recovered paper refers to use of recycled paper pulp in the UK. 3.4 UK import quantities by product
Wood imports to the UK in 2019 included 7.0 million cubic metres of sawnwood (a 2% decrease from the previous year), 3.7 million cubic metres of wood-based panels (6% decrease), 8.9 million tonnes of wood pellets (11% increase) and 6.2 million tonnes of pulp and paper (7% decrease) (Table 3.4).
Table 3.4 UK import quantities, 2010-2019
| Year | Sawn wood (thousand m³) | Wood-based panels (thousand m³) | Other wood (thousand m³) | Wood pellets (thousand tonnes) | Pulp & paper (thousand tonnes) | |------|-------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------| | 2010 | 5,699 | 2,701 | 1,071 | 551 | 8,462 | | 2011 | 4,936 | 2,827 | 985 | 1,015 | 8,073 | | 2012 | 5,179 | 2,650 | 965 | 1,487 | 7,812 | | 2013 | 5,488 | 2,964 | 1,267 | 3,432 | 7,213 | | 2014 | 6,425 | 3,260 | 1,329 | 4,773 | 7,319 | | 2015 | 6,323 | 3,215 | 1,378 | 6,573 | 7,560 | | 2016 | 6,794 | 3,410 | 1,121 | 6,782 | 7,092 | | 2017 | 7,663 | 3,800 | 1,379 | 6,885 | 6,798 | | 2018 | 7,213 | 3,878 | 1,766 | 7,992 | 6,663 | | 2019 | 7,040 | 3,650 | 2,229 | 8,878 | 6,168 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter).
2. Sawnwood includes sleepers from 2017.
3. Includes veneer sheets.
4. Includes roundwood, wood charcoal, chips, particles, residues and from 2017, includes recovered wood.
5. Further details of pulp and paper import quantities are provided in table 3.4a. Paper accounted for the majority of pulp and paper imports, with a total of 5.2 million tonnes imported in 2019 (Table 3.4a). This represented a 5% decrease from the previous year.
Table 3.4a UK import quantities, 2010-2019(^1): Pulp and paper
| Year | Paper | Pulp | Recovered paper | Total Pulp & Paper | |------|-------|------|-----------------|--------------------| | 2010 | 7,254 | 1,094| 115 | 8,462 | | 2011 | 6,887 | 1,009| 177 | 8,073 | | 2012 | 6,631 | 1,021| 160 | 7,812 | | 2013 | 5,929 | 1,100| 184 | 7,213 | | 2014 | 5,949 | 1,234| 136 | 7,319 | | 2015 | 6,032 | 1,223| 305 | 7,560 | | 2016 | 5,876 | 1,092| 125 | 7,092 | | 2017 | 5,610 | 1,081| 107 | 6,798 | | 2018 | 5,477 | 1,066| 120 | 6,663 | | 2019 | 5,188 | 897 | 83 | 6,168 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter). 3.5 UK export quantities by product
A total of 5.2 million tonnes of pulp and paper (including recovered paper) was exported from the UK in 2019 (Table 3.5), representing a 3% decrease from 2018.
Table 3.5 UK export quantities, 2010-2019
| Year | Sawn wood (thousand m³) | Wood-based panels (thousand m³) | Other wood (thousand m³) | Wood pellets (thousand tonnes) | Pulp & paper (thousand tonnes) | |------|-------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------| | 2010 | 195 | 509 | 1,029 | 60 | 5,349 | | 2011 | 162 | 546 | 1,430 | 38 | 5,485 | | 2012 | 141 | 597 | 1,779 | 54 | 5,585 | | 2013 | 167 | 432 | 1,267 | 106 | 5,390 | | 2014 | 175 | 404 | 1,083 | 98 | 5,467 | | 2015 | 187 | 286 | 1,018 | 88 | 5,712 | | 2016 | 193 | 314 | 810 | 21 | 5,700 | | 2017 | 218 | 374 | 638 | 126 | 5,528 | | 2018 | 238 | 295 | 595 | 63 | 5,317 | | 2019 | 215 | 384 | 604 | 33 | 5,160 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter).
2. Includes roundwood, wood charcoal, chips, particles, residues and, from 2017, includes recovered wood.
3. Includes veneer sheets.
4. Sawnwood includes sleepers from 2017.
5. Further details of pulp and paper export quantities are provided in table 3.5a. Recovered paper accounted for the majority of pulp and paper exports, with 4.3 million tonnes exported in 2019 (Table 3.5a).
Table 3.5a UK export quantities, 2010-2019(^1): Pulp and paper
| Year | Paper | Pulp | Recovered paper | Total Pulp & Paper | |------|-------|------|-----------------|--------------------| | 2010 | 926 | 35 | 4,388 | 5,349 | | 2011 | 974 | 32 | 4,479 | 5,485 | | 2012 | 1,102 | 36 | 4,447 | 5,585 | | 2013 | 1,119 | 23 | 4,248 | 5,390 | | 2014 | 1,010 | 21 | 4,436 | 5,467 | | 2015 | 807 | 24 | 4,881 | 5,712 | | 2016 | 760 | 7 | 4,932 | 5,700 | | 2017 | 788 | 7 | 4,733 | 5,528 | | 2018 | 772 | 15 | 4,530 | 5,317 | | 2019 | 824 | 9 | 4,327 | 5,160 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter). 3.6 UK import values by product
Wood product imports in 2019 were valued at a total of £8.3 billion, a 1% increase from 2018 (Table 3.6).
Pulp and paper (including recovered paper) imports were valued at £4.1 billion in 2019 (almost half of the total value of wood product imports). Sawnwood imports were valued at £1.6 billion in 2019, wood-based panels at £1.1 billion and wood pellets at £1.3 billion.
Table 3.6 UK import values, 2010-2019
| Year | Sawnwood | Wood-based panels | Other wood | Wood pellets | Pulp & Paper | Total | |------|----------|-------------------|------------|-------------|-------------|-------| | 2010 | 1,199 | 781 | 110 | 69 | 4,607 | 6,765 | | 2011 | 1,080 | 838 | 79 | 129 | 4,696 | 6,822 | | 2012 | 1,084 | 791 | 75 | 185 | 4,266 | 6,402 | | 2013 | 1,180 | 882 | 88 | 412 | 4,165 | 6,727 | | 2014 | 1,420 | 936 | 80 | 547 | 4,196 | 7,180 | | 2015 | 1,311 | 957 | 88 | 780 | 4,375 | 7,510 | | 2016 | 1,423 | 1,010 | 85 | 915 | 4,003 | 7,436 | | 2017 | 1,636 | 1,155 | 90 | 961 | 4,004 | 7,845 | | 2018 | 1,743 | 1,201 | 122 | 1,117 | 4,075 | 8,257 | | 2019 | 1,598 | 1,134 | 184 | 1,309 | 4,076 | 8,301 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter).
2. Sawnwood includes sleepers from 2017.
3. Includes veneer sheets.
4. Includes roundwood, wood charcoal, chips, particles, residues and from 2017, includes recovered wood.
5. Further details of pulp and paper import values are provided in table 3.6a. Paper imports were valued at £3.5 billion in 2019, a 4% increase from the previous year (Table 3.6a).
Table 3.6a UK import values, 2010-2019(^1): Pulp and paper
| Year | Paper (£ million) | Pulp (£ million) | Recovered paper | Total Pulp & Paper (£ million) | |------|-------------------|------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------| | 2010 | 3,997 | 593 | 17 | 4,607 | | 2011 | 4,049 | 613 | 34 | 4,696 | | 2012 | 3,727 | 519 | 21 | 4,266 | | 2013 | 3,644 | 500 | 21 | 4,165 | | 2014 | 3,667 | 509 | 19 | 4,196 | | 2015 | 3,711 | 642 | 23 | 4,375 | | 2016 | 3,434 | 557 | 13 | 4,003 | | 2017 | 3,418 | 572 | 14 | 4,004 | | 2018 | 3,415 | 639 | 21 | 4,075 | | 2019 | 3,538 | 520 | 17 | 4,076 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter). 3.7 UK export values by product
Wood product exports from the UK were valued at a total of £1.7 billion in 2019, a 5% decrease from the 2018 total (Table 3.7). Total exports of wood products in 2019 comprised 87% pulp and paper, 7% wood-based panels, 3% sawnwood and 2% other wood.
Table 3.7 UK export values, 2010-2019
| Year | Sawnwood | Wood-based panels | Other wood | Wood pellets | Pulp & Paper | Total | |------|----------|-------------------|------------|-------------|-------------|-------| | 2010 | 47 | 113 | 35 | 7 | 1,610 | 1,812 | | 2011 | 41 | 128 | 50 | 3 | 1,650 | 1,872 | | 2012 | 34 | 130 | 51 | 4 | 1,589 | 1,807 | | 2013 | 37 | 109 | 47 | 5 | 1,519 | 1,717 | | 2014 | 43 | 107 | 39 | 2 | 1,480 | 1,672 | | 2015 | 44 | 75 | 35 | 1 | 1,441 | 1,597 | | 2016 | 50 | 91 | 26 | 0 | 1,307 | 1,473 | | 2017 | 55 | 109 | 41 | 6 | 1,651 | 1,861 | | 2018 | 64 | 103 | 41 | 5 | 1,597 | 1,810 | | 2019 | 58 | 123 | 41 | 2 | 1,491 | 1,714 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter).
2. Sawnwood includes sleepers from 2017.
3. Includes veneer sheets.
4. Includes roundwood, wood charcoal, chips, particles, residues and from 2017, includes recovered wood.
5. Further details of pulp and paper export values are provided in table 3.7a. Paper exports were valued at £1.0 billion in 2019, accounting for 70% of all pulp and paper exports (Table 3.7a).
Table 3.7a UK export values, 2010-2019(^1): Pulp and paper
| Year | Paper | Pulp | Recovered paper | Total Pulp & Paper | |------|-------|------|-----------------|--------------------| | 2010 | 1,068 | 18 | 524 | 1,610 | | 2011 | 1,044 | 11 | 595 | 1,650 | | 2012 | 1,048 | 10 | 531 | 1,589 | | 2013 | 1,017 | 8 | 494 | 1,519 | | 2014 | 997 | 7 | 476 | 1,480 | | 2015 | 901 | 7 | 534 | 1,441 | | 2016 | 838 | 4 | 465 | 1,307 | | 2017 | 997 | 5 | 649 | 1,651 | | 2018 | 1,022 | 5 | 570 | 1,597 | | 2019 | 1,049 | 4 | 437 | 1,491 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter). 3.8 Origin of wood imports
Table 3.8 presents data on the source of selected wood products that have been imported into the UK in 2019.
Sawn softwood, particleboard, fibreboard, and paper and paperboard were overwhelmingly imported from EU countries in 2019 (Table 3.8):
- Sweden (42%), Latvia (18%) and Finland (14%) provided the majority of imports of sawn softwood to the UK.
- Most particleboard imports to the UK came from Germany (26%), France (19%) and Ireland (14%).
- Ireland (31%), Germany (20%), Belgium and Spain (both 10%) were the principal sources of fibreboard imports.
- Most paper and paperboard imports came from Sweden (18%), Germany (16%) and Finland (15%).
Sawn hardwood and wood pulp imports originated from a range of both EU and non-EU countries in 2019:
- Estonia (14%), the USA (13%), Latvia (11%) and France (10%) provided almost one half of sawn hardwood imports to the UK.
- Sweden (30%) and Brazil (29%) provided over one half of wood pulp imports to the UK.
The vast majority of UK imports of plywood and wood pellets came from countries outside the EU in 2018:
- China (37%) and Brazil (20%) were the principal sources of plywood imports to the UK.
- The USA (62%) and Canada (18%) provided the majority of wood pellet imports to the UK. Table 3.8 Country of origin of wood imports to the UK, 2019 per cent of total UK imports (volume) in each category
| Source | Sawn soft wood | Sawn hard wood | Plywood | Particle-board | Fibre-board | Pellets | Wood pulp | Paper and paper-board | |--------------|----------------|----------------|---------|----------------|-------------|---------|-----------|-----------------------| | Sweden | 42 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 18 | | Germany | 7 | 3 | 1 | 26 | 20 | 0 | 3 | 16 | | Finland | 14 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 15 | | Latvia | 18 | 11 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | | France | 0 | 10 | 8 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | | Ireland | 6 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | Netherlands | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 4 | | Italy | 0 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | | Austria | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | | Belgium | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | | Portugal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | | Spain | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 2 | | Poland | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | | Estonia | 2 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | | Other EU | 3 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | **Total EU** | **94** | **67** | **20** | **98** | **92** | **17** | **59** | **77** | | USA | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 62 | 1 | 4 | | Canada | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 3 | | Brazil | 0 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 1 | | China | 0 | 0 | 37 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | Russia | 5 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | Norway | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | | Indonesia | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | Chile | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | | Malaysia | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | Cameroon | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Other non-EU | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 5 | | **Total non-EU** | **6** | **33** | **80** | **2** | **8** | **83** | **41** | **23** | Figure 3.2 shows the main sources of imports of sawn softwood to the UK since 1962. The total level of sawn softwood imports has fluctuated between around 5 million m$^3$ and 10 million m$^3$ from 1962 to present. Imports to the UK from Canada have reduced substantially since the early 1990s. In contrast imports from the Baltic States increased between 1992 and 2003 and, although there was some decline between 2003 to 2012, imports from the Baltic States to the UK have started to increase again in recent years. Since 1993 Sweden has consistently been the principal country of origin for UK sawn softwood imports.
Figure 3.2 Country of origin of sawn softwood$^1$ imports to the UK, 1962-2019
Source: FAO, UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations. Notes:
1. Sawn softwood imports in this chart exclude sleepers. Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 4: Carbon
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: Country Introduction
This chapter contains information on:
- carbon in forests;
- the Woodland Carbon Code; and
- public attitudes to forestry and climate change.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included, where possible, in addition to UK totals. International comparisons of carbon stocks are provided in the International Forestry chapter. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
All of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released.
A copy of all carbon tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/.
In addition to the statistics presented here, information on UK forests and climate change is available from "Combating Climate Change - a role for UK forests" (The Read Report), an independent assessment of the science published in November 2009 and available at www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/documents/2062/SynthesisUKAssessmentfinal.pdf.
This chapter had previously included statistics on net annual changes in carbon in UK woodlands. No update is currently available. Historical data have been released by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics. Key findings
The main findings are:
- The total carbon stock in UK forests is estimated to have increased, from around 3.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 1990 to 4.0 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020.
- Around one half (51%) of the total UK forest carbon stock in 2020 is in Scotland (2.0 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent), 36% in England (1.5 billion tonnes), 8% in Wales (0.3 billion tonnes) and 4% in Northern Ireland (0.2 billion tonnes).
- A total of 239 projects had been validated to the Woodland Carbon Code at 31 March 2020, covering over 12,000 hectares and projected to sequester 4.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime. 4.1 Forest carbon stock
Forest carbon stock is the amount of carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere and is now stored within the forest ecosystem, mainly within living biomass and soil, and to a lesser extent also in dead wood and litter.
Table 4.1a presents estimates of UK forest carbon stock that were compiled in 2018 for submission to international organisations. The total carbon stock stored within UK forests is estimated to have increased, around 3.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 1990 to 4.0 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020 (Table 4.1a). The carbon stored in forest soils accounts for around 70% of total forest carbon stock.
Table 4.1a UK forest carbon stock
| | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Carbon in above-ground biomass | 376 | 482 | 586 | 630 | 674 | | Carbon in below-ground biomass | 135 | 174 | 211 | 227 | 242 | | Carbon in dead wood | 130 | 138 | 143 | 147 | 149 | | Carbon in litter | 165 | 175 | 182 | 188 | 190 | | Soil carbon 1, 3 | 2,366| 2,533| 2,629| 2,726| 2,761| | **Total forest carbon** | **3,172** | **3,502** | **3,750** | **3,918** | **4,016** |
Source: Forest Research
Notes
1. Carbon in soil depth 0 to 100 cm.
2. To convert tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) to tonnes carbon (C), multiply by 12/44.
3. Changes in soil carbon stocks over the period can be attributed to changes in UK forest area.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Around one half (51%) of the estimated total UK forest carbon stock in 2020 is in Scotland (2.0 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent), 36% in England (1.5 billion tonnes), 8% in Wales (0.3 billion tonnes) and 4% in Northern Ireland (0.2 billion tonnes).
Table 4.1b Forest carbon stock by country, 2020
| | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-------| | Carbon in above-ground biomass | 338 | 64 | 259 | 13 | 674 | | Carbon in below-ground biomass | 122 | 23 | 93 | 5 | 242 | | Carbon in dead wood | 61 | 14 | 68 | 5 | 149 | | Carbon in litter | 80 | 18 | 85 | 7 | 190 | | Soil carbon¹ | 864 | 217 | 1,545 | 134 | 2,761 | | **Total forest carbon** | **1,465** | **337** | **2,050** | **165** | **4,016** |
Source: Forest Research
Notes
1. Carbon in soil depth 0 to 100 cm.
2. To convert tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) to tonnes carbon (C), multiply by 12/44.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 4.2 Woodland Carbon Code
The Woodland Carbon Code is a voluntary standard, initiated in July 2011, for woodland creation projects that make claims about the carbon they sequester (take out of the atmosphere).
All projects must be placed on the UK Woodland Carbon Registry. Their claims about potential carbon sequestration are validated by an independent certification body. Validated projects are then verified on a regular basis to confirm the progress of carbon sequestration.
Further information on Woodland Carbon Code projects is provided in the Sources chapter and at www.woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/.
Table 4.2a provides annual data on projects registered under the Woodland Carbon Code. The table provides information on the number of projects, area of woodland covered by the projects and the total projected carbon sequestration over the lifetime (up to 100 years) of the projects.
A total of 239 projects had been validated (including those that had also been verified) to the Woodland Carbon Code at 31 March 2020, covering around 12 thousand hectares and projected to sequester 4.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime.
Of the validated projects, 88 were also verified by the end of March 2020. These projects cover around 2.6 thousand hectares and are projected to sequester 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime.
A total of 363 projects were registered under the Woodland Carbon Code at 31 March 2020, covering around 15 thousand hectares of woodland and projected to sequester 5.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
### Table 4.2a Woodland Carbon Code projects(^1) in the UK
| | Verified | Validated only | Awaiting validation | Total | |----------------------|----------|----------------|---------------------|-------| | **Number of projects** | | | | | | March 2013 | 0 | 36 | 69 | 105 | | March 2014 | 0 | 67 | 135 | 202 | | March 2015 | 0 | 100 | 99 | 199 | | March 2016 | 1 | 121 | 108 | 230 | | March 2017 | 3 | 140 | 107 | 250 | | March 2018 | 37 | 119 | 83 | 239 | | March 2019 | 70 | 117 | 79 | 266 | | March 2020 | 88 | 151 | 124 | 363 | | **Area of woodland (hectares)** | | | | | | March 2013 | 0 | 1,488 | 2,073 | 3,561 | | March 2014 | 0 | 2,824 | 12,576 | 15,401| | March 2015 | 0 | 3,322 | 12,063 | 15,385| | March 2016 | 5 | 4,749 | 11,087 | 15,841| | March 2017 | 148 | 4,993 | 11,028 | 16,170| | March 2018 | 1,578 | 3,680 | 10,868 | 16,125| | March 2019 | 2,404 | 5,856 | 9,134 | 17,394| | March 2020 | 2,633 | 9,372 | 2,962 | 14,967| | **Projected carbon sequestration(^2)** (thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) | | | | | | March 2013 | 0 | 655 | 1,137 | 1,792 | | March 2014 | 0 | 1,323 | 4,364 | 5,687 | | March 2015 | 0 | 1,588 | 4,091 | 5,679 | | March 2016 | 2 | 2,278 | 3,519 | 5,799 | | March 2017 | 79 | 2,385 | 3,476 | 5,940 | | March 2018 | 713 | 1,790 | 3,285 | 5,788 | | March 2019 | 1,093 | 2,331 | 2,760 | 6,184 | | March 2020 | 1,207 | 3,480 | 1,121 | 5,809 |
Source: Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2020 Edition
Notes:
1. Projects can be validated/verified individually or come together as part of a group. The statistics presented here show the number of projects validated or verified whether they were put through the process individually or as part of a group.
2. Figures for carbon sequestration indicate the total projected sequestration of the projects over their lifetime of up to 100 years, and include the amount claimable by a project plus the amount allocated to a shared "buffer" in case of unanticipated losses.
Awaiting validation: is when a project or group is undergoing assessment by a certification body.
Validated: is the initial evaluation of a project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a 'Validation Opinion Statement'. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to 5 years.
Verified: Verification is the evaluation of a project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO2 sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Code.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Together, all validated (including verified) projects were predicted to sequester 3,791 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide in Scotland, 711 thousand tonnes in England, 175 thousand tonnes in Wales and 11 thousand tonnes in Northern Ireland over their lifetime (Table 4.2b).
Table 4.2b Woodland Carbon Code projects(^1) at 31 March 2020
| Number of projects | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |--------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Awaiting validation| 47 | 50 | 27 | 0 | 124| | Validated only | 51 | 17 | 82 | 1 | 151| | Verified | 36 | 3 | 48 | 1 | 88 | | Total validated | 87 | 20 | 130 | 2 | 239| | **Total** | **134** | **70**| **157** | **2** | **363**|
| Area of woodland (hectares) | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-----------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Awaiting validation | 748 | 464 | 1,750 | 0 | 2,962| | Validated only | 884 | 250 | 8,224 | 14 | 9,372| | Verified | 376 | 52 | 2,196 | 9 | 2,633| | Total validated | 1,260 | 302 | 10,420 | 23 | 12,005| | **Total** | **2,008**| **766**| **12,170**| **23** | **14,967**|
| Projected carbon sequestration(^2) (thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Awaiting validation | 460 | 144 | 517 | 0 | 1,121| | Validated only | 503 | 143 | 2,827 | 8 | 3,480| | Verified | 208 | 33 | 963 | 3 | 1,207| | Total validated | 711 | 175 | 3,791 | 11 | 4,687| | **Total** | **1,171**| **319**| **4,308**| **11** | **5,809**|
Source: Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2020 Edition
Notes:
1. Projects can be validated/ verified individually or come together as part of a group. The statistics presented here show the number of projects validated or verified whether they were put through the process individually or as part of a group.
2. Figures for carbon sequestration indicate the total projected sequestration of the projects over their lifetime of up to 100 years, and include the amount claimable by a project plus the amount allocated to a shared "buffer" in case of unanticipated losses.
Awaiting validation: is when a project or group is undergoing assessment by a certification body.
Validated: is the initial evaluation of a project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a 'Validation Opinion Statement'. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to 5 years.
Verified: Verification is the evaluation of a project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO₂ sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Code.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 4.3 Public Opinion of Forestry - climate change
Forest Research has conducted similar surveys of public attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues every two years since 1995. The most recent set of separate surveys was conducted in 2019 (in Northern Ireland, Wales, and across the UK as a whole) and 2017 (in Scotland). The full results are available on our website at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/public-opinion-of-forestry/.
In the UK survey in 2019, questions were asked to gauge the public's agreement on climate change issues, including on the management of UK forests in response to the threat of climate change (Table 4.3). Some of the public views presented below do not reflect expert opinion.
There were high levels of agreement (respondents stating that they agreed or strongly agreed) with the statements:
- "A lot more trees should be planted", supported by 88% of the UK public in 2019; and
- "Different types of trees should be planted that will be more suited to future climates", supported by 78% in 2019.
Conversely, there were much lower levels of agreement with the statements:
- "No action is needed, let nature take its course", supported by 26% in 2019; and
- "Trees should not be felled under any circumstances, even if they are replaced", supported by 29%. Table 4.3 Management of UK forests in response to the threat of climate change
| | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | 2017 | 2019 | |-----------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | A lot more trees should be planted | 90 | 86 | 80 | 84 | 88 | | Different types of trees should be planted that will be more suited to future climates | 74 | 71 | 67 | 76 | 78 | | Trees should not be felled in any circumstances, even if they are replaced | 21 | 22 | 25 | 26 | 29 | | No action is needed, let nature take its course | 21 | 18 | 22 | 24 | 26 |
Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.
Notes:
1. Figures are based on all respondents: weighted totals = 2011 (2,068), 2013 (1,927), 2015 (1,804), 2017 (2,113), 2019 (2,174).
2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% in any of the years shown. To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points is required to indicate that there is a significant difference.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 5: Environment
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: Country Introduction
This chapter presents a range of information about the woodland environment, mostly using sources that are outside the scope of National Statistics. They are included to provide additional context to the topic.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included, where possible, in addition to UK or GB totals. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
All of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released.
The statistics on the populations of wild birds (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1) have been revised since "Forestry Statistics 2019". For further details on revisions, see the Environment section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all environment tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/.
Key findings
The main findings are:
- The UK woodland bird index has remained relatively stable since the early 1990s, following a period of long-term decline. In recent years the index has decreased, most of this decline has occurred in woodland specialist species.
- The total area of native woodland in Great Britain is estimated to be around 1.51 million hectares.
- Non-native coniferous woodland is the single largest habitat type in Great Britain, accounting for 1.29 million hectares (42%). 5.1 Populations of wild birds
Bird populations provide a good indication of the broad state of wildlife in the UK. This is because they are a well-studied taxonomic group, enabling a more informed interpretation of observed changes, who occupy a range of habitats while still responding to the same environmental pressures that also operate on other groups of wildlife.
Indices of wild bird populations in the UK are produced annually by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in conjunction with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), and cover a range of species that are native to the UK. This data has been produced since the early 1970s for the majority of habitat groups, meaning there is considerable long-term data available on the changes in bird populations, which aids in the interpretation of more short-term variation. The latest statistical release on Wild Bird Populations was published in November 2019 and includes data to 2018.
The index for woodland birds was expanded in 2007 to cover 38 species. A further change in 2015 resulted in a reduction to 37 species, of which 12 are generalists and 25 are woodland specialists (those that breed or feed mainly or solely in woodland).
Since the early 1990s, when the majority of species group indices stabilised, the UK woodland bird index has generally been about 20 per cent below the level of the early 1970s, with the decline predominantly in woodland specialist species (Figure 5.1).
Causes for the long-term decline in the woodland bird index may include a lack of diversity in habitats and food sources, loss of habitats and food sources through damage caused by increasing deer populations, and a reduction in some migratory species following pressures in other parts of the world.
In recent years, woodland bird indices have largely decreased. Since 2015 woodland specialist species have fallen by 14% and woodland generalist species have fallen by 10%. Table 5.1 UK populations of wild birds
| Year | Total breeding birds | Farmland birds | Seabirds | Woodland birds | Woodland generalists | Woodland specialists | |------|----------------------|----------------|----------|----------------|----------------------|----------------------| | 2009 | 95.9 | 89.4 | 87.6 | 90.1 | 98.0 | 84.2 | | 2010 | 97.4 | 86.9 | 84.7 | 100.8 | 101.8 | 97.9 | | 2011 | 96.1 | 86.4 | 81.4 | 103.3 | 98.7 | 103.4 | | 2012 | 96.8 | 87.1 | 76.7 | 104.5 | 102.0 | 103.7 | | 2013 | 89.3 | 78.9 | 74.6 | 90.5 | 89.5 | 88.7 | | 2014 | 96.0 | 80.2 | 81.0 | 100.3 | 103.1 | 96.8 | | 2015 | 99.3 | 85.1 | 77.9 | 100.9 | 105.2 | 96.7 | | 2016 | 96.3 | 77.6 | 81.0 | 95.7 | 102.7 | 90.5 | | 2017 | 97.3 | 80.8 | 82.3 | 92.8 | 103.7 | 85.7 | | 2018 | 92.0 | 77.6 | 75.6 | 88.3 | 94.4 | 83.0 |
Source: British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).
Notes:
1. Based on data in Wild Bird Populations in the UK, 1970-2018 statistical release (Defra, November 2019). Figure 5.1 UK populations of woodland birds
Index (year 2000 = 100)
Source: British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).
Notes:
1. Based on data in Wild Bird Populations in the UK, 1970-2018 statistical release (Defra, November 2019). 5.2 Public Opinion of Forestry - tree health
Forest Research has conducted similar surveys of public attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues every two years since 1995. The most recent surveys were conducted in 2019 (with separate surveys in Wales, Northern Ireland and across the UK as a whole) and in 2017 (in Scotland). Full results are available within the Public Opinion of Forestry reports available on our website at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/public-opinion-of-forestry/.
Respondents to the UK survey in 2019 were asked their views on a range of statements relating to tree health. The highest level of agreement was seen with the statement "action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and disease", with 85% of UK respondents agreeing (agree or strongly agree) (Figure 5.2 and Table 5.2). This compares with only 23% agreeing with the statements "there is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases". Figure 5.2 Public opinion on tree health
Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2019. Base: 2,000 UK respondents.
Notes:
1. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.2%.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
### Table 5.2 Public opinion on tree health 2015-2019
| Statement | 2015 | 2017 | 2019 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------| | Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases | 75 | 85 | 85 | | Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases | 57 | 74 | 74 | | I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me | 55 | 65 | 65 | | If I buy an imported tree, it is more likely to carry tree pests and diseases than a tree grown in the UK | 42 | 48 | 46 | | I am aware that possible tree pests and diseases can be reported using the Tree Alert app or website | 22 | 23 | 25 | | There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases | 21 | 23 | 23 |
Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.
Note:
1. Figures are based on all respondents: weighted totals = 2015 (1,804), 2017 (2,113), 2019 (2,174).
2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% in any of the years shown. To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points is required to indicate that there is a significant difference.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 5.3 Woodland types and habitats
National Forest Inventory (NFI) reports on woodland ecological condition, released in February 2020, provide estimates of the areas of woodland types and of woodland habitats in Great Britain.
Table 5.3a presents estimates of the extent of each type of woodland. The total area of native woodland in Great Britain is estimated to be around 1.51 million hectares. This equates to around one half (49%) of the woodland area in Great Britain. The proportion of native woodland is highest in England (62%), followed by Wales (48%) and Scotland (32%).
Table 5.3a Type of woodland, Great Britain
| Type of woodland | England | Wales | Scotland | Great Britain | |---------------------------|---------|-------|----------|---------------| | Native | 914 | 150 | 443 | 1,507 | | Near native & fragments | 29 | 7 | 20 | 57 | | Non-native | 398 | 155 | 908 | 1,461 | | Not determinable | 2 | 1 | 17 | 20 | | **Total** | **1,343** | **313** | **1,388** | **3,045** |
Source: NFI Woodland Ecological Condition Statistics (February 2020)
Notes:
1. The report “NFI Woodland Ecological Condition Scoring Methodology” provides further details on woodland types.
2. Comparisons with woodland area should not be made as woodland area is defined differently to woodland habitat (with woodland area being greater than habitat area due to the treatment of land uses like open space and clear-fell).
3. Clear-fell and transition land are included in the estimates. Woodland type for some clear-fell and transition land cannot be determined and are assigned as not determinable.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Non-native coniferous woodland is the single largest habitat type in Great Britain, accounting for 1.29 million hectares (42%). This is the most common habitat type for Scotland (59%) and Wales (46%). For England, lowland mixed deciduous woodland accounts for over one half (56%) of woodlands.
Table 5.3b Woodland habitats, Great Britain
| Habitat type | England | Wales | Scotland | Great Britain | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|---------------| | Lowland beech/yew woodland | 54 | 6 | 1 | 62 | | Lowland mixed deciduous woodland | 748 | 79 | 82 | 909 | | Native pine woodlands | 0 | 0 | 124 | 124 | | Non-HAP native pinewood | 0 | 0 | 38 | 38 | | Upland birchwoods (Scotland), birch dominated upland oakwoods (England, Wales) | 11 | 2 | 120 | 134 | | Upland mixed ashwoods | 32 | 7 | 15 | 54 | | Upland oakwoods | 44 | 26 | 33 | 103 | | Wet woodland | 78 | 28 | 63 | 169 | | Wood pasture & parkland | 8 | 0 | 3 | 11 | | Broadleaf habitat NOT classified as priority | 19 | 12 | 21 | 53 | | Non-native coniferous woodland | 328 | 145 | 819 | 1,292 | | Clearfelled and transition | 22 | 6 | 70 | 97 | | **Total** | **1,344** | **313** | **1,389** | **3,045** |
Source: NFI Woodland Ecological Condition Statistics (February 2020)
Notes:
1. The report “NFI Woodland Ecological Condition Scoring Methodology” provides further details on habitat types.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 6: Social
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: Country Introduction
This chapter contains statistics on:
- the number and profile of visits to all woodlands from household surveys; and
- the number and profile of visits to Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service woodlands from on-site surveys and administrative sources.
The statistics in this chapter need to be viewed in the context of broader changes in the UK population, with an increasing and ageing population.
More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to an increase in visits to the outdoors. Initial studies are providing some information on these changes, but these have not been incorporated into this release yet. For further information, see:
- [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/people-and-nature-survey-for-england](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/people-and-nature-survey-for-england) (see monthly interim indicators);
- [https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales-monthly-survey-july-2020](https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales-monthly-survey-july-2020)
- [https://www.nature.scot/outdoor-visits-and-engagement-nature-during-coronavirus-lockdown](https://www.nature.scot/outdoor-visits-and-engagement-nature-during-coronavirus-lockdown) and
- [http://www.outdoorrecreationni.com/news/new-survey-highlights-importance-of-accessing-outdoors-safely-during-covid-19/](http://www.outdoorrecreationni.com/news/new-survey-highlights-importance-of-accessing-outdoors-safely-during-covid-19/).
Geographical coverage for social statistics varies. Estimates are presented at country level and, where possible, UK or GB totals are included. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released by other organisations. The latest year figures for day visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland are published for the first time in this release. Figures for earlier years have not been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Social section of the Sources chapter.
The frequency with which the estimates in this chapter are updated varies depending on the data sources used. Whilst some of the information presented is now several years old, it represents the latest available data and has been included to provide a more rounded picture of the social use of forests in the UK. Further information on the advantages and disadvantages of household surveys and of on-site surveys is provided in the Social section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all social tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/.
Key findings
The main findings are:
- There were an estimated 368 million visits to woodlands in England in 2018-19.
- Around one half (49%) of visits to woodlands in England in 2018-19 were within 2 miles.
- “Health and exercise” and “fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather” were important reasons for visits to woodlands in England and Wales.
- Walking was the most common activity on visits to woodland in England.
- Around 465 thousand people visited Forest Service sites where a charge is made in Northern Ireland in 2019-20. 6.1 Visits to woodland - household surveys
The information shown below in Table 6.1 has been obtained from the following general population household surveys.
- Scottish Recreation Survey (2009 to 2012)
- Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (2011, 2014)
- Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (England, 2009-10 onwards)
- Scotland’s People and Nature Survey (2013, 2017/18)
It is likely that differences in survey design and methodology have contributed to a considerable proportion of the differences in results between these surveys. The figures in Table 6.1 should not be interpreted as time trends but instead as separate results from each survey. Further information on the differences between surveys is provided in the Recreation section of the Sources chapter.
In common with all sample based surveys, the results from each survey are subject to the effects of chance, depending on the particular survey method used and the sample achieved, thus confidence limits apply to all results from these surveys.
Results from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment 2018-19 estimate a total of 368 million visits to woodlands in England (Table 6.1). This is a statistically significant decrease from the 2017-18 figure of 437 million visits.
The Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey 2014 estimated a total of 68 million visits to woodlands by Welsh residents. This is a statistically significant decrease from the estimated total of 86 million in 2011, but similar to the 2008 estimate (64 million).
Scotland’s People and Nature Survey 2017/18 reports an estimated total of 117 million visits to woodlands in Scotland. This is a statistically significant increase from the 2013 estimate of 90 million visits.
### Table 6.1 Number of visits to woodland by journey starting point
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | |------|---------|-------|----------| | 2009 | 317 | .. | 57 | | 2010 | 326 | .. | 63 | | 2011 | 358 | 86 | 65 | | 2012 | 357 | .. | 62 | | 2013 | 378 | .. | 90 | | 2014 | 417 | 68 | .. | | 2015 | 446 | .. | .. | | 2016 | 439 | .. | .. | | 2017 | 437 | .. | 117 | | 2018 | 368 | .. | .. |
**Sources:**
- England 2009 on: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), carried out by TNS;
- Wales 2011, 2014: Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey carried out by TNS;
- Scotland 2009 - 2012: Scottish Recreation Survey (ScRS), carried out by TNS;
- Scotland 2013, 2017: Scotland's People and Nature Survey (SPANs), carried out by TNS.
**Notes:**
1. MENE covered trips taken in England, including those from holiday bases, by respondents living in England. Results relate to 12 month periods from March to February.
2. The Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey totals shown are for trips with woodland as the main destination.
3. The Scottish Recreation Survey ran from July 2003 until December 2012. It was replaced by Scotland’s People and Nature Survey that ran from March 2013 to February 2014 and from May 2017 to April 2018. Both surveys covered visits to the outdoors for leisure and recreation in Scotland by people living in Scotland. The total shown is for all trips that included a visit to woodland.
4. In each survey, visits to overseas destinations are excluded.
5. .. Denotes data not available.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 6.1.1 England
Household surveys in England In March 2009 fieldwork commenced on the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey, which includes collecting information on visits to the outdoors in England. Further information on the survey, including copies of annual reports and online data viewers to access more detailed results, is available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitor-of-engagement-with-the-natural-environment-survey-purpose-and-results.
Tables 6.2a to 6.2e shows the main characteristics of visits to woodlands over the most recent 5 years.
In 2018-19, walking was the main mode of transport for almost one half (47%) of visits to woodland.
Table 6.2a Mode of transport to visit woodlands - England 2014-15 to 2018-19
| Main mode of transport | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | On foot | 60 | 60 | 54 | 53 | 47 | | Car / van | 36 | 36 | 42 | 44 | 45 | | Bicycle | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Around one half (49%) of visits to woodland were within 2 miles.
Table 6.2b Distance travelled to visit woodlands - England 2014-15 to 2018-19
| Distance travelled (one way) | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |-----------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Less than 1 mile | 39 | 32 | 28 | 29 | 25 | | 1 to 2 miles | 25 | 31 | 28 | 27 | 24 | | 3 to 5 miles | 19 | 20 | 21 | 23 | 26 | | 6 to 10 miles | 9 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 10 | | Over 10 miles | 9 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 16 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England.
Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Health or exercise was the most popular reason for visiting woodlands in England in 2018-19 (70%).
Table 6.2c Motivation for visits to woodlands - England 2014-15 to 2018-19
| Motivation for visit | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |--------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | For health or exercise | 53 | 60 | 55 | 56 | 70 | | To exercise your dog | 66 | 65 | 60 | 53 | 53 | | For fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather | 39 | 41 | 39 | 41 | 46 | | To relax and unwind | 35 | 42 | 37 | 37 | 40 | | To enjoy scenery | 32 | 38 | 34 | 36 | 34 | | To be somewhere you like | 23 | 26 | 25 | 26 | 29 | | For peace and quiet | 22 | 27 | 33 | 26 | 29 | | To enjoy wildlife | 27 | 30 | 28 | 28 | 28 | | To spend time with family | 17 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 28 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England.
Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
2. Excludes other reasons for visiting, each reported by fewer than 20% of respondents in 2018-19.
3. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Walking (with or without a dog) was the most popular activity on visits to woodland in England in 2018-19.
**Table 6.2d Activities on visits to woodlands - England 2014-15 to 2018-19**
| Activities during visit | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |---------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Walking without a dog | 22 | 23 | 31 | 56 | 56 | | Walking with a dog | 68 | 66 | 59 | 36 | 36 | | Playing with children | 6 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 15 | | Eating or Drinking Out | 5 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 15 | | Cycling/ mountain biking | 4 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 6 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England.
Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
2. Excludes other activities, each reported by fewer than 5% of respondents in 2018-19.
3. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Most visits to woodlands in England (62%) lasted up to 2 hours in 2018-19.
Table 6.2e Duration of visits to woodlands - England 2014-15 to 2018-19
| Duration of visit | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |-------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Up to 1 hour | 51 | 50 | 43 | 45 | 39 | | 1+ to 2 hours | 28 | 29 | 29 | 26 | 23 | | 2+ to 3 hours | 8 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 18 | | Over 3 hours | 5 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 11 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England.
Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 6.1.2 Wales
Household surveys in Wales The National Survey for Wales began in March 2016 and replaced a number of separate surveys of households in Wales, including the Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (WORS). The survey is completed by around 12,000 people each year and covers a wide range of topics. Further information on the survey, including copies of reports and data, is available at https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales.
Table 6.3 shows the reasons provided for their visit to the outdoors by respondents who stated that the main destination of the visit was woodland. “Health and exercise” and “fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather” were the most important reasons reported for visits to woodlands in Wales.
Table 6.3 Reasons for visit to woodland or forest – Wales
| Reason for visit | 2016-17 | 2018-19 | |----------------------------------------|---------|---------| | For health or exercise | 47 | 55 | | For fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather | 50 | 47 | | For pleasure / enjoyment | 42 | 42 | | To spend time with family | 39 | 41 | | To relax and unwind | 34 | 41 | | To enjoy scenery and wildlife | 38 | 39 | | To exercise the dog | 38 | 30 | | For peace and quiet | 22 | 29 | | To spend time with friends | 16 | 22 |
Source: National Survey for Wales (Welsh Government). Notes:
1. Visits where the main destination was woodland.
2. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%.
3. Excludes other reasons for visiting, each reported by fewer than 20% of respondents in 2018-19. 6.1.3 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - Woodland visitors
The Public Opinion of Forestry Survey is carried out every two years and obtains people's attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues, including visits to woodland. Copies of reports and detailed data tables are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/public-opinion-of-forestry/.
The results shown in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 and Figure 6.1 have been taken from the UK and country reports on the latest surveys in 2019 and from surveys in earlier years. The reports also include other recreation-related results, such as whether the woodlands visited were in towns or the countryside and any reasons given by survey respondents for not visiting woodlands.
In the UK 2019 survey, over three fifths (63%) of respondents said that they had visited woodland in the last few years for walks, picnics or other recreation (Table 6.4). Table 6.4 Woodland visitors(^1) per cent of respondents
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2003 | 66 | 62 | 64 | 77 | 67 | | 2005 | 65 | 69 | 50 | 67 | 65 | | 2007 | 76 | 79 | 75 | 62 | 77 | | 2009 | 77 | .. | 57 | .. | 77 | | 2010 | .. | .. | .. | 72 | .. | | 2011 | 68 | 68 | 75 | .. | 67 | | 2013 | 65 | 64 | 76 | .. | 66 | | 2014 | .. | .. | .. | 75 | .. | | 2015 | 55 | 64 | 78 | .. | 56 | | 2017 | 62 | 72 | 84 | .. | 61 | | 2019 | 63 | 77 | .. | 78 | 63 |
Source: UK/GB, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys Base: UK/GB = 4,000 respondents (2003 to 2007), 2,000 respondents (2009 to 2019); Scotland and Wales = 1,000 respondents each; Northern Ireland = 120 respondents (2003), 1,000 respondents (all other years).
Notes:
1. Those stating that they had visited woodland in the last few years.
2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% (for surveys with around 2,000 respondents) and ±4.7% (for surveys with around 1,000 respondents). To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points (for surveys each with around 2,000 respondents) and at least 7 percentage points (for surveys each with around 1,000 respondents) is required to indicate that there is a significant difference.
3. .. Denotes data not available (survey not run that year or question not asked).
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Survey respondents were asked how frequently they had visited during the previous summer and winter. Figure 6.1, which presents aggregated UK results for the 2015 to 2019 surveys, shows that respondents visited much more often during the summer, with 44% of respondents visiting at least once a month in the summer compared to around one quarter (27%) in the winter.
**Figure 6.1 Frequency of visits to woodlands**
| Frequency | Summer | Winter | |--------------------|--------|--------| | Several times per week | 10 | 6 | | Several times per month | 18 | 9 | | About once a month | 17 | 12 | | Less often | 14 | 20 | | Never | 42 | 54 |
Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys, 2015 to 2019. Base: Average visit frequencies from last three UK surveys: 2,000 respondents per survey. Notes:
1. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% in any individual year and no more than ±1.1% for the 3 surveys combined.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 6.1.4 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - woodland visitors by age group
In the UK 2019 Public Opinion of Forestry survey, 71% of respondents aged 35 to 54 said that they had visited woodland in the last few years for walks, picnics or other recreation (Table 6.5). This compares with around three fifths (61%) of respondents aged 16 to 34 and 56% of those aged 55 or over.
Table 6.5 Woodland visitors(^1) by age group
| Year | Aged 16 to 34 | Aged 35 to 54 | Aged 55 and over | Total | |------|---------------|---------------|------------------|-------| | 1999 | 73 | 74 | 55 | 67 | | 2001 | 75 | 77 | 63 | 72 | | 2003 | 71 | 72 | 60 | 67 | | 2005 | 66 | 74 | 56 | 65 | | 2007 | 79 | 82 | 69 | 77 | | 2009 | 78 | 84 | 69 | 77 | | 2011 | 65 | 74 | 63 | 67 | | 2013 | 62 | 75 | 60 | 66 | | 2015 | 54 | 62 | 53 | 56 | | 2017 | 60 | 68 | 55 | 61 | | 2019 | 61 | 71 | 56 | 63 |
Source: UK and GB Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys, 1999 to 2019. Base: 2,000 respondents (1999, 2001, 2009 to 2019); 4,000 respondents (2003 to 2007). Notes:
1. Those stating they had visited woodland in the last few years.
2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% (for surveys with around 2,000 respondents) and ±2.3% (for surveys with around 4,000 respondents). To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points (for surveys each with around 2,000 respondents) is required to indicate that there is a significant difference.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 6.2 Visits to woodland - on-site surveys
The previous section provided information on visits to all woodlands (regardless of ownership), based on data from household surveys. This section provides information on visits to Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales/Forest Service woodland only, based on data from on-site surveys and administrative sources.
The information provided in this section covers:
- Visits to the National Forest Estate in Scotland (Forestry and Land Scotland woodlands) from the All Forests Scotland surveys run from 2004 to 2007 and in 2012-13. An updated estimate of total visits in 2016 is also provided.
- Day visitors to Northern Ireland Forest Service sites where an admission charge was made. 6.2.1 Scotland All Forests Survey
All Forests surveying in Scotland has been undertaken on two occasions. The first All Forests Survey in Scotland was carried out across a three-year period from June 2004 to June 2007, and estimated that around 8.2 million visits are made annually to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland. An estimated 150-200 thousand visits to events in forests and around 300 thousand visits during the hours of darkness (when fieldwork was not undertaken) were also made, giving an overall total of around 8.7 million visits per year.
The second All Forests Survey was carried out from November 2012 to October 2013, and estimated an annual total of 9.1 million visits (including visits to events and in the hours of darkness) to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland. This represents a 5% increase on the estimated overall total of 8.7 million visits from the 2004-2007 survey.
The estimated number of visits has been updated using data from 224 automatic counters at 165 sites. For sites without counters, estimates have been produced using the results from the 2012-13 All Forests Survey and advice from local managers. This gives an overall estimate of 10.2 million visits to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland in 2016, a 12% increase from 2012-13.
Further information is available on the Forestry and Land Scotland website at https://forestryandland.gov.scot/what-we-do/tourism-and-recreation/research-resources-guidance. 6.2.2 Northern Ireland Forest Service day visitors
Information on visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland is provided by the Forest Service and relates only to sites where an admission charge is made.
In Northern Ireland in 2019-20, 465 thousand people visited those Forest Service sites where an admission charge was made (Table 6.6). This represented a 13% decrease from the previous year, and is reflective of new partnership agreements with local councils for the management of recreation facilities in Forest Service forests coming into effect.
Table 6.6 Day visitors to Northern Ireland Forest Service sites
| Year | Visitors to Forest Service sites | |----------|----------------------------------| | 2010-11 | 468 | | 2011-12 | 430 | | 2012-13 | 340 | | 2013-14 | 364 | | 2014-15 | 397 | | 2015-16 | 432 | | 2016-17 | 584 | | 2017-18 | 509 | | 2018-19 | 532 | | 2019-20 | 465 |
Source: Forest Service Notes:
1. Number of people visiting sites where an admission charge was made, excluding campers.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 7: Employment & Businesses
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: None Introduction
This chapter contains information on:
- employment in forestry and wood processing;
- health & safety; and
- numbers of businesses.
All of the statistics presented in this chapter relate to UK totals. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released. Some of the figures in this chapter have been revised since Forestry Statistics 2019. For further details on revisions, see the Employment section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all Employment & Businesses tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- The Annual Business Survey (May 2020) reported average employment(^1) in 2018 of 16 thousand in forestry, 10 thousand in sawmilling and 6 thousand in panel mills.
- There was estimated to be a total of 7.3 thousand full time equivalent staff employed(^2) by primary wood processors in the UK in 2019, a 4% decrease from the total for 2018.
- Accident rates in forestry and wood products have tended to decline in recent years but are still higher than the averages in agriculture and manufacturing respectively.
- There were 204 establishments in the primary wood processing industries in the UK using UK-grown roundwood in 2019.
(^2) There are a number of differences in the scope of the employment figures reported from the Annual Business Survey (ABS) and the full time equivalent figures obtained from the annual surveys of the UK timber industry run by Forest Research (FR). In particular, the ABS figures cover employment by all businesses in the relevant sectors that pay VAT and/ or PAYE. This will include businesses that do not use UK grown timber. The FR surveys include businesses below the VAT and PAYE thresholds, but exclude businesses that do not use UK grown timber. 7.1 Employment: Annual Business Survey (ABS)
The Annual Business Survey (ABS), carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), includes statistics on employment broken down by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007). In wood processing, SIC 16 (wood products) and SIC 17 (pulp, paper and paper products) have a much wider scope than the data on employment in primary wood processing (Table 7.2a), as they include primary processing of imported material and also some secondary processing.
The latest ABS survey was published in May 2020 and includes data to 2018. It recorded average employment in 2018 of 16 thousand in forestry, 10 thousand in sawmilling and 6 thousand in panel mills (Table 7.1).
Table 7.1 Employment in forestry and wood processing(^2), 2014-2018
| Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^1) | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | |---------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Forestry | 16 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | | Wood products | | | | | | | Sawmilling | 9 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | | Panels | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | | Secondary products | 65 | 56 | 67 | 60 | 73 | | Total | 79 | 69 | 81 | 74 | 89 | | Pulp, paper & paper products | 57 | 56 | 56 | 55 | 62 |
Source: Annual Business Survey - average employment in year (Office for National Statistics, May 2020)
Notes:
1. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
2. Excludes other wood-using industries.
3. Pulp, paper & paper products breakdowns for all years have been suppressed in the figures released by ONS. Data produced by the Confederation of Paper Industries, presenting estimates on a different basis are provided in table 7.2b. 7.2 Employment in primary wood processing
Information on employment in primary wood processing is obtained annually via the sources used to collect data on UK-grown timber (presented in Chapter 2).
There was estimated to be a total of 7.3 thousand full time equivalent staff employed by primary wood processors in the UK in 2019 (Table 7.2a), a 4% decrease from the total for 2018.
Over one half (57%) of the total employment in 2019 worked in sawmills and over one quarter (29%) worked in wood-based panel mills.
Table 7.2a Employment in primary wood processing, 2015-2019
| Year | Sawmills | Pulp & paper | Wood-based panels | Fencing | Total | |------|----------|--------------|-------------------|---------|-------| | 2015 | 4,310 | 702 | 2,100 | 361 | 7,474 | | 2016 | 4,434 | 697 | 2,250 | 388 | 7,769 | | 2017 | 4,577 | 700 | 2,110 | 405 | 7,792 | | 2018 | 4,310 | 693 | 2,175 | 399 | 7,577 | | 2019 | 4,118 | 663 | 2,075 | 397 | 7,253 |
Source: industry surveys, industry associations. Notes:
1. Some businesses operate sawmills and round fencing mills. Employment for such businesses may be recorded under sawmills, round fencing manufacturers or shared between the two categories.
Table 7.2b presents the estimated total number of direct employees at all UK paper and board mills. Direct employment fell by 13% from 2014 to 2015, and has fluctuated between 7.8 thousand and 8.0 thousand since then.
Table 7.2b Direct employment in paper and board mills, 2014-2019
| Year | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Direct employees | 9,170 | 7,970 | 7,911 | 7,849 | 7,939 | 7,860 |
Source: Confederation of Paper Industries. Notes:
1. Figures exclude contractors, self-employed and employees at ancillary sites.
2. Covers all mills producing paper in the UK. This differs from the employment data in table 7.2a, which is restricted to mills using UK grown roundwood. 7.3 Health & safety
Accidents involving absence from work of at least seven days are required to be reported to the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). Prior to this time, reporting was required for absences of at least three days.
The latest major accident rates for Great Britain, covering 2018-19, show levels similar to 2017-18 rates for both forestry and the wood products sector. Over the longer term, the rates for both sectors have generally declined, but they continue to remain higher than the averages in agriculture and manufacturing respectively (Table 7.3 and Figure 7.1). Table 7.3 Accidents to employees(^1) in forestry and wood processing(^3), 2014-15 - 2018-19
| Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^2) | Number of major accidents(^4) | Major accident rate rate/1000 employees | Total number of reported accidents | Total reported accident rate/1000 employees | |---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | Forestry | | | | | | 2014-15 | 26 | 1.7 | 101 | 6.5 | | 2015-16 | 34 | 2.0 | 111 | 6.5 | | 2016-17 | 31 | 1.9 | 120 | 7.3 | | 2017-18 | 37 | 2.2 | 94 | 5.7 | | 2018-19 provisional | 33 | 2.2 | 88 | 5.8 | | Wood products | | | | | | 2014-15 | 136 | 2.4 | 510 | 8.9 | | 2015-16 | 129 | 2.5 | 561 | 10.9 | | 2016-17 | 149 | 3.0 | 557 | 11.1 | | 2017-18 | 124 | 2.3 | 515 | 9.7 | | 2018-19 provisional | 135 | 2.3 | 560 | 9.4 | | Pulp, paper & paper products | | | | | | 2014-15 | 75 | 1.3 | 303 | 5.4 | | 2015-16 | 67 | 1.4 | 284 | 6.1 | | 2016-17 | 71 | 1.5 | 257 | 5.5 | | 2017-18 | 60 | 1.1 | 245 | 4.3 | | 2018-19 provisional | 72 | 1.4 | 275 | 5.4 |
Source: Health & Safety Executive.
Notes:
1. Employees only; excludes self-employed.
2. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
3. Excludes other wood-using industries.
4. Major accidents include fatal accidents, which averaged below 1 per year for forestry and 1 per year for wood processing. There were no fatal accidents in the period shown for pulp, paper and paper products. Figure 7.1 Accidents to employees: Total reported accidents per 1000 employees, 2004-05 to 2018-19
Rate per 1000 employees
Source: Health & Safety Executive. Notes:
1. Employees only; excludes self-employed.
2. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
3. As a result of a change in reporting requirements, data from 2012-13 is not directly comparable with previous years. 7.4 Establishments in the primary wood processing industries
Table 7.4 shows the number of primary wood processors, according to the sampling frames used for Forest Research surveys of establishments using UK timber.
The figures in Table 7.4 do not correspond with the VAT and PAYE registration information given in Table 7.5. The figures here count establishments (sites) rather than businesses and include those that do not need to register for VAT or PAYE. They also have a different basis for classification, so some businesses that are excluded from Table 7.5 because of their VAT/PAYE classification are included in this table (typically businesses where primary wood processing is a small part of their total activity), and some businesses included in Table 7.5 are excluded here (usually because they do not use UK-grown timber).
The number of establishments in the primary wood processing industries using UK-grown roundwood has reduced from 261 in 2010 to 204 in 2019, a 22% decrease.
Table 7.4 Number of establishments in the primary wood processing industries using UK-grown roundwood
| Year | Sawmills | Pulp & paper mills | Wood-based panel mills | Round fencing manufacturers | Total¹ | |------|----------|--------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------|--------| | 2010 | 188 | 2 | 7 | 64 | 261 | | 2011 | 184 | 2 | 7 | 63 | 256 | | 2012 | 180 | 2 | 7 | 60 | 249 | | 2013 | 175 | 2 | 6 | 60 | 243 | | 2014 | 173 | 2 | 6 | 56 | 237 | | 2015 | 171 | 2 | 6 | 50 | 229 | | 2016 | 166 | 2 | 6 | 50 | 224 | | 2017 | 163 | 2 | 6 | 49 | 220 | | 2018 | 155 | 2 | 6 | 46 | 209 | | 2019 | 150 | 2 | 6 | 46 | 204 |
Source: industry surveys, industry associations Notes:
1. A single mill may be recorded twice, as a sawmill and a round fencing manufacturer. 7.5 VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses
Table 7.5 shows the number of VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses classified under forestry and primary wood processing. The headings shown potentially include businesses not traditionally regarded as forestry or primary wood processing, and some businesses traditionally included in forestry and primary wood processing are excluded as they are classified to other headings of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).
A total of 4,185 forestry businesses, 530 sawmilling businesses, 125 wood-based panel businesses and 230 pulp & paper businesses were registered for VAT and/or PAYE purposes in the UK in 2019.
There has been an overall increase in forestry businesses over the last ten years, whilst sawmilling and pulp and paper businesses have declined.
Table 7.5 Number(^1) of VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^2), 2010-2019
| Year | Forestry | Sawmilling | Panels | Pulp & paper | |------|----------|------------|--------|--------------| | 2010 | 3,095 | 640 | 135 | 255 | | 2011 | 3,170 | 605 | 135 | 250 | | 2012 | 3,375 | 585 | 135 | 255 | | 2013 | 3,505 | 560 | 130 | 240 | | 2014 | 3,685 | 555 | 130 | 230 | | 2015 | 3,925 | 555 | 125 | 230 | | 2016 | 4,050 | 550 | 125 | 225 | | 2017 | 4,060 | 540 | 120 | 240 | | 2018 | 4,150 | 540 | 130 | 240 | | 2019 | 4,185 | 530 | 125 | 230 |
Source: UK Business: Activity, Size and Location: 2019 (Office for National Statistics, October 2019).
Notes:
1. All figures are rounded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to the nearest multiple of 5.
2. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page. Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 8: Finance & Prices
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: Country Introduction
This chapter contains statistics on:
- timber prices;
- gross value added (GVA);
- Government expenditure on forestry; and
- grant schemes.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included, where possible, in addition to UK or GB totals. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released. Some of the figures for earlier years have been revised since Forestry Statistics 2019. For further details on revisions, see the Finance & Prices section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all Finance & Prices tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index for Great Britain was 14.8% lower in real terms in the year to March 2020, compared with the previous year.
- The Softwood Sawlog Price Index for Great Britain was 18.6% lower in real terms in the 6 months to March 2020, compared with the corresponding period of the previous year.
- Gross value added (GVA) in primary wood processing (sawmilling, panels and pulp & paper) was £1.88 billion in the UK in 2018. GVA in forestry was £0.67 billion.
- Net expenditure on public forests by Forestry England and by Forestry and Land Scotland totalled £26.2 million in 2019-20. A further £89.9 million was spent by the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry on other activities.
- A total of £80.6 million was paid in grants by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry and the Welsh Government in 2019-20. 8.1 Timber prices
Timber Price Indices are based on sales of softwood (conifers) by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales and are released every 6 months.
The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index monitors changes in the average price received per cubic metre for timber that Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales sold standing, where the purchaser is responsible for harvesting.
The Softwood Sawlog Price Index monitors changes in the average price received per cubic metre of sawlogs (roundwood with a top diameter of 14 cm or more, destined to be sawn into planks or boards) sold at roadside by Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales.
Standing timber and sawlogs are distinct markets and may show different price movements. The data are averages for historic periods, so may be slow to show any turning points.
These indices are used to monitor trends in timber prices and to provide information on the state of the UK timber industry. They are also used by the UK timber industry, alongside other economic indicators, in contract reviews.
There is little other information currently available on wood prices before primary processing and no price index is available for broadleaves. Prices for outputs of primary wood processing are collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the Producer Price Indices (PPIs), and these are available in the MM22 dataset which gives detailed PPIs monthly.
Table 8.1 presents the coniferous standing sales and sawlog price indices for Great Britain to March 2020.
The coniferous standing sales price index for Great Britain was 14.8% lower in real terms in the year to March 2020, compared with the previous year (Table 8.1). The softwood sawlog price index was 18.6% lower in real terms in the 6 months to March 2020, compared with the corresponding period in the previous year. These decreases follow a generally increasing trend in both indices in recent years. Table 8.1 Coniferous standing sales and sawlog price indices(^1) for Great Britain, 2012-2020
| Year | Standing sales(^2) in nominal terms(^3) | Standing sales(^2) index in real terms(^4) | Sawlog index in nominal terms(^3) | Sawlog index in real terms(^4) | |------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------| | 2012 | 83.9 | 90.2 | 88.2 | 95.0 | | 2013 | 78.6 | 82.8 | 97.9 | 103.4 | | 2014 | 90.9 | 93.9 | 109.5 | 113.4 | | 2015 | 108.8 | 110.9 | 103.2 | 106.1 | | 2016 | 98.5 | 99.5 | 97.1 | 98.7 | | 2017 | 110.0 | 108.5 | 110.8 | 109.6 | | 2018 | 143.5 | 139.2 | 133.9 | 130.1 | | 2019 | 185.5 | 176.2 | 180.6 | 172.3 | | 2020 | 161.0 | 150.1 | 149.7 | 140.2 |
Source: Timber Price Indices: data to March 2020
Notes:
1. The price indices are constructed from information on sales by Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales only.
2. The standing sales index uses the Fisher method with 5 year chain linking to take account of changes in the size mix over time.
3. Nominal prices are the actual prices at that point in time.
4. Real terms values are obtained by using the GDP deflator to convert to "constant prices" (in this case prices in 2016). This allows trends in timber prices to be tracked without the influence of inflation.
5. The standing sales index excludes sales by Natural Resources Wales from April 2017.
6. Sawlog prices in Wales in the year to March 2018 include long term contract rates for the clearance of infected larch. Figure 8.1 Coniferous standing sales and sawlog price indices\\textsuperscript{1,2} in real terms\\textsuperscript{3} for Great Britain, 2012-2020
Source: Timber Price Indices: data to March 2020
Notes:
1. The price indices are constructed from information on sales by Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales only.
2. The standing sales index uses the Fisher method with 5 year chain linking to take account of changes in the size mix over time.
3. Real terms values are obtained by using the GDP deflator to convert to "constant prices" (in this case prices in 2016). This allows trends in timber prices to be tracked without the influence of inflation.
4. The standing sales index excludes sales by Natural Resources Wales from April 2017.
5. Sawlog prices in Wales in the year to March 2018 include long term contract rates for the clearance of infected larch. 8.2 Gross value added
Gross value added (GVA) measures the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom. It is the difference between the value of outputs and the value of intermediate consumption, so mainly comprises employment costs and profits.
The Annual Business Survey (ABS) carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) includes statistics on gross value added for different industries, classified using the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007). Further information on the ABS is available from the ONS website.
Table 8.2 shows that, in 2018, GVA in primary wood processing (sawmilling, panels and pulp & paper) was reported to be £1.88 billion and GVA in forestry was £0.67 billion. Table 8.2 Gross value added in forestry and wood processing(^3), 2014-2018
| Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^1) | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | |---------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Forestry | 540 | 658 | 596 | 698 | 673 | | Wood products | | | | | | | Sawmilling | 356 | 474 | 413 | 420 | 579 | | Panels(^2) | 436 | 323 | 316 | 363 | 453 | | Secondary products | 1,955| 2,478| 2,850| 2,532| 2,666| | Total | 2,747| 3,275| 3,579| 3,315| 3,698| | Pulp, paper & paper products | | | | | | | Pulp & paper | 596 | 738 | 610 | 707 | 845 | | Articles of paper & paperboard | 3,197| 2,749| 2,786| 2,607| 2,528| | Total | 3,793| 3,487| 3,396| 3,314| 3,373| | Total wood processing | 6,540| 6,762| 6,975| 6,629| 7,071| | Total primary wood processing | 1,388| 1,535| 1,339| 1,490| 1,877|
Source: Annual Business Survey (Office for National Statistics, May 2020)
Notes:
1. Categories are based on the [UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007)](https://www.ons.gov.uk) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
2. The 2014 to 2016 and 2018 figures for panels have been suppressed in the figures released by ONS, so the figures here cover both panels and the manufacture of assembled parquet floors (SIC 16.22) for those years. Panels accounted for 99% of the total of SIC codes 16.21 (panels) and 16.22 in 2017.
3. Excludes other wood-using industries. 8.3 Government expenditure on public forests
Table 8.3 provides information on net expenditure on public forests by Forestry England and by Forestry and Land Scotland. This covers expenditure less income for land that is owned or managed by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland. Other expenditure by the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry is covered in Table 8.5.
Figures for Wales on a comparable basis are currently unavailable.
Net expenditure on public forests by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland in 2019-20 totalled £26.2 million. This comprised £22.4 million in England and £3.8 million in Scotland.
Recreation, conservation & heritage accounted for £78.7 million of the total expenditure in 2019-20, harvesting & haulage for £40.8 million and other expenditure on public forests for £107.0 million.
Timber sales generated a total income of £136.2 million in 2019-20. Recreation, conservation & heritage accounted for a further £32.0 million and other income from public forests for an additional £32.1 million. Table 8.3 Funding public forests - net expenditure(^1,2,3)
| | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | |----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | **GB** | | | | | | | Harvesting & haulage | 37.9 | 35.9 | 36.8 | 36.4 | 40.8 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | 67.8 | 70.9 | 72.7 | 70.2 | 78.7 | | Other | 89.2 | 89.0 | 96.4 | 110.4 | 107.0 | | Timber | -99.1 | -104.3 | -111.3 | -131.2 | -136.2 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | -24.8 | -29.6 | -31.4 | -31.5 | -32.0 | | Other | -26.8 | -27.7 | -24.8 | -27.5 | -32.1 | | **Net expenditure** | **44.2** | **34.2** | **38.4** | **26.8** | **26.2** | | **England** | | | | | | | Harvesting & haulage | 10.6 | 10.6 | 11.3 | 14.0 | 16.2 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | 45.0 | 49.7 | 49.4 | 49.4 | 57.8 | | Other | 29.2 | 31.3 | 32.9 | 38.3 | 36.6 | | Timber | -36.7 | -38.9 | -43.4 | -53.2 | -50.8 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | -21.1 | -26.2 | -28.3 | -27.8 | -27.9 | | Other | -9.3 | -8.6 | -5.8 | -8.8 | -9.5 | | **Net expenditure** | **17.7** | **17.9** | **16.1** | **11.9** | **22.4** | | **Scotland** | | | | | | | Harvesting & haulage | 27.3 | 25.3 | 25.5 | 22.4 | 24.6 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | 22.8 | 21.2 | 23.3 | 20.8 | 20.9 | | Other | 60.0 | 57.7 | 63.5 | 72.1 | 70.4 | | Timber | -62.4 | -65.4 | -67.9 | -78.0 | -85.4 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | -3.7 | -3.4 | -3.1 | -3.7 | -4.1 | | Other | -17.5 | -19.1 | -19.0 | -18.7 | -22.6 | | **Net expenditure** | **26.5** | **16.3** | **22.3** | **14.9** | **3.8** |
Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland
Notes:
1. Expenditure by Forestry England and by Forestry and Land Scotland only. Excludes expenditure incurred by other departments.
2. Excludes notional cost of capital and any surplus/deficit on sale of properties.
3. Excludes gain on revaluation of biological assets and value of timber felled.
4. Recreation, etc. includes conservation and heritage.
8.4 Other government expenditure on forestry
Table 8.4 provides information on other expenditure (excluding public forests) by the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry. It includes expenditure by National Offices in England and Scotland as well as expenditure on GB level functions. Figures for Wales on a comparable basis are not currently available. Expenditure on land that is owned or managed by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland is covered in Table 8.3.
In addition to expenditure on public forests, the Forestry Commission/Scottish Forestry spent a total of £89.8 million on other activities in 2019-20 (Table 8.4).
Together, the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry used £65.4 million for grants and partnership funding and £12.8 million for policy, regulation & administration in 2019-20. A further £11.6 million of funding was provided to Forest Research by Defra, the Forestry Commission and the Devolved Administrations. Table 8.4 Other government expenditure on forestry(^1,2)
| | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | **GB** | | | | | | | Grants and partnership funding(^3) | 57.2 | 61.6 | 57.6 | 62.9 | 65.4 | | Policy, regulation & administration | 13.1 | 12.2 | 11.9 | 12.1 | 12.8 | | Research - GB funded(^4) | 8.4 | 9.6 | 10.5 | 11.8 | 11.6 | | International & GB support services(^4,6) | 32.1 | 28.4 | 25.4 | 21.6 | 0.0 | | Less recovery of support service costs from countries(^6) | -20.7 | -16.1 | -13.1 | -11.3 | 0.0 | | **Total** | 90.1 | 95.7 | 92.3 | 97.1 | 89.8 | | **England** | | | | | | | Grants and partnership funding(^3) | 24.8 | 24.0 | 13.8 | 8.3 | 5.8 | | Policy, regulation & administration(^5) | 1.8 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | | **Total** | 26.6 | 26.2 | 15.7 | 9.0 | 6.5 | | **Scotland** | | | | | | | Grants and partnership funding(^3) | 32.4 | 37.6 | 43.8 | 54.6 | 59.6 | | Policy, regulation & administration(^5) | 11.3 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 11.4 | 12.1 | | **Total** | 43.7 | 47.6 | 53.8 | 66.0 | 71.7 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Forest Research
Notes:
1. Forestry Commission/Scottish Forestry expenditure only. Excludes expenditure incurred by other departments.
2. Excludes miscellaneous income.
3. EU co-financing not subtracted from grant expenditure. In England authority for the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) grant scheme rests with Defra. Grant expenditure funded by Defra that is managed by the Forestry Commission is excluded from this table.
4. The estimates for GB funded research relate to Forest Research income from Defra, the Forestry Commission and Devolved Administrations. The increase in "Research - GB funded" and corresponding decrease in "International & GB support services" from 2015-16 to 2016-17 largely reflect organisational change within the Forestry Commission, with the transfer of some functions into Forest Research in April 2016.
5. Country costs for "policy, regulation & administration" include shares of GB support service costs.
6. Central services were disbanded following reorganisation of the Forestry Commission in April 2019.
8.5 Grant schemes
Private sector woodland in Great Britain is supported by a range of grants for creating new woodland and managing existing woodland. The Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) was introduced in 1988, at the same time as tax relief was phased out. In Scotland, WGS was replaced by the Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme (SFGS) in 2003, by Rural Development Contracts in 2006 and has now been replaced by the Forestry Grant Scheme. The English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) was launched in July 2005 and has now been replaced by Countryside Stewardship and other grants (e.g. the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund). Better Woodlands for Wales (BWW) was launched in December 2005 and has now been replaced by Glastir (administered by the Welsh Government).
Because of the differences between these schemes, it is increasingly difficult to provide comparable statistics across the three countries. The following tables provide information relating to planting and grants:
- Table 1.13a and 1.13b for total areas of new planting;
- Table 1.14a and 1.14b for total areas of grant-funded restocking;
- Table 8.4 for expenditure by the Forestry Commission/Scottish Forestry on grants and partnership funding;
- Table 8.5 (below) for grant expenditure by the Forestry Commission (including grant expenditure managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of Defra), by Scottish Forestry and by the Welsh Government. Table 8.5 presents information on grant money paid in 2010-11 to 2019-20. A total of £80.6 million was paid in grants in 2019-20, a 5% increase from the total for the previous year.
At a country level, £52.2 million was paid in grants in Scotland in 2019-20 (an increase of 4% from the previous year), £22.4 million was paid in England (a 9% increase) and £6.0 million in Wales (an increase of 1%).
Table 8.5 Grant money paid, 2010-11 to 2019-20
| | England¹ | Wales² | Scotland³ | GB | |--------|----------|--------|-----------|-----| | 2010-11| 28.7 | 3.8 | 18.9 | 51.4| | 2011-12| 32.5 | 5.4 | 34.2 | 72.1| | 2012-13| 32.8 | 5.0 | 32.3 | 70.1| | 2013-14| 33.9 | 4.1 | 35.5 | 73.5| | 2014-15| 32.4 | 1.8 | 39.2 | 73.4| | 2015-16| 23.0 | 3.6 | 27.5 | 54.1| | 2016-17| 23.8 | 3.3 | 30.5 | 57.5| | 2017-18| 13.5 | 4.7 | 37.9 | 56.1| | 2018-19| 20.5 | 5.9 | 50.2 | 76.6| | 2019-20| 22.4 | 6.0 | 52.2 | 80.6|
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government
Notes:
1. England includes grant scheme expenditure managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of Defra.
2. Wales relates to grant paid by the Welsh Government.
3. Scotland includes grants paid under the Forestry Grant Scheme and legacy schemes (including Rural Development Contracts). The total grant money paid in Great Britain has fluctuated over recent years, with levels often dipping around the times that new grant schemes are introduced, followed by a sharp recovery.
**Figure 8.2 Grant money paid in Great Britain, 2003-04 to 2019-20**
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | |--------|---------|-------|----------| | 2003-04| 30 | 10 | 10 | | 2004-05| 20 | 5 | 5 | | 2005-06| 40 | 15 | 5 | | 2006-07| 50 | 20 | 10 | | 2007-08| 60 | 25 | 15 | | 2008-09| 70 | 30 | 20 | | 2009-10| 80 | 35 | 25 | | 2010-11| 90 | 40 | 30 | | 2011-12| 100 | 45 | 35 | | 2012-13| 110 | 50 | 40 | | 2013-14| 120 | 55 | 45 | | 2014-15| 130 | 60 | 50 | | 2015-16| 140 | 65 | 55 | | 2016-17| 150 | 70 | 60 | | 2017-18| 160 | 75 | 65 | | 2018-19| 170 | 80 | 70 | | 2019-20| 180 | 85 | 75 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government
Notes:
1. England includes grant scheme expenditure managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of Defra.
2. Wales relates to grant paid by the Welsh Government.
3. Scotland includes grants paid under the Forestry Grant Scheme and legacy schemes (including Rural Development Contracts). Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 9: International Forestry
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: Country Introduction
This chapter contains information about world forestry, presenting global figures by region alongside data for the UK and the EU. Topics covered include woodland area, carbon stocks, wood removals, production and apparent consumption of wood products and international trade in forest products.
The data are produced by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
All of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released by the FAO. For further details on revisions, see the International Forestry section of the Sources chapter.
Data for the European Union (EU) relate to all 27 current EU members, excluding the UK, for all of the years shown. Data for Europe cover 26 of the EU members (excluding Cyprus), the Russian Federation and a number of other European countries, including Norway, Switzerland, Serbia and Ukraine.
A copy of all International Forestry tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- At around 13% forest cover in 2020, the UK is one of the least densely forested countries in Europe. This compares with 46% for Europe as a whole and 31% worldwide.
- The global forest area reduced by around 4.7 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2010 and 2020.
- Carbon stocks in forest living biomass have increased in Europe, North & Central America and Asia between 1990 and 2020, but have shown an overall decrease at a global level over this period.
- A total of 4.0 billion m$^3$ underbark of wood was removed from global forests in 2018, of which around one half (49%) was for use as woodfuel and the remainder was industrial roundwood (for use by wood processors).
- Global production of wood products in 2018 totalled 492 million m$^3$ of sawnwood, 404 million m$^3$ of wood-based panels and 408 million tonnes of paper & paperboard.
- Europe consumed around one quarter (24%) of all sawnwood, around one fifth (21%) of the world's wood-based panels and almost one quarter (23%) of all paper and paperboard in 2018.
- The UK was the second largest net importer (imports less exports) of forest products in 2018, with net imports of US $8.6 billion. The largest net importer was China. 9.1 Forest cover: international comparisons
The FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) is a collation of forest data undertaken by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) at the global level every five years.
The UK is one of the least densely forested countries in Europe with around 13% of its total land area covered in forest in 2020 (Figure 9.1, Table 9.1). This compares with 46% for Europe as a whole and 31% worldwide.
Figure 9.1 Forest cover as a percentage of total land area: World, 2020
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Table 9.1 Forest cover as a percentage of total land area: international comparisons, 2020
| Country | Forest area (million ha) | Total land area (million ha) | Forest as % of land area | |------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------| | Europe | | | | | United Kingdom | 3 | 24 | 13 | | Denmark | 1 | 4 | 15 | | Finland | 22 | 30 | 74 | | France | 17 | 55 | 32 | | Germany | 11 | 35 | 33 | | Ireland | 1 | 7 | 11 | | Italy | 10 | 29 | 33 | | Spain | 19 | 50 | 37 | | Sweden | 28 | 41 | 69 | | Other EU | 47 | 124 | 38 | | **Total EU¹** | **159** | **400** | **40** | | Russian Federation | 815 | 1,638 | 50 | | **Total Europe²** | **1,017** | **2,213** | **46** | | Africa | 637 | 2,989 | 21 | | Asia | 623 | 3,109 | 20 | | North & Central America | 753 | 2,133 | 35 | | Oceania | 185 | 849 | 22 | | South America | 844 | 1,746 | 48 | | **World** | **4,059** | **13,039** | **31** |
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
2. The Europe region covers 26 EU countries (excluding Cyprus), the UK, the Russian Federation and other countries, including Norway, Switzerland, Serbia and Ukraine.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.2 Forest area by country
Figure 9.2 shows the countries with the largest forest areas. Around one half (49%) of the total forest area of 4,059 million hectares in 2020 is located in four countries (the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada and the USA).
Figure 9.2 Forest area by country, 2020
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.3 Annual changes in forest area
The global forest area has reduced from around 4,128 million hectares in 1990 to 4,059 million hectares in 2020. This represents a decrease of around 7.8 million hectares (0.2%) per year between 1990 and 2000, of around 5.2 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2000 and 2010 and of around 4.7 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2010 and 2020 (Table 9.2).
The forest area has reduced in most regions since 1990, except for Europe and Asia (where areas have increased).
Table 9.2 Annual changes in forest area by region, 1990-2020
| Region | 1990-2000 | 2000-2010 | 2010-2020 | |-------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Europe | | | | | UK | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | | EU¹ | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | | Total Europe | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | | Africa | -0.4 | -0.5 | -0.6 | | Asia | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | | North and Central America| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Oceania | -0.1 | -0.1 | 0.2 | | South America | -0.5 | -0.6 | -0.3 | | World | -0.2 | -0.1 | -0.1 |
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is included in EU total but is part of FAO’s Asia region.
2. UK figures for 2020 are 2018-based estimates. Revised estimates (from Chapter 1) suggest that Table 9.2 slightly under-estimates the change in forest area in the UK in the most recent time period.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Between 2010 and 2020, the largest decrease in forest area was in Brazil (1.5 million hectares per year on average) and the largest increase was in China (1.9 million hectares per year on average) (Figure 9.3).
**Figure 9.3 Countries with largest changes in forest area, 2010-2020**
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
Notes:
1. Countries with changes of at least 0.3 million hectares per year only.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.4 Forest carbon stocks
Carbon stocks in forest living biomass have increased in Europe and North & Central America between 1990 and 2020, but have shown an overall decrease at a global level over this period (Table 9.3).
The overall decrease has mainly been driven by declines in South America and Africa, where forest areas have decreased. Carbon stocks in biomass also increased slightly in Asia, where carbon sequestered in new plantations has balanced out carbon losses from areas of deforestation.
Table 9.3 Carbon stocks in forest living biomass by region, 1990-2020
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Europe | 45 | 48 | 51 | 53 | 55 | | Africa | 59 | 56 | 54 | 52 | 51 | | Asia | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | | North and Central America | 39 | 40 | 41 | 41 | 42 | | Oceania | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | | South America | 106 | 102 | 98 | 97 | 96 | | **World** | **298** | **296** | **294** | **295** | **295** |
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
Notes:
1. A giga tonne is a thousand million tonnes ($10^9$ tonnes).
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 9.4 Forest carbon stock per hectare by region, 2020
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.5 Wood removals
A total of 4.0 billion m$^3$ underbark of wood was removed from global forests in 2018, of which around one half (49%) was for use as woodfuel and the remainder was industrial roundwood (for use by wood processors) (Table 9.4).
North & Central America and Europe together accounted for around three fifths (59%) of all industrial roundwood removals in 2018. Globally, removals of industrial roundwood increased by 11% between 2015 and 2018, resulting from increases in all regions.
Nearly three quarters (73%) of woodfuel removals in 2018 took place in Asia and Africa. Globally, removals of woodfuel increased by 2% between 2015 and 2018.
Table 9.4 Wood removals by region, 1990-2018
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2018 | |-------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Industrial roundwood**| | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 6 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | | EU$^1$ | 311 | 335 | 331 | 338 | 378 | | **Total Europe** | 517 | 519 | 533 | 574 | 650 | | Africa | 61 | 71 | 72 | 75 | 79 | | Asia | 268 | 273 | 379 | 403 | 442 | | North & Central America | 595 | 632 | 485 | 516 | 561 | | Oceania | 34 | 47 | 57 | 64 | 77 | | South America | 110 | 147 | 198 | 217 | 248 | | **World** | 1,585| 1,690| 1,723| 1,849| 2,057| | **Woodfuel** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | | EU$^1$ | 67 | 85 | 115 | 120 | 122 | | **Total Europe** | 138 | 109 | 154 | 170 | 180 | | Africa | 445 | 551 | 644 | 679 | 700 | | Region | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Asia | 897 | 808 | 764 | 735 | 719 | | North & Central America| 162 | 129 | 129 | 136 | 160 | | Oceania | 9 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 10 | | South America | 162 | 185 | 162 | 171 | 180 | | **World** | **1,814** | **1,795** | **1,863** | **1,902** | **1,948** |
**Total roundwood**
| Region | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |--------|------|------|------|------|------| | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 6 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 11 | | EU¹ | 378 | 420 | 446 | 458 | 500 | | **Total Europe** | **655** | **628** | **687** | **744** | **830** | | Africa | 506 | 623 | 715 | 754 | 779 | | Asia | 1,166| 1,081| 1,144| 1,138| 1,160| | North & Central America| 757 | 761 | 613 | 652 | 721 | | Oceania| 43 | 60 | 68 | 74 | 87 | | South America | 272 | 332 | 359 | 388 | 428 | | **World** | **3,399** | **3,485** | **3,586** | **3,751** | **4,005** |
Source: FAO.
Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 9.5 Wood removals by region, 2018
Source: FAO.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.6 Production of wood products
Global production of wood products in 2018 totalled 492 million m$^3$ of sawnwood, 404 million m$^3$ of woodbased panels and 408 million tonnes of paper & paperboard (Table 9.5).
Europe produced around one third (34%) of all sawnwood in 2018 (mainly in EU countries), with over one quarter (29%) in Asia and a further quarter (27%) produced in North & Central America. Overall, sawnwood production increased by 10% between 2015 and 2018, driven by increases in most regions.
Wood-based panels were more commonly produced in Asia, accounting for around three fifths (60%) of global production in 2018. Around one fifth (22%) were produced in Europe (mainly in EU countries) and 12% in North & Central America. At a global level, wood-based panel production increased by 5% between 2015 and 2018, mainly driven by an increase in Europe.
Asia also accounted for almost one half (47%) of paper and paperboard production in 2018, with around one quarter (26%) in Europe and a further 21% in North & Central America. At a global level, paper and paperboard production increased slightly (by 0.4%) between 2015 and 2018. Table 9.5 Production of wood products by region, 1990-2018
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2018 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Sawnwood (million m³)** | | | | | | | **Europe** | | | | | | | UK | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | | EU¹ | 80 | 98 | 98 | 100 | 108 | | **Total Europe** | 149 | 130 | 139 | 149 | 169 | | Africa | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 12 | | Asia | 105 | 61 | 86 | 125 | 141 | | North and Central America | 129 | 146 | 102 | 127 | 135 | | Oceania | 6 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | | South America | 22 | 32 | 30 | 26 | 27 | | **World** | 419 | 385 | 376 | 447 | 492 | | **Wood-based panels (million m³)** | | | | | | | **Europe** | | | | | | | UK | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | EU¹ | 34 | 48 | 53 | 56 | 60 | | **Total Europe** | 48 | 59 | 71 | 79 | 90 | | Africa | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | | Asia | 27 | 46 | 143 | 237 | 241 | | North and Central America | 44 | 61 | 42 | 48 | 48 | | Oceania | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | South America | 4 | 8 | 15 | 16 | 18 | | **World** | 126 | 178 | 275 | 386 | 404 | | **Paper & paperboard (million tonnes)** | | | | | | | **Europe** | | | | | | | UK | 5 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | EU¹ | 59 | 83 | 91 | 87 | 89 | | **Total Europe** | 74 | 100 | 106 | 104 | 106 | | Region | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |-------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Africa | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | | Asia | 57 | 95 | 170 | 192 | 192 | | North and Central America| 92 | 111 | 94 | 89 | 88 | | Oceania | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | South America | 8 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 16 | | **World** | **235** | **325** | **392** | **407** | **408** |
Source: FAO.
Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.7 Apparent consumption of wood products
Apparent consumption (defined as production + imports - exports) of wood products around the world totalled 486 million m³ sawnwood, 404 million m³ wood-based panels and 408 million tonnes of paper and paperboard in 2018 (Table 9.6).
Two fifths (41%) of all sawnwood in 2018 was consumed in Asia and around one quarter each in North & Central America (26%) and in Europe (24%). Reflecting the increased production of sawnwood (see Table 9.5), apparent consumption of sawnwood increased by 10% overall between 2015 and 2018. This was driven by increases in apparent consumption in most regions.
Asia consumed around three fifths (59%) of the world's wood-based panels in 2018, around one fifth (21%) was consumed in Europe and 14% in North & Central America. Apparent consumption of wood-based panels worldwide increased by 5% between 2015 and 2018, largely resulting from increased demand in Europe.
Nearly one half (49%) of all paper and paperboard in 2018 was consumed in Asia, around one fifth (23%) in Europe and a further one fifth (21%) in North & Central America. At a global level, apparent consumption of paper and paperboard increased by 1% between 2015 and 2018. Table 9.6 Apparent consumption of wood products by region, 1990-2018
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2018 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Sawnwood (million m³)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 13 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | EU-28¹ | 83 | 89 | 82 | 78 | 87 | | **Total Europe** | 158 | 121 | 110 | 106 | 115 | | Africa | 10 | 10 | 17 | 19 | 17 | | Asia | 112 | 78 | 116 | 170 | 197 | | North and Central America | 119 | 143 | 95 | 119 | 128 | | Oceania | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | | South America | 20 | 27 | 26 | 20 | 19 | | **World** | 426 | 387 | 372 | 443 | 486 | | **Wood-based panels (million m³)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | | EU-28¹ | 36 | 45 | 48 | 50 | 58 | | **Total Europe** | 52 | 57 | 67 | 73 | 86 | | Africa | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | | Asia | 25 | 50 | 139 | 233 | 238 | | North and Central America | 44 | 64 | 48 | 56 | 58 | | Oceania | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | South America | 3 | 6 | 12 | 13 | 13 | | **World** | 127 | 181 | 272 | 383 | 404 | | **Paper & paperboard (million tonnes)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 9 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 9 | | EU-28¹ | 53 | 72 | 74 | 71 | 73 | | **Total Europe** | 71 | 90 | 95 | 91 | 93 | | Region | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | |------------------------|----|----|----|----|----| | Africa | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | | Asia | 62 | 103| 178| 198| 200| | North and Central America | 88 | 110| 91 | 86 | 87 | | Oceania | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | | South America | 8 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 17 | | **World** | **236** | **325** | **391** | **404** | **408** |
Source: FAO.
Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.8 World trade in forest products
Figures 9.6 and 9.7 show the largest net importers and exporters (by value) of forest products in 2018. This covers trade in roundwood, sawnwood, wood-based panels, wood pulp and paper and paperboard, but excludes trade in secondary processed wood (e.g. furniture made from wood). Values are expressed in US dollars (the units reported in the data published by FAO).
The UK was the second largest net importer (imports less exports) of forest products in 2018, with net imports of US $8.6 billion (Figure 9.6). The largest net importer in 2018 was China (US $42.3 billion) and Japan was the third largest net importer (US $7.7 billion).
Figure 9.6 Largest net importers of forest products, 2018
Source: FAO Notes:
1. Excludes trade in secondary wood products.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. The largest net exporters (exports less imports) of forest products in 2018 were Canada (with net exports valued at US $20.5 billion), Finland (US $13.0 billion) and Sweden (US $11.5 billion) (Figure 9.7).
**Figure 9.7 Largest net exporters of forest products, 2018**
Source: FAO
Notes:
1. Excludes trade in secondary wood products.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 10 Glossary
Ancient woodland Woodland which has been in continuous existence since 1600 (1750 in Scotland).
Awaiting validation Status for a Woodland Carbon Code project or group that is undergoing assessment by a certification body.
Bioenergy Energy from any fuel that is derived from biomass.
Biomass Material that is derived from living, or recently living, biological organisms.
Biosecurity A set of precautions that aim to prevent the introduction and spread of harmful organisms. These may be pests, pathogens or invasive species.
Brash Branch wood and leaf material that is generally too small in diameter to be considered part of the timber product from a harvesting site.
Briquettes Similar to wood pellets (see below) but larger, briquettes are made from compressed wood fibres and used for heating.
Broadleaves Trees that do not have needles or cones, such as oak, birch and beech. A few, such as alder, have cone-like structures for their seeds which are not true cones.
Cement bonded particleboard Sheet material manufactured under pressure, based on wood and other vegetable particles bound with hydraulic cement and possibly containing additives.
Chipboard (see Particleboard).
Clearfell areas Sites where all trees have been felled at once. In non-clearfell areas, only some trees are felled at any one time. Clustering A sampling technique where the entire population is divided into groups, or clusters, and a random sample of these clusters is selected. All (or a selection of) observations in the selected clusters are included in the sample. Cluster sampling is often used when a random sample would produce a list of subjects so widely scattered that surveying them would prove to be far too expensive.
Confidence interval An estimated range of values that is likely to include an unknown population parameter (i.e. a fixed value for the population as a whole). The confidence interval around an estimate is derived from the sample data, and is used to indicate the reliability of the estimate.
Confor Confederation of Forest Industries.
Conifers Trees with needles and cones, such as spruce, pine and larch.
Conversion factor Numerical factor by which a quantity that is expressed in one set of units must be multiplied in order to convert it into another set of units.
Coppice Trees that are cut near ground level (or sometimes higher, in which case they are called pollards), causing them to produce many small shoots. These shoots are harvested every few years at a relatively early age for products such as staves, fencing, fuel and charcoal. "Coppice with standards" includes scattered trees that are left to grow as normal ("standards").
Deadwood Non-living woody biomass not contained in the litter, either standing or lying on the ground. For wood carbon reporting, the minimum was 15 cm diameter for standing and lying deadwood, and 7 cm dbh (diameter at breast height) for fallen trees.
Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Deliveries The quantities of UK-grown roundwood that are delivered to processors (mills) or for other uses (such as woodfuel and exports). Note that for sawmills and round fencing mills, the deliveries figure reported is actually the quantity of roundwood consumed by the mill, which may differ from the true deliveries figure if the levels of input stocks vary.
**Direct production** Timber that is sold after the trees have been felled by the woodland owner or their contractors.
**Establishment** The first five to ten years or formative period that ends once young trees are of sufficient size that, given adequate protection, they are likely to survive at the required stocking.
**EU** European Union. It currently comprises 27 member states: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
**Eurostat** The statistical office of the European Union, situated in Luxembourg. Its task is to provide the European Union with statistics at European level that enable comparisons between countries and regions.
**FAO** United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, responsible for the Forest Resources Assessment and for compiling international statistics on production and trade of wood products.
**Fibreboard** Panel material with thickness equal to or greater than 1.5mm, manufactured from lignocellulosic fibres with application of heat and/or pressure. The bond is derived either from the felting of the fibres and their inherent adhesive properties or from a synthetic binder added to the fibres.
**Forest** In the United Kingdom, there is no formal definition of "forest"; the term is often used for large woodland areas (especially conifers) or for old Royal hunting preserves such as the New Forest or the Forest of Dean.
**Forest Research (FR)** The Forestry Commission agency responsible for forestry and tree related research (including statistics). Forest Service (FS) An executive agency of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA). Forest Service fulfils DAERA’s legal obligations for forestry in Northern Ireland.
Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) The Scottish Government agency responsible for managing the national forests and lands in Scotland, created on 1 April 2019.
Forestry Commission (FC) The government department responsible for forestry matters in England. The Forestry Commission’s functions in Wales transferred to the Welsh Government and to Natural Resources Wales on 1 April 2013. The Forestry Commission’s functions in Scotland transferred to Scottish Forestry and to Forestry and Land Scotland on 1 April 2019. The Forestry Commission is supported by two agencies; Forestry England and Forest Research.
Forestry England (FE) The Forestry Commission agency responsible for managing the national forests in England. Prior to April 2019, Forestry England was known as Forest Enterprise England.
FSC Forest Stewardship Council.
GDP deflator Gross Domestic Product at market prices deflator. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a measure of the total economic activity. Growth in GDP reflects both growth in the economy and price change (inflation). Applying a GDP deflator to time series of prices or price indices removes the effects of inflation to enable a comparison of changes in price that are not caused by inflation.
Great Britain (GB) England, Wales and Scotland.
Green tonne The weight measurement of timber freshly felled before any natural or artificial drying has occurred.
Gross Value Added (GVA) A measure of the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom. Growing stock The volume of timber in living trees. It is also often referred to as the standing volume.
Hardwood The wood of broadleaved trees, such as oak, birch and beech; a term sometimes used for the broadleaved trees themselves.
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) The United Kingdom's tax authority.
Hectare (ha) Unit of area defined as 10,000 square metres (100 m by 100 m), approximately equivalent to 2.47 acres.
High forest Trees capable of growing to be suitable for timber production (compare with coppice).
Increment The growth rate of standing trees.
Kyoto Protocol A protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that set binding obligations on the industrialised countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases.
Litter Non-living biomass with a diameter less than the minimum for dead wood, lying dead in various states of decomposition above the soil.
Long term contracts (LTC) Sales of roundwood, felled or standing, to customers over a period of more than one year. The second and subsequent years of a long term contract are negotiated after the sale of the first year's volume.
Medium-density fibreboard (MDF) Wood fibreboard made by a dry process in which the primary bond is derived from a bonding agent, and having a density usually exceeding 600 kg per cubic metre. Movement Licence Any movement of Phytophthora-affected wood from a forest site (or subsequent move of affected material from a mill or processing site) requires a Movement Licence to be issued by the Forestry Commission.
Native species Species that have arrived and inhabited an area naturally, without deliberate assistance by man. For trees and shrubs in the United Kingdom usually taken to mean those present after post-glacial recolonisation and before historic times. Some species are only native in particular regions - hence locally native.
Natural colonisation The creation of new woodland by natural means, i.e. without sowing or planting.
Natural regeneration The regeneration of existing woodland by natural means, i.e. without sowing or planting.
Natural Resources Wales (NRW) The organisation responsible for advising the Welsh Government on the environment, created on 1 April 2013.
New planting Establishing woodland on ground that was not woodland in the recent past.
NFI National Forest Inventory.
NI Northern Ireland.
NIWT 1995-99 National Inventory of Woodland and Trees.
Nominal terms Refers to prices at the time of sale. See also "real terms".
ONS Office for National Statistics. Oriented strand board (OSB) Multi-layered board made from strands of wood of a predetermined shape and thickness together with a binder. The strands in the external layers are aligned and parallel to the board length or width.
Oven dry tonnes (ODT) Measurement of quantity without moisture (i.e. 0% moisture content).
Overbark The volume of wood including the bark. Can be either standing volume or felled volume.
Particleboard Panel material manufactured under pressure and heat from particles of wood (wood and chipboard flakes, chips, shavings, sawdust), with the addition of an adhesive.
PAYE Pay-as-you-earn tax.
Photosynthesis Chemical process carried out by green plants in the presence of light, which combines carbon dioxide from the atmosphere with hydrogen from water in the soil to form sugars as food for the growing plant. Oxygen is a by-product of the reaction.
Phytophthora ramorum Fungus-like pathogen of plants that causes extensive damage and mortality to trees (including Japanese larch) and other plants.
Plywood Wood-based panel consisting of an assembly of layers bonded together with the direction of the grain in adjacent layers, usually at right angles (not currently made in the UK).
Price index A measure of the proportionate, or percentage, changes in a set of prices over time. Commonly used indices include the Laspeyres index, Paasche index and Fisher index.
Pulp A fibrous material produced by mechanically or chemically reducing wood into their component parts from which pulp, paper and paperboard sheets are formed after proper slushing and treatment or used for dissolving purposes. (dissolving pulp or chemical cellulose) to make rayon, plastics, and other synthetic products. Sometimes called wood pulp.
**Quota sampling** A method of sampling where interviewers are each given a fixed number of subjects of specified type to interview.
**Real terms** Refers to prices at a common date. Prices in real terms are derived by applying a deflator to remove the effects of general inflation to enable a comparison of changes over time that have not resulted from inflation. See also "nominal terms".
**Recovered wood** Either industrial process by-products (e.g. offcuts or fines from a board manufacturing mill, furniture factory, joinery or construction) or from post-consumer waste wood (e.g. pallets, construction waste) after the stage of recovery or reclamation for purposes of recycling.
**Restocking** The replacement of trees on areas of woodland that have been felled; this can be done either through replanting or natural regeneration.
**Roadside sales** Sales of timber after harvesting. The owner is responsible for getting the trees felled and extracting them to the side of the road, ready to take away.
**Roundwood** Trunk or branch wood, generally with a top diameter of 7 cm or more. Can be in the form of logs (14 cm top diameter or more) or small roundwood (7 to 14 cm).
**Sawlogs** Material of at least 14 cm top diameter that is destined to be sawn into planks or boards.
**Sawmill products** Materials including wood chips, sawdust and bark which arise during the conversion of logs to sawn timber. Most are used as inputs to other wood processing industries, sold for bioenergy or sold for other uses. Formerly called sawmill residues or co-products.
**Sawnwood** Sawn timber - timber that has been cut into planks or boards from logs. Scottish Forestry (SF) The Scottish Government agency responsible for forestry policy, support and regulations, created on 1 April 2019. Scottish Forestry also has responsibility for managing the UK Woodland Carbon Code on behalf of the Forestry Commission in England, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Forest Service.
Scottish Government (SG) The executive branch of the devolved government of Scotland.
Scrub Area of poorly formed trees or bushes unsuitable for conversion to timber.
Semi-natural woodland Woodland with natural characteristics (predominantly native species of trees, ground plants and animals) where wood production is not a primary objective; this term is used rather than natural because the woodland may have originally been planted or have been managed for wood production in the past.
Short rotation coppice (SRC) An energy crop, usually consisting of densely planted, high yielding varieties of willow or poplar.
Silviculture The care and cultivation of forest trees.
Softwood The wood of coniferous trees, such as spruce, pine and larch; a term sometimes used for the coniferous trees themselves.
Stand A relatively uniform collection of trees (from either planting or natural regeneration) composed, for example, of a single species or a single age class.
Standing sales Sales of timber while the trees are still standing. The buyer is responsible for getting the trees felled and removed from the site.
Standing volume Measurement of quantity before trees are felled. Usually expressed as cubic metres overbark standing. Statistical significance A statistical assessment of whether observations reflect an actual pattern rather than just chance.
Statutory Plant Health Notice (SPHN) Statutory Plant Health Notices, requiring the felling of infected trees, are issued by the Forestry Commission/Scottish Forestry/Natural Resources Wales/Forest Service to prevent the spread of pests and diseases. They are currently being issued to control the movement of material infected with Phytophthora ramorum.
Stemwood Wood from the stem and main branches of a tree, excluding the stump and small branches.
Stocked area Area stocked with living trees. This differs from the woodland area (see below) in that felled areas awaiting restocking and areas of integral open space are generally excluded from the stocked area.
Stratification A sampling technique where the entire population is divided into groups, or strata, and a random sample is selected within each group. Stratified sampling is often used to ensure that sufficient numbers from each group are included in the overall sample, particularly where results are required for each group.
Stump The above-ground base part of a tree that would usually remain after felling.
Thinning A proportion of stems removed in order to give the best stems space and light to grow into a more valuable crop. This is usually carried out some time after canopy closure and may be repeated at intervals. A temporary reduction in standing volume will result.
UN ECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, responsible for compiling international statistics on production and trade of wood products for Europe, the Russian Federation and North America.
Underbark The volume of wood excluding the bark. United Kingdom (UK) Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Validated The initial evaluation of a project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a 'Validation Opinion Statement'. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to five years.
VAT Value Added Tax.
Veneer A thin layer of wood, produced by peeling or slicing, used for decorative purposes. Veneers are usually applied to less expensive or less attractive substitutes including solid timber, wood-based sheet materials, etc.
Verified Verification is the evaluation of a Woodland Carbon Code project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO2 sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Code.
Weighting A set of factors assigned to survey responses to ensure that the resulting weighted results are representative of the population as a whole.
Welsh Government The executive branch of the devolved government of Wales.
Wood pellets Sawdust or wood shavings compressed into uniform diameter pellets. They are often burned for heat or energy, but may also be used for other purposes (such as horse bedding or cat litter).
Woodland Land under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20% (25% in Northern Ireland), or having the potential to achieve this, including integral open space, and including felled areas that are due to be restocked. Generally (including the UK) woodland is defined as having a minimum area of 0.5 ha.
Wood Raw Material Equivalent (WRME) The volume of trees required to produce a wood product. Can be measured underbark or overbark. 11.1 Sources: Woodland area and planting
Introduction
The definition of woodland in United Kingdom forestry statistics is land under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20% (or having the potential to achieve this), including integral open space, and including felled areas that are awaiting restocking. There is no minimum height for trees to form a woodland at maturity, so the definition includes woodland scrub but not areas with only shrub species such as gorse or Rhododendron.
In this report, statistics based on the National Forest Inventory (NFI), refer to woods and forests of at least 0.5 hectares, as mapped through the NFI. Previously, figures based on the 1995-99 National Inventory of Woodland and Trees included sample-based estimates for woods and forests between 0.1 hectares and 2.0 hectares in addition to mapped areas of 2.0 hectares or over. Both definitions are slightly different than those used internationally which are based on 10% canopy cover, a minimum height at maturity of 5m and minimum area of 0.5 hectares.
Integral open space is included in woodland area figures derived from the National Forest Inventory if the areas of open space are less than 0.5 hectares; larger areas are mapped out and excluded from the woodland area figures. This differs slightly from the approach used for the National Inventory of Woodland and Trees, where areas of open space of up to 1.0 hectare were included as woodland.
Woodland includes native and non-native trees; semi-natural and plantation areas. Woodland habitat types are not currently differentiated in these statistics.
Most public sector woodland is managed by Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW), or the Forest Service (FS) in Northern Ireland. Woodland owned by local authorities, the Ministry of Defence, non-government organisations including the Woodland Trust and other public sector bodies are included in "private sector woodland".
The Natural Resources Wales woodland areas relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. There is approximately 900 hectares of woodland on National Nature Reserves and other land managed by Natural Resources Wales that is not included in the Natural Resources Wales figures.
The following pages provide more detail on the data sources and methodology used to produce statistics on woodland area and planting. A quality report on Woodland Statistics is available from our website at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/. 11.1.1 Sources: Woodland area
Data Sources and Methodology
Woodland Area
Data on woodland area in the UK presented in this release are derived from the following sources:
- Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales administrative records of FE/FLS/NRW land areas;
- National Forest Inventory (NFI) woodland map (GB);
- Statistics on new planting in Great Britain;
- Northern Ireland Woodland Register;
- Forest Service administrative records of FS woodland areas (Northern Ireland) and
- Forest Service estimates of non-FS woodland area in Northern Ireland.
Estimates of woodland area in Great Britain are based on figures produced from forest inventories. Until recently, forest inventories in Great Britain were undertaken every 15 years or so. The current National Forest Inventory (NFI), unlike previous inventories, is planned to run on a continuous 5-year cycle.
As forest inventories are generally not designed to produce annual figures, a process is required for updating the results on an annual basis to take account of changes in woodland area. The methodology currently used to calculate annual woodland area estimates is described below.
The data processing takes place in Excel. The main outputs are aggregates from the source data, or breakdowns expressed as percentages, and do not require complex data analysis techniques.
1. For Great Britain, woodland area estimates are based on the latest NFI woodland area map of Great Britain available. In this release, woodland area estimates at March 2019 and at March 2020 are both based on the provisional NFI woodland area map at March 2019.
2. The map is overlaid with a map of Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales (Welsh Government Woodland Estate only) land, to enable a breakdown by ownership to be estimated. This also enables FE/FLS/NRW "other land" areas to be derived (Table 1.5). For woodland area estimates at March 2019, FE/FLS/NRW legal boundaries at March 2019 are used, and for estimates at March 2020, FE/FLS/NRW legal boundaries at March 2020 are used.
3. The woodland area breakdown by type of woodland (conifer or broadleaf) is estimated from the conifer/broadleaf breakdown of stocked woodland area, with areas of felled and open space allocated to conifer or broadleaf pro-rata. Estimates for stocked areas at March 2012 derived from NFI interim field survey results are updated to take into account new planting since that date, for which the conifer/broadleaf breakdown is also known. As the area of new planting is much smaller than total woodland area, the effect of this update on the overall conifer/broadleaf breakdown is very small.
The steps above are sufficient to determine woodland area estimates at March 2019, broken down by ownership and conifer/broadleaf.
To obtain estimates at March 2020, two more steps need to be performed, which are described below.
4. Net ownership transfers of woodland between private sector and FE/FLS/NRW from March 2019 to March 2020, as inferred by the differences in FE/FLS/NRW legal boundaries between those two dates, are broken down by conifer/broadleaf. The breakdown is based on NFI Interpreted Forest Type (IFT) at those dates, derived from photographic interpretation of the NFI woodland map. The “Conifer” and “Mixed mainly conifer” (>80% conifer) IFT categories are assigned to conifers, and the “Broadleaves” and “Mixed mainly broadleaved” (>80% broadleaved) categories are assigned to broadleaves. For the other IFT categories, the conifer/broadleaf breakdown is allocated pro-rata based on the conifer/broadleaf breakdown of woodland area by ownership (private sector or FE/FLS/NRW) before transfer.
5. The woodland area figures are then updated to March 2020 by adding areas of new planting in 2019-20, broken down by ownership and type.
Information on previous methodologies can be found in the Methodology Note: Annual Woodland Estimates produced in May 2012, on the Methodology and Outputs web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/.
The methodology and outputs relevant to UK woodland area, planting and restocking were reviewed in 2014. The review report is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/.
The provisional 2019 woodland map differs from the figures for woodland area provided in the NFI report on Tree cover outside woodland in Great Britain, that were based on the NFI 2013 map and the National Tree Map™ (NTM™), the latter in combination with samples of visual aerial photograph interpretation and field sampling outside of areas on the NFI map. The estimates in the tree cover report include estimates of woodland area outside the NFI map derived from the other sources. Work is ongoing to calibrate the figures, and the NFI woodland map for 2019 incorporates amendments made to date as a result of the calibration (as well as additional areas of woodland creation since 2013). Further information on the methodology used by the National Forest Inventory and comparisons of results from the NFI and previous woodland area estimates is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
Figures for Northern Ireland (Forest Service and non-Forest Service woodland) are provided by the Forest Service (http://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/topics/forestry). Woodland areas from 2012 provided in this release have been obtained from the NI draft woodland register.
The NI draft woodland register is based on a combined dataset derived from fourteen individual datasets from statutory bodies including Forest Service, Land and Property Services, and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, and non statutory bodies which include Woodland Trust and National Trust. The minimum area of woodland that has been included in the register is 0.1 hectares.
The use of the NI draft woodland register has resulted in a step change in the non-Forest Service woodland areas reported for Northern Ireland. This should be interpreted as an improvement in the data reported, rather than an actual increase in woodland area.
Certified woodland area Data on certified woodland areas are obtained from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and contact with individual land owners and managers. Some of the certified woodland has dual certification, i.e. it is certified under both the FSC scheme and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme.
The data collected from FSC are the areas that are certified for each certificate holder. Follow-up enquiries are then made with larger certificate holders to check the certified areas and to provide a country breakdown.
As all FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands are certified, the total woodland area (as derived above, from the NFI map and FE/FLS/NRW boundaries and from Forest Service administrative records) is used, rather than the area provided on the certificates. Quality The statistics on woodland area presented here refer to woodland as a land use rather than as a land cover, so felled areas and small areas (less than 0.5 ha) of open space are included within the definition of woodland. Some statistics on woodland area as a land cover are available from other sources (e.g. Countryside Survey 2007, www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk, and associated Land Cover Map; a more recent Land Cover Map 2015 is also available).
Detailed information on the quality of the woodland area statistics presented in this publication is available in the "Quality Report: Woodland Statistics" at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/. Further quality information on our Official Statistics is also available from this location.
Revisions Figures at March 2020 have been revised since their previous release in "Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2019 Edition" to incorporate late revisions to new planting figures for 2019-20. This has resulted in minor changes of up to 1 thousand hectares.
Information on revisions made since "Forestry Statistics 2019" are provided in "Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2020 Edition".
Information on significant revisions to published statistics is provided in the quality report on Woodland Statistics, available from our Quality web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors are dealt with and can be found at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf.
Further information Accompanying tables to this release, available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/, provide longer time series data by country for certified woodland.
Figures for woodland area in the UK are provided to international organisations every 4-5 years; to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) for the "Global Forest Resources Assessment" (www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en/), and to Forest Europe for the "State of Europe's Forests" (https://foresteurope.org/).
Figures for woodland area are also used to compile the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Official statistics on UK greenhouse gas emissions are produced by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics.
Release schedule Woodland area and certified woodland area data are released twice a year. Provisional figures are published in Provisional Woodland Statistics (previously Woodland Area, Planting and Publicly Funded Restocking) in early June. Final figures are released in Forestry Statistics at the end of September.
Provisional figures for woodland area and certified woodland area at March 2021 will be published on 17 June 2021 in "Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2021 Edition".
Final results for woodland area and certified woodland area at March 2021 will be published on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.1.2 Sources: Woodland Inventories
Woodland Inventories The current National Forest Inventory is the first continuous inventory of British woodlands and is being conducted on a five year cycle. Prior to the National Forest Inventory, a series of one-off woodland inventories took place in Great Britain every 15 years or so.
Most inventories used slightly different definitions of woodland, so some apparent changes in area over time are due to changing definitions. The principal differences for inventories since 1905 are:
- 1905 Felled areas and scrub were not included.
- 1924 Undertaken by questionnaire; woods smaller than 2 acres (0.8 hectares) were not included.
- 1947 Woodlands with an area of less than 5 acres (2 hectares) were not included.
- 1965 Woodlands with an area of less than 1 acre (0.4 hectares) were not included.
- 1980 Woodlands with an area of less than 0.25 hectares were not included.
- 1995-99 Woodlands with an area of 0.1-2 hectares were included on a sample basis; some woodland missing from earlier surveys was included.
- 2010 on All woodlands with an area of 0.5 hectares or more have been included; all woodlands below 0.5 hectares have been excluded.
- Estimates of woodland area prior to 1905 have been obtained from a variety of sources, including:
- Domesday Survey of England - for information in 1086;
- Scottish Woodland History (TC Smout ed, 1997) - for estimate for end Middle Ages in Scotland;
- Roy maps c1750 - for Scotland 17th Century estimate.
National Forest Inventory In the latest inventory, a digital map based on aerial photography, satellite imagery and other data sources has been produced, from which estimates of total woodland areas have been derived. Data are currently being collected for one hectare sample squares, covering a wide variety of topics, including ownership type, species and age.
Initial results for 2010 were published for countries (Great Britain, England, Wales, Scotland) in Spring 2011. Interim results, based on field survey data combined with information from the NFI map, have since been published on the National Forest Inventory web pages at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/. 11.1.3 Sources: New planting & restocking
New planting & restocking
Introduction New planting is the creation of new areas of woodland. Restocking is the replanting of areas of woodland that have been felled. New planting can use planting/seeding or natural colonisation. Restocking can also use planting/seeding or natural regeneration.
Data sources and methodology Information about Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and Forest Service new planting and restocking comes from administrative systems. For new planting and restocking by Forestry and Land Scotland and by Natural Resources Wales, the figures obtained relate to net areas (i.e. excluding integral open space). These are converted to estimates of gross areas (i.e. including integral open space) for consistency with other planting and woodland area data, by using an assumption of 15% open space.
Information about other woodland has come principally from grant schemes, including Countryside Stewardship in England, Glastir in Wales, Forestry Grant Scheme in Scotland and legacy grant schemes.
Areas receiving grant are allocated to years by date of payment. For natural colonisation and regeneration, the areas are generally those for which the second instalment of grant has been paid during the year. The second instalment is approved when woodland reaches a certain stage and density of growth, so this information corresponds approximately to the amount of new and restocked woodland created.
The coverage and level of grant support differ across schemes, so that figures on grant-aided planting are not directly comparable between countries or over time. Grant support for restocking of conifers changed with the introduction of Rural Development Contracts in Scotland in 2008 and again with the introduction of the Forestry Grant Scheme in 2015. This will have led to a reduction in the proportion of private sector restocking that is grant aided and therefore reported for Scotland.
New planting estimates for England also include areas supported by the Woodland Trust and areas funded by Natural England (Higher Level Stewardship / Countryside Stewardship). From 2016-17, the estimated area of new planting includes new woodland creation supported by the Woodland Trust under the MOREwoods and Partnerships England projects. From 2017- 18, the estimated area of new planting also includes new woodland creation supported by the Environment Agency.
Areas of land acquired by the National Forest Company for new planting have been included from 2015-16. To avoid potential double counting, areas of new planting by the National Forest Company that are believed to be supported by grant aid or by the Woodland Trust (and have therefore already been included in the figures reported for these other sources) have been excluded.
Local estimates for private sector areas of planting and restocking which are not grant-aided were included for England, Wales and Scotland up to 2009-10, where possible. Estimates of non-grant-aided planting and restocking were relatively small (less than one thousand hectares annually), and it has been assumed that all of this area is broadleaves. A small estimate for broadleaved new planting without grant aid in Scotland in 2016-17 to 2019-20 was also included. No estimates have been included for restocking with Sitka spruce in Scotland, or for restocking in England, that are no longer supported by grants. It is assumed that there is no private sector non-grant aided new planting and restocking in Northern Ireland.
The use of natural regeneration in non-clearfell systems may be increasing - particularly for broadleaves in England. These systems are not satisfactorily represented by measuring restocking area within any given year, and so broadleaf regeneration may be under-reported in this release and other statistics.
Figures for Northern Ireland (Forest Service and private sector woodland) are provided by the Forest Service (www.daera-ni.gov.uk/topics/forestry).
The methodology and outputs relevant to UK woodland area, planting and restocking were reviewed in 2014. The review report is available at www.forestrystudy.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/.
Revisions Figures for 2019-20 are final; provisional figures were previously released in "Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2020 Edition".
Figures have been revised from those provided in " Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2020 Edition", resulting in minor changes (of no more than 0.2 thousand hectares) to the estimated new planting in 2019-20. Information on revisions made since "Forestry Statistics 2019" are provided in " Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2020 Edition". Information on significant revisions to published statistics is provided in the quality report on Woodland Statistics, available from our Quality web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors are dealt with and can be found at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf.
Further information Accompanying tables to this release, available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/, provide longer time series data by country for new planting and restocking.
Figures for new planting are also used to compile the UK’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Official statistics on UK greenhouse gas emissions are produced by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics.
Release schedule New planting and restocking data are released twice a year. Provisional figures are published in Provisional Woodland Statistics in early June. Final figures are released in Forestry Statistics at the end of September.
Provisional figures for new planting and restocking in 2020-21 will be published on 17 June 2021 in "Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2021 Edition".
Final results for new planting and restocking in 2020-21 will be published on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.1.4 Sources: Felling
Felling
Introduction Under the Forestry Act 1967 and the Forestry and Land Management Act (Scotland) 2018, it is illegal to fell trees in Great Britain without prior approval, although there are a few exceptions (for trees below a specified size, dangerous trees, and very small scale felling operations). There is a presumption against removal of woodland and loss of forest cover in the UK, so felling licences issued under the Forestry Act (or felling permissions under the Forestry and Land Management Act in Scotland) will normally be conditional (where felling approval is granted subject to restocking). However, the permanent removal of trees may be granted (through an unconditional felling licence) for thinning woodland (a standard woodland management practice) or if there are overriding environmental considerations, for example to enable the restoration of important habitats (and consent may be required under the relevant Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations).
The removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development (including for windfarms). In this case, a felling licence is not required.
The Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales and the Northern Ireland Forest Service may also require trees to be felled to prevent the spread of pests and diseases, by serving a Statutory Plant Health Notice (SPHN) on the affected site.
Data sources and methodology Information about felling licences and Statutory Plant Health Notices comes from Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales and Forest Service administrative systems.
Data on felling licences relates to felling licences that have been issued. It does not indicate whether the felling has taken place (and if so, when).
Quality All of the statistics on felling in this chapter are outside the scope of National Statistics.
Revisions Figures on felling licences in 2019-20 are released for the first time in this publication. 2019-20 figures for Statutory Plant Health Notices are not yet available. Figures on Statutory Plant Health Notices in Scotland have been revised from those released in Forestry Statistics 2019 for all years, to reflect a change from reporting on the number of sites where a Statutory Plant Health Notice was issued to reporting on the number of Statutory Plant Health Notices issued. Most revisions are relatively small, as the number of sites where multiple notices are issued and the number of notices issued that cover multiple sites are often at around the same level. Larger revisions (down by 79 in 2012-13 and down by 207 in 2018-19) reflect a higher level of notices issued to cover multiple sites. The area associated with the revised numbers of Statutory Plant Health Notices in Scotland relates to Larch only and has not altered by more than 0.1 thousand hectares. UK figures have also been revised, to reflect the changes to the Scotland data. Other figures are unchanged.
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors are dealt with and can be found at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf).
**Further information**
Some related figures for England on felling licences have been released. Data on the total area covered by felling licences (conditional and unconditional) were released on 11 June 2020 in "Forestry Commission Key Performance Indicators 2020".
Further information on felling licences (including details of exemptions) is available at:
- England - [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-felling-licence-when-you-need-to-apply](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-felling-licence-when-you-need-to-apply);
- Wales - [https://naturalresources.wales/permits-and-permissions/tree-felling-and-other-regulations/tree-felling-licences/?lang=en](https://naturalresources.wales/permits-and-permissions/tree-felling-and-other-regulations/tree-felling-licences/?lang=en);
- Scotland - [https://forestry.gov.scot/support-regulations/felling-permissions](https://forestry.gov.scot/support-regulations/felling-permissions).
Further information on tree pests and diseases is available at [www.gov.uk/government/collections/tree-pests-and-diseases](http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tree-pests-and-diseases).
**Release schedule**
Figures on felling licences and Statutory Plant Health Notices in 2020-21 will be published on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021". 11.2 Sources: Timber
Introduction This page provides an overview of the sources for the timber statistics presented in Chapter 2; more detailed information is provided on the following pages.
The chapter covers wood production (removals) from UK woodland, and consumption and production by primary wood processors in the UK. The timber statistics presented cover both softwood (wood from coniferous trees such as spruce, pine and larch) and hardwood (wood from non-coniferous trees such as oak, birch and beech). Please refer to the Glossary for an explanation of the terms used.
Quantities of wood can be expressed in different units. Conversion factors can be used to convert between units.
Data sources and methodology Statistics on timber are obtained from a number of sources. For wood production (removals), data are compiled from:
- Administrative records of removals from Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Northern Ireland Forest Service (FS) woodlands;
- the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey for softwood removals from private sector woodlands and
- deliveries of hardwood to wood processing industries (see below) for total hardwood removals.
- There is no source of data for hardwood removals from private sector woodlands, so these are estimated to be:
- deliveries of hardwood to wood processing industries (see below) less
- hardwood removals from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands.
Timber availability forecasts are obtained from the "50 year forecast of softwood availability" and the "50 year forecast of hardwood availability", released in April 2014 and available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
Deliveries are estimated from the following sources:
- the Sawmill Survey;
- the Wood Panel Industries Federation (for wood-based panels);
- the Confederation of Forest Industries, Confor (for integrated pulp and paper mills); • the Confederation of Paper Industries (for paper production); • the Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers; • the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey (for softwood deliveries to woodfuel); • shavings manufacturers; • companies believed to export roundwood and/or chips.
Estimates are also provided by the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics: [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/expert-group-on-timber-and-trade-statistics/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/expert-group-on-timber-and-trade-statistics/).
The Methodology note: UK wood production, available at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/) sets out the data analysis methods used to produce annual estimates of UK wood production.
**Quality**
Detailed information on the quality of the statistics presented in this publication is available in the "Quality Report: UK Wood Production and Trade" at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/).
Further quality information on our Official Statistics, including separate reports for each of the industry surveys used in this release, is available at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/).
**Revisions**
Figures for 2019 and earlier years have been previously published. They are however subject to revisions from those published in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures" and previous publications, to reflect late updates to administrative or survey data. Further details on any revisions made are provided in the following pages.
Information on significant revisions to published statistics is provided in the quality report on UK Wood Production and Trade, available from our Quality web page at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/).
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors to these statistics are dealt with, and can be found at: [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf). Further information Most of these statistics are used to compile data that are sent to international organisations in the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaires, in some cases giving more detail than in this release. These returns are published as Official Statistics on the Forest Research website; provisional figures in May and final figures in September/October. The statistics are used by Eurostat Forestry Statistics, UNECE Timber Bulletins, and UN/FAO Forest Product Statistics and are published on the FAOSTAT database (www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home). Summary results from the FAOSTAT database are provided in the International Forestry chapter.
The definitions used in this publication are consistent with the international definitions, as given in the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire definitions, available at www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80572/en/.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry (previously the UNECE Timber Committee) also collects, on an annual basis, estimates for the current year and projections for the following year of wood production, imports and exports. Results are available on the UNECE website (www.unece.org/forests/fpm/timbercommittee.html). Copies of UK returns for the UNECE Timber Forecast Questionnaire are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/international-returns/unece-timber-forecast-questionnaire/.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy publishes an annual Digest of UK Energy Statistics (www.gov.uk/government/collections/digest-of-uk-energy-statistics-dukes). Chapter 7 of this digest covers renewable sources of energy including wood. Figures for wood use in renewable energy statistics take into account wood from all sources (including processed wood, recycled wood and imports), not just UK-grown roundwood.
Release schedule Provisional figures for 2020 will be released on 16 May 2021 in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2020 provisional figures".
Final figures for 2020 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.2.1 Sources: Wood production
Sources Figures on UK wood production (or removals) are compiled from a variety of sources:
- Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Northern Ireland Forest Service (FS) administrative records - for all removals from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands;
- the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey - for softwood removals from private sector woodlands and
- statistics on deliveries - for total hardwood removals.
The compilation of data on wood production was extended in 2004 to include Northern Ireland.
These sources cover removals of roundwood (trunk and branch wood) only. A survey was introduced in 2009 to collect data on removals of brash (branch wood and leaf material) and stumps (above-ground base part of trees). The collection of stump removals was discontinued in 2012.
Methodology Figures for removals from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands are converted from cubic metres (m$^3$) to green tonnes using standard conversion factors. For total softwood figures, the results from the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey are combined with the data for FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands to produce total softwood removals.
For hardwood figures, the total hardwood removals are assumed to equal the total hardwood deliveries (obtained from industry surveys and industry associations; see subsequent pages for further information on these sources). Hardwood removals from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands are then subtracted to give an estimate of the amount of hardwood removed from private sector woodlands.
Softwood removals methodology change The methodology used to estimate the quantity of UK softwood removals from private sector woodland was revised for the release of provisional 2011 estimates in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2011 provisional figures". Details of the change in methodology and its impact on the figures are available in the "Methodology Review of Softwood Removals from Non-FC/FS..." Woodland" paper, available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/.
Revisions Private sector softwood removals are subject to revision annually (see following page, on the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey). Removals from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands are not normally revised. Total hardwood removals (and consequently hardwood removals from private sector woodlands) are subject to annual revisions (see notes on deliveries for further information).
Figures for 2019 are final; provisional figures were previously released in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Figures for 2019 and earlier years have not been revised from those provided in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
Information on revisions made since "Forestry Statistics 2019" are provided in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
Further information Figures are published as UK totals. Country breakdowns (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) are also published for softwood in table 2.2 for private sector removals and table 2.3 for FE/FLS/NRW/FS removals. Approximate country breakdowns are also estimated for hardwood removals.
Longer time series, presenting estimates of FE/FLS/NRW/FS and private sector removals by country and by softwood/hardwood are available from the www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/web page.
Release schedule Provisional figures for 2020 will be released on 16 May 2021 in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2020 provisional figures".
Final figures for 2020 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.2.2 Sources: Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey
Introduction The Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey is an annual survey conducted by Forest Research (on behalf of the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales and the Northern Ireland Forest Service) of a sample of harvesting companies in the UK.
Figures are published as UK totals and by country (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland).
Data collected The questionnaire used for the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey (available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/surveys/private-sector-softwood-removals-survey/) is issued annually to around 40 harvesting companies, to collect information on:
- the quantity of softwood roundwood harvested from private sector woodlands in the UK in the current (latest) year and in the previous year;
- the quantity of softwood roundwood harvested from certified private sector woodlands;
- (from the 2008 survey) the quantity sold to bioenergy (including wood pellet manufacture);
- (for the 2013 - 2017 surveys) the quantity of softwood roundwood harvested as required by plant health legislation and
- (from the 2018 survey) the quantity of removals by type of product.
Response rates The questionnaire was issued to 40 harvesting companies for the collection of 2019 data, of which 26 responded, giving a response rate of 65%. These respondents are estimated to account for around 88% of all the softwood harvested by companies covered by the survey. Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey Response Rates, 2010-2019
| Year | Forms issued | Responses received | Response rate(^1) | Weighted response rate(^2) | |------|--------------|--------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------| | 2010 | 40 | 30 | 75% | 97% | | 2011 | 37 | 26 | 70% | 96% | | 2012 | 37 | 27 | 73% | 95% | | 2013 | 40 | 28 | 70% | 96% | | 2014 | 39 | 30 | 77% | 97% | | 2015 | 40 | 27 | 68% | 94% | | 2016 | 40 | 26 | 65% | 94% | | 2017 | 40 | 31 | 78% | 95% | | 2018 | 43 | 37 | 86% | 90% | | 2019 | 40 | 26 | 65% | 88% |
Notes:
1. Response rates are calculated as the number of responses received divided by the number of forms issued.
2. Weighted response rates are an estimate of the proportion of the softwood harvested by companies covered by the survey that is accounted for by respondents.
Methodology A review of the methodology used to estimate total private sector softwood removals (including businesses not covered by the survey) was undertaken in 2011-2012.
The "Methodology Review of Softwood Removals from Non-FC/FS Woodland" paper presents the results from this review and the implications of the change in methodology. The paper is available at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/).
In the current methodology, businesses not covered by the survey are assumed to represent 15% of the total softwood removals from private sector woodland. This fixed percentage is applied from 2006 onwards. This figure remains under review.
Quality Detailed information on the survey quality is available in the "Quality Report: Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey" at Revisions Results from the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey may be revised between the provisional figures published in the First Release "UK Wood Production and Trade: provisional figures" and the final data published in "Forestry Facts & Figures" and "Forestry Statistics", to take account of late returns and the results of additional data quality checking procedures.
In order to use the most accurate information possible in estimating total private sector softwood removals, figures for non respondents in earlier years are estimated wherever possible, using their responses in previous and in subsequent years. This may cause the estimates for all previous years to be revised when new data are received from a former non-respondent. This process reduces the potential over-inflation of estimated removals which can be caused by harvesting companies tending to respond when removals have increased but being less likely to do so when their removals have reduced.
Figures for 2019 are final; provisional figures were previously released in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Figures for 2019 and earlier years have not been revised from those in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Information on revisions made since "Forestry Statistics 2019" are provided in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
Release schedule Provisional figures for 2020 will be released on 16 May 2021 in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2020 provisional figures".
Final figures for 2020 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.2.3 Sources: Sawmill Survey
Introduction The Sawmill Survey is an annual survey conducted by Forest Research (on behalf of the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales and the Northern Ireland Forest Service) of sawmills in the UK that are believed to use UK-grown logs. The survey comprises a short questionnaire (for smaller mills) and a detailed questionnaire (for larger mills).
The detailed survey has changed over the years, both in terms of coverage and periodicity. From 2016, the threshold for inclusion in the detailed sawmill survey has been raised to annual production of at least 25,000 m$^3$ sawnwood. Information on changes prior to 2009 are available in previous editions of Forestry Statistics.
Statistics reported for each year are limited to mills that are known to use UK roundwood, but also include any imported logs used by these mills.
Tables for softwood are broken down by country (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) and by size of mill. Given the low number of sawmills using UK hardwood, tables for hardwood are presented at a total UK level only.
The number of active mills (those that produced sawnwood in the reporting year) is presented in tables 2.8 to 2.10.
Longer time series, providing data on numbers of mills and on softwood consumption and production are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. The time series data feature breakdowns by size of mill, by country and by region (in England).
Data collected Two questionnaires are used for the Sawmill Survey:
- a detailed questionnaire goes to around 30 mills that have annual production of at least 25,000 m$^3$ of sawnwood, and
- a short questionnaire is sent to all other mills that are believed to use UK sawlogs (currently around 125 mills).
As the threshold for inclusion in the detailed survey was changed for the collection of data since 2016, the results presented here for earlier years have been adjusted to this new threshold to provide a consistent time series.
Both the detailed and the short questionnaires collect information on:
- the consumption of UK and imported logs,
- the production of sawnwood, • chain of custody certificates and certified timber, • (from the 2006 survey) sales to bioenergy, • (from the 2008 survey) sales as firewood and internal use for heat/energy, • (from the 2010 survey) other products, • (from the 2008 survey) total employment and • (for the 2018 survey only) total wood inputs.
In addition, the detailed questionnaire also collects information on:
• the source of UK logs (England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland), • sawnwood product markets, • other products by type and destination and • sawmill employment by type.
More information on the Sawmill Survey, including copies of the questionnaires sent to businesses in recent years, can be found at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/surveys/sawmill-survey/.
Response rates Detailed questionnaires were issued to 28 mills for the collection of 2019 data, of which 22 responded, giving a response rate of 79%. For the short questionnaire, 35 responses were received from the 123 forms issued, corresponding to a 28% response rate. This gives an overall response rate of 38%.
Overall, the 57 sawmills responding to the sawmill survey in 2019 are estimated to account for around 75% of total UK sawnwood production.
### Sawmill Survey Response Rates (all questionnaires), 2010-2019
| Year | Forms issued | Responses received | Response rate<sup>1</sup> | Weighted response rate<sup>2</sup> | |------|--------------|--------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------------| | 2010 | 211 | 93 | 44% | 85% | | 2011 | 200 | 84 | 42% | 82% | | 2012 | 196 | 86 | 44% | 84% | | 2013 | 191 | 83 | 43% | 80% | | 2014 | 178 | 82 | 46% | 84% | | 2015 | 179 | 84 | 47% | 79% | | 2016 | 173 | 74 | 43% | 83% | | 2017 | 170 | 73 | 43% | 86% | | 2018 | 155 | 64 | 41% | 79% | | 2019 | 151 | 57 | 38% | 75% |
**Notes:**
1. Response rates are calculated as the number of responses received divided by the number of forms issued.
2. Weighted response rates are an estimate of the proportion of total UK sawnwood production that is accounted for by respondents.
**Methodology**
Each year, figures for non respondents are estimated by rolling forward data from previous years for these mills. For larger mills, these estimates may be modified to take account of advice from the Expert Group on Timber & Trade Statistics.
**Time series data for the detailed sawmill survey**
From one year to another, some mills may have moved above or below the threshold for inclusion in the detailed sawmill survey. This may affect the trends over time in tables 2.16a to 2.19a.
The total volume of roundwood consumed and sawnwood and other products produced by sawmills covered by the detailed sawmill survey varies over time, so a change in the percentages shown in tables 2.16a to 2.18a does not necessarily reflect a change in volumes.
As a result of the change to the threshold for inclusion in the detailed survey since 2016, results for 2015 presented in tables 2.16a to 2.18a have been revised to cover only those mills producing at least 25 thousand m³ sawnwood, for consistency with the data from 2016. Quality Detailed information on the survey quality is available in the "Quality Report: Sawmill Survey", available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Further quality information on our Official Statistics is available at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Revisions Results from the Sawmill Survey may be revised between the provisional figures published in the First Release "UK Wood Production and Trade: provisional figures" and the final data published in "Forestry Facts & Figures" and "Forestry Statistics" to take account of late returns and the results of additional data quality checking procedures.
All the main results (number of mills, consumption, production) are subject to revision annually, as information becomes available about mills opening or closing, or new information becomes available for previous non-respondents. The most common revisions are relatively small downward changes, but this can vary from year to year as special exercises are run to validate the survey population. Information about new mills opening can on occasion cause much larger upward revisions to softwood volumes. Results from the survey of larger mills, which provides more detailed information, may be revised to take account of new information for previous non-respondents.
Figures for 2019 are final; provisional figures were previously released in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Figures for 2019 and earlier years have not been revised since "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
Information on revisions made since "Forestry Statistics 2019" are provided in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
Further information Figures for UK production of sawn softwood have previously been used alongside data from other sources to assess consumption of sawn softwood in the main end-user markets in the UK. Reports are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/timber-statistics/timber-utilisation-statistics/. Release schedule Provisional figures for 2020 will be released on 16 May 2021 in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2020 provisional figures".
Final figures for 2020 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.2.4 Sources: Pulp & paper
Introduction Data on the pulp and paper sector are obtained from two sources:
- The Confederation of Forest Industries (Confor, www.confor.org.uk) provides figures on inputs to the integrated pulp and paper mills and
- the Confederation of Paper Industries (CPI, www.paper.org.uk) provides figures on total UK pulp and paper production.
Integrated pulp and paper mills are paper mills that use UK roundwood to produce pulp (an intermediate product in the production of paper). Inputs for other paper mills are not covered in the input statistics reported. The figures for production cover all UK paper mills.
Figures are available at a total UK level only.
Data collected The data collected on inputs cover the type of input (roundwood, sawmill products) and the type of wood (softwood, hardwood).
Production data covers wood pulp (mechanical or semi-chemical), recovered fibre pulp and paper & paperboard. Paper & paperboard production are available for the following categories: graphic papers, sanitary & household papers, packaging materials and other paper & paperboard. Data are also collected on UK "production" of waste paper, which is the amount recovered from the UK for re-use in the UK or for export.
From 2008, total employment at integrated pulp and paper mills is also requested, to complement the data collected on this topic from other primary wood processors.
From 2018, data was also requested on wood inputs for energy use.
Methodology The data on inputs to integrated pulp and paper mills are collected by Confor from all such mills in the UK. The number of integrated pulp and paper mills has fallen over recent years and currently stands at 2.
The CPI collects production and raw material data from members and non-members, which accounts for the majority of UK production. The remainder is estimated by CPI using a variety of sources. Revisions The statistics on pulp and paper are not normally revised after publication. On occasion, a provisional figure or estimate may be published, and replaced by the actual figure in a subsequent publication.
Figures for 2019 are final; provisional figures were previously released in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
Figures for 2019 and earlier years have not been revised from those in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Information on revisions made since "Forestry Statistics 2019" are provided in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
Release schedule Provisional figures for 2020 will be released on 16 May 2021 in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2020 provisional figures".
Final figures for 2020 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.2.5 Sources: Wood-based panels
Introduction Data on the wood-based panel sector are obtained from the Wood Panel Industries Federation (WPIF, www.wpif.org.uk) and cover all wood-based panel mills in the UK.
Statistics reported for each year are available at a UK level only.
Data collected Data are collected on inputs and on production.
The data collected on inputs covers the type of input (roundwood, sawmill products, imports, recycled wood fibre) and the type of wood (softwood, hardwood).
Production data covers all types of wood-based panels made in the UK, which currently comprises particleboard (including oriented strand board) and fibreboard (medium density fibreboard). UK production of hardboard (another type of fibreboard) ended in the UK in 1999 and production of plywood ended in 2000.
From 2008, total employment is also requested, to complement the data being collected on this topic from other primary wood processors.
From 2018, data was also requested on wood inputs for energy use.
Methodology The data on wood-based panels are collected by the WPIF, which represents all UK wood panel manufacturers. Figures on wood consumption are collected annually. Production data (excluding waste and rejects) are derived from quarterly returns. Response rates in recent years have been 100%.
Revisions The statistics on wood-based panels are not normally revised after publication. On occasion, a provisional figure or estimate may be published, and replaced by the actual figure in a subsequent publication.
Figures for 2019 are final; provisional figures were previously released in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Figures for 2019 and earlier years have not been revised from those in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Release schedule Provisional figures for 2020 will be released on 16 May 2021 in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2020 provisional figures".
Final figures for 2020 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.2.6 Sources: Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers
Introduction The Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers is an annual survey conducted by Forest Research (on behalf of the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales and the Northern Ireland Forest Service) of round fencing manufacturers (or mills) in the UK that are believed to consume UK-grown roundwood.
Figures are published as UK totals and by size of mill.
Longer time series, providing data on numbers of mills and on softwood consumption are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. The time series data feature breakdowns by size of mill and by country.
Data collected The questionnaire used for the Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers is issued to around 50 mills, to collect information on the consumption of UK-grown and imported roundwood. In 2008, the survey was extended to cover woodfuel quantities (sales to bioenergy, sales as firewood and internal use for heat/energy) and total employment. In 2010, the survey was further extended to request data on production of round fencing and other products. A breakdown of the country of origin (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) for UK-grown roundwood is also requested. A question on total wood inputs was added for the 2018 survey but has since been dropped.
More information on the Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers, including copies of the questionnaires sent to businesses in recent years, can be found at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/surveys/survey-of-round-fencing-manufacturers/.
Response rates The questionnaire was issued to 50 mills for the collection of 2019 data, of which 20 responded, giving a response rate of 40%. These respondents accounted for an estimated 45% of roundwood purchased by softwood round fencing manufacturers.
### Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers Response Rates, 2010-2019
| Year | Forms issued | Responses received | Response rate<sup>1</sup> | Weighed response rate<sup>2</sup> | |------|--------------|--------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------------| | 2010 | 79 | 34 | 43% | 46% | | 2011 | 72 | 26 | 36% | 58% | | 2012 | 68 | 26 | 38% | 53% | | 2013 | 67 | 27 | 40% | 51% | | 2014 | 62 | 26 | 42% | 42% | | 2015 | 60 | 29 | 48% | 54% | | 2016 | 55 | 23 | 42% | 49% | | 2017 | 53 | 21 | 40% | 36% | | 2018 | 53 | 22 | 42% | 37% | | 2019 | 50 | 20 | 40% | 45% |
**Notes:**
1. Response rates are calculated as the number of responses received divided by the number of forms issued.
2. Weighted response rates are an estimate of the proportion of total roundwood purchased by softwood round fencing manufacturers that is accounted for by respondents.
**Methodology**
Each year, figures for non-respondents are estimated by rolling forward data from previous years for these mills. In 2019, this approach was modified to include a 3% uplift, to reflect the increasing activity in the sector.
**Quality**
Detailed information on the survey quality is provided in the "Quality Report: Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers", available at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/).
Further quality information on our Official Statistics is available at: [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/).
**Revisions**
Results from the Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers may be revised between the provisional figures published in the First Release "UK Wood Production and Trade: provisional figures" and the final data published in "Forestry Facts & Figures" and "Forestry Statistics" to take account of late returns and the results of additional data quality checking procedures.
All figures are subject to revision annually, as information becomes available about mills opening or closing, or new information becomes available for previous non-respondents. Such revisions are generally quite small.
Figures for 2019 are final; provisional figures were previously released in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Since the publication of provisional figures for 2019, the estimate for UK softwood consumption by round fencing mills has been revised upwards by 5 thousand green tonnes to reflect an improved estimate for non-respondents. Data for earlier years have not been revised. Information on revisions made since "Forestry Statistics 2019" are provided in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
**Release schedule**
Provisional figures for 2020 will be released on 16 May 2021 in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2020 provisional figures".
Final figures for 2020 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.2.7 Sources: Other deliveries
Introduction Data on other deliveries comprise the following:
- shavings - mainly obtained from shavings manufacturers;
- woodfuel - private sector softwood removals survey, woodfuel suppliers and Expert Group on Timber & Trade Statistics estimates;
- hardwood round fencing - Expert Group on Timber & Trade Statistics estimates;
- other miscellaneous products - Expert Group on Timber & Trade Statistics estimates and
- exports of roundwood and chips - companies believed to export roundwood and/or chips, Forest Service (for exports from Northern Ireland) and HM Revenue and Customs.
Statistics reported for each year are available at a UK level only.
Data collected The data collected on shavings, woodfuel and other miscellaneous products cover the quantity of roundwood only.
Data collected on exports includes the following categories; industrial roundwood (excluding sawlogs), sawlogs and chips.
Methodology For shavings, data are collected from the main companies known to produce shavings. In addition, a small estimate is made to cover other shavings manufacturers.
There are currently no reliable sources for data on hardwood round fencing and other miscellaneous products. As a result, estimates (that are rarely changed) are made by the Expert Group on Timber & Trade Statistics to attempt to take account of these other uses of UK roundwood.
The estimate for hardwood used for woodfuel was revised in 2017 to reflect a perceived increase in woodfuel, but this should not be interpreted as an increase in a single year. A further increase in 2018 reflects a rise that is believed to have occurred during the year.
For exports, data are requested from companies believed to have exported roundwood or chips in the last year. Forest Service provides data on behalf of companies exporting from Northern Ireland. If required, a small estimate is made for any non respondents or to cover other companies that may have exported roundwood during the year. Exports of hardwood roundwood are estimated from the overseas trade statistics produced by HM Revenue and Customs.
**Revisions**
Figures for deliveries of softwood for woodfuel may be revised whenever revisions are made to the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey.
The statistics on other deliveries are not normally revised after publication. On occasion, an estimate may be revised in a subsequent publication, to take account of expert advice on perceived changes in the market for roundwood.
The quality report on UK Wood Production and Trade provides further information, including details of significant revisions to published statistics and is available at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/).
Figures for 2019 are final; provisional figures were previously released in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Figures for 2019 and earlier years have not been revised from those in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Information on revisions made since "Forestry Statistics 2019" are provided in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
**Release schedule**
Provisional figures for 2020 will be released on 16 May 2021 in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2020 provisional figures".
Final figures for 2020 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.2.8 Sources: Comparison of removals and deliveries of UK softwood roundwood
The table below provides a comparison between the figures for removals (obtained from Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service and Private Sector Removals Survey) and deliveries (obtained from industry surveys and trade associations) of UK softwood roundwood.
The estimated total for softwood removals in the UK in 2011 to 2017 has been at least 0.3 million green tonnes higher than the estimate for total UK softwood deliveries. At least some of this difference may indicate a possible undercounting of deliveries, particularly for roundwood that is used directly for woodfuel.
More recently, a larger discrepancy of 0.7 million green tonnes in 2018 has been offset by a reversal, with the estimate for softwood deliveries now 0.4 million green tonnes higher than removals in 2019. Taken together, the total discrepancy for 2018 and 2019 equates to total removals around 0.3 million green tonnes higher than deliveries, suggesting that at least some of the recent changes in the difference between removals and deliveries may be related to changes in the level of stocks. Comparison of removals and deliveries of UK softwood roundwood, 2010-2019
| Year | FE/FLS/NRW/FS removals | Private sector removals | Total removals | Deliveries | Balance¹ | |------|------------------------|-------------------------|----------------|------------|----------| | 2010 | 4,625 | 4,633 | 9,258 | 9,265 | -7 | | 2011 | 4,870 | 5,186 | 10,056 | 9,718 | 338 | | 2012 | 4,836 | 5,259 | 10,095 | 9,826 | 269 | | 2013 | 5,084 | 5,852 | 10,936 | 10,543 | 392 | | 2014 | 4,900 | 6,627 | 11,527 | 10,899 | 628 | | 2015 | 4,691 | 5,968 | 10,659 | 10,261 | 397 | | 2016 | 5,011 | 5,734 | 10,745 | 10,415 | 331 | | 2017 | 4,761 | 6,075 | 10,938 | 10,456 | 381 | | 2018 | 4,522 | 6,827 | 11,349 | 10,611 | 738 | | 2019 | 3,937 | 5,864 | 9,801 | 10,210 | -409 |
Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, industry surveys, industry associations
Notes:
1. The difference between reported removals and deliveries can be caused by variations in the level of stocks between harvesting and delivery to the wood processor, and/or by the differences in data sources and methodologies used to compile removals and deliveries statistics. 11.2.9 Sources: Estimation of hardwood removals from private sector woodlands
Figures for hardwood removals from private sector woodlands are derived from total hardwood deliveries (obtained from industry surveys and trade associations) less hardwood removals from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands. The table below provides figures for the last 10 years.
**Estimation of hardwood removals from private sector woodlands, 2010-2019**
| Year | Deliveries | FE/FLS/NRW/FS removals | Private sector removals | |------|------------|------------------------|-------------------------| | 2010 | 534 | 70 | 464 | | 2011 | 540 | 75 | 465 | | 2012 | 533 | 55 | 478 | | 2013 | 531 | 78 | 453 | | 2014 | 536 | 71 | 465 | | 2015 | 565 | 73 | 492 | | 2016 | 596 | 68 | 528 | | 2017 | 737 | 83 | 652 | | 2018 | 835 | 86 | 746 | | 2019 | 869 | 68 | 801 |
Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, industry surveys, industry associations. 11.2.10 Sources: Woodfuel and pellets
Introduction Data on woodfuel have been obtained from the following sources:
- Sawmill survey and survey of round fencing manufacturers;
- Private sector softwood removals survey and woodfuel suppliers;
- Expert Group on Timber & Trade Statistics estimates.
Estimates of the quantity of recycled wood used for woodfuel are produced by the Wood Recyclers' Association (www.woodrecyclers.org).
Data on UK pellet production and feedstock are obtained from the survey of UK pellet and briquette production.
For details on roundwood deliveries for woodfuel, see the Sources: other deliveries page.
Figures are published as UK totals.
Data collected The sawmill survey and survey of round fencing manufacturers included questions asking for the quantity of woodfuel:
- sold to bioenergy,
- sold as firewood and
- used internally for heat/energy.
The survey of UK pellet and briquette production was run for the first time for the collection of 2009 data. The questionnaire asks for data on the total quantity of pellets and briquettes produced, the source of fibres used, the origin of wood used and product markets.
More information on the survey of UK pellet and briquette production, including copies of the questionnaires sent to businesses in recent years, can be found at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/surveys/survey-of-uk-pellet-amp-briquette-production/.
Response rates Response rates for the sawmill survey and survey of round fencing manufacturers are available on the relevant sources pages.
The 2019 survey of UK pellet and briquette production was sent to a total of 14 companies that were believed to manufacture pellets or briquettes. A total of 5 responded, giving a response rate of 36%. The respondents to the survey are estimated to account for around 89% of the total production of pellets and briquettes in the UK in 2019.
Whilst the low response rates to this survey are of some concern, it is believed that many of the non-respondents are not (currently) producing pellets or briquettes. This is reflected in the much higher weighted response rates and the figures produced are believed to give a reasonable estimate of the true level of UK pellet production.
**Survey of UK Pellet & Briquette Production Response Rates, 2010-2019**
| Year | Forms issued | Response received | Response rate<sup>1</sup> | Weighted Response rate<sup>2</sup> | |------|--------------|-------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------| | 2010 | 27 | 12 | 44% | 95% | | 2011 | 22 | 10 | 45% | 92% | | 2012 | 21 | 5 | 24% | 75% | | 2013 | 18 | 8 | 44% | 91% | | 2014 | 18 | 6 | 33% | 91% | | 2015 | 18 | 5 | 28% | 45% | | 2016 | 18 | 5 | 28% | 68% | | 2017 | 17 | 4 | 24% | 56% | | 2018 | 14 | 5 | 36% | 89% | | 2019 | 14 | 5 | 36% | 89% |
Notes:
1. Response rates are calculated as the number of responses received divided by the number of forms issued.
2. Weighted response rates are an estimate of the proportion of total UK pellet and briquette production that is accounted for by respondents.
**Methodology**
Details of the methodology used for the sawmill survey and survey of round fencing manufacturers are available on the relevant sources pages.
For the survey of UK pellet and briquette production, estimates were made for non-respondents using results from previous surveys and expert advice.
**Quality**
Detailed information on the pellet survey quality is available in the "Quality Report: Survey of UK Pellet & Briquette Production", available at Further quality information on our Official Statistics is available at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Revisions All figures are subject to revision annually, as new information becomes available.
Figures for 2019 are final; provisional figures were previously released in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Figures for 2019 and earlier years have not been revised from those provided in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
Further information Figures for Woodfuel Demand and Usage in Scotland, covering actual and potential use of woodfuel in the commercial, industrial and electrical energy sectors, are produced annually by Scottish Forestry and available at https://forestry.gov.scot/forests-environment/climate-change/woodfuel-and-bio-energy.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (previously the Department of Energy and Climate Change) publishes an annual Digest of UK Energy Statistics (www.gov.uk/government/collections/digest-of-uk-energy-statistics-dukes). Chapter 7 of this digest covers renewable sources of energy including wood. Figures for wood use in renewable energy statistics take into account wood from all sources (including processed wood, recycled wood and imports), not just UK-grown roundwood.
Release schedule Provisional figures for 2020 will be released on 16 May 2021 in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2020 provisional figures".
Final figures for 2020 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.2.11 Sources: Conversion factors
Conversion factors between cubic metres and green tonnes
The following factors have been used in Chapter 2 (Timber) to convert between cubic metres (m$^3$) and green tonnes:
The diagram shows separate conversion factors to use when converting softwood (SW) and hardwood (HW) with arrows to indicate the direction of conversion. For example, to convert 1,000 green tonnes of SW into an underbark volume, the 1,000 green tonnes should be multiplied by the conversion factor of 0.982 to give 982m$^3$ underbark. There is no difference between the softwood and hardwood conversion factors for converting between standing volume and overbark volumes. The following factors have been used in Chapter 3 (Trade) to convert between cubic metres (m$^3$) and metric tonnes:
In this case, all the factors are expressed as volumes (in m$^3$) per weight (in tonnes). Therefore, to convert 1,000 tonnes of sawn softwood into a volume, the 1,000 tonnes should be multiplied by 1.82 to give 1,820 m$^3$.
### Conversion factors between cubic metres and metric tonnes
| Product | m$^3$ / tonne | |---------------------------------------------------|---------------| | Fuelwood, including wood for charcoal | 1.38 | | Wood chips, sawdust, etc | 1.48 | | Industrial roundwood (wood in the rough) - softwood| 1.43 | | Industrial roundwood (wood in the rough) - hardwood| 1.25 | | Sawnwood - softwood | 1.82 | | Sawnwood - hardwood | 1.43 | | Veneer sheets | 1.33 | | Plywood, particleboard | 1.54 | | Hardboard | 1.053 | | MDF (medium density fibreboard) | 1.667 | | Insulating board - density 0.35-0.5 g/cm$^3$ | 1.667 | | Insulating board - other | 4.00 |
The following factors have been used in Chapter 3 (Trade) where required to convert to wood raw material equivalent, which indicates the volume of wood (in m$^3$ underbark) needed to produce one unit of a final product:
## Conversion factors to Wood Raw Material Equivalent (wrme) underbark
| Product | Measurement unit | Factor to wrme underbark | |----------------------------------------------|------------------|--------------------------| | Fuelwood | tonnes | 1.20 | | Wood charcoal | tonnes | 6.00 | | Chips, sawdust, etc | tonnes | 1.20 | | Industrial roundwood (rough, treated) | m³ | 1.10 | | Industrial roundwood (in the rough) | m³ | 1.00 | | Sleepers | m³ | 1.58 | | Softwood sawnwood | m³ | 2.00 | | Hardwood sawnwood | m³ | 2.50 | | Wastepaper | tonnes | 2.80 | | Mechanical pulp | tonnes | 2.50 | | Chemical dissolving pulp | tonnes | 2.50 | | Sulphate pulp, unbleached | tonnes | 6.00 | | Sulphate pulp, bleached | tonnes | 4.50 | | Sulphite pulp | tonnes | 5.00 | | Semi-chemical woodpulp | tonnes | 2.75 | | Veneer (< 6mm) | tonnes | 3.45 | | Other wood-based panels | tonnes | 2.50 | | Woodwool, woodflour | tonnes | 1.70 | | Packing cases, pallets | tonnes | 2.00 | | Other manufactured wood | tonnes | 2.50 | | Newsprint | tonnes | 2.80 | | Writing & printing paper, uncoated | tonnes | 3.50 | | Other paper & paperboard | tonnes | 2.50 |
**Notes:**
1. A revised set of figures was produced in FC Technical Paper 19, "Revised Forecasts of the Supply and Demand for Wood in the UK" (Forestry Commission, 1996), but these have not been used in this publication. 11.3 Sources: Trade
Introduction Statistics on imports and exports are based on the published overseas trade statistics for intra-EU trade and extra-EU trade produced by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and available at www.uktradeinfo.com.
Data on apparent consumption is derived as UK production plus imports less exports.
Data Sources and Methodology The data obtained from HMRC cover quantities (weights and volumes) and values of wood and wood products imported to and exported from the UK. Data are compiled for the following products:
- roundwood - woodfuel, industrial roundwood;
- wood charcoal;
- wood pellets;
- wood chips, particles and residues;
- sawnwood;
- wood-based panels - veneer sheets, plywood, particleboard, fibreboard;
- pulp - wood pulp, other pulp;
- recovered paper;
- recovered wood;
- paper & paperboard - graphic papers (including newsprint), sanitary & household papers, packaging materials, other paper & paperboard.
For roundwood, sawnwood and wood-based panels, a softwood/hardwood breakdown is available.
The HMRC data are also available by country of origin (for imports) and destination country (for exports).
For consistency with timber deliveries data, softwood roundwood and wood chip exports figures are replaced by those compiled from companies believed to export roundwood and/or chips. For Northern Ireland, figures are provided by the Forest Service.
Where the HMRC reporting units for quantity differ from those shown in this publication, figures are adjusted using standard FAO/ECE conversion factors, which are listed in the Timber section of the Sources chapter.
The figures may also be adjusted where an apparent inconsistency in the UK trade figures cannot be resolved before the international return is required. Historically, HMRC wood trade figures have often necessitated adjustments, following liaison with practitioners in the trade (including the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics, Wood Panel Industries Federation (www.wpif.org.uk) and Confederation of Paper Industries (www.paper.org.uk)). This is partly because detailed intra-EU wood trade data is obtained through a survey of businesses that trade above a particular value threshold. Businesses that trade below this threshold are only required to report the total value of their imports and exports. Therefore the trade data reported in this publication for individual products is based on a potentially biased survey. More information on HMRC statistics can be found at www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/Pages/Statistics.aspx.
The “Methodology note: UK wood imports and exports” sets out the data analysis methods used to produce annual estimates of UK wood imports and exports and is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/.
Quality Detailed information on the quality of the trade statistics presented in this publication is provided in the "Quality Report: UK Wood Production and Trade", available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Further quality information on our Official Statistics is available at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Revisions Statistics on imports and exports are subject to revision after publication if revisions are made to the overseas trade statistics produced by HMRC. Figures may also be refined to take account of expert advice from the Expert Group on Timber & Trade Statistics and trade associations on the trade in specific products.
Figures for 2019 are final; provisional figures were previously released in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures". Since the release of 2019 provisional figures, the following revisions have been made:
- Import quantities – an upward revision to pulp in 2018 (1%).
- Export quantities – revisions to woodbased panels in 2019 (down 2%) and to pulp in 2018 (down 3%) and 2019 (up 1%).
- Import values – revisions to woodbased panels in 2019 (up 2%) and to sawnwood in 2019 (down less than 0.5%). • Export values – a downwards revision to sawnwood in 2019 (2%) and an upwards revision to woodbased panels in 2019 (1%).
Other revisions to 2018 and 2019 data resulted in changes of no more than 0.5% magnitude.
Information on revisions made since "Forestry Statistics 2019" are provided in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2019 provisional figures".
Information on significant revisions to published statistics is provided in the "Quality Report: UK Wood Production and Trade" at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors to these statistics are dealt with, and can be found at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf.
Further information Most of these statistics are used to compile data that are sent to international organisations in the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaires, in some cases giving more detail than in this release. These returns are published as Official Statistics on the Forest Research website; provisional figures in May and final figures in September/October. The statistics are used by Eurostat Forestry Statistics, UNECE Timber Bulletins, and UN/FAO Forest Product Statistics and are published on the FAOSTAT database www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home.
A summary of the international statistics available from the FAOSTAT website are presented in the chapter on International Forestry. For more information, please refer to the International Forestry section of the Sources chapter.
The definitions used in this publication are consistent with the international definitions, as given in the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire definitions, available at www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80572/en/.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry also collects, on an annual basis, estimates for the current year and projections for the following year of wood production, imports and exports. Results are available on the UNECE website (www.unece.org/forests/fpm/timbercommittee.html). Copies of UK returns for the UNECE Timber Forecast Questionnaire are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/international-returns/unece-timber-forecast-questionnaire/. Figures for UK imports and exports of sawn softwood have previously been used alongside data from other sources to assess consumption of sawn softwood in the main end-user markets in the UK. Reports are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/timber-statistics/timber-utilisation-statistics/.
Release schedule Provisional trade figures for 2020 will be released on 16 May 2021 in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2020 provisional figures".
Final trade figures for 2020 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021". 11.4 Sources: Carbon
Introduction Forests can help mitigate climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They do this by absorbing carbon dioxide, using the carbon to produce sugars for tree growth and releasing the oxygen back into the air. As trees grow, they store carbon in their leaves, twigs and trunk, and in the soil around them.
Globally, deforestation caused by the unsustainable harvesting of timber and the conversion of forests to other land uses accounts for almost 20 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. The amount of carbon stored can be increased by actions to reduce the amount of deforestation and to convert non-forested areas to forest. Forests can be managed as a sustainable source of wood – an alternative energy source to fossil fuels, and a low-energy construction material.
Woodlands can also help society adapt to a changing climate, by reducing the risk of flooding, providing shade for wildlife, reducing soil erosion and helping to cool down towns and cities.
Data sources and methodology Forest carbon stock Table 4.1a is adapted from Table 2d in the final UK report submitted in January 2019 to FAO for the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) 2020 (www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en/). Table 4.1b has been compiled using the same approach produce estimates by country within the UK.
Units: These tables are shown in million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO$\_2$e) rather than million tonnes carbon (MtC). To convert from CO$\_2$e to C multiply by 12/44.
Timescales: Carbon stock is estimated for 1990, 2000, 2010, 2015 and 2020.
Living biomass: Carbon in living biomass is based on data from "NFI report: Carbon in live woodland trees in Britain" (Forestry Commission, May 2014), uprated from GB to UK estimates based on estimated volumes of growing stock. A "root to shoot ratio" (below ground biomass = 0.36 x above ground biomass) is used to estimate the breakdown between above- and below-ground biomass (Levy et al, 2004). Updated estimates of growing stock over time (making use of data from the National Forest Inventory) have been used. Deadwood: Estimates of deadwood volume per hectare are taken from National Forest Inventory estimates. These are rated up by woodland area estimates for FRA 2020, assuming a density of 0.45 ODT/m$^3$, and an average carbon content of 50% is applied.
Litter: Estimates of the carbon content of the litter layer are available from Morison et al (2012). These are rated up by woodland area estimates for FRA 2020 to provide a consistent time series.
Soil carbon: Estimates of the carbon content of soil 0-100 cm for England, Wales and Scotland are available from Morison et al (2012). An estimate of the carbon content of soil for Northern Ireland is taken from Bradley et al (2005) and rated downward to reflect the generally lower carbon content found in Morison et al (2012). The soil carbon estimates are then rated up by woodland area estimates for FRA 2020 to provide a consistent time series. This soil estimate does not take account of soil carbon accumulation. It also assumes that the soil carbon content of afforested (and previously unwooded) land has the same soil carbon content as woodland soils, whereas in practice this may vary.
Comparison with other data sources: Figures in this updated table are broadly similar to the estimates made in Morison et al (2012).
Future updates: This table will be updated once further information is available from the National Forest Inventory.
Woodland Carbon Code The Woodland Carbon Code is a voluntary standard, initiated in July 2011, for woodland creation projects that make claims about the carbon they sequester (take out of the atmosphere). All projects must be placed on the UK Woodland Carbon Registry. Their claims about potential carbon sequestration are validated by an independent certification body. Validated projects are then verified on a regular basis to confirm the progress of carbon sequestration.
Information about Woodland Carbon Code projects comes from the UK Woodland Carbon Registry, housed on the Markit Environmental Registry (www.markit.com/product/registry). The register is a live database and summary data are extracted annually.
Further information on the Woodland Carbon Code is available at: www.woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/.
Public opinion on climate change Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys have been run every 2 years by Forest Research (on behalf of the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government/ Natural Resources Wales and Northern Ireland Forest Service). The surveys cover public attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues. The surveys included up to 2 questions on climate change: one asking about ways in which forests and woodlands can impact on climate change and one asking about how UK forests should be managed in response to the threat of climate change (Table 4.3). Further information on the surveys is available in the Sources: Public Opinion of Forestry page.
References Bradley, R.I., Milne, R., Bell, J., Lilly, A., Jordan, C., Higgins, A. (2005) "A soil carbon and landuse database for the UK", Soil Use and Management 21 (363-369), DOI: 10.1079/SUM2005351 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1079/SUM2005351).
Broadmead, M., Matthews, R. (2003) "Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: the UK Contribution", Forestry Commission, Edinburgh (www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/archive-forests-carbon-and-climate-change-the-uk-contribution-2/).
Jenkins, T.A.R., Mackie, E.D., Matthews, R.W., Miller, G., Randle, T.J., White, M.E., FC (2011) "Woodland Carbon Code: Carbon Assessment Protocol", Forest Research (www.woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/images/PDFs/WCC_CarbonAssessmentProtocol_V2.0_March2018.pdf).
Levy, P.E., Hale, S.E., Nicoll, B.C. (2004) "Biomass expansion factors and root: shoot ratios for coniferous tree species in Great Britain", Forestry, Vol 77, No 5, DOI: 10.1093/forestry/77.5.421 (https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/77/5/421/664592).
Morison, J. et al (2012) "Understanding the Carbon and GHG balance of UK Forests", Forest Research (www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/understanding-the-carbon-and-greenhouse-gas-balance-of-forests-in-britain/).
National Forest Inventory (www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/)
Quality All of the statistics in this chapter are outside the scope of National Statistics, but are included here to give a broad indication of the role of UK forests in climate change. Revisions Most of the statistics in this chapter have been previously released. Data have not been revised from previous releases.
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors to these statistics are dealt with, and can be found at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf.
Further information Data on historical UK greenhouse gas emissions (including carbon sequestration by woodlands) is available in statistics published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics.
Release schedule Woodland Carbon Code Statistics for the year ending March 2021 will be released in "Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2021 Edition" on 17 June 2021.
"Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021" will be released on 30 September 2021.
The next Public Opinion of Forestry Survey is expected to run in early 2021, with results available in summer 2021. 11.5 Sources: Environment
Introduction
The statistics presented in the Environment chapter of this release cover:
- populations of wild birds;
- public opinion on tree health;
- woodland types and habitats.
Data sources and methodology
Populations of wild birds Population indices for wild birds are a framework indicator for sustainable development. The data published here are based on those published in the Wild bird populations in the UK, 1970-2018 statistical release (Defra, November 2019), rescaled here to give year 2000 = 100 instead of year 1970 = 100.
The index for woodland specialists was recalculated in 2007 to include 4 additional species; this affected the indices for total woodland birds and (to a lesser extent) all birds. A further change in 2015 resulted in the removal of one woodland specialist species from the index.
Public opinion on tree health Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys have been run every 2 years by Forest Research (on behalf of the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government/ Natural Resources Wales and Northern Ireland Forest Service). The surveys cover public attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues. A question asking about tree health was included for the first time in the 2013 surveys (Figure 5.2). Further information on the surveys is available in the Sources: Public Opinion of Forestry page.
Woodland types and habitats Data on woodland types and habitats comes from National Forest Inventory (NFI) report on Woodland Ecological Condition Statistics, released in February 2020. The accompanying report on NFI Woodland Ecological Condition Scoring Methodology provides more detailed information on definitions and methodology. References
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2019) "Wild bird populations in the UK, 1970-2018", National Statistics Release (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/wild-bird-populations-in-the-uk).
NFI woodland ecological condition in Great Britain: Statistics (https://www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/what-our-woodlands-and-tree-cover-outside-woodlands-are-like-today-8211-nfi-inventory-reports-and-woodland-map-reports/nfi-woodland-ecological-condition/)
Quality
Limited data are currently available on the environmental aspects of woodlands. Other than Wild Bird Populations, all of the statistics in this chapter are outside the scope of National Statistics, but are included here to give a broad indication of the woodland environment.
Revisions
Statistics on the environment obtained from others are subject to revision whenever the source data are revised.
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors to these statistics are dealt with, and can be found at: www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf.
Release schedule
For information on the release schedules of statistics produced by others, see relevant websites (above).
The next Public Opinion of Forestry survey is expected to run in early 2021, with results available in summer 2021.
"Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021" will be released on 30 September 2021. 11.6 Sources: Public Opinion of Forestry
Introduction
Forest Research (on behalf of the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government/ Natural Resources Wales and Northern Ireland Forest Service) has conducted similar surveys of public attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues every two years since 1995. Three separate surveys were undertaken in 2019; in Northern Ireland, in Wales and across the UK as a whole. A survey for Scotland was most recently carried out in 2017.
Some questions were asked in all of the surveys conducted in 2017/2019 and in the surveys undertaken in earlier years, but an increasing number are survey specific. Questions are asked on a variety of topics including, public awareness of forestry, woodland-based recreation and community involvement, woodfuel and the relationship between forestry and climate change. Tree health was introduced in the 2013/2014 surveys and continued in more recent surveys. Questions on urban trees were introduced in 2017 surveys.
Data Sources and Methodology
The survey results were obtained by placing questions in omnibus surveys run by private market research companies. The four surveys undertaken in 2019 (and 2017) achieved representative samples of:
- 2,174 adults across the UK;
- 1,013 adults across Scotland (in 2017);
- 1,001 adults across Wales;
- 1,000 adults across Northern Ireland.
All of the surveys use quota sampling to ensure that the sample selected is representative of the population, and results are weighted to produce estimates for the population as a whole.
Further information on the methodologies used for each survey are provided in the individual survey reports, available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/public-opinion-of-forestry/.
Quality
All results are subject to the effects of chance in sampling, so a range of uncertainty (confidence interval) is associated with results from the surveys. The confidence intervals take into account the effect of clustering, weighting and stratification in the survey designs. For questions asked to the whole UK sample in 2019 of 2,174, the range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ± 3.2%, while for questions asked to around 1,000 respondents, the corresponding range of uncertainty should be no more than ± 4.6%.
Revisions
Results from the Public Opinion of Forestry (POF) Surveys were previously released in the separate POF reports for each country. The statistics are not normally revised.
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors are dealt with and can be found at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf.
Further information
Latest reports for UK and England (using a subset of the UK data set) and for Wales were published on 27 June 2019, along with the full sets of data tables.
The latest report for Northern Ireland was published on 28 March 2019, along with the full set of data tables.
The latest report for Scotland was published on 13 July 2017, along with the full set of data tables.
Reports and data tables (including results for previous surveys) are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/public-opinion-of-forestry/.
Release schedule
The next Public Opinion of Forestry surveys are expected to run in early 2021, with results available in summer 2021. 11.7 Sources: Social
Introduction There are two main approaches to visitor monitoring:
- General population surveys of individuals at their home. This approach is employed for Scotland's People and Nature Survey, the National Survey for Wales, the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (England) and the Public Opinion of Forestry surveys. (Tables 6.1 to 6.5).
- Surveying and counting of visitors to a specific area or woodland. On-site surveying has been employed for the All Forests surveys. In addition, the Northern Ireland Forest Service keep records of visitors who pay an admission charge to their sites. (Table 6.6).
There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach, related to factors such as representativeness, feasibility and cost; each approach provides different types of information.
In general, on-site studies provide information on visitor interaction with local or specific woodland areas and include all categories of visitors to a site, regardless of their country of residence and interests.
In contrast, general population studies are limited to residents of a certain country or area, are often carried out by market research companies at a national level, and include people who do not visit woodlands.
Data Sources and Methodology
Household surveys The information shown in Table 6.1 has been obtained from the following general population household surveys.
- Scottish Recreation Survey (to 2012)
- Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (2011, 2014)
- Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (England 2009/10 onwards)
- Scotland's People and Nature Survey (2013 and 2017/18)
The Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment has also been used to provide information on visitor characteristics in table 6.2. For further information on this survey, see www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitor-of-engagement-with-the-natural-environment-survey-purpose-and-results. Scotland’s People and Nature Survey has replaced the Scottish Recreation Survey. Further information on both surveys are available at www.nature.scot/.
The National Survey for Wales has replaced the Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey and provides statistics on visitor characteristics (Table 6.3). Further information on the National Survey is available at: https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales.
Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys have been run, usually every 2 years, by Forest Research on behalf of the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government/ Natural Resources Wales and the Northern Ireland Forest Service. The surveys cover public attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues, including visits to woodland (Tables 6.4 to 6.5 and Figure 6.1). Further information is available on the previous page.
On-site surveys All Forests Surveys were run at a sample of Forestry and Land Scotland sites in Scotland from 2004 to 2007 and in 2012-13, to provide estimates of the numbers of visits to the National Forest Estate in Scotland. An All Forests Survey was also run in Wales in 2004. More recent estimates of the number of visitors to the National Forest Estate in Scotland has been produced by Forestry and Land Scotland, updating the All Forests Survey estimates using automatic counters and, for sites without counters, using the results from the 2012-13 All Forests Survey and advice from local managers.
Estimates for numbers of visits to the Public Forest Estate in England are provided in the Forestry England Natural Capital Accounts, available at www.forestryengland.uk/article/natural-capital-accounts.
Statistics on the day visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland where an admission charge is made is provided by the Forest Service. Further information on the Forest Service is available at https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/topics/forestry.
Quality It is notable from Table 6.1 that different surveys have provided some quite different estimates of the aggregate number of visits to woodlands. It is likely that differences in survey design and methodology have contributed to a considerable proportion of the differences in results between these surveys. As the scope of the surveys has evolved over time, the figures in Table 6.1 should not be interpreted as time trends but instead as separate results from each survey. In common with all sample based surveys, the results from each survey are subject to the effects of chance, depending on the particular survey method used and the sample achieved, thus confidence limits apply to all results from these surveys.
Technical reports, providing further information on household surveys run or commissioned by other organisations, are available from relevant websites (see above).
Revisions Most of the statistics in the Social chapter have been previously released in other publications, usually by other organisations. The latest year figures for day visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland are published for the first time in this release. Figures for earlier years have not been revised from those published in Forestry Statistics 2019.
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors are dealt with and can be found at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf.
Further information Further information on social statistics and access to individual survey reports is available from www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/recreation-statistics/.
Release schedule For information on the release schedules of statistics produced by others, see relevant websites (above).
The next Public Opinion of Forestry survey is expected to run in early 2021, with results available in summer 2021.
"Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021" will be released on 30 September 2021. 11.8 Sources: Employment and businesses
Introduction
Data sources and methodology
Statistics on employment are obtained from:
- the Annual Business Survey (www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/abs/annual-business-survey/index.html), (Office for National Statistics (www.ons.gov.uk)), an annual survey of UK businesses;
- Industry surveys (Sawmill Survey, Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers) and industry associations (Confor (www.confor.org.uk/), Wood Panel Industries Federation (www.wpif.org.uk)) - for employment in primary wood processing; and
- Confederation of Paper Industries (https://www.paper.org.uk/)
Statistics for accidents to employees are obtained from Health & Safety Executive statistics for Great Britain, available at www.hse.gov.uk/statistics.
Numbers of businesses are estimated from:
- Industry surveys (Sawmill Survey, Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers) and industry associations (Confor, Wood Panel Industries Federation) - for businesses believed to be using UK-grown roundwood, and
- UK Business: Activity, Size and Location (Office for National Statistics) - for VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses (www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bus-register/uk-business/index.html).
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
The Annual Business Survey, statistics on health and safety and statistics on VAT and/or PAYE registrations classify businesses by UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. Detailed information on the SIC is available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/classificationsandstandards/ukstandardindustrialclassificationofeconomicactivities/uksic2007.
Businesses are classified to SIC codes according to their main activity. The SIC codes are revised periodically to take account of changes in the global economy. The following codes from SIC 2003 and SIC 2007 have been used in this edition of Forestry Statistics: | Title | SIC 2003 | SIC 2007 | |-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Forestry | 02 (forestry, logging & related services) | 02 (forestry and logging) | | Wood products | 20 (manufacture of wood and wood products) | 16 (manufacture of wood and products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials) | | Sawmilling | 20.1 (sawmilling and planing of wood, impregnation of wood) | 16.1 (sawmilling and planing of wood) | | Panels | 20.2 (manufacture of veneer sheets, manufacture of plywood, laminboard, particleboard and other panels and boards) | 16.21 (manufacture of veneer sheets and wood-based panels); | | Secondary products | Other SIC 20 (manufacture of builders' carpentry and joinery, wooden containers, and other products of wood, straw and plaiting materials) | Other SIC 16 (manufacture of assembled parquet floors, other builders' carpentry and joinery, wooden containers, and other products of wood, straw and plaiting materials) | | Pulp, paper & paper products | 21 (manufacture of pulp, paper and paperboard). | 17 (manufacture of paper and paper products) | | Pulp & paper | 21.1 (manufacture of pulp, paper and paperboard) | 17.1 (manufacture of pulp, paper and paperboard) | | Articles of paper & paperboard | 21.2 (manufacture of articles of paper and paperboard) | 17.2 (manufacture of articles of paper and paperboard) | | Total wood processing | SIC 20 + SIC 21 | SIC 16 + SIC 17 | | Total primary wood processing | SIC 20.1 + SIC 20.2 + SIC 21.1 | SIC 16.1 + SIC 16.21 + SIC 17.1 | In addition, figure 7.1, covering accidents to employees, also uses the following SIC 2003/2007 codes:
- Agriculture etc: 01/01 (agriculture, hunting) + 02/02 (forestry, logging & related services) + 05/03 (fishing, exc sea fishing);
- Manufacturing: 15-37/10-33 (all categories of manufacturing).
Quality
The forestry and wood processing businesses covered by the Annual Business Survey (Table 7.1), accidents to employees (Table 7.3) and VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses (Table 7.5) differ from those covered by the timber industry surveys and enquiries (Chapter 2, Tables 7.2a, Table 7.2b and 7.4), as follows:
- Businesses below VAT and PAYE thresholds are excluded from the SIC-based statistics;
- businesses whose main activity is not forestry or wood processing will be allocated to other SIC codes and therefore excluded from the relevant tables on the Annual Business Survey, accidents and VAT and/or PAYE businesses;
- businesses that do not use UK-grown roundwood are excluded from Forest Research’s timber industry surveys and enquiries;
- businesses involved in secondary wood processing are excluded from Forest Research’s timber industry surveys and enquiries.
Reporting requirements for accidents have changed, with absences of at least 3 days to be reported until March 2012 and absences of at least 7 days to be reported from April 2012. As a result, accident data from 2012-13 are not fully consistent with figures for earlier years.
Revisions
Statistics on employment and businesses obtained from others are subject to revision whenever the source data are revised.
Statistics from timber industry surveys and enquiries are subject to revision whenever the timber statistics are revised (see relevant pages within the Sources chapter for further information on revisions to industry surveys and enquiries). The revisions made to the sawmill survey and the survey of round fencing manufacturers have resulted in:
- Table 7.2a: reductions to employment in sawmills in 2015 to 2018 by up to 2% and in fencing mills by up to 5%.
- Table 7.4: a reduction in the number of sawmills, by 1 in 2016, 2017 and by 2 in 2018. Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors to these statistics are dealt with, and can be found at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf.
Further information For further information, please refer to our Employment statistics page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/other-topics/employment-statistics/.
Release schedule For information on the release schedules of statistics produced by others, see relevant websites (above).
"Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021" will be released on 30 September 2021. 11.9 Sources: Finance & prices
Introduction The statistics presented in the Finance and Prices chapter of this release cover:
- timber prices;
- gross value added (GVA);
- government expenditure on forestry; and
- grant schemes.
Data Sources and Methodology
Timber Price Indices: Data sources The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index and the Softwood Sawlog Price Index are both based on sales of softwood (conifers) by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, and Natural Resources Wales; they do not include any private sector data. They only cover roundwood from woodland; they do not cover sawmill products or other end products.
The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index (CSSPI) is based on administrative data for standing sales of conifers (softwood) by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales. Around 60% of Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales softwood is sold standing, with the purchaser responsible for harvesting. The standing sales cover a full range of sizes, as they include thinning and removal of trees for environmental reasons, as well as harvesting of mature trees. The data used to compile the index covers volumes sold and values by average tree size.
The Softwood Sawlog Price Index (SSPI) is based on administrative data for sales of softwood sawlogs by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales. The data used to compile the index covers volumes and values. Direct production by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales (where the softwood is sold after harvesting) also covers a range of sizes, but the price statistics reported are limited to sales of logs (over 14 cm diameter).
Both the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index and the Softwood Sawlog Price Index include sales by long term contract, where the volume of roundwood covered by the contract is sold over a period of more than one year. To take account of changes in price over the term of the contract, price adjustments are made periodically, as part of the contract. The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index and Softwood Sawlog Price Index include roundwood sales by long term contract but, at present, price adjustments are not included in the indices.
The data for both the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index and the Softwood Sawlog Price Index are obtained from:
1. Forestry England’s and Forestry and Land Scotland’s Sales Recording Package (SRP). SRP was also used by Natural Resources Wales until February 2017.
2. The timber sales system used by Natural Resources Wales from April 2017 (there were no sales by NRW in March 2017). As standing sales by size category are not yet available from this system, no figures for Natural Resources Wales from April 2017 have been included in the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index.
Methodology for Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index (CSSPI) is an index of the average prices per cubic metre overbark standing achieved for standing sales of conifers by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales. It covers all conifer standing sales (open market and negotiated) by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales over the twelve month period. All thinning and clearfell data is combined within the index. It includes all species, tree sizes, working practices and conditions. It does not include any private sector data.
The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index (CSSPI) is calculated using a Fisher index with 5-yearly chain linking. By using a Fisher index to produce the index, distortions in the average price caused by variations in the average tree size over time are corrected. Applying chain linking at regular intervals (in this case, every 5 years) ensures that the index remains relevant over time. Other factors that may affect price (e.g. working conditions, timber quality or species) are not taken into account when constructing the index.
The methodology used to calculate the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index was reviewed in 2008, with the Fisher index with 5-yearly chain linking introduced from the November 2008 publication of "Timber Price Indices". Further information on the methodology used to calculate the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index is provided in the paper "Methodology for the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index", available from the Statistical Methodology and Outputs page of the Forest Research website at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/methodology-and-outputs/. The average prices and the index are expressed in nominal terms (i.e. the actual prices at the time of sale) and in real terms (i.e. the prices converted to 2016). The GDP (Gross Domestic Product at market prices) deflator, produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), is applied to the nominal figures to derive real average prices and the index in real terms. The GDP deflator data can be downloaded from the ONS Quarterly National Accounts dataset at www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ybgb.
Methodology for Softwood Sawlog Price Index The Softwood Sawlog Price Index is calculated from data covering separate 6-month periods to September and March. This means that the changes reported are not covering the same periods as the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index.
The index measures the average price per cubic metre overbark of sawlog sales, with no adjustment for any change in size mix, as it covers a more limited range of sizes than the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index.
The index was revised in May 2017 to correct a number of inconsistencies in the underlying data. This revised index, covering open market sales only and all lengths of log, was then extended in November 2017 to include sales by negotiation.
The index is expressed in nominal terms (i.e. based on the actual prices at the time of sale) and in real terms (i.e. based on the prices converted to 2016 prices, by removing the effects of general inflation). As for the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product at market prices) deflator is used to convert from nominal to real terms.
For consistency with the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index, the Softwood Sawlog Price Index is rebased every 5 years; in this release, the period to September 2016 = 100.
Gross Value Added Gross value added (GVA) measures the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom.
Statistics on gross value added are obtained from the Annual Business Survey, formerly the Annual Business Inquiry, (Office for National Statistics), an annual survey of UK businesses. Further information on the Annual Business Survey is available at www.ons.gov.uk/surveys/informationforbusinesses/businesssurveys/annualbusinesssurvey The Annual Business Survey uses the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) to classify businesses to industries according to their main activity. Detailed information on the SIC is available at https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/classificationsandstandards/ukstandardindustrialclassificationofeconomicactivities/uksic2007. For further information on the SIC codes used in this release, see section on Employment and businesses within the Sources chapter.
**Government expenditure**
Information about government expenditure on forestry is obtained from administrative records held by the Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, and Forestry and Land Scotland. Expenditure by the Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Defra and other government departments/ Devolved Administrations is currently excluded.
More detailed financial data are published annually in each organisation’s Annual Report & Accounts.
Data on grant expenditure are obtained from administrative records for woodland grant schemes across GB.
**Quality**
The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index and the Softwood Sawlog Price Index are the only official statistics published for roundwood prices in the UK. So, although they are limited to sales by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, and Natural Resources Wales, they are sometimes used as indicators of price trends for other UK softwood. In recent years, softwood has accounted for more than 90% of all timber harvested in Great Britain, and Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales has accounted for around 40% to 50% of all softwood sold.
For the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index, data cover a 12 month period (i.e. data for the year to March and data for the year to September). As these periods overlap, comparisons of values should be made with the same period a year earlier.
Unlike the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index, the Softwood Sawlog Price Index covers 6 month periods (i.e. data for the period October to March and data for the period April to September), so there is no overlapping.
Detailed information on the quality of the statistics presented in this publication is available in the "Quality Report: Timber Price Indices", available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/. Revisions Most of the statistics presented in the Finance & Prices chapter have been previously released. The latest year figures for Government expenditure on forestry are published in this format for the first time in this release.
Timber price indices are unchanged from the figures provided in "Timber Price Indices: data to March 2020". For details of revisions made since Forestry Statistics 2019 see the First Release, available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/timber-statistics/timber-price-indices/.
Data on Gross Value Added (GVA) are subject to revision whenever Annual Business Survey data are revised by the Office for National Statistics. Figures for 2017 have been revised from those shown in "Forestry Statistics 2019" to reflect revisions made to ABS results by ONS.
Data on Government expenditure are not normally revised but may be subject to revision if revisions are made to the financial accounts of the Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry or Forestry and Land Scotland.
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors are dealt with and can be found at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf.
Further information Tables providing longer time series of the Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index and the underlying data used to produce it, are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/timber-statistics/timber-price-indices/.
Release schedule For information on the release schedules of statistics produced by others, see relevant websites (above).
Timber Price Indices are published every six months, in May for data to end March and in November for data to end September. The next editions will be released on the following dates:
"Timber Price Indices: Data to September 2020" will be released on 19 November 2020;
"Timber Price Indices: Data to March 2021" will be released on 16 May 2021.
"Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021" will be released on 30 September 2021. 11.10 Sources: International forestry
Introduction The statistics presented in the International Forestry chapter of this release cover:
- woodland area;
- carbon stocks;
- wood removals;
- production and apparent consumption of wood products; and
- trade in forest products.
Data sources and methodology International data on forest area and carbon stocks are obtained from the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) 2020 (www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en/), compiled by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The information in Table 9.1 uses forest area from FRA 2020, excluding "other wooded land"; for the UK, this is very similar to the definition of "woodland" used in other tables.
International data on production, imports and exports are obtained from the FAO. Data are collected via the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire for FAO and other international organisations and published on the FAOSTAT database (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home). Data on apparent consumption is derived as production plus imports less exports.
Data for the European Union (EU) presented in this edition of Forestry Statistics relate to the countries that were EU members at September 2020 so, unlike in previous editions, the UK is now excluded from the EU figures for all years.
Quality The UK data on forest area and carbon stocks are as submitted by the Forestry Commission to FAO in early 2019. More recent estimates of UK woodland area are provided in the Chapter on Woodland Area and Planting. A copy of the full UK return for the 2020 Forest Resources Assessment is available at www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en/.
The UK data on production, imports and exports are as submitted by the Forest Research to the UN Economic Commission for Europe in May 2020. More recent UK estimates are provided in the Chapters on UK-grown Timber and Trade. Copies of all UK returns for the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and- Revisions International statistics compiled from FRA are subject to revision every five years, when a new collection is undertaken.
Revisions to historical data have been made following the release of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. This has resulted in:
- Increases in forest area reported for 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2015 of up to 3% globally (mainly in Africa, Asia and South America); and
- Increases in the carbon stock in forests of up to 3% globally (for 1990, 2000 and 2010) and 18% for 2015.
International statistics compiled from FAOSTAT may be subject to revision after publication if revisions are made to the data produced by individual countries.
Revisions to historical data have been made in the FAOSTAT database since the publication of "Forestry Statistics 2019" (Tables 9.4 to 9.6). At a global level, such revisions have been relatively minor (no more than 1% difference).
Our revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors to these statistics are dealt with, and can be found at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf.
Further information Statistics on international forestry are reported here at a regional level. Further data (including figures for individual countries) are also available from the original sources (see above).
Statistics on forest resources are also collected every 4-5 years at a European level by Forest Europe. The State of Europe's Forests 2015 was released in October 2015 and is available at www.foresteurope.org/.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry also collects, on an annual basis, estimates for the current year and projections for the following year of wood production, imports and exports. Results are available on the UNECE website (www.unece.org/forests/fpm/timbercommittee.html). Copies of UK returns for the UNECE Timber Forecast Questionnaire are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/international-returns/unece-timber-forecast-questionnaire/. Release schedule For information on the release schedules of statistics produced by others, see relevant websites (above).
International data on wood production and trade in 2019 will be released on 30 September 2021 in "Forestry Statistics 2021" and "Forestry Facts & Figures 2021".
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1855-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 307,
"total-input-tokens": 700495,
"total-output-tokens": 140962,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
415,
1
],
[
415,
4324,
2
],
[
4324,
6797,
3
],
[
6797,
6797,
4
],
[
6797,
8916,
5
],
[
8916,
10226,
6
],
[
10226,
12000,
7
],
[
12000,
12155,
8
],
[
12155,
13344,
9
],
[
13344,
14170,
10
],
[
14170,
16213,
11
],
[
16213,
16723,
12
],
[
16723,
19035,
13
],
[
19035,
19285,
14
],
[
19285,
21681,
15
],
[
21681,
22895,
16
],
[
22895,
23213,
17
],
[
23213,
26134,
18
],
[
26134,
26994,
19
],
[
26994,
29151,
20
],
[
29151,
30401,
21
],
[
30401,
31197,
22
],
[
31197,
32944,
23
],
[
32944,
34427,
24
],
[
34427,
36238,
25
],
[
36238,
36955,
26
],
[
36955,
38798,
27
],
[
38798,
39945,
28
],
[
39945,
40339,
29
],
[
40339,
42111,
30
],
[
42111,
42502,
31
],
[
42502,
44286,
32
],
[
44286,
45619,
33
],
[
45619,
46290,
34
],
[
46290,
46704,
35
],
[
46704,
47300,
36
],
[
47300,
49182,
37
],
[
49182,
49650,
38
],
[
49650,
51500,
39
],
[
51500,
53030,
40
],
[
53030,
54760,
41
],
[
54760,
55191,
42
],
[
55191,
57183,
43
],
[
57183,
58346,
44
],
[
58346,
60487,
45
],
[
60487,
61361,
46
],
[
61361,
63881,
47
],
[
63881,
65223,
48
],
[
65223,
66443,
49
],
[
66443,
68672,
50
],
[
68672,
70771,
51
],
[
70771,
72051,
52
],
[
72051,
72839,
53
],
[
72839,
75160,
54
],
[
75160,
76719,
55
],
[
76719,
78844,
56
],
[
78844,
81108,
57
],
[
81108,
82730,
58
],
[
82730,
82874,
59
],
[
82874,
84006,
60
],
[
84006,
85178,
61
],
[
85178,
86647,
62
],
[
86647,
88560,
63
],
[
88560,
90677,
64
],
[
90677,
92250,
65
],
[
92250,
94051,
66
],
[
94051,
95716,
67
],
[
95716,
97784,
68
],
[
97784,
99207,
69
],
[
99207,
101370,
70
],
[
101370,
104395,
71
],
[
104395,
105188,
72
],
[
105188,
107502,
73
],
[
107502,
107986,
74
],
[
107986,
109738,
75
],
[
109738,
110096,
76
],
[
110096,
110927,
77
],
[
110927,
112970,
78
],
[
112970,
113968,
79
],
[
113968,
115688,
80
],
[
115688,
116919,
81
],
[
116919,
117918,
82
],
[
117918,
119572,
83
],
[
119572,
120930,
84
],
[
120930,
122717,
85
],
[
122717,
124054,
86
],
[
124054,
124829,
87
],
[
124829,
125965,
88
],
[
125965,
127474,
89
],
[
127474,
128245,
90
],
[
128245,
129885,
91
],
[
129885,
130558,
92
],
[
130558,
132827,
93
],
[
132827,
134333,
94
],
[
134333,
136134,
95
],
[
136134,
138197,
96
],
[
138197,
138685,
97
],
[
138685,
139882,
98
],
[
139882,
139951,
99
],
[
139951,
142182,
100
],
[
142182,
142536,
101
],
[
142536,
145647,
102
],
[
145647,
145796,
103
],
[
145796,
147183,
104
],
[
147183,
148875,
105
],
[
148875,
149165,
106
],
[
149165,
150594,
107
],
[
150594,
152221,
108
],
[
152221,
153649,
109
],
[
153649,
154544,
110
],
[
154544,
157760,
111
],
[
157760,
159077,
112
],
[
159077,
161186,
113
],
[
161186,
161730,
114
],
[
161730,
162781,
115
],
[
162781,
164855,
116
],
[
164855,
165798,
117
],
[
165798,
166824,
118
],
[
166824,
166955,
119
],
[
166955,
168014,
120
],
[
168014,
169138,
121
],
[
169138,
170385,
122
],
[
170385,
171669,
123
],
[
171669,
172065,
124
],
[
172065,
172623,
125
],
[
172623,
174789,
126
],
[
174789,
176208,
127
],
[
176208,
178965,
128
],
[
178965,
180174,
129
],
[
180174,
182796,
130
],
[
182796,
183957,
131
],
[
183957,
185939,
132
],
[
185939,
187494,
133
],
[
187494,
189352,
134
],
[
189352,
190497,
135
],
[
190497,
191775,
136
],
[
191775,
195983,
137
],
[
195983,
196836,
138
],
[
196836,
196971,
139
],
[
196971,
198373,
140
],
[
198373,
199069,
141
],
[
199069,
200696,
142
],
[
200696,
201964,
143
],
[
201964,
203536,
144
],
[
203536,
205941,
145
],
[
205941,
207267,
146
],
[
207267,
210080,
147
],
[
210080,
211003,
148
],
[
211003,
212346,
149
],
[
212346,
213614,
150
],
[
213614,
213754,
151
],
[
213754,
215200,
152
],
[
215200,
217263,
153
],
[
217263,
219094,
154
],
[
219094,
219478,
155
],
[
219478,
220549,
156
],
[
220549,
220864,
157
],
[
220864,
222450,
158
],
[
222450,
224318,
159
],
[
224318,
226855,
160
],
[
226855,
226990,
161
],
[
226990,
229440,
162
],
[
229440,
230309,
163
],
[
230309,
232045,
164
],
[
232045,
233802,
165
],
[
233802,
235205,
166
],
[
235205,
236176,
167
],
[
236176,
237858,
168
],
[
237858,
239075,
169
],
[
239075,
239907,
170
],
[
239907,
241689,
171
],
[
241689,
242631,
172
],
[
242631,
244507,
173
],
[
244507,
245644,
174
],
[
245644,
247655,
175
],
[
247655,
248410,
176
],
[
248410,
249860,
177
],
[
249860,
251298,
178
],
[
251298,
251447,
179
],
[
251447,
252230,
180
],
[
252230,
253461,
181
],
[
253461,
255573,
182
],
[
255573,
257653,
183
],
[
257653,
258239,
184
],
[
258239,
262877,
185
],
[
262877,
263398,
186
],
[
263398,
265903,
187
],
[
265903,
267928,
188
],
[
267928,
268073,
189
],
[
268073,
268918,
190
],
[
268918,
269803,
191
],
[
269803,
271825,
192
],
[
271825,
274541,
193
],
[
274541,
275435,
194
],
[
275435,
276204,
195
],
[
276204,
278088,
196
],
[
278088,
279136,
197
],
[
279136,
281360,
198
],
[
281360,
282453,
199
],
[
282453,
284709,
200
],
[
284709,
286493,
201
],
[
286493,
287885,
202
],
[
287885,
289261,
203
],
[
289261,
289412,
204
],
[
289412,
290604,
205
],
[
290604,
291845,
206
],
[
291845,
292536,
207
],
[
292536,
295447,
208
],
[
295447,
295906,
209
],
[
295906,
297767,
210
],
[
297767,
298297,
211
],
[
298297,
299746,
212
],
[
299746,
299969,
213
],
[
299969,
301874,
214
],
[
301874,
303249,
215
],
[
303249,
303414,
216
],
[
303414,
304564,
217
],
[
304564,
306640,
218
],
[
306640,
307435,
219
],
[
307435,
308655,
220
],
[
308655,
310741,
221
],
[
310741,
311461,
222
],
[
311461,
312370,
223
],
[
312370,
312816,
224
],
[
312816,
314152,
225
],
[
314152,
316059,
226
],
[
316059,
317896,
227
],
[
317896,
319623,
228
],
[
319623,
320957,
229
],
[
320957,
322169,
230
],
[
322169,
323798,
231
],
[
323798,
325581,
232
],
[
325581,
327151,
233
],
[
327151,
328876,
234
],
[
328876,
330528,
235
],
[
330528,
332950,
236
],
[
332950,
333131,
237
],
[
333131,
335238,
238
],
[
335238,
337798,
239
],
[
337798,
340164,
240
],
[
340164,
342537,
241
],
[
342537,
343503,
242
],
[
343503,
345611,
243
],
[
345611,
345728,
244
],
[
345728,
348081,
245
],
[
348081,
350478,
246
],
[
350478,
352133,
247
],
[
352133,
354228,
248
],
[
354228,
356642,
249
],
[
356642,
358591,
250
],
[
358591,
361453,
251
],
[
361453,
363623,
252
],
[
363623,
365601,
253
],
[
365601,
367337,
254
],
[
367337,
368875,
255
],
[
368875,
371342,
256
],
[
371342,
372990,
257
],
[
372990,
375189,
258
],
[
375189,
376438,
259
],
[
376438,
379084,
260
],
[
379084,
381301,
261
],
[
381301,
381569,
262
],
[
381569,
383467,
263
],
[
383467,
384352,
264
],
[
384352,
386151,
265
],
[
386151,
386419,
266
],
[
386419,
388316,
267
],
[
388316,
391119,
268
],
[
391119,
392380,
269
],
[
392380,
394348,
270
],
[
394348,
395995,
271
],
[
395995,
397195,
272
],
[
397195,
398903,
273
],
[
398903,
400342,
274
],
[
400342,
402173,
275
],
[
402173,
404707,
276
],
[
404707,
406364,
277
],
[
406364,
407049,
278
],
[
407049,
408656,
279
],
[
408656,
411326,
280
],
[
411326,
413096,
281
],
[
413096,
415509,
282
],
[
415509,
417849,
283
],
[
417849,
418473,
284
],
[
418473,
420617,
285
],
[
420617,
423015,
286
],
[
423015,
425023,
287
],
[
425023,
426010,
288
],
[
426010,
427721,
289
],
[
427721,
429172,
290
],
[
429172,
431139,
291
],
[
431139,
432571,
292
],
[
432571,
434503,
293
],
[
434503,
436872,
294
],
[
436872,
438369,
295
],
[
438369,
440226,
296
],
[
440226,
442624,
297
],
[
442624,
444772,
298
],
[
444772,
445379,
299
],
[
445379,
447570,
300
],
[
447570,
450005,
301
],
[
450005,
452304,
302
],
[
452304,
454694,
303
],
[
454694,
456764,
304
],
[
456764,
458773,
305
],
[
458773,
460838,
306
],
[
460838,
461122,
307
]
]
} |
afa44d27696b6899f2129ae5f10bbbfbdf479b9d | Forestry Statistics 2019
A compendium of statistics about woodland, forestry and primary wood processing in the United Kingdom
Release date: 26 September 2019
Coverage: United Kingdom
Coverage: Country (where possible)
Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT
Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 [email protected]
Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236
Website: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/ Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 1: Woodland Area and Planting ................................................................. 8 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 8 Key findings ............................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Woodland Area ............................................................................................... 10 1.2 Certified woodland area .................................................................................. 16 1.3 Land use .......................................................................................................... 18 1.4 National Forest Inventory .............................................................................. 20 1.5 Area of Farm Woodland .................................................................................. 37 1.6 New planting and publicly funded restocking .................................................. 39 1.7 Felling ............................................................................................................. 52
Chapter 2: UK-Grown Timber .................................................................................. 57 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 57 Key findings .......................................................................................................... 58 2.1 Wood production ............................................................................................. 59 2.2 Deliveries of UK-grown roundwood ............................................................... 68 2.3 Sawmills - All Mills ......................................................................................... 73 2.4 Sawmills - Larger Mills ................................................................................... 82 2.5 Pulp & paper ................................................................................................... 90 2.6 Wood-based panels ......................................................................................... 93 2.7 Miscellaneous products .................................................................................. 98 2.8 Exports ............................................................................................................ 101 2.9 Certification .................................................................................................... 102 2.10 Woodfuel and pellets .................................................................................... 105
Chapter 3: Trade ....................................................................................................... 110 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 110 Key findings .......................................................................................................... 111 3.1 Apparent consumption of wood in the UK ...................................................... 112 3.2 Apparent consumption of wood products in the UK ....................................... 115 3.3 Flow of recovered paper .................................................................................. 117 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 169 Key findings .................................................................................................................. 170 8.1 Timber prices ........................................................................................................ 171 8.2 Gross value added .................................................................................................. 174 8.3 Government expenditure on public forests ......................................................... 175 8.4 Other government expenditure on forestry ....................................................... 177 8.5 Grant schemes ....................................................................................................... 178 Chapter 9: International Forestry .................................................................................. 181 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 181 Key findings ............................................................................................................... 182 9.1 Forest cover: international comparisons ......................................................... 183 9.2 Forest area by country ....................................................................................... 186 9.3 Annual changes in forest area ........................................................................... 187 9.4 Forest carbon stocks .......................................................................................... 189 9.5 Wood removals ................................................................................................... 191 9.6 Production of wood products ............................................................................ 194 9.7 Apparent consumption of wood products ....................................................... 196 9.8 World trade in forest products .......................................................................... 198 Introduction
Forestry Statistics is a compilation of statistics on woodland, forestry and primary wood processing in the UK.
Where possible, statistical information in this publication covers the whole of the United Kingdom, and is broken down to give figures for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, there are some topics for which data are currently only available for some parts of the UK, and these tables are labelled accordingly.
The tables within each chapter (including data for charts), along with longer time series (for some topics) are available to download in spreadsheet format from the Statistics Data Downloads page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Further information on data sources and methodology are provided in the Sources chapter.
Selected statistics from this publication are provided in "Forestry Facts and Figures 2019", available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/.
We also publish a range of other Official Statistics, available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/.
Organisational change
From 1 April 2019, the Forestry Commission’s functions in Scotland transferred to Scottish Forestry and to Forestry and Land Scotland. At the same time, “Forest Enterprise England” was renamed “Forestry England” and remains an agency of the Forestry Commission.
The Forestry Commission's functions in Wales transferred to the Welsh Government and to Natural Resources Wales on 1 April 2013.
We have used current organisation names throughout this publication, rather than the names of the organisations that existed at the time to which the data refer.
Statistical release practices
We aim to release statistics as soon as they are available. All of our National Statistics and other Official Statistics publications are available on our website www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/. Release dates are published on our website for the year ahead. Publications are made available at 9.30 am on the day of release.
Statistical revisions policy
Revisions to statistics can occur when further data become available or errors are corrected. We will normally revise statistics when the figures next appear in any publication. However, if the revision is significant (i.e. resulting in a major change to the published figures), a note showing the revisions will be published as soon as possible on the Forest Research website and distributed to all known recipients. In addition, the web versions of any current publications affected will be revised. See our full revisions policy at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/4355/FCrevisions.pdf for further information.
Quality
Summary information on quality is available in the Sources chapter of this publication. More details are provided in quality reports for individual topics, available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/about-our-statistics/code-of-practice/quality-of-official-statistics/.
Review of Forestry Statistics
We are currently reviewing Forestry Statistics, to ensure that it meets the needs of users. Please tell us your views by completing the online survey at www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/NWXKV/ by 31 December 2019.
National Statistics Status
National Statistics status means that our statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value, and it is our responsibility to maintain compliance with these standards.
The continued designation of these statistics (Forestry Statistics and Forestry Facts & Figures) as National Statistics was confirmed in March 2012 following an assessment by the UK Statistics Authority (now the Office for Statistics Regulation) against the Code of Practice for Statistics.
Since the latest assessment of these statistics in 2012, we have made improvements including:
- Expansion of content to cover data on additional topics, including felling, public opinion on tree health and woodland fires.
- The addition of key findings at the start of each chapter, to provide users with a brief overview of the statistics.
- Provision of more detailed information on the methodology used, particularly in relation to the estimation of woodland area. Chapter 1: Woodland Area and Planting
Introduction
This chapter contains statistics on:
- UK woodland area;
- certified woodland area;
- areas of new planting and restocking; and
- felling.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included in addition to UK totals. International comparisons are provided in the International Forestry chapter. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Figures on woodland area and certified woodland area at March 2019 and on new planting and restocking for the period 2018-19 were previously published in "Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2019 edition", released on 13 June 2019, and have not been revised. Some figures for Statutory Plant Health Notices in previous years have been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Woodland Areas and Planting: Felling section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all woodland area and planting tables, along with longer time series (where available) can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2019 is estimated to be 3.19 million hectares. This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 8% in Northern Ireland.
- Of the total UK woodland area, 0.86 million hectares (27%) is owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service (in Northern Ireland).
- The total certified woodland area in the UK at 31 March 2019 is 1.40 million hectares, including all Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland(^1)/Natural Resources Wales/Forest Service woodland. Overall, 44% of the UK woodland area is certified.
- Thirteen thousand hectares of new woodland were created in the UK in 2018-19, with conifers accounting for 60% of this area.
A total of 842 sites were served with a Statutory Plant Health Notice in 2018-19, requiring a total of 3.8 thousand hectares of woodland to be felled. (This excludes areas felled within the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, where a Statutory Plant Health Notice is not required).
(^1) From 1 April 2019, the Forestry Commission’s responsibilities for management of forests transferred to Forestry England and to Forestry and Land Scotland. 1.1 Woodland Area
Woodland is defined in UK forestry statistics as land under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20% (25% in Northern Ireland), or having the potential to achieve this. The definition relates to land use, rather than land cover, so integral open space and felled areas that are awaiting restocking are included as woodland. Further information, including how this UK definition compares with the international definition of woodland, is provided in the Sources chapter.
Statistics on woodland area are used to inform government policy and resource allocation, to provide context to UK forestry and land management issues and are reported to international organisations. They are also used in the compilation of natural capital accounts.
Increases in woodland area result from the creation of new woodland. This can be achieved through new planting or by natural colonisation of trees on land near existing woodland. Further information is available in the section on New Planting.
Decreases in woodland area result from the conversion of woodland to other land uses. Regulatory approval is usually required before trees can be felled. Felling approval will normally require the area to be restocked, but there are some cases in which trees may be permanently removed, generally for environmental reasons. The permanent removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development.
Most public sector woodland is managed by Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Forest Service (FS) in Northern Ireland. Other public sector woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) is included with privately owned woodland as “private sector” in this release.
The Natural Resources Wales woodland areas and land areas shown in this release relate to areas previously owned or managed by Forestry Commission Wales. They exclude any areas previously owned or managed by other parts of Natural Resources Wales, such as the former Environment Agency in Wales and the former Countryside Council for Wales. 1.1.1 Area of Woodland: 2019
The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2019 is estimated to be 3.19 million hectares (Table 1.1). Of this total, 1.5 million hectares (46%) is in Scotland, 1.3 million hectares (41%) is in England, 0.3 million hectares (10%) is in Wales and 0.1 million hectares (4%) is in Northern Ireland.
Conifers account for around one half (51%) of the UK woodland area, although this proportion varies from around one quarter (26%) in England to around three quarters (74%) in Scotland. Table 1.1 Area of woodland by ownership & forest type at 31 March 2019
| Forest type and ownership¹,² | England | Wales | Scotland | NI | UK | |-----------------------------|---------|-------|----------|----|----| | Conifers | | | | | | | FE/FLS/NRW/FS | 151 | 98 | 428 | 56 | 732| | Private sector | 189 | 54 | 645 | 11 | 899| | Total | 340 | 152 | 1 072 | 67 | 1 631| | Broadleaves | | | | | | | FE/FLS/NRW/FS | 64 | 19 | 41 | 7 | 131| | Private sector | 904 | 138 | 343 | 40 | 1 426| | Total | 968 | 158 | 385 | 46 | 1 557| | Total | 215 | 117 | 469 | 62 | 863| | Private sector | 1 093 | 192 | 988 | 51 | 2 325| | Total | 1 308 | 309 | 1 457 | 113| 3 187|
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter.
4. Figures for Northern Ireland are obtained from the Northern Ireland Draft Woodland Register.
5. Broadleaves include coppice and coppice with standards. 1.1.2 Area of woodland: changes over time
The 3.19 million hectares of woodland in the UK in 2019 represents 13% of the total land area. This comprises 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 8% in Northern Ireland (Table 1.2).
Table 1.2 Woodland area in the United Kingdom
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 1086 | ~15 | .. | .. | .. | .. | | c1350| ~10 | .. | ~4 | .. | .. | | 17thC | ~8 | .. | ~4 | ~1.5 | .. | | 19053| 5.2 | 4.2 | 4.5 | 1.1 | 4.7| | 1924 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.6 | 1.0 | 5.0| | 1947 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 6.6 | 1.7 | 5.9| | 1965 | 6.8 | 9.7 | 8.4 | 3.1 | 7.4| | 1980 | 7.3 | 11.6 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 9.0| | 1995-99 | 8.4 | 13.8 | 16.4 | 6.0 | 11.3| | 1998 | 9.5 | 14.4 | 16.7 | 6.0 | 12.0| | 2019 | 10.0 | 14.9 | 18.7 | 8.2 | 13.1|
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Notes:
1. Percentage of the total surface area excluding inland water. The total surface areas, excluding inland water, are taken from the UK Standard Area Measurements (published by the Office for National Statistics).
2. Estimates for England and Scotland before 1905 come from a variety of sources, including the Domesday Survey of England, Scottish Woodland History (TC Smout ed, 1997) and Roy maps c1750.
3. For Northern Ireland, 17th century figure is estimate for all Ireland, 1905 figure is estimate for Province of Ulster 1908, 1947 figure assumes no change from 1939-40 Census.
4. 1998 figures shown for England, Wales and Scotland have been revised from those originally published to produce estimates that are consistent with subsequent data from the National Forest Inventory.
5. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter.
6. Figures for Northern Ireland are obtained from the Northern Ireland Draft Woodland Register.
7. .. Denotes data not available.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 1.1 shows woodland area by country since 1998. Woodland area in the UK has risen by around 270 thousand hectares since 1998, an increase of 9% over the period.
**Figure 1.1 Area of woodland, 1998-2019**
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Notes:
1. Woodland areas for England, Wales and Scotland shown in this figure are based on data from the National Forest Inventory. The trends shown take account of areas of new planting and identifiable permanent woodland loss. Areas of woodland loss that are not yet identifiable (e.g. conversion of woodland for the restoration of open habitats) are not accounted for. Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at [https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/).
2. Figures for 1998 to 2009 for England, Wales and Scotland were revised from those initially published, to produce results that are consistent with the National Forest Inventory and enable comparisons over time.
### 1.1.3 Woodland area by ownership
Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and the Forest Service in Northern Ireland owned or managed 27% of the total woodland area in the UK in 2019 (Table 1.3). This proportion ranged from 16% of the woodland area in England to 55% in Northern Ireland. Table 1.3 Area of woodland in the UK by ownership, 2015-2019
| Ownership | England | Wales | Scotland | NI | UK | |-------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|----|-----| | FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodland¹ | | | | | | | 2015 | 215 | 117 | 478 | 62 | 871 | | 2016 | 215 | 117 | 470 | 62 | 864 | | 2017 | 214 | 117 | 469 | 62 | 863 | | 2018 | 215 | 117 | 470 | 62 | 864 | | 2019 | 215 | 117 | 469 | 62 | 863 | | Private sector woodland² | | | | | | | 2015 | 1 091 | 189 | 954 | 50 | 2 283 | | 2016 | 1 091 | 190 | 965 | 50 | 2 295 | | 2017 | 1 092 | 191 | 968 | 50 | 2 301 | | 2018 | 1 092 | 192 | 976 | 50 | 2 310 | | 2019 | 1 093 | 192 | 988 | 51 | 2 325 | | Total woodland | | | | | | | 2015 | 1 305 | 306 | 1 432 | 112| 3 155| | 2016 | 1 305 | 307 | 1 435 | 112| 3 159| | 2017 | 1 306 | 308 | 1 438 | 112| 3 164| | 2018 | 1 307 | 309 | 1 446 | 113| 3 174| | 2019 | 1 308 | 309 | 1 457 | 113| 3 187|
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter.
4. Northern Ireland figures are obtained from the Northern Ireland Draft Woodland Register.
5. Areas as at 31 March. 1.2 Certified woodland area
Certified woodland in the UK has been independently audited against the UK Woodland Assurance Standard. Forestry certification schemes are owned by international non-governmental organisations and exist to promote good forest practice. They offer product labels to demonstrate that wood or wood products come from well-managed forests.
Figures for certified woodland areas are often used as an indicator of sustainable forest management. However, it should be noted that woodland that is not certified may also be managed sustainably.
Most changes to the certified woodland area figures over time are a result of new areas being certified or certificates not being renewed upon expiry. Temporary changes can also occur if there is a time lag between expiry and renewal.
1.40 million hectares of woodland in the UK were certified in March 2019 (Table 1.4). This represented 44% of the total UK woodland area, 25% in England, 47% in Wales, 59% in Scotland and 58% in Northern Ireland.
Table 1.4 Woodland area certified, March 2019
| Ownership | England | Wales | Scotland | NI | UK | |----------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|----|-----| | FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodland¹ | 215 | 117 | 469 | 62 | 863 | | Private sector woodland² | 110 | 29 | 395 | 3 | 538 | | **Total woodland area certified**| **325** | **146** | **864** | **66** | **1 400** |
Source: Forest Stewardship Council, Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory.
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. All certified woodland in 2019 is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme. Some of these woodlands are also certified under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme.
4. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified.
5. All FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodland is certified. The FE/FLS/NRW/FS areas are the latest areas, as shown in Table 1.1, rather than the areas shown on the certificates.
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads webpage. Figure 1.2 presents certified woodland area by country since December 2001. The area of certified woodland has increased by 2% between March 2018 and March 2019 and is 32% higher than at December 2001.
**Figure 1.2 Area of certified woodland, 2001-2019**
Source: Forest Stewardship Council, Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Notes:
1. All certified woodland is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme. Some of these woodlands are also certified under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme.
2. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified.
3. Figures for earlier years were revised for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory. 1.3 Land use
Not all land that is owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and the Forest Service in Northern Ireland is woodland; other land uses include agricultural land, mountain areas and moorland.
The woodland areas and land areas shown for Natural Resources Wales relate to areas previously owned or managed by Forestry Commission Wales. They exclude any areas previously owned or managed by other parts of Natural Resources Wales, such as the former Environment Agency Wales and the former Countryside Council for Wales.
Woodland accounted for 79% of all Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service land in the UK at 31 March 2019 (Table 1.5). This proportion was highest in Wales (95%) and lowest in Scotland (74%). Table 1.5 Land use of FE, FLS, NRW and FS(^1), 2015-2019
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Woodland | | | | | | | 2015 | 215 | 117 | 478 | 62 | 871| | 2016 | 215 | 117 | 470 | 62 | 864| | 2017 | 214 | 117 | 469 | 62 | 863| | 2018 | 215 | 117 | 470 | 62 | 864| | 2019 | 215 | 117 | 469 | 62 | 863| | Other land(^2) | | | | | | | 2015 | 38 | 7 | 171 | 13 | 229| | 2016 | 38 | 7 | 170 | 13 | 228| | 2017 | 39 | 7 | 169 | 13 | 227| | 2018 | 39 | 6 | 169 | 13 | 227| | 2019 | 38 | 6 | 165 | 13 | 223| | Total land area | | | | | | | 2015 | 253 | 124 | 649 | 75 | 1 100| | 2016 | 253 | 124 | 640 | 75 | 1 092| | 2017 | 253 | 124 | 638 | 75 | 1 090| | 2018 | 253 | 123 | 639 | 75 | 1 090| | 2019 | 253 | 123 | 634 | 75 | 1 085|
Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. "Other land" includes agricultural land and areas of moorland and mountain.
3. Areas as at 31 March. 1.4 National Forest Inventory
This section contains interim results from the National Forest Inventory (NFI). The statistics are based on field survey data combined with information from the NFI woodland map, which is a spatial representation of woodland areas in Great Britain.
Figures presented in this chapter are interim estimates at 31 March 2012, published in the NFI "50-year forecast of softwood timber availability" and "50-year forecast of hardwood timber availability" reports, released in April 2014. Both reports are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
The figures presented in Tables 1.6 to 1.9 (and Figures 1.3, 1.4a and 1.4b) relate to stocked areas. These differ from the woodland areas presented in earlier tables, as stocked areas exclude felled areas and (for private sector land) areas of integral open space.
The figures on growing stock presented in Tables 1.10 and 1.11 form the basis for the softwood and hardwood availability forecasts (see Tables 2.4a and 2.4b).
Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
1.4.1 Woodland area by age: conifers
Table 1.6 presents the area of conifers, broken down by age class, ownership and country.
Sixty-one percent of the coniferous woodland area in Great Britain was occupied by stands of 40 years old or younger (Table 1.6). A further 9% of stands were aged over 60 years. Table 1.6 Stocked woodland area in GB by ownership and age class: Conifers
| Age class (years) | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW**¹ | | | | | | 0-20 | 33 | 24 | 76 | 134| | 21-40 | 38 | 25 | 145 | 208| | 41-60 | 39 | 25 | 111 | 176| | 61-80 | 12 | 7 | 25 | 44 | | 81-100 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 11 | | 100+ | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | | **All age classes** | **128** | **82** | **367** | **576** | | **Private sector**² | | | | | | 0-20 | 17 | 8 | 126 | 151| | 21-40 | 54 | 22 | 231 | 306| | 41-60 | 83 | 15 | 116 | 214| | 61-80 | 19 | 1 | 18 | 38 | | 81-100 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 11 | | 100+ | 3 | 1 | 9 | 12 | | **All age classes** | **179** | **47** | **505** | **732** | | **Total** | | | | | | 0-20 | 51 | 32 | 202 | 285| | 21-40 | 92 | 46 | 376 | 514| | 41-60 | 123 | 39 | 227 | 389| | 61-80 | 31 | 8 | 43 | 82 | | 81-100 | 7 | 2 | 12 | 22 | | 100+ | 3 | 1 | 12 | 16 | | **All age classes** | **307** | **129** | **872** | **1 308** |
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data).
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
4. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
1.4.2 Woodland area by age: broadleaves
Table 1.7 presents the area of broadleaves, broken down by age class, ownership and country.
Around one half (53%) of the broadleaved area was occupied by stands of 40 years old or younger (Table 1.7). More than one quarter (28%) of stands were aged over 60 years. Table 1.7 Stocked woodland area in GB by ownership and age class: Broadleaves
| Age class (years) | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | FE/FLS/NRW¹ | | | | | | 0-20 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 25 | | 21-40 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13 | | 41-60 | 13 | 2 | 4 | 19 | | 61-80 | 13 | 2 | 4 | 19 | | 81-100 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | | 100+ | 10 | 3 | 5 | 18 | | All age classes | 54 | 16 | 32 | 102| | Private sector² | | | | | | 0-20 | 217 | 30 | 84 | 332| | 21-40 | 227 | 33 | 84 | 344| | 41-60 | 145 | 22 | 58 | 225| | 61-80 | 117 | 15 | 22 | 154| | 81-100 | 92 | 11 | 9 | 112| | 100+ | 51 | 10 | 7 | 67 | | All age classes | 849 | 121 | 265 | 1 235| | Total | | | | | | 0-20 | 225 | 37 | 95 | 357| | 21-40 | 232 | 36 | 90 | 357| | 41-60 | 157 | 24 | 63 | 244| | 61-80 | 130 | 17 | 26 | 173| | 81-100 | 97 | 12 | 11 | 119| | 100+ | 61 | 12 | 12 | 85 | | All age classes | 902 | 137 | 297 | 1 337|
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data).
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
4. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
1.4.3 Woodland area by age: Summary
Figure 1.3 presents the age profile of woodland in Great Britain for conifers and for broadleaves. It shows that broadleaves are more evenly distributed across the age classes than conifers.
Figure 1.3 Age profile of woodland in GB
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data).
Notes:
1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
2. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.4.4 Woodland area by species: conifers
Table 1.8 presents the area of conifers, broken down by principal species, ownership and country.
Sitka spruce accounts for around one half (51%) of the conifer area in Great Britain (Table 1.8), followed by Scots pine (17%) and larches (10%). Sitka spruce is less dominant in England, accounting for just one quarter (26%) of the conifer area there. Table 1.8 Stocked woodland area in GB by ownership and principal species: Conifers
| Principal species | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW¹** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 49 | 50 | 225 | 323| | Scots pine | 17 | 2 | 45 | 64 | | Corsican pine | 27 | 2 | 2 | 30 | | Norway spruce | 7 | 5 | 11 | 23 | | Larches | 10 | 12 | 26 | 48 | | Douglas fir | 10 | 5 | 5 | 20 | | Lodgepole pine | 4 | 3 | 49 | 56 | | Other conifers | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | | **All conifers** | **128** | **82**| **367** | **576**| | **Private sector²** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 32 | 27 | 282 | 341| | Scots pine | 45 | 1 | 109 | 154| | Corsican pine | 14 | 0 | 1 | 15 | | Norway spruce | 21 | 3 | 15 | 38 | | Larches | 30 | 8 | 39 | 78 | | Douglas fir | 15 | 3 | 7 | 25 | | Lodgepole pine | 3 | 1 | 39 | 44 | | Other conifers | 19 | 2 | 8 | 29 | | **All conifers** | **179** | **47**| **505** | **732**| | **Total** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 80 | 77 | 507 | 665| | Scots pine | 61 | 3 | 154 | 218| | Corsican pine | 40 | 2 | 3 | 46 | | Norway spruce | 27 | 8 | 25 | 61 | | Larches | 40 | 20 | 66 | 126| | Douglas fir | 25 | 9 | 12 | 46 | | Lodgepole pine | 8 | 4 | 88 | 100|
### Other conifers
| | 24 | 5 | 11 | 40 | |----------------|----|---|----|----| | All conifers | 307| 129| 872| 1308|
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014).
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately-owned woodland.
3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
4. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
### 1.4.5 Woodland area by species: broadleaves
Table 1.9 presents the area of broadleaves, broken down by principal species, ownership and country.
The most commonly occurring broadleaved species in Great Britain are birch (accounting for 18% of broadleaf woodland), oak (16%) and ash (12%) (Table 1.9). Birch is more dominant in Scotland, accounting for 43% of the broadleaf area there. Table 1.9 Stocked woodland area in GB by ownership and principal species: Broadleaves
| Principal species | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW¹** | | | | | | Oak | 16 | 3 | 3 | 21 | | Beech | 13 | 2 | 1 | 15 | | Sycamore | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | | Ash | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | | Birch | 6 | 2 | 11 | 19 | | Sweet chestnut | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | Hazel | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | Hawthorn | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Alder | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | Willow | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Other broadleaves | 14 | 9 | 15 | 38 | | **All broadleaves** | **54** | **16** | **32** | **102** | | **Private sector²** | | | | | | Oak | 151 | 23 | 23 | 198| | Beech | 59 | 5 | 15 | 78 | | Sycamore | 74 | 9 | 21 | 105| | Ash | 120 | 18 | 15 | 153| | Birch | 90 | 11 | 116 | 217| | Sweet chestnut | 28 | 0 | 0 | 28 | | Hazel | 64 | 14 | 8 | 86 | | Hawthorn | 57 | 8 | 8 | 73 | | Alder | 30 | 10 | 16 | 56 | | Willow | 41 | 11 | 13 | 65 | | Other broadleaves | 133 | 12 | 29 | 174| | **All broadleaves** | **849** | **121** | **265** | **1 235** | | **Total** | | | | | | Oak | 167 | 26 | 26 | 219| | Beech | 72 | 6 | 15 | 94 | | Tree Type | Area (ha) | Age 1 (ha) | Age 2 (ha) | Total (ha) | |-------------------|-----------|------------|------------|------------| | Sycamore | 75 | 9 | 22 | 106 | | Ash | 123 | 19 | 16 | 157 | | Birch | 96 | 12 | 128 | 236 | | Sweet chestnut | 28 | 0 | 0 | 29 | | Hazel | 65 | 14 | 8 | 87 | | Hawthorn | 57 | 8 | 8 | 73 | | Alder | 31 | 10 | 17 | 58 | | Willow | 41 | 11 | 13 | 65 | | Other broadleaves | 146 | 21 | 44 | 212 | | **All broadleaves** | **902** | **137** | **297** | **1337** |
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014).
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
4. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.4.6 Woodland area by species: summary
Figures 1.4a and 1.4b show that, whilst the conifer area is dominated by a small number of species (Sitka spruce and Scots pine together account for around two thirds of the conifer area), broadleaves are more varied.
Figure 1.4a Principal tree species in GB by stocked area: Conifers
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014).
Notes:
1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
2. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 1.4b Principal tree species in GB by stocked area: Broadleaves
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014).
Notes:
1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space.
2. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.4.7 Growing stock by species: conifers
Growing stock is the volume of timber in living trees. It is also often referred to as the standing volume.
Table 1.10 presents the volume of coniferous growing stock, broken down by principal species, ownership and country.
The total volume of coniferous growing stock in Great Britain in 2012 was 355 million m$^3$ overbark standing (Table 1.10).
Sitka spruce accounted for around one half (51%) of the conifer growing stock, followed by Scots pine (15%) and larches (10%). This largely reflects the distribution of species by area (see Table 1.8). Table 1.10 Growing stock in GB by ownership and principal species: Conifers
| Principal species | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW¹** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 8.9 | 11.1 | 52.1 | 72.0 | | Scots pine | 4.0 | 0.5 | 8.8 | 13.3 | | Corsican pine | 5.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 6.4 | | Norway spruce | 1.7 | 1.5 | 3.5 | 6.7 | | Larches | 1.7 | 2.7 | 4.8 | 9.2 | | Douglas fir | 2.7 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 5.4 | | Lodgepole pine | 0.8 | 0.6 | 8.2 | 9.6 | | Other conifers | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 3.6 | | **All conifers** | **26.8**| **19.4**| **80.2**| **126.4** | | **Private sector²** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 11.4 | 9.5 | 88.0 | 108.9 | | Scots pine | 14.7 | 0.3 | 24.5 | 39.4 | | Corsican pine | 4.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 5.3 | | Norway spruce | 7.1 | 1.3 | 5.9 | 14.4 | | Larches | 10.7 | 3.3 | 12.3 | 26.3 | | Douglas fir | 6.4 | 1.6 | 3.5 | 11.5 | | Lodgepole pine | 1.0 | 0.3 | 7.4 | 8.7 | | Other conifers | 7.6 | 1.1 | 3.0 | 11.7 | | **All conifers** | **63.7**| **17.9**| **146.7**| **228.4** | | **Total** | | | | | | Sitka spruce | 20.3 | 20.6 | 140.0 | 180.9 | | Scots pine | 18.6 | 0.8 | 33.3 | 52.7 | | Corsican pine | 10.2 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 11.7 | | Norway spruce | 8.8 | 2.8 | 9.4 | 21.1 | | Larches | 12.4 | 6.0 | 17.1 | 35.6 | | Douglas fir | 9.1 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 16.9 | | Lodgepole pine | 1.8 | 0.9 | 15.5 | 18.3 | | Other conifers | 9.1 | 2.2 | 4.1 | 15.4 |
### All conifers
| | | | | |-------|-------|-------|-------| | 90.5 | 37.4 | 226.9 | 354.7 |
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014).
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
### 1.4.8 Growing stock by species: broadleaves
Table 1.11 presents the volume of broadleaved growing stock, broken down by principal species, ownership and country.
The total volume of broadleaved growing stock in Great Britain in 2012 was 245 million m$^3$ overbark standing (Table 1.11).
Oak (28%), ash (16%) and beech (12%) accounted for the majority of the broadleaved volume. To some extent, this reflects the distribution of species by area (see Table 1.9). Table 1.11 Growing stock in GB by ownership and principal species: Broadleaves
| Principal species | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |-------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW¹** | | | | | | Oak | 3.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 4.4| | Beech | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 3.4| | Sycamore | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2| | Ash | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.5| | Birch | 0.5 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 2.3| | Sweet chestnut | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1| | Hazel | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1| | Hawthorn | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0| | Alder | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2| | Willow | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0| | Other broadleaves | 1.3 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 3.3| | **All broadleaves** | **8.7** | **1.9** | **3.9** | **14.5** | | **Private sector²** | | | | | | Oak | 51.7 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 65.0| | Beech | 19.8 | 1.6 | 5.2 | 26.6| | Sycamore | 16.2 | 2.4 | 4.8 | 23.4| | Ash | 30.1 | 6.9 | 2.8 | 39.8| | Birch | 11.3 | 1.2 | 8.5 | 20.9| | Sweet chestnut | 7.7 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 7.9| | Hazel | 5.0 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 6.4| | Hawthorn | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 3.4| | Alder | 6.8 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 10.8| | Willow | 4.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 6.5| | Other broadleaves | 16.0 | 1.1 | 2.6 | 19.6| | **All broadleaves** | **172.3** | **25.4** | **32.9** | **230.6** | | **Total** | | | | | | Oak | 55.0 | 8.1 | 6.3 | 69.4| | Beech | 22.6 | 2.0 | 5.3 | 29.9| | Tree Type | Area (ha) | Height (m) | Diameter (cm) | Volume (m³) | |-------------------|-----------|------------|---------------|-------------| | Sycamore | 16.4 | 2.4 | 4.9 | 23.6 | | Ash | 30.5 | 7.0 | 2.8 | 40.3 | | Birch | 11.8 | 1.3 | 10.1 | 23.2 | | Sweet chestnut | 7.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 8.0 | | Hazel | 5.1 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 6.5 | | Hawthorn | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 3.4 | | Alder | 6.9 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 11.0 | | Willow | 4.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 6.5 | | Other broadleaves | 17.2 | 1.8 | 3.8 | 22.9 | | **All broadleaves** | **181.0** | **27.3** | **36.8** | **245.1** |
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014).
Notes:
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales.
2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland previously owned/managed by the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency in Wales, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland.
3. Areas at 31 March 2012.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.5 Area of Farm Woodland
Agricultural Censuses run by Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and the devolved administrations collect annual information on the land-use of farms. Table 1.12 below shows the area of woodland on farms.
The area of farm woodland in the UK has increased from 0.7 million hectares in 2009 to 1.0 million hectares in 2018 (Table 1.12). Slightly over one half (52%) of all farm woodland was in Scotland in 2018, with a further 37% in England, 10% in Wales and the remaining 2% in Northern Ireland.
Table 1.12 Area of farm woodland, 2009-2018
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-------| | 2009 | 303.7 | 60.8 | 350.8 | 10.3 | 725.7 | | 2010 | 295.3 | 69.1 | 399.8 | 10.2 | 774.0 | | 2011 | 304.9 | 44.2 | 426.1 | 10.8 | 785.9 | | 2012 | 308.4 | 62.6 | 445.4 | 11.0 | 827.5 | | 2013 | 324.9 | 63.4 | 466.8 | 10.3 | 865.4 | | 2014 | 331.3 | 75.7 | 479.4 | 11.1 | 897.5 | | 2015 | 347.6 | 78.0 | 524.0 | 11.1 | 960.6 | | 2016 | 370.5 | 89.2 | 502.4 | 16.1 | 978.2 | | 2017 | 368.5 | 92.8 | 560.1 | 15.8 | 1 037.2 | | 2018 | 371.7 | 96.8 | 531.5 | 16.3 | 1 016.3 |
Source: June Agricultural Census - Defra, The Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive.
Notes:
1. Changes in the area of farm woodland over time indicate a change in the area of farm land that is reported as woodland and do not necessarily indicate a change in woodland area. Figure 1.5 Area of farm woodland, 1981-2018
Source: June Agricultural Census - Defra, The Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive.
Notes:
1. Changes in the area of farm woodland over time indicate a change in the area of farm land that is reported as woodland and do not necessarily indicate a change in woodland area. 1.6 New planting and publicly funded restocking
New planting
New planting is the creation of new areas of woodland by planting trees on land that was not previously woodland. The statistics presented here also include new woodland that is created by natural colonisation of trees on land near existing woodland. Statistics on new planting are used to inform government policy and resource allocation and are used in producing annual estimates of woodland area.
There are a number of factors that can affect the level of new planting in the UK. These include:
- choices by landowners reflecting their own motivation and needs;
- the costs and availability of land for conversion to woodland;
- the availability of grants for new planting, the level of grant payments available and the awareness of grants among potential recipients;
- the tax benefits available from owning woodland;
- expected future markets for wood products such as timber and woodfuel;
- income from payments for ecosystem services, particularly carbon storage;
- national and local initiatives, for example on biodiversity, green infrastructure and water management.
Restocking
Restocking is the replacement of trees on areas of woodland that have been felled; this can be done either through replanting or natural regeneration. The statistics presented here include felled areas that have been restocked by both natural regeneration and replanting.
As restocking takes place on woodland that has been previously harvested and it is a condition of most felling licences that the area is restocked, restocking rates are mainly driven by harvesting levels (with a time lag, usually of around 2 years, between harvesting and restocking). Figures for timber harvesting (wood production) are available in the UK-Grown Timber chapter.
Economic factors, including grant rates, may have some effect on the species choice at restocking. In addition, the precise timing of restocking may be affected by weather conditions. This release only covers publicly funded restocking, that is:
- restocking of Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service Woodland and
- grant aided restocking of private sector woodland.
Grant support for restocking of conifers changed with the introduction of Rural Development Contracts in Scotland in 2008 and again with the introduction of the Forestry Grant Scheme in 2015. This will have led to a reduction in the proportion of private sector restocking that is grant aided and therefore reported for Scotland.
Grant support in England is now provided by the Countryside Stewardship scheme, which opened for applications in early 2016. Funding for restocking under Countryside Stewardship is only available under limited circumstances (through the tree health grant). The restoration (and restocking with native species) of PAWS (plantations on ancient woodland sites) is also supported by the HS2 Woodland Fund. No estimate has been made for restocking in England that is no longer supported by grants and therefore restocking in England in recent years is under-reported in this release and other statistics.
1.6.1 New planting and restocking by forest type
Thirteen thousand hectares of new woodland were created in the UK in 2018-19. In addition, 15 thousand hectares of publicly funded restocking were reported (Table 1.13). Conifers accounted for three fifths (60%) of the new planting area in 2018-19. Table 1.13a New planting by forest type
| Year (ending 31/3) | Conifer | Broadleaves | Total | |-------------------|---------|-------------|-------| | **England** | | | | | 2014-15 | 0.08 | 2.35 | 2.43 | | 2015-16 | 0.00 | 0.82 | 0.82 | | 2016-17 | 0.10 | 1.05 | 1.15 | | 2017-18 | 0.24 | 1.26 | 1.50 | | 2018-19 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 1.42 | | **Wales** | | | | | 2014-15 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.10 | | 2015-16 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.14 | | 2016-17 | 0.16 | 0.23 | 0.40 | | 2017-18 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.24 | | 2018-19 | 0.25 | 0.27 | 0.52 | | **Scotland** | | | | | 2014-15 | 2.48 | 5.08 | 7.56 | | 2015-16 | 1.90 | 2.73 | 4.63 | | 2016-17 | 3.22 | 1.54 | 4.76 | | 2017-18 | 4.68 | 2.46 | 7.14 | | 2018-19 | 7.27 | 3.94 | 11.21 | | **Northern Ireland** | | | | | 2014-15 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.21 | | 2015-16 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.05 | | 2016-17 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.21 | | 2017-18 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.21 | | 2018-19 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.24 | | **UK** | | | | | 2014-15 | 2.58 | 7.72 | 10.30 | | 2015-16 | 1.94 | 3.71 | 5.65 | | Year | Area 1 | Area 2 | Area 3 | |--------|--------|--------|--------| | 2016-17| 3.56 | 2.96 | 6.51 | | 2017-18| 5.15 | 3.94 | 9.09 | | 2018-19| 8.05 | 5.35 | 13.40 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. Private sector new planting figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid.
2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year.
3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 and 2018-19.
4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known).
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. Table 1.13b Publicly funded restocking by forest type
| Year (ending 31/3) | Conifer | Broadleaves | Total | |-------------------|---------|-------------|-------| | **England** | | | | | 2014-15 | 2.01 | 4.39 | 6.41 | | 2015-16 | 2.17 | 1.14 | 3.31 | | 2016-17 | 2.03 | 0.97 | 3.00 | | 2017-18 | 1.58 | 0.47 | 2.04 | | 2018-19 | 1.26 | 0.39 | 1.65 | | **Wales** | | | | | 2014-15 | 1.30 | 0.64 | 1.94 | | 2015-16 | 1.20 | 0.58 | 1.78 | | 2016-17 | 1.12 | 0.55 | 1.67 | | 2017-18 | 1.00 | 0.71 | 1.71 | | 2018-19 | 0.90 | 0.54 | 1.44 | | **Scotland** | | | | | 2014-15 | 6.58 | 1.87 | 8.45 | | 2015-16 | 5.99 | 1.83 | 7.82 | | 2016-17 | 9.09 | 1.99 | 11.07 | | 2017-18 | 8.14 | 1.52 | 9.66 | | 2018-19 | 9.12 | 2.07 | 11.19 | | **Northern Ireland** | | | | | 2014-15 | 0.94 | 0.10 | 1.04 | | 2015-16 | 0.74 | 0.07 | 0.81 | | 2016-17 | 1.15 | 0.17 | 1.31 | | 2017-18 | 0.85 | 0.08 | 0.94 | | 2018-19 | 0.72 | 0.11 | 0.83 | | **UK** | | | | | 2014-15 | 10.84 | 7.00 | 17.84 | | 2015-16 | 10.10 | 3.63 | 13.73 | | Year | New Planting | Restocking | Total | |--------|--------------|------------|-------| | 2016-17| 13.39 | 3.67 | 17.06 | | 2017-18| 11.57 | 2.77 | 14.34 | | 2018-19| 12.00 | 3.11 | 15.12 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. No estimates are available for restocking without grant aid.
2. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
3. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration (where known).
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page.
1.6.2 New planting and restocking by ownership
In 2018-19 most new planting (92%) took place on private sector land (Table 1.14). Table 1.14a New planting by ownership
| Year (ending 31/3) | FE/FLS/NRW/FS | Private sector | Total | |-------------------|---------------|----------------|-------| | **England** | | | | | 2014-15 | 0.00 | 2.43 | 2.43 | | 2015-16 | 0.00 | 0.82 | 0.82 | | 2016-17 | 0.02 | 1.13 | 1.15 | | 2017-18 | 0.00 | 1.50 | 1.50 | | 2018-19 | 0.03 | 1.39 | 1.42 | | **Wales** | | | | | 2014-15 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.10 | | 2015-16 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.14 | | 2016-17 | 0.00 | 0.40 | 0.40 | | 2017-18 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 0.24 | | 2018-19 | 0.00 | 0.52 | 0.52 | | **Scotland** | | | | | 2014-15 | 0.40 | 7.16 | 7.56 | | 2015-16 | 0.71 | 3.93 | 4.63 | | 2016-17 | 1.06 | 3.70 | 4.76 | | 2017-18 | 0.87 | 6.27 | 7.14 | | 2018-19 | 1.03 | 10.19 | 11.21 | | **Northern Ireland** | | | | | 2014-15 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.21 | | 2015-16 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.05 | | 2016-17 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.21 | | 2017-18 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.21 | | 2018-19 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 0.24 | | **UK** | | | | | 2014-15 | 0.40 | 9.90 | 10.30 | | 2015-16 | 0.71 | 4.94 | 5.65 | | Year | New Planting | Total Planting | Total Woodland | |--------|--------------|----------------|----------------| | 2016-17| 1.08 | 5.44 | 6.51 | | 2017-18| 0.87 | 8.23 | 9.09 | | 2018-19| 1.06 | 12.34 | 13.40 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. Private sector new planting figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid.
2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year.
3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 and 2018-19.
4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known).
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. Table 1.14b Publicly funded restocking by ownership
| Year (ending 31/3) | FE/FLS/NRW/FS | Private sector | Total | |--------------------|---------------|---------------|-------| | **England** | | | | | 2014-15 | 2.25 | 4.15 | 6.41 | | 2015-16 | 2.30 | 1.02 | 3.31 | | 2016-17 | 2.39 | 0.61 | 3.00 | | 2017-18 | 2.04 | 0.00 | 2.04 | | 2018-19 | 1.57 | 0.08 | 1.65 | | **Wales** | | | | | 2014-15 | 1.56 | 0.38 | 1.94 | | 2015-16 | 1.47 | 0.32 | 1.78 | | 2016-17 | 1.44 | 0.23 | 1.67 | | 2017-18 | 1.55 | 0.16 | 1.71 | | 2018-19 | 1.22 | 0.23 | 1.44 | | **Scotland** | | | | | 2014-15 | 6.50 | 1.95 | 8.45 | | 2015-16 | 6.55 | 1.27 | 7.82 | | 2016-17 | 6.67 | 4.41 | 11.07 | | 2017-18 | 5.78 | 3.87 | 9.66 | | 2018-19 | 7.15 | 4.05 | 11.19 | | **Northern Ireland** | | | | | 2014-15 | 0.88 | 0.16 | 1.04 | | 2015-16 | 0.75 | 0.06 | 0.81 | | 2016-17 | 1.25 | 0.06 | 1.31 | | 2017-18 | 0.86 | 0.08 | 0.94 | | 2018-19 | 0.79 | 0.04 | 0.83 | | **UK** | | | | | 2014-15 | 11.20 | 6.65 | 17.84 | | 2015-16 | 11.06 | 2.67 | 13.73 | | Year | Planting | Restocking | Total | |--------|----------|------------|---------| | 2016-17| 11.74 | 5.31 | 17.06 | | 2017-18| 10.23 | 4.11 | 14.34 | | 2018-19| 10.72 | 4.40 | 15.12 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. No estimates are available for restocking without grant aid.
2. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
3. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration (where known).
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. 1.6.3 New planting and restocking: time series
Figure 1.6 shows areas of new planting by country since the year ending March 1976. Trends in new planting rates have been influenced by changes to the incentives available to land owners (in the form of grants and regulations).
In recent years, areas of new planting in the UK have dropped to lows of under 6 thousand hectares in 2009-10 and in 2015-16 and have risen to highs of around 13 thousand hectares in 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2018-19. These fluctuations are likely to have been influenced by changes in grant schemes across the UK.
At 13.4 thousand hectares in 2018-19, the current level of new planting represents a 47% increase from the 9.1 thousand hectares achieved in the previous year and continues the increase from 2015-16. This increase was largely in Scotland and was likely to have been influenced by the availability of grant funding and increased confidence in forestry arising from strong timber values. For further information, see the New Planting and Restocking section of the Sources chapter. Figure 1.6 New planting in the UK, 1976-2019
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. Private sector figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid.
2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year.
3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 and 2018-19.
4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known).
Figure 1.7 shows reported areas of restocking by country since the year ending March 1976. It indicates an increase in restocking rates during the period. Over the same period, there has been a general increase in UK wood production (see UK-Grown Timber chapter).
The reported area of restocking fell significantly after a peak of 19 thousand hectares in 2006-07. This followed changes to grant support for restocking in Scotland, that resulted in some non-grant aided Sitka spruce restocking being excluded from the estimates. Results from the Forestry Commission’s Nursery Survey (an annual survey of forest nurseries in Great Britain) indicate that, following a dip in the 2009/10 planting year, sales of Sitka spruce plants to Scotland have been relatively stable in recent years.
The chart shows a dip in the area of restocking in 2015-16, following changes to grant schemes across the UK. Reported restocking has continued to fall in England, where grant aid is now only available in very limited circumstances. The reported area of publicly funded restocking in the UK in 2018-19 represents a 5% increase from the previous year, but remains below the level reported for 2016-17. For further information, see the New Planting and Restocking section of the Sources chapter.
Figure 1.7 Restocking in the UK, 1976-2019
Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes.
Notes:
1. Private sector figures are based on areas for which grants were paid during the year.
2. Estimates of areas planted without grant aid are also included (where possible) up to 2009-10, but no estimates are available since then. As a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity.
3. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed.
4. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration.
5. Restocking by natural regeneration in non-clearfell areas may be under-represented. 1.7 Felling
Felling
Approval for the felling (cutting down) of trees in the UK is granted through felling licences issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service in Northern Ireland.
Felling licences may be conditional (where felling approval is granted subject to replanting) or unconditional (where tree felling is approved without the requirement to replant). Unconditional licences are routinely issued for silvicultural thinning operations and in these cases no woodland loss takes place. However, an unconditional felling licence without the requirement to replant may be issued if there are overriding environmental considerations, for example to enable the restoration of important habitats.
The removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development (including for windfarms). In this case, a felling licence is not required.
The removal of trees might also be required through a Statutory Plant Health Notice (SPHN). A SPHN may require the felling and destruction of infected trees or containment of infested material on site, and is issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service to prevent the spread of pests and diseases. Similar actions are also required within the public woodland estate managed by these organisations. There is no legal requirement for woodland to be restocked after felling under a SPHN.
Since 2010/2011, SPHNs have mainly been issued to attempt to slow down the spread of Phytophthora ramorum, first found in the UK in 2002 on viburnum, and in 2009 on Japanese larch, a significant sporulating host resulting in a dramatic upsurge in the disease.
Statutory felling of infected P. ramorum infected larch does not apply within the designated P. ramorum management zone in south west Scotland where the high levels of infection and proportion of larch in the area make this unfeasible. However, felling licences are still required, and movement licences are required to stop spread out of this area. In Wales' P. ramorum Core Disease Zone SPHNs are still served to contain material on site, but felling still requires a felling licence.
Further information on felling and Statutory Plant Health Notices is provided in the Sources chapter. Woodland loss
Information on unconditional felling licences that do not relate to thinning may be seen as an indication of the level of woodland loss on land that is not owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service. However, the data relates only to felling licences issued, so does not provide information on whether the felling actually took place (or the timing of the felling). In addition, felling licences do not cover woodland loss that is authorised under planning regulations.
The National Forest Inventory report "Preliminary estimates of the changes in canopy cover in British woodlands between 2006 and 2015" (August 2016) has reported:
- thousand hectares of observed permanent woodland loss between 2006 and 2015;
- a further 0.7 thousand hectares of ground under development and 0.2 thousand hectares of newly established habitats;
- 69% of the clearfelled area observed in 2006 had been restocked by 2012, leaving around 33.9 thousand hectares of woodlands in transition and open areas;
- 63% of the area observed as clearfelled between 2006 and 2009 had been restocked by 2012, leaving around 28.6 thousand hectares of woodlands in transition and open areas.
These are interim estimates that are likely to underestimate the final position; updated estimates from NFI second cycle field survey are scheduled to be available by 2020.
Further information is available in the report at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
1.7.1 Felling licences
Table 1.15 shows the area covered by unconditional felling licences issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry and Natural Resources Wales in the last 10 years. The figures do not include unconditional felling licences issued to permit thinning of woodlands. The table covers woodland in England, Scotland and Wales that is not owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland or Natural Resources Wales only; it does not cover felling that is exempt from felling licence approval (such as authorisations for felling under planning regulations, felling required under a Statutory Plant Health Notice or felling that is approved on condition that the area is restocked).
A total of 0.7 thousand hectares of woodland in England and 0.1 thousand hectares in Wales was covered by unconditional felling licences (with no requirement to restock) in the year to March 2019. The level in Scotland was under 50 hectares.
Table 1.15 Area of private sector woodland covered by unconditional felling licences1, 2009-10 to 2018-19
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |--------|---------|-------|----------|------| | 2009-10| 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.7 | | 2010-11| 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.6 | | 2011-12| 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.7 | | 2012-13| 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.9 | | 2013-14| 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | | 2014-15| 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | | 2015-16| 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | | 2016-17| 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | | 2017-18| 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | | 2018-19| 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.8 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales Notes:
1. Felling licences issued in the period. Excludes areas exempt from felling licence approval and licences issued for thinning.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.7.2 Statutory Plant Health Notices
Table 1.16a shows the number of sites where a Statutory Plant Health Notice has been served in the UK since 2010-11 and Table 1.16b shows the area required to be felled under these Notices. The tables cover all woodland, including sites owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service in Northern Ireland. As Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued in the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, the figures presented here do not cover all felling of infected larch.
A total of 842 sites were served with Statutory Plant Health Notices between April 2018 and March 2019.
Table 1.16a Number of sites where a Statutory Plant Health Notice has been served1, 2010-11 to 2018-19
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |--------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|------| | 2010-11| 114 | 46 | 1 | 10 | 171 | | 2011-12| 131 | 90 | 14 | 16 | 251 | | 2012-13| 168 | 89 | 123 | 15 | 395 | | 2013-14| 244 | 272 | 76 | 28 | 620 | | 2014-15| 140 | 71 | 9 | 17 | 237 | | 2015-16| 73 | 57 | 34 | 3 | 167 | | 2016-17| 75 | 53 | 71 | 0 | 199 | | 2017-18| 43 | 153 | 71 | 14 | 281 | | 2018-19| 136 | 215 | 491 | 0 | 842 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Note:
1. The number of sites where infection of larch by Phytophthora ramorum has been confirmed, or where there is sufficient suspicion of infection, and a Statutory Plant Health Notice has been served on the landowner.
2. Excludes felling within the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, where Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Areas requiring felling under Statutory Plant Health Notices totalled 3.8 thousand hectares in 2018-19. Around one half (49%) of the area to be felled in 2018-19 was in Wales, 36% was in Scotland and 15% in England.
Table 1.16b Felling areas under Statutory Plant Health Notices(^1), 2010-11 to 2018-19
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |--------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|------| | 2010-11| 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 2.3 | | 2011-12| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.1 | | 2012-13| 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 2.5 | | 2013-14| 0.8 | 4.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 6.2 | | 2014-15| 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | | 2015-16| 0.1 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 1.8 | | 2016-17| 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.7 | | 2017-18| 0.1 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 1.7 | | 2018-19| 0.6 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 3.8 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service.
Note:
1. The area that is required to be felled within the Statutory Plant Health Notice.
2. Excludes felling within the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, where Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Chapter 2: UK-Grown Timber
Introduction
This chapter covers the production of timber from woodland and the primary processing of harvested wood to give basic wood products.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included, in addition to UK totals, where possible.
International comparisons of timber production are available in the International Forestry chapter. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Timber originating from conifers is known as softwood and that from broadleaves is known as hardwood. Please refer to the Glossary for a definition of other terms used in this chapter.
Figures for 2018 were previously published in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2018 Provisional Figures", released on 16 May 2019. Some figures have been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Timber section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all UK-grown timber tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings for 2018 are (with percentage changes from 2017):
**Removals**(^2) (harvesting) of UK roundwood:
- 11.4 million green tonnes of softwood (+4%);
- 0.8 million green tonnes of hardwood (+13%).
**Deliveries**(^1) of UK roundwood to wood processors and others:
- Total: 11.6 million green tonnes of roundwood (softwood and hardwood) (+3%), of which:
- Sawmills: 6.5 million green tonnes (-2%);
- Wood-based panels: 1.2 million green tonnes (+14%);
- Integrated pulp and paper mills: 0.5 million green tonnes (+10%);
- Woodfuel: 2.6 million green tonnes (+18%);
- Other uses, including round fencing, shavings and exports of roundwood: 0.8 million green tonnes (-10%).
**Production** of wood products in the UK included:
- 3.7 million cubic metres of sawnwood (-1%);
- 3.1 million cubic metres of wood-based panels (-3%);
- 3.9 million tonnes of paper and paperboard (+1%).
______________________________________________________________________
(^2) The difference between total removals and deliveries reported here (around 0.6 million green tonnes in 2018) is likely to reflect a number of factors, including the different data sources and methodologies used. 2.1 Wood production
Wood production (also referred to as removals) refers to the harvesting of roundwood (trunk and branch wood) from coniferous (softwood) and non-coniferous (hardwood) trees. Figures are generally expressed here in green tonnes (weight when freshly felled).
Removals should not be confused with deliveries, which are the quantities of UK-grown roundwood that is delivered to processors (mills) or for other uses (such as woodfuel and exports). Deliveries statistics are presented in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. A comparison of removals and deliveries of UK softwood roundwood is provided in the Sources chapter.
The figures on removals of UK roundwood are used to monitor trends in the UK forest sector. The data is also used alongside figures for standing volume (the volume of standing trees) and increment (the growth rate of standing trees) to compile natural capital accounts for inclusion in the UK Environmental Accounts released by the Office for National Statistics.
The data are derived from a number of sources:
- FE/FLS/NRW/FS figures are obtained from Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and Forest Service administrative systems;
- Private sector softwood figures are obtained from the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey;
- Total hardwood figures are estimated from hardwood deliveries figures, which are compiled from surveys of the UK-grown timber industry, trade associations and expert estimates.
2.1.1 Summary: wood production
It is estimated that a total of 12.2 million green tonnes of roundwood was removed from UK woodlands in 2018.
Softwood accounted for most (93%) removals from UK woodland and totalled 11.4 million green tonnes in 2018 (Table 2.1). This represented a 4% increase on the previous year’s figure.
Hardwood removals totalled 0.8 million green tonnes in 2018.
Private sector woodlands accounted for 60% of softwood production and 90% of hardwood production in 2018.
### Table 2.1a Softwood production, 2009-2018
| Year | FE/FLS/NRW/FS<sup>1</sup> woodland | Private sector<sup>2</sup> woodland | Total softwood<sup>3</sup> | |------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------| | 2009 | 5 126 | 3 266 | 8 392 | | 2010 | 4 625 | 4 633 | 9 258 | | 2011 | 4 870 | 5 186 | 10 056 | | 2012 | 4 836 | 5 259 | 10 095 | | 2013 | 5 084 | 5 852 | 10 936 | | 2014 | 4 900 | 6 627 | 11 527 | | 2015 | 4 691 | 5 968 | 10 659 | | 2016 | 5 011 | 5 734 | 10 745 | | 2017 | 4 862 | 6 075 | 10 938 | | 2018 | 4 523 | 6 827 | 11 351 |
### Table 2.1b Hardwood production, 2009-2018
| Year | FE/FLS/NRW/FS<sup>1</sup> woodland | Private sector<sup>2</sup> woodland | Total softwood<sup>3,4</sup> | |------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | 2009 | 5 126 | 3 266 | 8 392 | | 2010 | 4 625 | 4 633 | 9 258 | | 2011 | 4 870 | 5 186 | 10 056 | | 2012 | 4 836 | 5 259 | 10 095 | | 2013 | 5 084 | 5 852 | 10 936 | | 2014 | 4 900 | 6 627 | 11 527 | | 2015 | 4 691 | 5 968 | 10 659 | | 2016 | 5 011 | 5 734 | 10 745 | | 2017 | 4 862 | 6 075 | 10 938 | | 2018 | 4 523 | 6 827 | 11 351 |
Source (table 2.1a & 2.1b): Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, industry surveys, industry associations. Notes (table 2.1a & 2.1b):
1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland).
2. Private sector: removals from all other woodland (including some publicly owned woodland).
3. Most hardwood production in the UK comes from private sector woodland; the figures are estimates based on reported deliveries to wood processing industries and others.
4. The increase in hardwood removals between 2016 and 2017 is largely attributed to a revised estimate for deliveries of UK grown hardwood used for woodfuel (see Table 2.6). This new estimate should not be interpreted as an increase in a single year.
Data: Longer time series of the above table, including estimates by country (England/ Wales/ Scotland/ Northern Ireland) are available from the Data downloads web page at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/.
2.1.2 Origin of private sector softwood removals
It is estimated that 74% of all softwood removals from private sector woodlands were harvested in Scotland, 17% in England, 9% in Wales and the remainder in Northern Ireland in 2018 (Table 2.2).
There has been an overall increase in the level of UK private sector softwood removals in the last decade.
Table 2.2 Private sector softwood removals by country, 2009-2018
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|------| | 2009 | 533 | 321 | 2 388 | 24 | 3 266| | 2010 | 678 | 427 | 3 471 | 57 | 4 633| | 2011 | 738 | 501 | 3 894 | 53 | 5 186| | 2012 | 847 | 611 | 3 761 | 40 | 5 259| | 2013 | 929 | 695 | 4 205 | 23 | 5 852| | 2014 | 1 165 | 739 | 4 691 | 33 | 6 627| | 2015 | 1 052 | 686 | 4 203 | 28 | 5 968| | 2016 | 1 013 | 643 | 4 043 | 34 | 5 734| | 2017 | 961 | 783 | 4 295 | 36 | 6 075| | 2018 | 1 130 | 628 | 5 022 | 47 | 6 827|
Source: Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey 2.1.3 Origin of FE/FLS/NRW/FS removals
Information on removals from Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Forest Service (FS) woodlands is obtained from administrative systems.
A total of 4.5 million green tonnes of softwood was removed from FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodlands in 2018, a 7% decrease from the 2017 figure (Table 2.3). Over one half (54%) of FE/FLS/NRW/FS softwood removals in 2018 occurred in Scotland, 23% in England, 15% in Wales and 7% in Northern Ireland.
In comparison to private sector softwood removals (see Table 2.2), FE/FLS/NRW/FS softwood removals have been relatively stable over the last decade.
Table 2.3 FE/FLS/NRW/FS softwood removals by country, 2009-2018
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2009 | 1 213 | 717 | 2 773 | 423 | 5 126 | | 2010 | 1 142 | 644 | 2 434 | 405 | 4 625 | | 2011 | 1 185 | 689 | 2 566 | 430 | 4 870 | | 2012 | 1 154 | 663 | 2 627 | 392 | 4 836 | | 2013 | 1 188 | 693 | 2 819 | 384 | 5 084 | | 2014 | 1 064 | 722 | 2 749 | 365 | 4 900 | | 2015 | 1 023 | 692 | 2 644 | 333 | 4 691 | | 2016 | 1 146 | 778 | 2 745 | 343 | 5 011 | | 2017 | 1 087 | 758 | 2 668 | 349 | 4 862 | | 2018 | 1 048 | 696 | 2 440 | 339 | 4 523 |
Source: Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Forest Service (FS). 2.1.4 Softwood availability forecast
The National Forest Inventory "50-year forecast of softwood availability" and "50-year forecast of hardwood availability" were published in April 2014. They are forecasts of potential availability rather than production, as they do not take account of management objectives, financial factors or the state of markets, all of which will affect the level of and timing of harvesting.
More information on the forecasts and detailed breakdowns are available on the National Forest Inventory web pages at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
The forecasts are outside the scope of National Statistics, but are provided here to give more context to the data on wood production.
As these forecasts were produced in 2014, they do not take into account any of the findings from the 'preliminary estimates of the changes in canopy cover in British woodlands between 2006 and 2015', released in August 2016.
The key assumptions underpinning the headline softwood forecast scenario include:
- Private woodland is managed in a way that maximises total production.
- The estate of Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales is managed according to current management plans; note that Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, and Natural Resources Wales intend to cap production below the level set out in Table 2.4a.
Under the above scenario, softwood availability for Great Britain averages 15.2 million cubic metres a year over the 50-year period 2013 to 2061 (Table 2.4a). The majority (66%) of this softwood is projected to come from private sector woodland. Table 2.4a Softwood availability forecasts
| Annual average in the period | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW**¹ | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 1 632 | 1 082 | 4 220 | 6 933 | | 2017 - 2021 | 1 330 | 991 | 3 658 | 5 980 | | 2022 - 2026 | 1 211 | 895 | 3 516 | 5 622 | | 2027 - 2031 | 1 159 | 778 | 3 789 | 5 726 | | 2032 - 2036 | 1 066 | 934 | 3 215 | 5 216 | | 2037 - 2041 | 1 013 | 794 | 2 936 | 4 744 | | 2042 - 2046 | 1 055 | 531 | 2 730 | 4 316 | | 2047 - 2051 | 1 014 | 585 | 3 280 | 4 879 | | 2052 - 2056 | 828 | 495 | 2 886 | 4 209 | | 2057 - 2061 | 1 250 | 679 | 2 339 | 4 269 | | **Private sector**² | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 2 945 | 901 | 5 708 | 9 554 | | 2017 - 2021 | 3 225 | 949 | 6 997 | 11 171 | | 2022 - 2026 | 2 903 | 1 087 | 7 830 | 11 820 | | 2027 - 2031 | 2 986 | 775 | 8 910 | 12 671 | | 2032 - 2036 | 2 850 | 736 | 8 847 | 12 433 | | 2037 - 2041 | 2 224 | 679 | 8 133 | 11 035 | | 2042 - 2046 | 1 848 | 490 | 6 527 | 8 865 | | 2047 - 2051 | 1 523 | 521 | 4 986 | 7 030 | | 2052 - 2056 | 1 431 | 734 | 5 679 | 7 845 | | 2057 - 2061 | 1 603 | 694 | 5 627 | 7 924 | | **Total softwood** | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 4 577 | 1 983 | 9 928 | 16 487 | | 2017 - 2021 | 4 555 | 1 940 | 10 656 | 17 151 | | 2022 - 2026 | 4 113 | 1 982 | 11 346 | 17 442 | | 2027 - 2031 | 4 145 | 1 553 | 12 700 | 18 398 |
### 2.1.5 Hardwood availability forecast
The key assumptions underpinning the headline hardwood forecast scenario include:
- In private woodland, harvesting is limited to areas with evidence of recent thinning activity.
- The estate of Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales is managed according to current management plans.
Under the above scenario, hardwood availability for Great Britain averages 1.6 million m$^3$ a year over the 50-year period (Table 2.4b). The majority (89%) of this hardwood is projected to come from private sector woodland. If these woodlands were managed to maximise total production, the forecast would be much higher, as illustrated in the full National Forest Inventory report available at [www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/](http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/). Table 2.4b Hardwood availability forecasts
| Annual average in the period | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|----| | **FE/FLS/NRW**¹ | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 126 | 12 | 9 | 147| | 2017 - 2021 | 92 | 11 | 9 | 111| | 2022 - 2026 | 110 | 17 | 10 | 137| | 2027 - 2031 | 86 | 12 | 10 | 108| | 2032 - 2036 | 99 | 14 | 15 | 128| | 2037 - 2041 | 129 | 19 | 24 | 172| | 2042 - 2046 | 189 | 56 | 31 | 276| | 2047 - 2051 | 116 | 19 | 40 | 175| | 2052 - 2056 | 134 | 28 | 45 | 208| | 2057 - 2061 | 146 | 28 | 64 | 237| | **Private sector**² | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 122 | 20 | 83 | 225| | 2017 - 2021 | 333 | 46 | 139 | 519| | 2022 - 2026 | 538 | 77 | 193 | 808| | 2027 - 2031 | 720 | 100 | 233 | 1 054| | 2032 - 2036 | 825 | 115 | 262 | 1 202| | 2037 - 2041 | 1 047 | 153 | 367 | 1 567| | 2042 - 2046 | 1 915 | 243 | 586 | 2 743| | 2047 - 2051 | 1 678 | 227 | 675 | 2 580| | 2052 - 2056 | 1 254 | 198 | 554 | 2 006| | 2057 - 2061 | 645 | 139 | 343 | 1 127| | **Total hardwood** | | | | | | 2013 - 2016 | 249 | 32 | 92 | 373| | 2017 - 2021 | 425 | 58 | 148 | 631| | 2022 - 2026 | 648 | 94 | 203 | 945| | 2027 - 2031 | 806 | 112 | 244 | 1 162| | Period | Hardwood | Softwood | Hardwood | Total | |-------------|----------|----------|----------|-------| | 2032 - 2036 | 923 | 130 | 277 | 1330 | | 2037 - 2041 | 1176 | 171 | 391 | 1738 | | 2042 - 2046 | 2104 | 299 | 616 | 3019 | | 2047 - 2051 | 1795 | 246 | 715 | 2755 | | 2052 - 2056 | 1388 | 227 | 599 | 2214 | | 2057 - 2061 | 791 | 167 | 406 | 1364 |
Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014)
Notes:
1. The estate of Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is assumed to be managed according to current management plans.
2. In private woodland, harvesting is assumed to be limited to areas with evidence of recent thinning activity. If these woodlands were managed to maximise total production, the forecast would be much higher, as illustrated in the full National Forest Inventory report available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/.
3. An update to these figures is due to be published in 2020.
4. To convert hardwood ‘overbark standing’ into green tonnes multiply by 0.900. See the Sources chapter for more details on conversion factors.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 2.2 Deliveries of UK-grown roundwood
Figures for deliveries relate to the quantity of UK-grown roundwood that is delivered to processors (mills) or for other uses (such as woodfuel and exports). They are expressed in green tonnes (weight when freshly felled). Statistics on roundwood deliveries are used to monitor trends in the supply of, and demand for, UK-grown wood.
Deliveries should not be confused with removals, which are the quantities of roundwood that is harvested from UK woodland. Removals statistics are presented in Tables 2.1 to 2.3. A comparison of removals and deliveries of UK softwood roundwood is provided in the Sources chapter.
The data are derived from a number of sources, including surveys of the UK-grown timber industry, trade associations and expert estimates.
2.2.1 Softwood deliveries
In 2018, deliveries of UK roundwood (softwood and hardwood) totalled 11.6 million green tonnes, a 3% increase from the previous year (Tables 2.5 and 2.6).
Most UK roundwood deliveries (93%) were softwood and totalled 10.7 million green tonnes in 2018 (Table 2.5). 6.4 million green tonnes (60% of UK softwood deliveries) were used by sawmills, a 2% decrease from the previous year. A further 1.9 million green tonnes were used for wood fuel (a 19% increase), 1.2 million green tonnes were used to produce wood-based panels (a 14% increase), 0.5 million green tonnes by integrated pulp and paper mills (a 10% increase), and 0.7 million green tonnes for other uses, including round fencing, shavings and exports of roundwood (an 11% decrease).
The increase in softwood deliveries for woodfuel in recent years reflects an increase in wood use for heating and energy production in the UK (see the Sources chapter for further information). Table 2.5 Deliveries of UK-grown softwood, 2009-2018
| Year | Sawmills | Pulp mills | Wood-based panels | Fencing | Wood fuel¹ | Other² | Exports | Total | |------|----------|------------|-------------------|---------|------------|--------|---------|-------| | 2009 | 5 133 | 511 | 1 135 | 367 | 650 | 160 | 347 | 8 304 | | 2010 | 5 616 | 428 | 1 375 | 349 | 900 | 135 | 467 | 9 269 | | 2011 | 5 859 | 453 | 1 417 | 363 | 900 | 145 | 585 | 9 722 | | 2012 | 6 073 | 461 | 1 269 | 338 | 1 000 | 154 | 535 | 9 831 | | 2013 | 6 407 | 465 | 1 263 | 332 | 1 250 | 191 | 640 | 10 547| | 2014 | 6 725 | 465 | 1 283 | 317 | 1 500 | 176 | 437 | 10 903| | 2015 | 6 168 | 435 | 1 334 | 288 | 1 600 | 164 | 276 | 10 265| | 2016 | 6 511 | 423 | 1 248 | 277 | 1 550 | 178 | 231 | 10 419| | 2017 | 6 572 | 442 | 1 059 | 295 | 1 600 | 170 | 331 | 10 468| | 2018 | 6 424 | 486 | 1 210 | 273 | 1 900 | 174 | 264 | 10 731|
Source: Industry surveys, industry associations.
Notes:
1. Woodfuel derived from stemwood, includes estimates of roundwood use for biomass energy. The figures are estimated by the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics and make use of woodfuel data reported in the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey.
2. Includes shavings and poles. Quantities for some uses are estimates by the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics. Figure 2.1 Deliveries of UK-grown softwood, 1994-2018
Source: industry surveys, industry associations. 2.2.2 Hardwood deliveries
There was a total of 0.8 million green tonnes of UK hardwood deliveries in 2018 (Table 2.6). The majority of UK hardwood deliveries (84% in 2018) were used for woodfuel.
Table 2.6 Deliveries of UK-grown hardwood, 2009-2018
| Year | Sawmills | Pulp mills | Wood-based panels | Woodfuel | Other | Total | |------|----------|------------|-------------------|----------|-------|-------| | 2009 | 76 | 0 | 1 | 400 | 59 | 536 | | 2010 | 75 | 0 | 1 | 400 | 59 | 535 | | 2011 | 81 | 0 | 1 | 400 | 59 | 541 | | 2012 | 75 | 0 | 2 | 400 | 57 | 534 | | 2013 | 74 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 58 | 532 | | 2014 | 77 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 60 | 537 | | 2015 | 76 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 91 | 566 | | 2016 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 122 | 597 | | 2017 | 66 | 0 | 0 | 600 | 71 | 738 | | 2018 | 67 | 0 | 1 | 700 | 66 | 834 |
Source: industry surveys, industry associations.
Notes:
1. Figures are based on processing industries' purchases of hardwood grown in the UK and estimates for woodfuel and other uses.
2. Woodfuel reported here is derived from stemwood and includes estimated roundwood use for biomass energy.
3. The apparent increase in woodfuel from 2016 to 2017 reflects a new estimate of the level of hardwood deliveries for woodfuel and should not be interpreted as an increase in a single year.
4. Other includes round fencing and roundwood exports. Figure 2.2 Deliveries of UK-grown hardwood, 1994-2018
Source: industry surveys, industry associations.
Notes:
1. Other includes round fencing and roundwood exports.
2. The apparent increase in woodfuel from 2016 to 2017 reflects a new estimate of the level of hardwood deliveries for woodfuel and should not be interpreted as an increase in a single year. 2.3 Sawmills - All Mills
Data are collected by Forest Research in an annual Sawmill Survey. The following section includes summary results, covering number of mills, consumption and production are available for all mills.
In addition, there are also more detailed figures for larger mills only. The threshold defining larger mills was changed for the collection of 2016 data, from annual sawnwood production of 10 thousand m$^3$ to annual sawnwood production of 25 thousand m$^3$. Further information on this change is provided in the section on Larger Mills within this chapter and in the Sawmill Survey section of the Sources chapter.
Consumption units are given in green tonnes. For production, the units used are m$^3$ sawnwood. For conversion factors between different units, see the Timber section of the Sources chapter.
2.3.1 Summary: consumption & production
In 2018, sawmills in the UK consumed a total of 6.7 million green tonnes of softwood, a 1% decrease from 2017 (Table 2.7). A further 0.1 million green tonnes of hardwood were consumed by UK sawmills in 2018. Most of the logs, 6.4 million green tonnes softwood and 0.1 million green tonnes hardwood, were grown in the UK.
A total of 3.7 million m$^3$ of sawnwood was produced in the UK in 2018, a 1% decrease from 2017.
There has been an overall increase in the levels of softwood consumption and sawn softwood production in the UK between 2009 and 2018.
In addition to producing sawnwood, sawmills also generate other products. Further information on other products produced by larger mills are provided in Tables 2.18 and 2.18a.
### Table 2.7a Consumption by UK sawmills, 2009-2018
| Year | UK grown soft wood | Imported soft wood | Total soft wood | UK grown hard wood | Imported hard wood | Total hard wood | |------|---------------------|--------------------|-----------------|--------------------|--------------------|-----------------| | 2009 | 5 133 | 158 | 5 291 | 76 | 19 | 95 | | 2010 | 5 616 | 103 | 5 719 | 75 | 19 | 94 | | 2011 | 5 859 | 125 | 5 984 | 81 | 20 | 100 | | 2012 | 6 073 | 124 | 6 198 | 75 | 17 | 93 | | 2013 | 6 407 | 126 | 6 532 | 74 | 13 | 88 | | 2014 | 6 725 | 159 | 6 884 | 77 | 14 | 91 | | 2015 | 6 168 | 182 | 6 350 | 76 | 14 | 89 | | 2016 | 6 511 | 209 | 6 720 | 75 | 17 | 92 | | 2017 | 6 572 | 267 | 6 838 | 66 | 13 | 80 | | 2018 | 6 424 | 325 | 6 749 | 67 | 13 | 80 |
Source: Sawmill Survey
### Table 2.7b Production by UK sawmills, 2009-2018
| Year | Softwood production | Hardwood production | |------|---------------------|---------------------| | 2009 | 2 809 | 48 | | 2010 | 3 053 | 48 | | 2011 | 3 227 | 52 | | 2012 | 3 361 | 48 | | 2013 | 3 536 | 46 | | 2014 | 3 716 | 47 | | 2015 | 3 451 | 46 | | 2016 | 3 624 | 47 | | 2017 | 3 721 | 42 | | 2018 | 3 674 | 41 |
Source: Sawmill Survey 2.3.2 Number of sawmills by size
A total of 157 sawmills processed UK roundwood in 2018 (Table 2.8). Most mills (82%) produced less than 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood (softwood and hardwood) during the year.
Over the past ten years, the number of active sawmills has reduced by 19%. Most of this decrease has occurred in the smallest size categories.
Table 2.8 Number of sawmills by size category of mill, 2009-2018
| Year | < 1 | 1 - \<5 | 5 - \<10 | 10 - \<25 | 25 - \<50 | 50 - \<100 | 100+ | Total | |------|-----|--------|---------|----------|----------|-----------|------|-------| | 2009 | 79 | 52 | 12 | 23 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 195 | | 2010 | 75 | 50 | 12 | 24 | 8 | 10 | 9 | 188 | | 2011 | 70 | 51 | 12 | 23 | 9 | 7 | 12 | 184 | | 2012 | 69 | 49 | 13 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 11 | 180 | | 2013 | 67 | 46 | 13 | 19 | 11 | 6 | 13 | 175 | | 2014 | 69 | 42 | 12 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 12 | 173 | | 2015 | 66 | 43 | 15 | 17 | 12 | 6 | 12 | 171 | | 2016 | 61 | 42 | 15 | 20 | 6 | 10 | 13 | 167 | | 2017 | 61 | 43 | 12 | 21 | 5 | 10 | 12 | 164 | | 2018 | 60 | 38 | 10 | 21 | 8 | 8 | 12 | 157 |
Source: Sawmill Survey Notes:
1. Categories are based on total sawnwood production (softwood and hardwood), in thousand m$^3$.
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page at: https://www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/ 2.3.3 Number of sawmills by country
Around one half (53%) of the 157 active sawmills in 2018 were in England, around one third (33%) were in Scotland, 8% in Wales and 6% in Northern Ireland (Table 2.9).
Table 2.9 Number of sawmills by country, 2009-2018
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2009 | 101 | 17 | 68 | 9 | 195| | 2010 | 98 | 17 | 64 | 9 | 188| | 2011 | 96 | 16 | 63 | 9 | 184| | 2012 | 95 | 15 | 61 | 9 | 180| | 2013 | 92 | 15 | 59 | 9 | 175| | 2014 | 92 | 15 | 57 | 9 | 173| | 2015 | 92 | 15 | 55 | 9 | 171| | 2016 | 89 | 15 | 54 | 9 | 167| | 2017 | 88 | 14 | 53 | 9 | 164| | 2018 | 83 | 13 | 52 | 9 | 157|
Source: Sawmill Survey
Data: Longer time series of the above table, and for mills in England by region, are available from the Data downloads web page at www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. 2.3.4 Number of sawmills by type of wood sawn
Around two thirds (66%) of the 157 active sawmills in 2018 processed softwood only (Table 2.10). A further 28% processed both softwood and hardwood, and the remaining 6% processed only hardwood.
Table 2.10 Number of sawmills by type of wood sawn, 2009-2018
| Year | Softwood only | Hardwood only | Both | Total | |------|---------------|---------------|------|-------| | 2009 | 130 | 10 | 55 | 195 | | 2010 | 122 | 10 | 56 | 188 | | 2011 | 120 | 10 | 54 | 184 | | 2012 | 118 | 11 | 51 | 180 | | 2013 | 118 | 11 | 46 | 175 | | 2014 | 115 | 9 | 49 | 173 | | 2015 | 112 | 9 | 50 | 171 | | 2016 | 110 | 9 | 48 | 167 | | 2017 | 110 | 10 | 44 | 164 | | 2018 | 104 | 9 | 44 | 157 |
Source: Sawmill Survey 2.3.5 Consumption of softwood by size of mill
Despite accounting for only 18% of all sawmills (see Table 2.8), those with total annual sawnwood production of 25 thousand m$^3$ or more accounted for 86% of the total softwood consumed by sawmills in 2018 (Table 2.11).
Table 2.11 Consumption of softwood by size category of mill, 2009-2018
| Year | < 1 | 1 - \<5 | 5 - \<10 | 10 - \<25 | 25 - \<50 | 50 - \<100 | 100+ | Total | |------|-----|--------|---------|----------|----------|-----------|------|-------| | 2009 | 35 | 201 | 145 | 664 | 670 | 1 323 | 2 253| 5 291 | | 2010 | 35 | 194 | 147 | 744 | 537 | 1 373 | 2 689| 5 719 | | 2011 | 32 | 188 | 148 | 685 | 615 | 830 | 3 486| 5 984 | | 2012 | 33 | 185 | 175 | 539 | 738 | 1 133 | 3 395| 6 198 | | 2013 | 36 | 185 | 169 | 578 | 702 | 777 | 4 085| 6 532 | | 2014 | 36 | 167 | 156 | 588 | 731 | 1 090 | 4 117| 6 884 | | 2015 | 31 | 168 | 196 | 553 | 795 | 801 | 3 805| 6 350 | | 2016 | 29 | 155 | 191 | 588 | 372 | 1 117 | 4 270| 6 720 | | 2017 | 29 | 173 | 152 | 671 | 339 | 1 352 | 4 122| 6 838 | | 2018 | 32 | 152 | 117 | 626 | 585 | 1 102 | 4 134| 6 749 |
Source: Sawmill Survey Notes:
1. Categories are based on total sawnwood production (softwood and hardwood), in thousand m$^3$.
Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data downloads web page at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/ 2.3.6 Consumption of softwood by mills in each country
Mills in Scotland consumed around one half (51%) of the 6.7 million green tonnes of softwood delivered to UK sawmills in 2018 (Table 2.12). A further 30% was consumed by mills in England, 10% in Wales and 9% in Northern Ireland.
Table 2.12 Consumption of softwood by country, 2009-2018
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|-----------------|----| | 2009 | 1 548 | 538 | 2 672 | 532 | 5 291 | | 2010 | 1 694 | 583 | 2 913 | 528 | 5 719 | | 2011 | 1 726 | 634 | 3 082 | 543 | 5 984 | | 2012 | 1 821 | 654 | 3 195 | 528 | 6 198 | | 2013 | 1 879 | 702 | 3 420 | 532 | 6 532 | | 2014 | 1 982 | 711 | 3 661 | 530 | 6 884 | | 2015 | 1 917 | 655 | 3 247 | 531 | 6 350 | | 2016 | 1 984 | 737 | 3 441 | 558 | 6 720 | | 2017 | 2 086 | 691 | 3 479 | 583 | 6 838 | | 2018 | 2 030 | 656 | 3 423 | 640 | 6 749 |
Source: Sawmill Survey
Data: Longer time series of the above table, and for mills in England by region, are available from the Data downloads web page at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/ 2.3.7 Production of sawn softwood by size of mill
UK sawmills produced a total of 3.7 million m$^3$ of sawn softwood in 2018, a 1% decrease from the 2017 figure (Table 2.13).
Sawmills with total annual sawnwood production of 25 thousand m$^3$ or more accounted for 86% of the total sawn softwood produced by sawmills in 2018.
Table 2.13 Production of sawn softwood by size of mill, 2009-2018
| Year | < 1 | 1 - \<5 | 5 - \<10 | 10 - \<25 | 25 - \<50 | 50 - \<100 | 100+ | Total | |------|-----|--------|---------|----------|---------|-----------|------|-------| | 2009 | 20 | 118 | 79 | 352 | 376 | 677 | 1 187| 2 809 | | 2010 | 20 | 113 | 79 | 395 | 304 | 693 | 1 450| 3 053 | | 2011 | 18 | 110 | 81 | 374 | 335 | 443 | 1 867| 3 227 | | 2012 | 18 | 108 | 90 | 314 | 393 | 564 | 1 874| 3 361 | | 2013 | 20 | 108 | 88 | 337 | 379 | 404 | 2 200| 3 536 | | 2014 | 20 | 98 | 81 | 332 | 398 | 563 | 2 224| 3 716 | | 2015 | 18 | 98 | 106 | 296 | 466 | 422 | 2 045| 3 451 | | 2016 | 17 | 90 | 101 | 338 | 186 | 597 | 2 296| 3 624 | | 2017 | 17 | 99 | 77 | 374 | 178 | 647 | 2 328| 3 721 | | 2018 | 19 | 88 | 55 | 355 | 311 | 519 | 2 327| 3 674 |
Source: Sawmill Survey Notes:
1. Categories are based on total sawnwood production (softwood and hardwood), in thousand m$^3$.
Data: Longer time series of the above table, are available from the Data downloads web page at: https://www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/ 2.3.8 Production of sawn softwood by mills in each country
1.9 million m$^3$ (51%) of sawn softwood was produced by sawmills in Scotland in 2018 (Table 2.14). A further 31% was produced by mills in England, 9% in Wales and the remaining 10% in Northern Ireland.
Over the last 10 years production of sawn softwood in the UK has increased by 31%. For mills in England, Wales and Scotland, most of this increase has occurred in the earlier part of this period, whilst there has been a more recent increase in Northern Ireland.
Table 2.14 Production of sawn softwood by country, 2009-2018
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2009 | 860 | 267 | 1 413 | 268 | 2 809 | | 2010 | 927 | 291 | 1 560 | 275 | 3 053 | | 2011 | 954 | 316 | 1 666 | 291 | 3 227 | | 2012 | 1 001 | 326 | 1 747 | 288 | 3 361 | | 2013 | 1 026 | 349 | 1 873 | 289 | 3 536 | | 2014 | 1 091 | 354 | 1 985 | 286 | 3 716 | | 2015 | 1 056 | 324 | 1 787 | 284 | 3 451 | | 2016 | 1 093 | 366 | 1 871 | 294 | 3 624 | | 2017 | 1 156 | 319 | 1 920 | 326 | 3 721 | | 2018 | 1 122 | 313 | 1 888 | 351 | 3 674 |
Source: Sawmill Survey
Data: Longer time series of the above table, and for mills in England by region, are available from the Data downloads web page at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/ 2.4 Sawmills - Larger Mills
The following, more detailed, tables are available for larger mills (those producing at least 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood annually) only.
These larger mills are estimated to account for 86% of all sawn softwood produced in 2018 (see Table 2.13). In order to provide consistent time series, data presented in this section for 2014 and 2015 is also restricted to sawmills that produced at least 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood in the relevant year.
The tables cover the following topics:
- Source of softwood logs;
- Sawn softwood product markets;
- Other softwood products; and
- Sawmill employment.
2.4.1 Softwood consumption and production
Total softwood consumption by the 28 sawmills covered by the detailed sawmill survey in 2018 was 5.8 million green tonnes (Table 2.15). Sawn softwood production by these mills was 3.2 million m$^3$ and other softwood products (chips, bark, sawdust, etc) amounted to 2.8 million tonnes.
Sawmills in Scotland accounted for over one half (52%) of all softwood consumption by larger mills. A further 29% was consumed by mills in England, 9% in Wales and the remaining 10% in Northern Ireland.
Table 2.15 Larger mills1, 2018: softwood consumption and production
| | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|------| | Number of mills | 10 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 28 | | Consumption (thousand green tonnes) | 1 682 | 520 | 3 024 | 596 | 5 821| | Sawnwood production (thousand m$^3$) | 934 | 239 | 1 656 | 328 | 3 157| | Other products (thousand tonnes) | 621 | 275 | 1 672 | 255 | 2 823|
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed) Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood (softwood and hardwood). 2.4.2 Source of softwood logs
Of all softwood sawlogs consumed by larger sawmills in 2018, 58% came from Scotland, 19% from England, 12% from Wales and 4% from Northern Ireland (Tables 2.16 and 2.16a). The remaining 6% were imported from other countries. This was similar to the breakdown by source in previous years.
97% of softwood sawlogs used by Scottish mills in 2018 came from Scotland. The corresponding proportions of mills' log use coming from within the same country were 58% for England, 76% for Wales and 44% for Northern Ireland.
Table 2.16 Larger mills(^1), 2018: source of softwood logs
| Source | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |-----------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|--------| | England | 981 | 44 | 99 | 0 | 1 124 | | Wales | 333 | 393 | 0 | 0 | 726 | | Scotland | 368 | 83 | 2 925 | 11 | 3 386 | | Northern Ireland| 0 | 0 | 0 | 260 | 260 | | **Total UK logs** | **1 682** | **520** | **3 024** | **271** | **5 496** | | Other countries | 0 | 0 | 0 | 325 | 325 | | **Total log consumption** | **1 682** | **520** | **3 024** | **596** | **5 821** |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed) Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood). Table 2.16a Larger mills(^1), 2014-2018: source of softwood logs
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | Other countries | Total | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----------------|-------| | 2014 | 20 | 13 | 60 | 4 | 3 | 100 | | 2015 | 19 | 13 | 60 | 4 | 3 | 100 | | 2016 | 20 | 14 | 59 | 5 | 4 | 100 | | 2017 | 20 | 14 | 57 | 4 | 5 | 100 | | 2018 | 19 | 12 | 58 | 4 | 6 | 100 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood).
2.4.3 Sawn softwood product markets
In 2018, 36% of sawn softwood produced by larger sawmills was used for fencing, 33% for construction, 24% for packaging and pallets, and the remaining 7% went to all other markets (Tables 2.17 and 2.17a).
Table 2.17 Larger mills(^1), 2018 sawn softwood product markets
| Product market | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |----------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | Construction | 18 | 20 | 42 | 43 | 33 | | Fencing | 54 | 27 | 28 | 33 | 36 | | Packaging/ pallets | 24 | 41 | 22 | 18 | 24 | | Other | 4 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 7 | | Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100| Table 2.17a Larger mills(^1), 2014-2018: sawn softwood product markets
| Year | Construction | Fencing | Packaging/pallets | Other | Total | |------|--------------|---------|-------------------|-------|-------| | 2014 | 28 | 35 | 31 | 6 | 100 | | 2015 | 27 | 36 | 30 | 6 | 100 | | 2016 | 28 | 35 | 30 | 7 | 100 | | 2017 | 32 | 36 | 24 | 8 | 100 | | 2018 | 33 | 36 | 24 | 7 | 100 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood).
2.4.4 Other softwood products
Sawmills were asked to estimate the quantity of other products (excluding sawnwood) that they generated from softwood and sold to different industries. The figures presented below are based on these estimates.
Other softwood products amounted to 2.8 million tonnes in 2018 (Table 2.15). Around one third (34%) of other softwood products were sold to wood processing industries in the form of chips and 12% were sold to these industries in sawdust and other formats (Table 2.18). A further 24% of other products were sold to bio-energy (including pellet manufacturers), 25% were sold to others and 5% were used internally for heat or energy. Table 2.18 Larger mills(^1), 2018: other softwood products
| Destination and type of product(^2) | England | Wales | Scotland | NI | UK | |--------------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|----|----| | **Sold to wood processing industries** | | | | | | | Wood chips | 32 | 56 | 36 | 0 | 34 | | Bark | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Sawdust & other | 14 | 22 | 12 | 0 | 12 | | **Total** | 46 | 78 | 48 | 0 | 46 | | **Sold to bio-energy (incl pellet manufacturers)** | | | | | | | Wood chips | 9 | 6 | 13 | 64 | 16 | | Bark | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1 | | Sawdust & other | 0 | 0 | 8 | 21 | 7 | | **Total** | 10 | 6 | 20 | 95 | 24 | | **Other sales** | | | | | | | Wood chips | 20 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 10 | | Bark | 7 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 7 | | Sawdust & other | 11 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 8 | | **Total** | 37 | 15 | 25 | 5 | 25 | | **Internal use for heat/energy** | | | | | | | Wood chips | 6 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | | Bark | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | | Sawdust & other | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | **Total** | 7 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 5 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood).
2. The table does not show sales of firewood and other products disposed of as waste, which together accounted for less than 0.5% of other softwood products. The proportions of other products that were reported as sold to wood processing industries has reduced over the last five years, whilst other sales have increased (Table 2.18a).
Table 2.18a Larger mills(^1), 2014-2018: other softwood products by destination
| Year | Sold to wood processing industries | Sold to bio-energy (incl pellet manufacturers) | Other sales | Internal use for heat/energy | Total(^2) | |------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------|----------------------------|------------| | 2014 | 59 | 22 | 17 | 3 | 100 | | 2015 | 60 | 21 | 17 | 2 | 100 | | 2016 | 58 | 21 | 19 | 2 | 100 | | 2017 | 56 | 22 | 19 | 3 | 100 | | 2018 | 46 | 24 | 25 | 5 | 100 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood).
2. Total includes sales of firewood and other products disposed of as waste. 2.4.5 Sawmill employment
There were estimated to be 2.9 thousand full-time equivalent staff employed directly by sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m$^3$ of sawnwood in 2018 (Tables 2.19 and 2.19a).
Table 2.19 Larger mills$^1$, 2018: sawmill employment
| Employment type | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |--------------------------------------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|-----| | **Direct** | | | | | | | Line & production workers | 810 | 165 | 1 151 | 313 | 2 439| | Managerial & administrative staff | 165 | 28 | 124 | 112 | 429 | | Haulage of logs to the mill | 58 | 0 | 16 | 2 | 76 | | **Total direct employment** | 1 033 | 193 | 1 291 | 427 | 2 944| | **Others$^2$** | | | | | | | Line & production workers | 12 | 0 | 64 | 0 | 76 | | Managerial & administrative staff | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | | **Total contract employment** | 12 | 0 | 67 | 0 | 79 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood (softwood and hardwood).
2. 'Others' refers to others undertaking work for the sawmill, including contractors and their employees.
3. The results exclude any employment on harvesting, and any employment at the site not directly related to the sawmill (e.g. exclude work producing pallets or other wood products from sawn wood).
4. Excludes haulage employment on contract. Table 2.19a Larger mills(^1), 2014-2018: sawmill employment
| Employment | Line & production workers | Managerial & administrative staff | Haulage of logs to the mill | Total employment | |------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------| | **Direct** | | | | | | 2014 | 2 422 | 385 | 43 | 2 850 | | 2015 | 2 341 | 394 | 44 | 2 779 | | 2016 | 2 456 | 384 | 45 | 2 885 | | 2017 | 2 369 | 428 | 79 | 2 875 | | 2018 | 2 439 | 429 | 76 | 2 944 | | **Others(^2)** | | | | | | 2014 | 124 | 1 | .. | 125 | | 2015 | 58 | 0 | .. | 58 | | 2016 | 50 | 2 | .. | 52 | | 2017 | 76 | 3 | .. | 79 | | 2018 | 55 | 2 | .. | 57 |
Source: Sawmill Survey (detailed)
Notes:
1. Sawmills producing at least 25 thousand m(^3) sawnwood (softwood and hardwood).
2. Excludes haulage employment on contract.
3. .. Denotes data not available. 2.5 Pulp & paper
Statistics on inputs to the pulp & paper industry only cover the integrated pulp & paper mills in the UK that use UK roundwood. There were four such mills until 2003, three from 2004 and two from spring 2006. Figures on inputs are provided by the Confederation of Forest Industries (Confor).
Figures on production of pulp and paper are provided by the Confederation of Paper Industries, and cover all paper production in the UK, not just from mills using UK roundwood.
2.5.1 Inputs for the integrated pulp & paper mills
The integrated pulp & paper mills in the UK consumed a total of 0.5 million tonnes of material (all softwood) in 2018, an 8% increase from the 2017 total (Table 2.20).
UK roundwood represented 90% of the inputs for the integrated pulp & paper mills in 2018, with the remaining 10% coming from sawmill products.
Table 2.20 Inputs for the integrated pulp & paper mills1, 2009-2018
| Year | UK roundwood2 | Sawmill products | Total | |------|---------------|------------------|-------| | 2009 | 511 | 120 | 631 | | 2010 | 428 | 98 | 526 | | 2011 | 453 | 99 | 552 | | 2012 | 461 | 79 | 540 | | 2013 | 465 | 83 | 548 | | 2014 | 465 | 97 | 562 | | 2015 | 435 | 101 | 536 | | 2016 | 423 | 82 | 505 | | 2017 | 442 | 61 | 503 | | 2018 | 486 | 55 | 541 |
Source: Confor Notes:
1. Excludes inputs of recycled paper and cardboard. All inputs are softwood.
2. UK roundwood derived from stemwood. Figure 2.3 Inputs to integrated pulp and paper mills
Source: Confor 2.5.2 Production of paper
Figures for the production of paper (Table 2.21) are provided by the Confederation of Paper Industries. They cover all paper production from UK mills, not just those using UK roundwood. Most UK paper production uses recovered waste paper or imported pulp.
A total of 3.9 million tonnes of paper and paperboard was produced in the UK in 2018, an increase of 1% from the previous year. Packaging materials accounted for 49% of the total UK paper production in 2018, graphic papers (including newsprint) for 25%, and sanitary and household papers for 19%.
Table 2.21 Production of paper and paperboard, 2009-2018
| Year | Graphic papers (incl newsprint) | Sanitary & household papers | Packaging materials | Other | Total paper & paperboard | |------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------|-------|-------------------------| | 2009 | 1 609 | 736 | 1 702 | 246 | 4 293 | | 2010 | 1 637 | 729 | 1 640 | 294 | 4 300 | | 2011 | 1 669 | 766 | 1 600 | 307 | 4 342 | | 2012 | 1 616 | 795 | 1 798 | 271 | 4 480 | | 2013 | 1 636 | 802 | 1 851 | 272 | 4 561 | | 2014 | 1 544 | 768 | 1 801 | 284 | 4 397 | | 2015 | 1 053 | 772 | 1 894 | 251 | 3 970 | | 2016 | 897 | 730 | 1 800 | 250 | 3 677 | | 2017 | 918 | 734 | 1 935 | 270 | 3 858 | | 2018 | 962 | 738 | 1 904 | 291 | 3 894 |
Source: Confederation of Paper Industries 2.6 Wood-based panels
Wood-based panels include oriented strand board (OSB), wood chipboard and cement bonded particleboard (which are all types of particleboard), and medium density fibreboard (MDF) and other fibreboard (which are both types of fibreboard).
Statistics on wood-based panels are provided by the Wood Panel Industries Federation (WPIF).
2.6.1 Inputs for wood-based panel products
Table 2.22 and Figure 2.4 show the inputs to mills that produce wood-based panels in the UK. The mills used a total of 3.8 million tonnes of material in 2018, representing a 1% increase from 2017. The inputs in 2018 comprised 1.2 million green tonnes of roundwood (32%), 1.6 million green tonnes of sawmill products (42%), 0.9 million tonnes of recycled wood fibre (23%) and 0.1 million tonnes (3%) of imports.
Table 2.22a Softwood inputs to wood-based panel mills, 2009-2018
| Year | UK roundwood¹ | Sawmill products | Imports² | |------|---------------|------------------|----------| | 2009 | 1 135 | 1 435 | 0 | | 2010 | 1 375 | 1 631 | 7 | | 2011 | 1 417 | 1 779 | 0 | | 2012 | 1 269 | 1 851 | 0 | | 2013 | 1 263 | 1 709 | 0 | | 2014 | 1 283 | 1 809 | 0 | | 2015 | 1 334 | 1 687 | 12 | | 2016 | 1 248 | 1 749 | 10 | | 2017 | 1 059 | 1 726 | 0 | | 2018 | 1 210 | 1 566 | 30 |
Source: Wood Panel Industries Federation Notes:
1. UK roundwood derived from stemwood.
2. Imports include roundwood, wood products and products from imported wood. Table 2.22b Hardwood inputs to wood-based panel mills, 2009-2018
| Year | UK roundwood(^1) | Sawmill products | Imports(^2) | |------|---------------------|------------------|--------------| | 2009 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | 2010 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | 2011 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | 2012 | 2 | 0 | 0 | | 2013 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 2014 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 2015 | 0 | 0 | 5 | | 2016 | 0 | 0 | 29 | | 2017 | 0 | 0 | 22 | | 2018 | 1 | 0 | 74 |
Source: Wood Panel Industries Federation
Notes:
1. UK roundwood derived from stemwood.
2. Imports include roundwood, wood products and products from imported wood.
### Table 2.22c Total inputs to wood-based panel mills, 2009-2018
| Year | Softwood | Hardwood | Recycled wood fibre<sup>1,2</sup> | |------|----------|----------|----------------------------------| | 2009 | 2 570 | 1 | 1 065 | | 2010 | 3 013 | 2 | 1 120 | | 2011 | 3 196 | 1 | 952 | | 2012 | 3 120 | 2 | 909 | | 2013 | 2 972 | 0 | 853 | | 2014 | 3 092 | 0 | 812 | | 2015 | 3 033 | 5 | 852 | | 2016 | 3 007 | 29 | 838 | | 2017 | 2 785 | 22 | 923 | | 2018 | 2 806 | 75 | 877 |
Source: Wood Panel Industries Federation
Notes:
1. Recycled wood fibre is wood fibre recovered from both pre- and post-consumer wood waste for use in wood-based panel production. It comprises wood originally grown in the UK and wood originally grown in forests outside the UK.
2. Quantities are as delivered, with an assumed average moisture content of 25%. To convert to green tonnes (assuming moisture content of 52%), multiply by 1.56. Figure 2.4 Inputs to wood-based panel mills
Source: Wood Panel Industries Federation.
Note:
1. Recycled wood fibre data not available before 1999. 2.6.2 Production of wood-based panel products
Total production of wood-based panels in 2018 was 3.1 million m$^3$, a 3% decrease from 2017 (Table 2.23). Over three quarters (76%) of wood-based panel products produced in the UK in 2018 were particleboard (including oriented strand board (OSB)).
The marked decrease between 2011 and 2012 largely results from the closure of a panel mill in 2012.
Table 2.23 Wood-based panel production, 2009-2018
| Year | Particleboard$^1$ | Fibreboard$^2$ | Total | |------|-------------------|----------------|-------| | 2009 | 2 370 | 660 | 3 030 | | 2010 | 2 594 | 776 | 3 370 | | 2011 | 2 625 | 759 | 3 384 | | 2012 | 2 215 | 788 | 3 003 | | 2013 | 2 276 | 756 | 3 032 | | 2014 | 2 319 | 749 | 3 068 | | 2015 | 2 324 | 756 | 3 080 | | 2016 | 2 349 | 684 | 3 033 | | 2017 | 2 501 | 675 | 3 176 | | 2018 | 2 355 | 724 | 3 079 |
Source: Wood Panel Industries Federation
Notes:
1. Includes Oriented Strand Board (OSB).
2. Includes Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF).
3. Changes in the mix of materials used and type of product produced can result in apparent discrepancies between the trends for inputs (Table 2.22) and production. 2.7 Miscellaneous products
Softwood
Data for softwood fencing are obtained from the Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers. Figures for other uses are reported by manufacturers or are estimated by representatives of the wood processing industries.
1.9 million green tonnes of UK softwood were estimated to have been used directly for woodfuel (including biomass energy) in 2018, an increase of 19% from the previous year (Table 2.24). A further 273 thousand green tonnes of UK softwood were consumed by round fencing manufacturers and 174 thousand green tonnes for other uses in 2018.
Table 2.24 Miscellaneous uses of UK softwood roundwood, 2009-2018
| Year | Fencing | Woodfuel<sup>1</sup> | Other<sup>2</sup> | Total | |------|---------|---------------------|-----------------|-------| | 2009 | 367 | 650 | 160 | 1 178 | | 2010 | 349 | 900 | 135 | 1 384 | | 2011 | 363 | 900 | 145 | 1 408 | | 2012 | 338 | 1 000 | 154 | 1 492 | | 2013 | 332 | 1 250 | 191 | 1 773 | | 2014 | 317 | 1 500 | 176 | 1 992 | | 2015 | 288 | 1 600 | 164 | 2 052 | | 2016 | 277 | 1 550 | 178 | 2 006 | | 2017 | 295 | 1 600 | 170 | 2 064 | | 2018 | 273 | 1 900 | 174 | 2 347 |
Source: Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers, industry associations.
Notes:
1. Woodfuel derived from stemwood. Includes estimates of roundwood use for biomass energy. The figures are estimated by the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics and make use of woodfuel data reported in the Private Sector Softwood Removals Survey.
2. Includes shavings and poles. Quantities for some uses are estimates by the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics. Hardwood
An estimated 700 thousand green tonnes of UK hardwood were used for woodfuel (including biomass energy) in 2018. A further 30 thousand green tonnes were estimated to have been consumed by round fencing manufacturers and 36 thousand green tonnes for other uses, including exports.
2.7.1 Softwood round fencing manufacturers
There were 48 active round fencing manufacturers in 2018 (Table 2.25).
Around two thirds of round fencing manufacturers (65%) consumed less than 5 thousand green tonnes of softwood annually.
Table 2.25 Number of softwood round fencing manufacturers by size category, 2009-2018
| Year | < 1 | 1 - < 5 | 5 - < 10 | 10 + | Total | |------|-----|---------|----------|------|-------| | 2009 | 22 | 26 | 13 | 7 | 68 | | 2010 | 21 | 24 | 13 | 6 | 64 | | 2011 | 21 | 24 | 10 | 8 | 63 | | 2012 | 21 | 21 | 11 | 7 | 60 | | 2013 | 20 | 22 | 11 | 7 | 60 | | 2014 | 18 | 21 | 10 | 7 | 56 | | 2015 | 15 | 19 | 10 | 6 | 50 | | 2016 | 17 | 16 | 11 | 6 | 50 | | 2017 | 16 | 17 | 9 | 8 | 50 | | 2018 | 15 | 16 | 9 | 8 | 48 |
Source: Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers Notes:
1. Categories are based on total softwood consumption, in thousand green tonnes.
Data: Longer time series of the number of softwood round fencing manufacturers, by size category and by country (England/ Wales/ Scotland/ Northern Ireland) are available from the Data downloads web page at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. 2.7.2 Roundwood purchased by softwood round fencing manufacturers
A total of 294 thousand green tonnes of softwood (UK grown and imported) was purchased by softwood fencing manufacturers in 2018 (Table 2.26). This represents a decrease of 8% from the 2017 total of 319 thousand green tonnes.
Table 2.26 Total roundwood purchased(^1) by size category(^2) of softwood round fencing manufacturers, 2009-2018
| Year | < 1 | 1 - < 5 | 5 - < 10 | 10 + | Total | |------|-----|---------|---------|------|-------| | 2009 | 7 | 66 | 82 | 239 | 394 | | 2010 | 7 | 63 | 86 | 213 | 369 | | 2011 | 8 | 65 | 60 | 250 | 383 | | 2012 | 8 | 57 | 69 | 226 | 360 | | 2013 | 7 | 57 | 79 | 204 | 346 | | 2014 | 7 | 54 | 74 | 201 | 335 | | 2015 | 6 | 46 | 79 | 185 | 316 | | 2016 | 7 | 41 | 78 | 177 | 303 | | 2017 | 6 | 45 | 71 | 197 | 319 | | 2018 | 6 | 39 | 60 | 188 | 294 |
Source: Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers
Notes:
1. Categories are based on total softwood consumption, in thousand green tonnes.
2. This table includes purchases of both UK grown and imported softwood, whereas table 2.24 relates to UK grown softwood only.
Data: Longer time series of roundwood purchased by round fencing manufacturers, by size category and by country (England/ Wales/ Scotland/ Northern Ireland) are available from the Data downloads webpage at: [https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/). 2.8 Exports
UK softwood exports in 2018 consisted of 67 thousand green tonnes of industrial roundwood (excluding sawlogs) and 197 thousand green tonnes of sawlogs, giving a total of 264 thousand green tonnes of roundwood (Table 2.27). The quantity of softwood roundwood exports decreased by 20% between 2017 and 2018.
The UK also exported 112 thousand tonnes of softwood chips in 2018, a 22% increase from the previous year.
Table 2.27 Summary of softwood exports, 2009-2018
| Year | Industrial roundwood(^1) | Roundwood sawlogs | Total roundwood | Chips | |------|---------------------------|-------------------|----------------|-------| | 2009 | 244 | 104 | 347 | 125 | | 2010 | 301 | 166 | 467 | 136 | | 2011 | 415 | 171 | 585 | 158 | | 2012 | 405 | 130 | 535 | 142 | | 2013 | 379 | 260 | 640 | 126 | | 2014 | 228 | 209 | 437 | 151 | | 2015 | 75 | 202 | 276 | 86 | | 2016 | 48 | 183 | 231 | 51 | | 2017 | 124 | 207 | 331 | 92 | | 2018 | 67 | 197 | 264 | 112 |
Source: industry associations Notes:
1. Includes all roundwood other than sawlogs. 2.9 Certification
Forest certification assesses forest management practices against an agreed standard and awards a label to those forest products that meet the standard. In order for products to achieve certification, both forest management practices and the Chain of Custody, which tracks timber from forest to retail outlet, must be assessed.
The following tables provide information on the level of certified wood produced in the UK (Table 2.28) and the number of sawmills and round fencing manufacturers holding Chain of Custody certificates (Table 2.29). Information on areas of certified woodland is provided in Chapter 1.
2.9.1 Volume certified
Respondents to the industry surveys run by Forest Research were asked to report on volumes of wood that is certified. 71% of private sector softwood removals in 2018 were from certified sources (Table 2.28). The percentage of private sector softwood removals that are certified has fluctuated over recent years; industry experts have indicated a general reduction in the level of certification amongst smaller estates and an increase in production from larger estates.
As nearly all removals from Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and Forest Service woodland are certified, this equates to around 82% of all softwood removals in 2018 from certified sources.
64% of sawmills' roundwood consumption in 2018 was certified. For round fencing manufacturers, 54% of total softwood consumption was certified. Table 2.28 Per cent of volume certified, 2009-2018
| Year | Softwood removals from Private sector woodland | Total softwood removals (including all removals from FE/FLS/NRW/FS² woodland) | Consumption (softwood and hardwood) by sawmills | Consumption (softwood) by round fencing manufacturers | |------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | 2009 | 68 | 87 | 74 | 50 | | 2010 | 73 | 87 | 74 | 62 | | 2011 | 72 | 85 | 68 | 61 | | 2012 | 70 | 84 | 71 | 60 | | 2013 | 76 | 87 | 69 | 55 | | 2014 | 72 | 84 | 70 | 69 | | 2015 | 69 | 83 | 66 | 71 | | 2016 | 66 | 82 | 69 | 70 | | 2017 | 75 | 86 | 70 | 64 | | 2018 | 71 | 82 | 64 | 54 |
Source: Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Forest Service (FS) and industry surveys
Notes:
1. The accompanying data tables include a country breakdown of certified softwood removals for 2018. These are currently Experimental statistics. 2.9.2 Chain of custody certificates
Sawmills and round fencing manufacturers were also asked whether they held a Chain of Custody certificate. 72% of sawmills for which the certification status was known held a Chain of Custody certificate in 2018 (Table 2.29). This proportion varied with size of mill, from 39% for mills producing less than 5 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood to 100% for those producing 25 thousand m$^3$ sawnwood or more. One half (50%) of round fencing manufacturers for which the certification status was known held a Chain of Custody certificate.
Table 2.29 Chain of custody certificates, 2018
| Sawmills$^2$ (size of mill$^3$) | Mills holding certificate | Mills without certificate | Certification status not known | Total$^1$ | |---------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------| | < 5 | 7 | 11 | 80 | 98 | | 5 - < 25 | 9 | 5 | 17 | 31 | | 25 + | 26 | 0 | 2 | 28 | | All sawmills | 42 | 16 | 99 | 157 | | Round fencing manufacturers | 8 | 8 | 32 | 48 |
Source: industry surveys
Notes:
1. Includes non-respondents to survey in current year.
2. For large sawmills (those producing at least 25 thousand m$^3$) that did not report whether or not they held a certificate or did not respond to the 2018 survey, the certification status was obtained from the FSC database, where possible.
3. Categories are based on total sawnwood production (softwood and hardwood), in thousand m$^3$. 2.10 Woodfuel and pellets
Wood from various sources can be used for fuel, including roundwood, chips and sawdust from wood processing, specific products such as pellets and briquettes, and recycled wood.
The following pages provide data on:
- recycled wood used for woodfuel (Table 2.30 below);
- woodfuel supply by sawmills and round fencing manufacturers (Table 2.31); and
- wood pellet production (Table 2.32) and feedstock (Table 2.33).
In addition, estimates of roundwood used directly for woodfuel are provided in tables 2.5 and 2.6.
Recycled wood used for woodfuel
Estimates of recycled wood used for woodfuel have been obtained from the Wood Recyclers' Association. In 2018, it is estimated that around 2.1 million tonnes of recycled wood were used for woodfuel, an increase of 24% from the 2017 estimate of around 1.7 million tonnes. Table 2.30 Recycled wood used for woodfuel(^1), 2011-2018
| Year(^2) | Total(^3) | |-----------|-------------| | 2011 | 0.59 | | 2012 | 0.76 | | 2013 | 0.83 | | 2014 | 1.34 | | 2015 | 1.45 | | 2016 | 1.55 | | 2017 | 1.66 | | 2018 | 2.10 |
Source: Wood Recyclers Association
Notes:
1. Post consumer recovered wood, comprising wood originally grown in the UK and wood originally grown in forests outside the UK.
2. Figures for 2014 to 2018 relate to capacity, rather than consumption.
3. Quantities are as delivered, with an assumed average moisture content of 25%. To convert to green tonnes (assuming moisture content of 52%), multiply by 1.56.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. 2.10.1 Woodfuel supply by sawmills and round fencing manufacturers
An estimated 797 thousand green tonnes (mainly softwood) of woodfuel were supplied by sawmills in 2018 and a further 72 thousand green tonnes were supplied by round fencing manufacturers (Table 2.31). 80% of the total woodfuel supplied was sold to bioenergy.
Table 2.31 Woodfuel supply by sawmills and round fencing manufacturers, 2014-2018
| | Sales to bioenergy | Sales as firewood | Used internally for heat/energy | Total | |----------------|--------------------|-------------------|---------------------------------|---------| | **Sawmills** | | | | | | 2014 | 676 | 27 | 72 | 775 | | 2015 | 614 | 12 | 45 | 671 | | 2016 | 583 | 14 | 65 | 661 | | 2017 | 623 | 15 | 96 | 734 | | 2018 | 638 | 7 | 152 | 797 | | **Round fencing manufacturers** | | | | | | 2014 | 55 | 5 | 1 | 61 | | 2015 | 51 | 7 | 2 | 60 | | 2016 | 57 | 7 | 1 | 65 | | 2017 | 55 | 7 | 3 | 66 | | 2018 | 58 | 9 | 5 | 72 |
Source: Sawmill Survey, Survey of Round Fencing Manufacturers Notes:
1. Material reported as sales/use for woodfuel but may have been used for other purposes. 2.10.2 Wood pellet production
Wood pellets and briquettes are processed wood products that can be made from roundwood, sawmill products and/or recycled wood. Some of the wood used to make wood pellets and briquettes will be accounted for elsewhere in this release (e.g. in Tables 2.30 and 2.31). Wood pellets and briquettes are often used for woodfuel, but pellets may also be used for other purposes (such as horse bedding or cat litter).
A total of 279 thousand tonnes of wood pellets and briquettes are estimated to have been produced in the UK in 2018. This represents a 3% decrease from the 2017 estimate of 287 thousand tonnes.
Table 2.32 Wood pellet production, 2009-2018
| Year | Total (thousand tonnes) | |------|-------------------------| | 2009 | 118 | | 2010 | 197 | | 2011 | 244 | | 2012 | 278 | | 2013 | 301 | | 2014 | 354 | | 2015 | 343 | | 2016 | 329 | | 2017 | 287 | | 2018 | 279 |
Source: Survey of UK Pellet and Briquette Production 2.10.3 Wood pellet feedstock
A total of 679 thousand tonnes of feedstock was used to produce wood pellets in the UK in 2018 (Table 2.33).
Roundwood accounted for around two thirds (67%) of the feedstock.
Table 2.33 Wood pellet feedstock, 2014-2018
| Year | Roundwood | Sawmill products(^1) | Total | |------|-----------|------------------------|-------| | 2014 | 393 | 306 | 699 | | 2015 | 332 | 290 | 621 | | 2016 | 377 | 320 | 697 | | 2017 | 354 | 295 | 648 | | 2018 | 453 | 226 | 679 |
Source: Survey of UK Pellet and Briquette Production
Notes:
1. May also include wood from other sources (e.g. energy crops, arboriculture arisings and recycled wood).
2. Tonnes as delivered. Chapter 3: Trade
Introduction
This chapter contains information about UK imports and exports of wood products, and about the level of apparent consumption estimated from data for UK production, imports and exports.
Information on imports and exports mainly comes from the Overseas Trade Statistics compiled by HM Revenue & Customs. Estimates are provided at a UK level only. International comparisons of apparent consumption are provided in the International Forestry chapter. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Figures for 2018 were previously published in "UK Wood Production and Trade: 2018 Provisional Figures", released on 16 May 2019. Some figures for 2018 and earlier years have been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Trade section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all trade tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
UK imports:
- 7.2 million cubic metres of sawnwood in 2018, a 6% decrease from the 2017 figure;
- 3.9 million cubic metres of wood-based panels in 2018, a 2% increase from 2017;
- 8.0 million tonnes of wood pellets in 2018, a 16% increase from 2017;
- 5.5 million tonnes of paper in 2018, a 2% decrease from 2017.
- The total value of wood product imports in 2018 was £8.3 billion, representing a 5% increase from 2017; of which £4.1 billion was pulp and paper.
- Sawn softwood, particleboard, fibreboard, and paper and paperboard were overwhelmingly imported from EU countries in 2018.
- Sawn hardwood and wood pulp imports originated from a range of both EU and non-EU countries in 2018.
- The vast majority of UK imports of plywood and wood pellets in 2018 came from countries outwith the EU.
- Apparent consumption of wood in the UK was 56.4 million m$^3$ WRME underbark in 2018, representing a 1% decrease from the previous year.
UK exports:
- The total value of wood product exports in 2018 was £1.8 billion, a 3% decrease from 2017; of which £1.6 billion was pulp and paper. 3.1 Apparent consumption of wood in the UK
Apparent consumption is the amount of timber used as wood and wood products by people and industries in the United Kingdom. It is calculated as total United Kingdom production plus imports, minus exports. Apparent consumption differs from actual consumption by the extent of changes in the level of stocks. It is not practical to collect information on actual consumption.
As table 3.1 covers a broad range of products (including secondary processed wood products), volumes are expressed in wood raw material equivalent (WRME) underbark. WRME volumes represent the amount of wood that would have been required to make the product.
UK production of roundwood totalled 11.3 million m$^3$ WRME underbark in 2018 (Table 3.1). A further 49.0 million m$^3$ WRME underbark of wood and wood products were imported to the UK and 3.9 million m$^3$ WRME underbark were exported, giving apparent consumption of 56.4 million m$^3$ WRME underbark. This represented a 1% decrease in apparent consumption from the previous year. These figures exclude recycled wood and recovered paper (see Table 3.3 for statistics on recovered paper).
Imports accounted for 81% of all wood (production + imports) in the UK in 2018. Table 3.1 Apparent consumption of wood1 in the UK, 2009-2018
| Year | UK production2 | Imports | Exports | Apparent Consumption | |------|----------------|---------|---------|----------------------| | 2009 | 8.6 | 39.5 | 4.2 | 44.0 | | 2010 | 9.6 | 41.6 | 5.5 | 45.8 | | 2011 | 10.0 | 40.6 | 5.2 | 45.5 | | 2012 | 10.1 | 39.6 | 6.5 | 43.2 | | 2013 | 10.8 | 42.2 | 6.2 | 46.8 | | 2014 | 11.2 | 47.0 | 4.8 | 53.4 | | 2015 | 10.6 | 49.3 | 4.1 | 55.8 | | 2016 | 10.8 | 49.6 | 3.8 | 56.5 | | 2017 | 10.9 | 50.3 | 4.2 | 57.0 | | 2018 | 11.3 | 49.0 | 3.9 | 56.4 |
Source: Industry surveys, industry associations, UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs) and conversion factors to Wood Raw Material Equivalent (WRME).
Notes:
1. Excludes recovered paper.
2. UK production of roundwood is estimated from deliveries to wood processing industries and others, as in tables 2.5 and 2.6. Figure 3.1 Apparent consumption of wood1 in the UK, 1999-2018
Source: Industry surveys, industry associations, UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs) and conversion factors to Wood Raw Material Equivalent (WRME).
Notes:
1. Excludes recovered paper.
2. UK production of roundwood is estimated from deliveries to wood processing industries and others, as in tables 2.5 and 2.6. 3.2 Apparent consumption of wood products in the UK
Table 3.2 provides volumes of UK production, trade and apparent consumption in selected wood products. It differs from table 3.1 in terms of both coverage (table 3.1 covers a wider range of wood and wood products, including secondary processed products) and in terms of units (wood raw material equivalents in table 3.1, volumes of product in table 3.2).
UK production accounted for 35% of the UK sawnwood market, 46% of the UK wood-based panel market and 45% of the UK paper market in 2018 (Table 3.2). Table 3.2 Apparent consumption of wood products(^1,2) in the UK, 2018
| Product | UK production | Imports | Exports | Apparent consumption | |--------------------------------|---------------|---------|---------|----------------------| | **Sawnwood(^3)** (thousand m(^3)) | | | | | | Coniferous | 3 674 | 6 626 | 218 | 10 082 | | Non-coniferous | 41 | 587 | 20 | 608 | | **Total** | 3 715 | 7 213 | 238 | 10 690 | | **Wood-based panels** (thousand m(^3)) | | | | | | Veneer sheets | 0 | 30 | 2 | 28 | | Plywood | 0 | 1 598 | 79 | 1 519 | | Particleboard | 2 355 | 1 328 | 159 | 3 524 | | Fibreboard | 724 | 922 | 55 | 1 591 | | **Total** | 3 079 | 3 878 | 295 | 6 662 | | **Paper & paperboard** (thousand tonnes) | | | | | | Graphic papers | 962 | 2 887 | 367 | 3 482 | | Sanitary & household papers | 738 | 391 | 33 | 1 096 | | Packaging materials | 1 904 | 2 212 | 355 | 3 760 | | Other paper & paperboard | 291 | 36 | 16 | 311 | | **Total** | 3 894 | 5 525 | 771 | 8 648 |
Source: Industry surveys, industry associations, UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs).
Notes:
1. Excludes other wood products, e.g. fuelwood and round fencing.
2. Excludes roundwood and intermediate products (e.g. sawmill products, pulp and recovered paper) to avoid double-counting.
3. Includes sleepers. 3.3 Flow of recovered paper
UK production of recovered paper (the amount recovered from businesses and households in the UK) totalled 7.5 million tonnes in 2018 (Table 3.3) a decrease of 3% from 2017. Imports increased by 12% and exports decreased by 4% between 2017 and 2018, resulting in a 1% fall in apparent consumption over this period (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3 Flow of recovered paper, 2009-2018
| Year | UK production | Imports | Exports | Apparent consumption¹ | |------|---------------|---------|---------|------------------------| | 2009 | 8 155 | 94 | 4 444 | 3 805 | | 2010 | 8 003 | 115 | 4 388 | 3 730 | | 2011 | 8 036 | 177 | 4 479 | 3 733 | | 2012 | 8 099 | 160 | 4 447 | 3 812 | | 2013 | 7 901 | 184 | 4 248 | 3 837 | | 2014 | 8 014 | 136 | 4 436 | 3 714 | | 2015 | 7 912 | 305 | 4 881 | 3 336 | | 2016 | 7 825 | 125 | 4 932 | 3 018 | | 2017 | 7 772 | 107 | 4 733 | 3 147 | | 2018 | 7 547 | 120 | 4 540 | 3 127 |
Source: Confederation of Paper Industries, UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs). Notes:
1. Apparent consumption of recovered paper refers to use of recycled paper pulp in the UK. 3.4 UK import quantities by product
Wood imports to the UK in 2018 included 7.2 million cubic metres of sawnwood (a 6% decrease from the previous year), 3.9 million cubic metres of wood-based panels (2% increase) and 8.0 million tonnes of wood pellets (16% increase) (Table 3.4a & Table 3.4b). A total of 5.5 million tonnes of paper was imported into the UK in 2018, a decrease of 2% from 2017.
Table 3.4a UK import quantities, 2009-2018
| Year | Sawn wood | Wood-based panels | Other wood | |------|-----------|-------------------|------------| | 2009 | 5 240 | 2 500 | 821 | | 2010 | 5 699 | 2 701 | 1 071 | | 2011 | 4 936 | 2 827 | 985 | | 2012 | 5 179 | 2 650 | 965 | | 2013 | 5 488 | 2 964 | 1 267 | | 2014 | 6 425 | 3 260 | 1 329 | | 2015 | 6 323 | 3 215 | 1 378 | | 2016 | 6 794 | 3 410 | 1 121 | | 2017 | 7 663 | 3 800 | 1 379 | | 2018 | 7 213 | 3 878 | 1 766 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter).
2. Includes roundwood, wood charcoal, chips, particles, residues and from 2017, includes recovered wood.
3. Includes veneer sheets.
4. Sawnwood includes sleepers from 2017. Table 3.4b UK import quantities, 2009-2018
| Year | Wood pellets | Paper | Pulp | Recovered paper | Total pulp & paper | |------|--------------|-------|------|-----------------|-------------------| | 2009 | 45 | 7 018 | 940 | 94 | 8 052 | | 2010 | 551 | 7 254 | 1 094| 115 | 8 462 | | 2011 | 1 015 | 6 887 | 1 009| 177 | 8 073 | | 2012 | 1 487 | 6 631 | 1 021| 160 | 7 812 | | 2013 | 3 432 | 5 929 | 1 100| 184 | 7 213 | | 2014 | 4 773 | 5 949 | 1 234| 136 | 7 319 | | 2015 | 6 573 | 6 032 | 1 223| 305 | 7 560 | | 2016 | 6 782 | 5 876 | 1 092| 125 | 7 092 | | 2017 | 6 885 | 5 610 | 1 081| 107 | 6 798 | | 2018 | 7 992 | 5 525 | 1 066| 120 | 6 711 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter). 3.5 UK export quantities by product
A total of 5.3 million tonnes of pulp and paper (including recovered paper) was exported from the UK in 2018 (Table 3.5a & Table 3.5b), representing a 4% decrease from 2017.
Table 3.5a UK export quantities, 2009-2018
| Year | Sawn wood | Wood-based panels | Other wood | |------|-----------|-------------------|------------| | 2009 | 203 | 451 | 657 | | 2010 | 195 | 509 | 1 029 | | 2011 | 162 | 546 | 1 430 | | 2012 | 141 | 597 | 1 779 | | 2013 | 167 | 432 | 1 267 | | 2014 | 175 | 404 | 1 083 | | 2015 | 187 | 286 | 1 018 | | 2016 | 193 | 314 | 810 | | 2017 | 218 | 374 | 638 | | 2018 | 238 | 295 | 595 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter).
2. Includes roundwood, wood charcoal, chips, particles, residues and, from 2017, includes recovered wood.
3. Includes veneer sheets.
4. Sawnwood includes sleepers from 2017. Table 3.5b UK export quantities, 2009-2018
| Year | Wood pellets | Paper | Pulp | Recovered paper | Total pulp & paper | |------|--------------|-------|------|-----------------|--------------------| | 2009 | 12 | 896 | 22 | 4 444 | 5 361 | | 2010 | 60 | 926 | 35 | 4 388 | 5 349 | | 2011 | 38 | 974 | 32 | 4 479 | 5 485 | | 2012 | 54 | 1 102 | 36 | 4 447 | 5 585 | | 2013 | 106 | 1 119 | 23 | 4 248 | 5 390 | | 2014 | 98 | 1 010 | 21 | 4 436 | 5 467 | | 2015 | 88 | 807 | 24 | 4 881 | 5 712 | | 2016 | 21 | 760 | 7 | 4 932 | 5 700 | | 2017 | 126 | 788 | 7 | 4 733 | 5 528 | | 2018 | 63 | 771 | 15 | 4 540 | 5 326 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter). 3.6 UK import values by product
Wood product imports in 2018 were valued at a total of £8.3 billion, a 5% increase from 2017 (Table 3.6a & Table 3.6b).
Pulp and paper (including recovered paper) imports were valued at £4.1 billion in 2018 (almost half of the total value of wood product imports). Sawnwood imports were valued at £1.7 billion in 2018, wood-based panels at £1.2 billion and wood pellets at £1.1 billion.
Table 3.6a UK import values, 2009-2018
| Year | Sawn wood | Wood-based panels | Other wood | |------|-----------|-------------------|------------| | 2009 | 953 | 677 | 104 | | 2010 | 1 199 | 781 | 110 | | 2011 | 1 080 | 838 | 79 | | 2012 | 1 084 | 791 | 75 | | 2013 | 1 180 | 882 | 88 | | 2014 | 1 420 | 936 | 80 | | 2015 | 1 311 | 957 | 88 | | 2016 | 1 423 | 1 010 | 85 | | 2017 | 1 636 | 1 155 | 90 | | 2018 | 1 743 | 1 201 | 122 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter).
2. Includes roundwood, wood charcoal, chips, particles, residues and, from 2017, includes recovered wood.
3. Includes veneer sheets.
4. Sawnwood includes sleepers from 2017. Table 3.6b UK import values, 2009-2018
| Year | Wood pellets | Paper | Pulp | Recovered paper | Total pulp & paper | |------|--------------|-------|------|-----------------|--------------------| | 2009 | 7 | 3 635 | 425 | 11 | 4 071 | | 2010 | 69 | 3 997 | 593 | 17 | 4 607 | | 2011 | 129 | 4 049 | 613 | 34 | 4 696 | | 2012 | 185 | 3 727 | 519 | 21 | 4 266 | | 2013 | 412 | 3 644 | 500 | 21 | 4 165 | | 2014 | 547 | 3 667 | 509 | 19 | 4 196 | | 2015 | 780 | 3 711 | 642 | 23 | 4 375 | | 2016 | 915 | 3 434 | 557 | 13 | 4 003 | | 2017 | 961 | 3 418 | 572 | 14 | 4 004 | | 2018 | 1 117 | 3 415 | 639 | 21 | 4 075 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter). 3.7 UK export values by product
Wood product exports from the UK were valued at a total of £1.8 billion in 2018, a 3% decrease from the 2017 total (Table 3.7a & Table 3.7b). Total exports of wood products in 2018 comprised 88% pulp and paper (mainly paper), 6% wood-based panels, 4% sawnwood and 2% other wood.
Table 3.7a UK export values, 2009-2018
| Year | Sawn wood | Wood-based panels | Other wood | |------|-----------|-------------------|------------| | 2009 | 41 | 104 | 20 | | 2010 | 47 | 113 | 35 | | 2011 | 41 | 128 | 50 | | 2012 | 34 | 130 | 51 | | 2013 | 37 | 109 | 47 | | 2014 | 43 | 107 | 39 | | 2015 | 44 | 75 | 35 | | 2016 | 50 | 91 | 26 | | 2017 | 55 | 109 | 41 | | 2018 | 64 | 103 | 41 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations
Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter).
2. Includes roundwood, wood charcoal, chips, particles, residues and, from 2017, includes recovered wood.
3. Includes veneer sheets.
4. Sawnwood includes sleepers from 2017. Table 3.7b UK export values, 2009-2018
| Year | Wood pellets | Paper | Pulp | Recovered paper | Total pulp & paper | |------|--------------|-------|------|-----------------|--------------------| | 2009 | 2 | 1 010 | 10 | 342 | 1 362 | | 2010 | 7 | 1 068 | 18 | 524 | 1 610 | | 2011 | 3 | 1 044 | 11 | 595 | 1 650 | | 2012 | 4 | 1 048 | 10 | 531 | 1 589 | | 2013 | 5 | 1 017 | 8 | 494 | 1 519 | | 2014 | 2 | 997 | 7 | 476 | 1 480 | | 2015 | 1 | 901 | 7 | 534 | 1 441 | | 2016 | 0 | 838 | 4 | 465 | 1 307 | | 2017 | 6 | 997 | 5 | 649 | 1 651 | | 2018 | 5 | 1 022 | 5 | 570 | 1 597 |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations Notes:
1. There are reliability concerns for some of these figures, particularly for individual products (see Sources chapter). 3.8 Origin of wood imports
Table 3.8 presents data on the source of selected wood products that have been imported into the UK in 2018.
Sawn softwood, particleboard, fibreboard, and paper and paperboard were overwhelmingly imported from EU countries in 2018 (Table 3.8):
- Sweden (41%), Latvia (17%) and Finland (14%) provided the majority of imports of sawn softwood to the UK.
- Most particleboard imports to the UK came from Germany (20%), France (17%), Ireland and Belgium (both 14%).
- Ireland (31%), Germany (18%) Spain (11%) and Belgium (10%) were the principal sources of fibreboard imports.
- Most paper and paperboard imports came from Germany (18%), Finland and Sweden (both 17%).
Sawn hardwood and wood pulp imports originated from a range of both EU and non-EU countries in 2018:
- The USA (16%), Estonia (14%) and France (10%) provided around two fifths of sawn hardwood imports to the UK.
- Sweden (29%) and Brazil (18%) provided almost one half of wood pulp imports to the UK.
The vast majority of UK imports of plywood and wood pellets came from countries outside the EU in 2018:
- China (39%) and Brazil (16%) were the principal sources of plywood imports to the UK.
- The USA (61%) and Canada (19%) provided the majority of wood pellet imports to the UK. Table 3.8 Country of origin of wood imports to the UK, 2018 per cent of total UK imports (volume) in each category
| Source | Sawn soft wood | Sawn hard wood | Plywood | Particle board | Fibre board | Pellet | Wood pulp | Paper & paper board | |--------------|----------------|----------------|---------|----------------|-------------|--------|-----------|---------------------| | Sweden | 41 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 29 | 17 | | Germany | 7 | 4 | 1 | 20 | 18 | 0 | 4 | 18 | | Finland | 14 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 17 | | Latvia | 17 | 8 | 2 | 12 | 8 | 11 | 0 | 0 | | France | 0 | 10 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | | Netherlands | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 4 | | Ireland | 6 | 3 | 0 | 14 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | Italy | 0 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | | Austria | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 3 | | Belgium | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 3 | | Portugal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | | Spain | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 11 | 0 | 3 | 1 | | Estonia | 2 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | | Other EU-28 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | | **Total EU-28** | **94** | **61** | **19** | **99** | **90** | **18** | **70** | **81** | | USA | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 4 | 4 | | Canada | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 2 | | China | 0 | 0 | 39 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | Brazil | 0 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 18 | 1 | | Russia | 5 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | | Norway | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | | Malaysia | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Cameroon | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Other non-EU | 0 | 5 | 12 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 6 | | **Total non-EU** | **6** | **39** | **81** | **1** | **10** | **82** | **30** | **19** |
Source: UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations. Notes:
1. Sawnwood imports in this table exclude sleepers. Figure 3.2 shows the main sources of imports of sawn softwood to the UK since 1962. The total level of sawn softwood imports has fluctuated between around 5 million m$^3$ and 10 million m$^3$ from 1962 to present. Imports to the UK from Canada have reduced substantially since the early 1990s. In contrast imports from the Baltic States increased between 1992 and 2003 and, although there was some decline between 2003 to 2012, imports from the Baltic States to the UK have started to increase again in recent years. Since 1993 Sweden has consistently been the principal country of origin for UK sawn softwood imports.
**Figure 3.2 Country of origin of sawn softwood imports to the UK, 1962-2018**
Source: FAO, UK overseas trade statistics (HM Revenue & Customs), industry associations.
Notes:
1. Sawn softwood imports in this chart exclude sleepers. Chapter 4: Carbon
Introduction
This chapter contains information on:
- carbon in forests;
- the Woodland Carbon Code; and
- public attitudes to forestry and climate change.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included, where possible, in addition to UK totals. International comparisons of carbon stocks are provided in the International Forestry chapter. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
All of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released.
A copy of all carbon tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/.
In addition to the statistics presented here, information on UK forests and climate change is available from "Combating Climate Change - a role for UK forests" (The Read Report), an independent assessment of the science published in November 2009 and available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/2062/SynthesisUKAssessmentfinal.pdf.
This chapter previously included statistics on net annual changes in carbon in UK woodlands. No update is currently available, and this data will be updated in Forestry Statistics 2020. Previous results can be accessed from Forestry Statistics 2018 at https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2018/uk-forests-and-climate-change/carbon-sequestration/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- The total carbon stock in UK forests is estimated to have increased between 1990 and 2015, and to continue increasing to 2020.
- A total of 187 projects had been validated to the Woodland Carbon Code at 31 March 2019, covering almost 8,300 hectares and projected to sequester 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime.
- In 2019, 88% of the UK public agreed with the statement "a lot more trees should be planted" in response to the threat from climate change. 4.1 Forest carbon stock
Forest carbon stock is the amount of carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere and is now stored within the forest ecosystem, mainly within living biomass and soil, and to a lesser extent also in dead wood and litter.
Table 4.1 presents estimates of UK forest carbon stock that were compiled in 2018 for submission to international organisations. The total carbon stock stored within UK forests is estimated to have increased between 1990 and 2015, and to continue increasing to 2020 (Table 4.1). The carbon stored in forest soils accounts for around 70% of total forest carbon stock.
Table 4.1 Forest carbon stock
| | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Carbon in above-ground biomass | 376 | 482 | 586 | 630 | 674 | | Carbon in below-ground biomass | 135 | 174 | 211 | 227 | 242 | | Carbon in dead wood | 130 | 138 | 143 | 147 | 149 | | Carbon in litter | 165 | 175 | 182 | 188 | 190 | | Soil carbon | 2 366| 2 533| 2 629| 2 726| 2 761| | Total forest carbon | 3 172| 3 502| 3 750| 3 918| 4 016|
Source: Forest Research
Notes
1. Carbon in soil depth 0 to 100 cm.
2. To convert tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) to tonnes carbon (C), multiply by 12/44.
3. Changes in soil carbon stocks over the period can be attributed to changes in UK forest area.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 4.2 Woodland Carbon Code
The Woodland Carbon Code is a voluntary standard, initiated in July 2011, for woodland creation projects that make claims about the carbon they sequester (take out of the atmosphere).
All projects must be placed on the UK Woodland Carbon Registry. Their claims about potential carbon sequestration are validated by an independent certification body. Validated projects are then verified on a regular basis to confirm the progress of carbon sequestration.
Further information on Woodland Carbon Code projects is provided in the Sources chapter and at www.woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/.
Table 4.2a provides annual data on projects registered under the Woodland Carbon Code. The table provides information on the number of projects, area of woodland covered by the projects and the total projected carbon sequestration over the lifetime (up to 100 years) of the projects.
A total of 187 projects had been validated (including those that had also been verified) to the Woodland Carbon Code at 31 March 2019, covering almost 8,300 hectares and projected to sequester 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime.
Of the validated projects, 70 were also verified by the end of March 2019. These projects cover around 2,400 hectares and are projected to sequester 1.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over their lifetime.
A total of 266 projects were registered under the Woodland Carbon Code at 31 March 2019, covering around 17,400 hectares of woodland and projected to sequester 6.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Table 4.2a Woodland Carbon Code projects1 in the UK
| | Verified | Validated only | Awaiting validation | Total | |----------------------|----------|----------------|---------------------|-------| | **Number of projects** | | | | | | March 2013 | 0 | 36 | 69 | 105 | | March 2014 | 0 | 67 | 135 | 202 | | March 2015 | 0 | 100 | 99 | 199 | | March 2016 | 1 | 121 | 108 | 230 | | March 2017 | 3 | 140 | 107 | 250 | | March 2018 | 37 | 119 | 83 | 239 | | March 2019 | 70 | 117 | 79 | 266 | | **Area of woodland (hectares)** | | | | | | March 2013 | 0 | 1 488 | 2 073 | 3 561 | | March 2014 | 0 | 2 824 | 12 576 | 15 401| | March 2015 | 0 | 3 322 | 12 063 | 15 385| | March 2016 | 5 | 4 749 | 11 087 | 15 841| | March 2017 | 148 | 4 993 | 11 028 | 16 170| | March 2018 | 1 578 | 3 680 | 10 868 | 16 125| | March 2019 | 2 404 | 5 856 | 9 134 | 17 394| | **Projected carbon sequestration2 (thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent)** | | | | | | March 2013 | 0 | 655 | 1 137 | 1 792 | | March 2014 | 0 | 1 323 | 4 364 | 5 687 | | March 2015 | 0 | 1 588 | 4 091 | 5 679 | | March 2016 | 2 | 2 278 | 3 519 | 5 799 | | March 2017 | 79 | 2 385 | 3 476 | 5 940 | | March 2018 | 713 | 1 790 | 3 285 | 5 788 | | March 2019 | 1 093 | 2 331 | 2 760 | 6 184 |
Source: Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2019 Edition Notes:
1. Projects can be validated/verified individually or come together as part of a group. The statistics presented here show the number of projects validated or verified whether they were put through the process individually or as part of a group.
2. Figures for carbon sequestration indicate the total projected sequestration of the projects over their lifetime of up to 100 years, and include the amount claimable by a project plus the amount allocated to a shared “buffer” in case of unanticipated losses.
Awaiting validation: is when a project or group is undergoing assessment by a certification body.
Validated: is the initial evaluation of a project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a ‘Validation Opinion Statement’. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to 5 years.
Verified: Verification is the evaluation of a project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO2 sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Code.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
Together, all validated (including verified) projects were predicted to sequester 2,458 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide in Scotland, 838 thousand tonnes in England, 118 thousand tonnes in Wales and 11 thousand tonnes in Northern Ireland over their lifetime (Table 4.2b).
Table 4.2b Woodland Carbon Code projects1 at 31 March 2019
| Number of projects | England | Wales | Scotland | NI | UK | |--------------------|---------|-------|----------|----|----| | Awaiting validation| 18 | 33 | 28 | 0 | 79 | | Validated only | 51 | 9 | 55 | 2 | 117| | Verified | 27 | 3 | 40 | 0 | 70 | | Total validated | 78 | 12 | 95 | 2 | 187| | **Total** | **96** | **45**| **123** | **2**| **266**|
| Area of woodland (hectares) | England | Wales | Scotland | NI | UK | |-----------------------------|---------|-------|----------|----|----| | Awaiting validation | 313 | 300 | 8 520 | 0 | 9 134| | Validated only | 1 207 | 128 | 4 498 | 22 | 5 856| | Verified | 286 | 52 | 2 066 | 0 | 2 404| | Total validated | 1 494 | 180 | 6 564 | 22 | 8 261| | **Total** | **1 807**| **480**| **15 085**| **22**| **17 394**|
### Projected carbon sequestration²
(thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent)
| | Awaiting validation | Validated only | Verified | Total validated | Total | |----------------------|---------------------|----------------|----------|-----------------|-------| | | 153 | 672 | 165 | 838 | 991 | | | 106 | 85 | 33 | 118 | 224 | | | 2 501 | 1 563 | 895 | 2 458 | 4 959 | | | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 | 11 | | | 2 760 | 2 331 | 1 093 | 3 424 | 6 184 |
Source: Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2019 Edition
Notes:
1. Projects can be validated/verified individually or come together as part of a group. The statistics presented here show the number of projects validated or verified whether they were put through the process individually or as part of a group.
2. Figures for carbon sequestration indicate the total projected sequestration of the projects over their lifetime of up to 100 years, and include the amount claimable by a project plus the amount allocated to a shared "buffer" in case of unanticipated losses.
Awaiting validation: is when a project or group is undergoing assessment by a certification body.
Validated: is the initial evaluation of a project or group against the requirements of the Woodland Carbon Code. Upon completion a project/group will receive a 'Validation Opinion Statement'. The project/group will then be certified for a period of up to 5 years.
Verified: Verification is the evaluation of a project as it progresses to confirm the amount of CO2 sequestered to date as well as that it continues to meet the requirements of the Code.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 4.3 Public Opinion of Forestry - climate change
Forest Research has conducted similar surveys of public attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues every two years since 1995. The most recent set of separate surveys was conducted in 2019 (in Northern Ireland, Wales, and across the UK as a whole) and 2017 (in Scotland). The full results are available on our website at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/public-opinion-of-forestry/.
In the UK survey in 2019, questions were asked to gauge the public's agreement on climate change issues, including on the management of UK forests in response to the threat of climate change (Table 4.3). Some of the public views presented below do not reflect expert opinion.
There were high levels of agreement (respondents stating that they agreed or strongly agreed) with the statements:
- "A lot more trees should be planted", supported by 88% of the UK public in 2019; and
- "Different types of trees should be planted that will be more suited to future climates", supported by 78% in 2019.
Conversely, there were much lower levels of agreement with the statements:
- "No action is needed, let nature take its course", supported by 26% in 2019; and
- "Trees should not be felled under any circumstances, even if they are replaced", supported by 29%. Table 4.3 Management of UK forests in response to the threat of climate change
| | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | 2017 | 2019 | |-----------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | A lot more trees should be planted | 90 | 86 | 80 | 84 | 88 | | Different types of trees should be planted that will be more suited to future climates | 74 | 71 | 67 | 76 | 78 | | Trees should not be felled in any circumstances, even if they are replaced | 21 | 22 | 25 | 26 | 29 | | No action is needed, let nature take its course | 21 | 18 | 22 | 24 | 26 |
Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.
Notes:
1. Figures are based on all respondents: weighted totals = 2011 (2,068), 2013 (1,927), 2015 (1,804), 2017 (2,113), 2019 (2,174).
2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% in any of the years shown. To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points is required to indicate that there is a significant difference.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Chapter 5: Environment
Introduction
This chapter presents a range of information about the woodland environment, mostly using sources that are outside the scope of National Statistics. They are included to provide additional context to the topic.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included, where possible, in addition to UK or GB totals. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
All of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released.
The statistics on the populations of wild birds (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1) have been revised since "Forestry Statistics 2018". For further details on revisions, see the Environment section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all environment tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/.
Key findings
The main findings are:
- The UK woodland bird index has remained relatively stable since the early 1990s, following a period of long-term decline. Most of this decline has occurred in woodland specialist species.
- In 2019, 85% of the UK public agreed with the statement "action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases". 5.1 Populations of wild birds
Bird populations provide a good indication of the broad state of wildlife in the UK. This is because they are a well-studied taxonomic group, enabling a more informed interpretation of observed changes, who occupy a range of habitats while still responding to the same environmental pressures that also operate on other groups of wildlife.
Indices of wild bird populations in the UK are produced annually by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in conjunction with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), and cover a range of species that are native to the UK. This data has been produced since the early 1970s for the majority of habitat groups, meaning there is considerable long-term data available on the changes in bird populations, which aids in the interpretation of more short-term variation. The latest statistical release on Wild Bird Populations was published in November 2018 and includes data to 2017.
The index for woodland birds was expanded in 2007 to cover 38 species. A further change in 2015 resulted in a reduction to 37 species, of which 12 are generalists and 25 are woodland specialists (those that breed or feed mainly or solely in woodland).
Since the early 1990s, when the majority of species group indices stabilised, the UK woodland bird index has generally been about 20 per cent below the level of the early 1970s, with the decline predominantly in woodland specialist species (Figure 5.1).
Causes for the long-term decline in the woodland bird index may include a lack of diversity in habitats and food sources, loss of habitats and food sources through damage caused by increasing deer populations, and a reduction in some migratory species following pressures in other parts of the world. Table 5.1 UK populations of wild birds
| Year | Total breeding birds | Farmland birds | Seabirds | Woodland birds | Woodland generalists | Woodland specialists | |------|----------------------|----------------|----------|----------------|---------------------|---------------------| | 2008 | 100.4 | 92.2 | 83.5 | 102.4 | 105.0 | 99.1 | | 2009 | 95.9 | 89.5 | 89.4 | 89.8 | 98.0 | 83.8 | | 2010 | 97.4 | 86.9 | 86.5 | 100.6 | 101.9 | 97.6 | | 2011 | 95.8 | 86.5 | 80.8 | 103.2 | 98.8 | 103.3 | | 2012 | 96.9 | 87.3 | 78.0 | 104.6 | 102.2 | 103.7 | | 2013 | 89.6 | 79.1 | 76.9 | 90.5 | 89.7 | 88.6 | | 2014 | 96.4 | 80.4 | 84.3 | 100.4 | 103.3 | 96.9 | | 2015 | 99.5 | 85.2 | 81.6 | 100.9 | 105.3 | 96.6 | | 2016 | 96.3 | 77.6 | .. | 95.5 | 102.8 | 90.2 | | 2017 | 97.5 | 80.6 | .. | 92.8 | 104.0 | 85.7 |
Source: British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).
Notes:
1. Based on data in Wild Bird Populations in the UK, 1970-2017 statistical release (Defra, November 2018).
2. .. Denotes data not available. Figure 5.1 UK populations of woodland birds
Source: British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).
Notes:
1. Based on data in Wild Bird Populations in the UK, 1970-2017 statistical release (Defra, November 2018). 5.2 Public Opinion of Forestry - tree health
Forest Research has conducted similar surveys of public attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues every two years since 1995. The most recent surveys were conducted in 2019 (with separate surveys in Wales, Northern Ireland and across the UK as a whole) and in 2017 (in Scotland). Full results are available within the Public Opinion of Forestry reports available on our website at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/public-opinion-of-forestry/.
Respondents to the UK survey in 2019 were asked their views on a range of statements relating to tree health. The highest level of agreement was seen with the statement "action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and disease", with 85% of UK respondents agreeing (agree or strongly agree) (Figure 5.2 and Table 5.2). This compares with only 23% agreeing with the statements "there is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases". Figure 5.2 Public opinion on tree health
- **Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases**
- Strongly Agree: 24%
- Agree: 61%
- Neither agree nor disagree: 9%
- Disagree: 9%
- Strongly Disagree: 0%
- **Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases**
- Strongly Agree: 17%
- Agree: 57%
- Neither agree nor disagree: 17%
- Disagree: 11%
- Strongly Disagree: 0%
- **I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me**
- Strongly Agree: 15%
- Agree: 50%
- Neither agree nor disagree: 18%
- Disagree: 11%
- Strongly Disagree: 0%
- **If I buy an imported tree, it is more likely to carry tree pests and diseases than a tree grown in the UK**
- Strongly Agree: 9%
- Agree: 37%
- Neither agree nor disagree: 32%
- Disagree: 8%
- Strongly Disagree: 14%
- **I am aware that possible tree pests and diseases can be reported using the Tree Alert app or website**
- Strongly Agree: 5%
- Agree: 20%
- Neither agree nor disagree: 13%
- Disagree: 31%
- Strongly Disagree: 23%
- **There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases**
- Strongly Agree: 20%
- Agree: 22%
- Neither agree nor disagree: 38%
- Disagree: 8%
- Strongly Disagree: 8%
Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2019. Base: 2,000 UK respondents.
Notes:
1. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.2%.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
### Table 5.2 Public opinion on tree health 2015-2019
| Statement | 2015 | 2017 | 2019 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------| | Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases | 75 | 85 | 85 | | Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases | 57 | 74 | 74 | | I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me | 55 | 65 | 65 | | If I buy an imported tree, it is more likely to carry tree pests and diseases than a tree grown in the UK | 42 | 48 | 46 | | I am aware that possible tree pests and diseases can be reported using the Tree Alert app or website | 22 | 23 | 25 | | There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases | 21 | 23 | 23 |
Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.
Note:
1. Figures are based on all respondents: weighted totals = 2015 (1,804), 2017 (2,113), 2019 (2,174).
2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% in any of the years shown. To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points is required to indicate that there is a significant difference. 5.3 Woodland Fires
The Home Office and Devolved Administrations produce estimates of the number and area of wildfires each year, using data recorded by Fire and Rescue Services using the Incident Reporting System. These figures were previously produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
By analysing the wildfire data with the National Forest Inventory woodland map, it has been possible to produce estimates of fires that occur within woodlands in Great Britain.
No update is currently available, so the results shown below are as published in Forestry Statistics 2018.
Table 5.3a shows the number of woodland fires in 2010-11 to 2016-17. There has been some fluctuation in the number of woodland fires in Great Britain over this period, with a high of around 9 thousand fires in 2011-12 and a low of around 2,500 in 2012-13. Most fires occurred in England.
The total number of woodland fires in Great Britain in 2016-17 (around 4,200) represents 4% of the total of around 119,000 outdoor fires in Great Britain in 2016-17 (Home Office, Welsh Government, Scottish Government).
Table 5.3a Number of woodland fires
| Financial year | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |----------------|---------|-------|----------|------| | 2010-11 | 6 182 | 618 | 1 186 | 7 986| | 2011-12 | 7 238 | 620 | 1 059 | 8 917| | 2012-13 | 1 794 | 176 | 484 | 2 454| | 2013-14 | 3 899 | 383 | 776 | 5 058| | 2014-15 | 2 360 | 288 | 490 | 3 138| | 2015-16 | 3 333 | 345 | 1 389 | 5 067| | 2016-17 | 2 570 | 193 | 1 423 | 4 186|
Source: Fire & Rescue Service Incident Recording System, National Forest Inventory.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Table 5.3b shows the area covered by woodland fires between 2010-11 and 2016-17. There was a peak of around 8,700 hectares burnt in 2011-12, with the vast majority of this area occurring in Scotland.
Around 800 hectares of woodland in Great Britain were burnt in 2016-17.
Table 5.3b Area of woodland fires
| Financial year | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |----------------|---------|-------|----------|-----| | 2010-11 | 979 | 167 | 129 | 1 276 | | 2011-12 | 278 | 416 | 7 982 | 8 675 | | 2012-13 | 48 | 107 | 268 | 423 | | 2013-14 | 101 | 1 089 | 318 | 1 508 | | 2014-15 | 81 | 38 | 762 | 881 | | 2015-16 | 117 | 757 | 536 | 1 410 | | 2016-17 | 29 | 93 | 682 | 804 |
Source: Fire & Rescue Service Incident Recording System, National Forest Inventory.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Chapter 6: Social
Introduction
This chapter contains statistics on:
- the number and profile of visits to all woodlands from household surveys; and
- the number and profile of visits to Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales/Forest Service woodlands from on-site surveys and administrative sources.
Geographical coverage for recreation statistics varies. Estimates are presented at country level and, where possible, UK or GB totals are included. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released by other organisations. The latest year figures for day visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland are published for the first time in this release. Figures for earlier years have not been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Recreation section of the Sources chapter.
The frequency with which the estimates in this chapter are updated varies depending on the data sources used. Whilst some of the information presented is now several years old, it represents the latest available data and has been included to provide a more rounded picture of forest recreation in the UK.
Further information on the advantages and disadvantages of household surveys and of on-site surveys is provided in the Recreation section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all social tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/.
Previous editions of Forestry Statistics have also included statistics on public access to woodland in this chapter, using data from the Woodland Trust’s Woods for People and Spaces for People projects. As no new data is available, this section has now been excluded; the latest results can be accessed from Forestry Statistics 2018 at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and- Key findings
The main findings are:
- There were an estimated 437 million visits to woodland in England in 2017-18. (Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment 2017-18).
- There were an estimated 117 million visits to woodland in Scotland in 2017-18. (Scotland's People and Nature Survey 2017/18).
- “Health and exercise” and “fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather” were important reasons for visits to woodlands in Wales. (National Survey for Wales, 2016-17 and 2017-18).
- Over three fifths (63%) of the UK population have visited woodland in the last few years. (UK Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2019).
- Around 532 thousand people visited Forest Service sites where a charge is made in Northern Ireland in 2018-19. 6.1 Visits to woodland - household surveys
The information shown below in Table 6.1 has been obtained from the following general population household surveys.
- UK Day Visits Surveys (1994, 1996, 1998)
- GB Day Visits Survey (2002/3)
- Scottish Recreation Survey (2004 to 2012)
- England Leisure Visits Survey (2005)
- Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (2008, 2011, 2014)
- Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (England, 2009-10 onwards)
- Scotland’s People and Nature Survey (2013, 2017/18)
It is likely that differences in survey design and methodology have contributed to a considerable proportion of the differences in results between these surveys. The figures in Table 6.1 should not be interpreted as time trends but instead as separate results from each survey. Further information on the differences between surveys is provided in the Recreation section of the Sources chapter.
In common with all sample based surveys, the results from each survey are subject to the effects of chance, depending on the particular survey method used and the sample achieved, thus confidence limits apply to all results from these surveys.
Results from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment 2017-18 estimate a total of 437 million visits to woodlands in England (Table 6.1). This is not significantly different from the 2016-17 figure.
The Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey 2014 estimates a total of 68 million visits to woodlands by Welsh residents. This is a statistically significant decrease from the estimated total of 86 million in 2011, but similar to the 2008 estimate (64 million).
Scotland’s People and Nature Survey 2017/18 reports an estimated total of 117 million visits to woodlands in Scotland. This is a statistically significant increase from the 2013 estimate of 90 million visits. Table 6.1 Number of visits to woodland by journey starting point
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | GB | |------|---------|-------|----------|----| | 1994 | 273 | 12 | 18 | 303| | 1996 | 308 | 11 | 26 | 346| | 1998 | 321 | 11 | 22 | 355| | 2002 | 222 | 12 | 18 | 252| | 2004 | .. | .. | 70 | .. | | 2005 | 170 | .. | 62 | .. | | 2006 | .. | .. | 76 | .. | | 2007 | .. | .. | 72 | .. | | 2008 | .. | 64 | 62 | .. | | 2009 | 317 | .. | 57 | .. | | 2010 | 326 | .. | 63 | .. | | 2011 | 358 | 86 | 65 | .. | | 2012 | 357 | .. | 62 | .. | | 2013 | 378 | .. | 90 | .. | | 2014 | 417 | 68 | .. | .. | | 2015 | 446 | .. | .. | .. | | 2016 | 439 | .. | .. | .. | | 2017 | 437 | .. | 117 | .. |
Sources: 1994, 1996, 1998: UK Day Visit Surveys, carried out by National Centre for Social Research (not available online); 2002: GB Day Visits Survey 2002-03, carried out by TNS Travel & Tourism; England 2005: England Leisure Visits Survey (ELVS), carried out by Research International; England 2009 on: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), carried out by TNS; Wales 2008, 2011, 2014: Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey carried out by IPSOS-MORI (2008) and by TNS (2011, 2014); Scotland 2004 - 2012: Scottish Recreation Survey (ScRS), carried out by TNS; Scotland 2013, 2017: Scotland's People and Nature Survey (SPANs), carried out by TNS.
Notes:
1. The UK and GB Day Visits Surveys collected data about day trips from home, for all countries of GB. The 1994, 1996 and 1998 surveys covered calendar years; the 2002-03 survey covered a 12-month period starting in March 2002.
2. ELVS and MENE covered trips taken in England, including those from holiday bases, by respondents living in England. ELVS ran for 12 months from February 2005. MENE results relate to 12 month periods from March to February.
3. The Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey totals shown are for trips with woodland as the main destination.
4. The Scottish Recreation Survey ran from July 2003 until December 2012. It was replaced by Scotland’s People and Nature Survey that ran from March 2013 to February 2014 and from May 2017 to April 2018. Both surveys covered visits to the outdoors for leisure and recreation in Scotland by people living in Scotland. The total shown is for all trips that included a visit to woodland.
5. In each survey, visits to overseas destinations are excluded.
6. .. Denotes data not available.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
6.1.1 England
Household surveys in England
In March 2009 fieldwork commenced on the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey, which includes collecting information on visits to the outdoors in England. Further information on the survey, including copies of annual reports and online data viewers to access more detailed results, is available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitor-of-engagement-with-the-natural-environment-survey-purpose-and-results.
Table 6.2 shows the main characteristics of visits to woodlands over the most recent 5 years. In 2017-18, walking was the main mode of transport for around one half (52%) of visits to woodland. Over one half (56%) of visits to woodland were within 2 miles. Table 6.2 Woodland visit characteristics1 - England 2013-14 to 2017-18
| Main mode of transport | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | |------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | On foot | 62 | 60 | 60 | 54 | 52 | | Car/ van | 33 | 36 | 36 | 42 | 44 | | Bicycle | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Distance travelled (one way) | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | |-----------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Less than 1 mile | 36 | 39 | 32 | 28 | 29 | | 1 to 2 miles | 27 | 25 | 31 | 28 | 27 | | 3 to 5 miles | 22 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 23 | | 6 to 10 miles | 7 | 9 | 8 | 11 | 11 | | Over 10 miles | 8 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 10 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), carried out by TNS, for Natural England and Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).
Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
2. .. Denotes data not available.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
6.1.2 Wales
Household surveys in Wales The National Survey for Wales began in March 2016 and replaced a number of separate surveys of households in Wales, including the Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (WORS). The survey is completed by around 12,000 people each year and covers a wide range of topics. Further information on the survey, including copies of reports and data, is available at https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales.
Table 6.3 shows the reasons provided for their visit to the outdoors by respondents who stated that the main destination of visit was woodland. “Health and exercise” and “fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather” were important reasons for visits to woodlands in Wales.
Table 6.3 Reasons for visit to woodland or forest – Wales
| Reasons for visit | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | |------------------------------------------------|---------|---------| | For health or exercise | 47 | 55 | | For fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather | 50 | 47 | | For pleasure / enjoyment | 42 | 42 | | To spend time with family | 39 | 41 | | To relax and unwind | 34 | 41 | | To enjoy scenery and wildlife | 38 | 39 | | To exercise the dog | 38 | 30 | | For peace and quiet | 22 | 30 | | To spend time with friends | 16 | 22 |
Source: National Survey for Wales (Welsh Government).
Notes:
1. Visits where the main destination was woodland.
2. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%.
3. Excludes other reasons for visiting, each reported by fewer than 20% of respondents in 2017-18.
6.1.3 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - Woodland visitors
The Public Opinion of Forestry Survey is carried out every two years and obtains people's attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues, including visits to woodland. Copies of reports and detailed data tables are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/public-opinion-of-forestry/.
The results shown in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 and Figure 6.1 have been taken from the UK and country reports on the latest surveys in 2019 and from surveys in earlier years. The reports also include other recreation-related results, such as whether the woodlands visited were in towns or the countryside and any reasons given by survey respondents for not visiting woodlands.
In the UK 2019 survey, over three fifths (63%) of respondents said that they had visited woodland in the last few years for walks, picnics or other recreation (Table 6.4). Table 6.4 Woodland visitors(^1)
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2003 | 66 | 62 | 64 | 77 | 67 | | 2005 | 65 | 69 | 50 | 67 | 65 | | 2007 | 76 | 79 | 75 | 62 | 77 | | 2009 | 77 | .. | 57 | .. | 77 | | 2010 | .. | .. | 57 | 72 | .. | | 2011 | 68 | 68 | 75 | .. | 67 | | 2013 | 65 | 64 | 76 | .. | 66 | | 2014 | .. | .. | .. | 75 | .. | | 2015 | 55 | 64 | 78 | .. | 56 | | 2017 | 62 | 72 | 84 | .. | 61 | | 2019 | 63 | 77 | .. | 78 | 63 |
Source: UK/GB, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys Base: UK/GB = 4,000 respondents (2003 to 2007), 2,000 respondents (2009 to 2019); Scotland and Wales = 1,000 respondents each; Northern Ireland = 120 respondents (2003), 1,000 respondents (all other years).
Notes:
1. Those stating that they had visited woodland in the last few years.
2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% (for surveys with around 2,000 respondents) and ±4.7% (for surveys with around 1,000 respondents). To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points (for surveys each with around 2,000 respondents) and at least 7 percentage points (for surveys each with around 1,000 respondents) is required to indicate that there is a significant difference.
3. .. Denotes data not available (survey not run that year or question not asked)
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
Survey respondents were asked how frequently they had visited during the previous summer and winter. Figure 6.1, which presents aggregated UK results for the 2015 to 2019 surveys, shows that respondents visited much more often during the summer, with 44% of respondents visiting at least once a month in the summer compared to around one quarter (27%) in the winter. Figure 6.1 Frequency of visits to woodlands
Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys, 2015 to 2019. Base: Average visit frequencies from last three UK surveys: 2,000 respondents per survey. Notes:
1. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% in any individual year and no more than ±1.1% for the 3 surveys combined.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
6.1.4 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - woodland visitors by age group
In the UK 2019 Public Opinion of Forestry survey, 71% of respondents aged 35 to 54 said that they had visited woodland in the last few years for walks, picnics or other recreation (Table 6.5). This compares with around three fifths (61%) of respondents aged 16 to 34 and 56% of those aged 55 or over. Table 6.5 Woodland visitors1 by age group
| Year | Aged 16 to 34 | Aged 35 to 54 | Aged 55 and over | Total | |------|---------------|---------------|------------------|-------| | 1999 | 73 | 74 | 55 | 67 | | 2001 | 75 | 77 | 63 | 72 | | 2003 | 71 | 72 | 60 | 67 | | 2005 | 66 | 74 | 56 | 65 | | 2007 | 79 | 82 | 69 | 77 | | 2009 | 78 | 84 | 69 | 77 | | 2011 | 65 | 74 | 63 | 67 | | 2013 | 62 | 75 | 60 | 66 | | 2015 | 54 | 62 | 53 | 56 | | 2017 | 60 | 68 | 55 | 61 | | 2019 | 61 | 71 | 56 | 63 |
Source: UK and GB Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys, 1999 to 2019. Base: 2,000 respondents (1999, 2001, 2009 to 2019); 4,000 respondents (2003 to 2007). Notes:
1. Those stating they had visited woodland in the last few years.
2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% (for surveys with around 2,000 respondents) and ±2.3% (for surveys with around 4,000 respondents). To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points (for surveys each with around 2,000 respondents) is required to indicate that there is a significant difference.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 6.2 Visits to woodland - on-site surveys
The previous section provided information on visits to all woodlands (regardless of ownership), based on data from household surveys. This section provides information on visits to Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales/Forest Service woodland only, based on data from on-site surveys and administrative sources.
The information provided in this section covers:
- Visits to the National Forest Estate in Scotland (Forestry and Land Scotland woodlands) from the All Forests Scotland surveys run from 2004 to 2007 and in 2012-13. An updated estimate of total visits in 2016 is also provided.
- Day visitors to Northern Ireland Forest Service sites where an admission charge was made.
Further information on these and other sources of on-site visit data are available from the Sources chapter and from the recreation statistics web pages at www.forestreresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/recreation-statistics/.
6.2.1 Scotland All Forests Survey
All Forests surveying in Scotland has been undertaken on two occasions. The first All Forests Survey in Scotland was carried out across a three-year period from June 2004 to June 2007, with over 5,000 hours of fieldwork undertaken over 1,158 days, achieving almost 2,700 face to face interviews. The study estimated that around 8.2 million visits are made annually to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland. An estimated 150-200 thousand visits to events in forests and around 300 thousand visits during the hours of darkness (when fieldwork was not undertaken) were also made, giving an overall total of around 8.7 million visits per year.
The second All Forests Survey was carried out from November 2012 to October 2013. The survey made greater use of data from automatic counters, but also achieved over 400 days of fieldwork and 1,970 face-to-face interviews.
The 2012-13 survey estimated an annual total of 9.1 million visits (including visits to events and in the hours of darkness) to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland. This represents a 5% increase on the estimated overall total of 8.7 million visits from the 2004-2007 survey. The estimated number of visits has been updated using data from 224 automatic counters at 165 sites. For sites without counters, estimates have been produced using the results from the 2012-13 All Forests Survey and advice from local managers. This gives an overall estimate of 10.2 million visits to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland in 2016, a 12% increase from 2012-13.
Table 6.6 provides a summary of the key characteristics and results obtained from the Scotland All Forests surveys and appears to show some change in visit characteristics over time, with a general trend towards longer, more distant and less frequent visits. From the 2012-13 survey, around two thirds of visitors to Forestry and Land Scotland woodlands were on a day trip from home. Walking (with or without a dog) was the main activity undertaken by around three quarters of visitors. Over four fifths travelled to the site by car or van and around one third travelled more than 15 miles to get to the site. Around one third of visitors were on short trips, spending one hour or less in the forest. Around one half of respondents visited the site at least monthly.
Table 6.6 Woodland visit characteristics - Scotland All Forests Survey
| Woodland visit characteristics | 2004-2007 | 2012-13 | |-------------------------------|-----------|---------| | **Type of trip** | | | | Day trip | 82 | 67 | | Overnight trip | 18 | 33 | | **Main activity during visit**| | | | Dog walking | 50 | 43 | | Other walking | 29 | 29 | | Cycling | 11 | 8 | | **Main transport** | | | | Car / van | 78 | 85 | | Walked | 18 | 11 | | Cycled | 2 | 2 | | **Distance travelled (one way)**| | | | Less than 6 miles | 58 | 43 | | 6 to 15 miles | 19 | 25 | | Distance from home (miles) | 16 to 25 miles | Over 25 miles | |---------------------------|----------------|--------------| | | 10 | 12 | | | 12 | 20 |
**Duration of visit (time spent in forest)**
| Duration of Visit | Up to 1 hour | Over 1 hour, up to 2 hours | Over 2 hours, up to 3 hours | Over 3 hours | |-------------------|--------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------| | | 59 | 24 | 10 | 7 | | | 35 | 36 | 16 | 13 |
**Frequency of visit to site of interview**
| Frequency of Visit | More than once a day | Once a day | 1 to 3 times per week | 1 to 3 times per month | 1 to 3 times per year | Less often | First ever visit | |--------------------|----------------------|------------|-----------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|------------|------------------| | | 7 | 13 | 25 | 17 | 17 | 5 | 16 | | | 3 | 9 | 22 | 14 | 18 | 7 | 27 |
Source: Scotland All Forests Survey 2004-2007 and All Forests Survey 2, carried out by TNS.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
### 6.2.2 Northern Ireland Forest Service day visitors
Information on visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland is provided by the Forest Service and relates only to sites where an admission charge is made.
In Northern Ireland in 2018-19, 532 thousand people visited those Forest Service sites where an admission charge was made (Table 6.7). This represented a 5% increase from the previous year, but remained lower than the peak in 2016-17. Table 6.7 Day visitors to Northern Ireland Forest Service sites
| Year | Visitors to Forest Service sites | |--------|----------------------------------| | 2009-10| 473 | | 2010-11| 468 | | 2011-12| 430 | | 2012-13| 340 | | 2013-14| 364 | | 2014-15| 397 | | 2015-16| 432 | | 2016-17| 584 | | 2017-18| 509 | | 2018-19| 532 |
Source: Forest Service
Notes:
1. Number of people visiting sites where an admission charge was made, excluding campers.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Chapter 7: Employment & Businesses
Introduction
This chapter contains information on:
- employment in forestry and wood processing;
- health & safety; and
- numbers of businesses.
All of the statistics presented in this chapter relate to UK totals. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released. Some of the figures in this chapter have been revised since Forestry Statistics 2018. For further details on revisions, see the Employment section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all Employment & Businesses tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- The Annual Business Survey reported average employment in 2017 of 16 thousand in forestry and 27 thousand in primary wood processing.
- There was estimated to be a total of 7.7 thousand full time equivalent staff employed by primary wood processors in the UK in 2018, a 2% decrease from the total for 2017.
- Accident rates in forestry and wood products have tended to decline in recent years but are still higher than the averages in agriculture and manufacturing respectively.
- There were 213 establishments in the primary wood processing industries in the UK using UK-grown roundwood in 2018.
Note:
1. There are a number of differences in the scope of the employment figures reported from the Annual Business Survey (ABS) and the full time equivalent figures obtained from the annual surveys of the UK timber industry run by Forest Research (FR). In particular, the ABS figures cover employment by all businesses in the relevant sectors that pay VAT and/or PAYE. This will include businesses that do not use UK grown timber. The FR surveys include businesses below the VAT and PAYE thresholds, but exclude businesses that do not use UK grown timber. 7.1 Employment: Annual Business Survey (ABS)
The Annual Business Survey (ABS), carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), includes statistics on employment broken down by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007). In wood processing, SIC 16 (wood products) and SIC 17 (pulp, paper and paper products) have a much wider scope than the data on employment in primary wood processing (Table 7.2), as they include primary processing of imported material and also some secondary processing.
The latest ABS survey was published in May 2019 and includes data to 2017. It recorded average employment in 2017 of 16 thousand in forestry and 27 thousand in primary wood processing (sawmilling, panels and pulp & paper) (Table 7.1).
Table 7.1 Employment in forestry and wood processing(^2), 2013-2017
| Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^1) | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | |---------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Forestry | 14 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 16 | | Wood products | | | | | | | Sawmilling | 8 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 9 | | Panels | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | | Secondary products | 51 | 65 | 56 | 67 | 60 | | Total | 64 | 79 | 69 | 81 | 74 | | Pulp, paper & paper products | | | | | | | Pulp & paper(^3) | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | | Articles of paper & paperboard | 41 | 44 | 43 | 43 | 42 | | Total | 54 | 57 | 56 | 56 | 55 | | Total wood processing | 118 | 136 | 125 | 137 | 129 | | Total primary wood processing | 26 | 27 | 26 | 27 | 27 |
Source: Annual Business Survey - average employment in year (Office for National Statistics, May 2019)
Notes:
1. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
2. Excludes other wood-using industries.
3. Pulp and paper breakdowns for 2013 to 2017 have been suppressed in the figures released by ONS. The figures shown here are estimated from 2008 figures. 7.2 Employment in primary wood processing
Information on employment in primary wood processing is obtained annually via the sources used to collect data on UK-grown timber (presented in Chapter 2).
There was estimated to be a total of 7.7 thousand full time equivalent staff employed by primary wood processors in the UK in 2018 (Table 7.2), a 2% decrease from the total for 2017.
Over one half (57%) of the total employment in 2018 worked in sawmills and over one quarter (28%) worked in wood-based panel mills.
Table 7.2 Employment in primary wood processing, 2014-2018
| Year | Sawmills | Pulp & paper | Wood-based panels | Fencing | Total | |------|----------|--------------|-------------------|---------|-------| | 2014 | 4 382 | 703 | 2 091 | 407 | 7 583 | | 2015 | 4 319 | 702 | 2 100 | 361 | 7 483 | | 2016 | 4 450 | 697 | 2 250 | 388 | 7 785 | | 2017 | 4 593 | 700 | 2 110 | 427 | 7 830 | | 2018 | 4 411 | 693 | 2 175 | 402 | 7 681 |
Source: industry surveys, industry associations.
Notes:
1. Some businesses operate sawmills and round fencing mills. Employment for such businesses may be recorded under sawmills, round fencing manufacturers or shared between the two categories.
7.3 Health & safety
Accidents involving absence from work of at least seven days are required to be reported to the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). Prior to this time, reporting was required for absences of at least three days.
The latest major accident rates for Great Britain, covering 2017-18, show an increase from the previous year for the forestry sector and a decrease for the wood products sector. Over the longer term, the rates for both sectors have generally declined, but they continue to remain higher than the averages in agriculture and manufacturing respectively (Table 7.3 and Figure 7.1). Table 7.3 Accidents to employees(^1) in forestry and wood processing(^3), 2013-14 - 2017-18
| Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^2) | Number of major accidents(^4) | Major accident rate rate/1000 employees | Total number of reported accidents | Total reported accident rate/1000 employees | |---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | **Forestry** | | | | | | 2013-14 | 51 | 3.8 | 116 | 8.6 | | 2014-15 | 26 | 1.7 | 101 | 6.5 | | 2015-16 | 34 | 2.0 | 111 | 6.5 | | 2016-17 | 31 | 1.9 | 120 | 7.3 | | 2017-18 provisional | 38 | 2.3 | 95 | 5.8 | | **Wood products** | | | | | | 2013-14 | 155 | 2.9 | 523 | 9.6 | | 2014-15 | 136 | 2.4 | 510 | 8.9 | | 2015-16 | 129 | 2.5 | 561 | 10.9 | | 2016-17 | 149 | 3.0 | 557 | 11.1 | | 2017-18 provisional | 125 | 2.4 | 514 | 9.7 | | **Pulp, paper & paper products** | | | | | | 2013-14 | 85 | 1.5 | 322 | 5.8 | | 2014-15 | 75 | 1.3 | 303 | 5.4 | | 2015-16 | 67 | 1.4 | 284 | 6.1 | | 2016-17 | 71 | 1.5 | 257 | 5.5 | | 2017-18 provisional | 60 | 1.1 | 245 | 4.3 |
Source: Health & Safety Executive.
Notes:
1. Employees only; excludes self-employed.
2. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
3. Excludes other wood-using industries.
4. Major accidents include fatal accidents, which averaged around 1 per year for forestry and 2 per year for wood processing. There were no fatal accidents in the period shown for pulp, paper and paper products. Figure 7.1 Accidents to employees: Total reported accidents per 1000 employees, 2004-05 to 2017-18
Source: Health & Safety Executive. Notes:
1. Employees only; excludes self-employed.
2. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
3. As a result of a change in reporting requirements, data from 2012-13 is not directly comparable with previous years. 7.4 Establishments in the primary wood processing industries
Table 7.4 shows the number of primary wood processors, according to the sampling frames used for Forest Research surveys of establishments using UK timber.
The figures in Table 7.4 do not correspond with the VAT and PAYE registration information given in Table 7.5. The figures here count establishments (sites) rather than businesses and include those that do not need to register for VAT or PAYE. They also have a different basis for classification, so some businesses that are excluded from Table 7.5 because of their VAT/PAYE classification are included in this table (typically businesses where primary wood processing is a small part of their total activity), and some businesses included in Table 7.5 are excluded here (usually because they do not use UK-grown timber).
The number of establishments in the primary wood processing industries using UK-grown roundwood has reduced from 273 in 2009 to 213 in 2018, a 22% decrease.
Table 7.4 Number of establishments in the primary wood processing industries using UK-grown roundwood
| Year | Sawmills | Pulp & paper mills | Wood-based panel mills | Round fencing manufacturers | Total¹ | |------|----------|--------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------|-------| | 2009 | 195 | 2 | 8 | 68 | 273 | | 2010 | 188 | 2 | 7 | 64 | 261 | | 2011 | 184 | 2 | 7 | 63 | 256 | | 2012 | 180 | 2 | 7 | 60 | 249 | | 2013 | 175 | 2 | 6 | 60 | 243 | | 2014 | 173 | 2 | 6 | 56 | 237 | | 2015 | 171 | 2 | 6 | 50 | 229 | | 2016 | 167 | 2 | 6 | 50 | 225 | | 2017 | 164 | 2 | 6 | 50 | 222 | | 2018 | 157 | 2 | 6 | 48 | 213 |
Source: industry surveys, industry associations Notes:
1. A single mill may be recorded twice, as a sawmill and a round fencing manufacturer. 7.5 VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses
Table 7.5 shows the number of VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses classified under forestry and primary wood processing. The headings shown potentially include businesses not traditionally regarded as forestry or primary wood processing, and some businesses traditionally included in forestry and primary wood processing are excluded as they are classified to other headings of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).
A total of 4,150 forestry businesses, 540 sawmilling businesses, 130 wood-based panel businesses and 240 pulp & paper businesses were registered for VAT and/or PAYE purposes in the UK in 2018.
There has been an overall increase in forestry businesses over the last ten years, whilst sawmilling and pulp and paper businesses have declined.
Table 7.5 Number1 of VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)², 2009-2018
| Year | Forestry | Sawmilling | Panels | Pulp & paper | |------|----------|------------|--------|--------------| | 2009 | 3 100 | 685 | 130 | 270 | | 2010 | 3 095 | 640 | 135 | 255 | | 2011 | 3 170 | 605 | 135 | 250 | | 2012 | 3 375 | 585 | 135 | 255 | | 2013 | 3 505 | 560 | 130 | 240 | | 2014 | 3 685 | 555 | 130 | 230 | | 2015 | 3 925 | 555 | 125 | 230 | | 2016 | 4 050 | 550 | 125 | 225 | | 2017 | 4 060 | 540 | 120 | 240 | | 2018 | 4 150 | 540 | 130 | 240 |
Source: UK Business: Activity, Size and Location: 2018 (Office for National Statistics, October 2018).
Notes:
1. All figures are rounded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to the nearest multiple of 5.
2. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page. Chapter 8: Finance & Prices
Introduction
This chapter contains statistics on:
- timber prices;
- gross value added (GVA);
- Government expenditure on forestry; and
- grant schemes.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included, where possible, in addition to UK or GB totals. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released. Some of the figures for earlier years have been revised since Forestry Statistics 2018. For further details on revisions, see the Finance & Prices section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all Finance & Prices tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/.
Previous editions of Forestry Statistics have also included statistics on financial returns from forestry investment in this chapter, from the Investment Property Databank (IPD) UK Forestry Index. As no new data is available, this section has now been excluded; the latest results can be accessed from Forestry Statistics 2018 at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2018/finance-prices/financial-return-from-forestry-investment/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index for Great Britain was 26.8% higher in real terms in the year to March 2019, compared with the previous year.
- The Softwood Sawlog Price Index for Great Britain was 32.5% higher in real terms in the 6 months to March 2019, compared with the corresponding period of the previous year.
- Gross value added (GVA) in primary wood processing (sawmilling, panels and pulp & paper) was £1.48 billion in the UK in 2017. GVA in forestry was £0.70 billion.
- Net expenditure on public forests by Forestry England and by Forestry and Land Scotland totalled £27 million in 2018-19. A further £97 million was spent by the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry on other activities.
- A total of £76.6 million was paid in grants by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry and the Welsh Government in 2018-19. 8.1 Timber prices
Timber Price Indices are based on sales of softwood (conifers) by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales and are released every 6 months.
The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index monitors changes in the average price received per cubic metre for timber that Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales sold standing, where the purchaser is responsible for harvesting.
The Softwood Sawlog Price Index monitors changes in the average price received per cubic metre of sawlogs (roundwood with a top diameter of 14 cm or more, destined to be sawn into planks or boards) sold at roadside by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales.
Standing timber and sawlogs are distinct markets, and may show different price movements. The data are averages for historic periods, so may be slow to show any turning points.
These indices are used to monitor trends in timber prices and to provide information on the state of the UK timber industry. They are also used by the UK timber industry, alongside other economic indicators, in contract reviews.
There is little other information currently available on wood prices before primary processing and no price index is available for broadleaves. Prices for outputs of primary wood processing are collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the Producer Price Indices (PPIs), and these are available in the MM22 dataset which gives detailed PPIs monthly.
Table 8.1 presents the coniferous standing sales and sawlog price indices for Great Britain to March 2019.
The coniferous standing sales price index for Great Britain was 26.8% higher in real terms in the year to March 2019, compared with the previous year (Table 8.1). The softwood sawlog price index was 32.5% higher in real terms in the 6 months to March 2019, compared with the corresponding period in the previous year. Table 8.1 Coniferous standing sales and sawlog price indices(^1) for Great Britain, 2012-2019
| Year | Standing sales(^3) in nominal terms(^3) | Standing sales(^3) index in real terms(^4) | Sawlog index in nominal terms(^3) | Sawlog index in real terms(^4) | |------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------| | 2012 | 83.9 | 89.7 | 88.2 | 94.6 | | 2013 | 78.6 | 82.4 | 97.9 | 102.8 | | 2014 | 90.9 | 93.6 | 109.5 | 113.1 | | 2015 | 108.8 | 110.6 | 103.2 | 106.0 | | 2016 | 98.5 | 99.4 | 97.1 | 98.6 | | 2017 | 110.0 | 108.5 | 110.8 | 109.4 | | 2018 | 143.5 | 138.7 | 133.9 | 129.6 | | 2019 | 185.5 | 175.9 | 180.6 | 171.7 |
Source: Timber Price Indices: data to March 2019
Notes:
1. The price indices are constructed from information on sales by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales only.
2. The standing sales index uses the Fisher method with 5 year chain linking to take account of changes in the size mix over time.
3. Nominal prices are the actual prices at that point in time.
4. Real terms values are obtained by using the GDP deflator to convert to "constant prices" (in this case prices in 2016). This allows trends in timber prices to be tracked without the influence of inflation.
5. The standing sales index excludes sales by Natural Resources Wales from April 2017.
6. Sawlog prices in Wales in the year to March 2018 include long term contract rates for the clearance of infected larch. Figure 8.1 Coniferous standing sales and sawlog price indices\\textsuperscript{1,2} in real terms\\textsuperscript{3} for Great Britain, 2012-2019
Source: Timber Price Indices: data to March 2019
Notes:
1. The price indices are constructed from information on sales by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales only.
2. The standing sales index uses the Fisher method with 5 year chain linking to take account of changes in the size mix over time.
3. Real terms values are obtained by using the GDP deflator to convert to "constant prices" (in this case prices in 2016). This allows trends in timber prices to be tracked without the influence of inflation.
4. The standing sales index excludes sales by Natural Resources Wales from April 2017.
5. Sawlog prices in Wales in the year to March 2018 include long term contract rates for the clearance of infected larch. 8.2 Gross value added
Gross value added (GVA) measures the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom. It is the difference between the value of outputs and the value of intermediate consumption, so mainly comprises employment costs and profits.
The Annual Business Survey (ABS) carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) includes statistics on gross value added for different industries, classified using the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007). Further information on the ABS is available from the ONS website.
Table 8.2 shows that, in 2017, GVA in primary wood processing (sawmilling, panels and pulp & paper) was reported to be £1.48 billion and GVA in forestry was £0.70 billion.
Table 8.2 Gross value added in forestry and wood processing(^3), 2013-2017
| Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^1) | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | |---------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Forestry | 504 | 540 | 658 | 596 | 701 | | Wood products | | | | | | | Sawmilling | 518 | 356 | 474 | 413 | 437 | | Panels(^2) | 267 | 436 | 323 | 316 | 363 | | Secondary products | 1 797| 1 955| 2 477| 2 850| 2 597| | Total | 2 582| 2 747| 3 275| 3 579| 3 397| | Pulp, paper & paper products | | | | | | | Pulp & paper | 578 | 596 | 738 | 610 | 682 | | Articles of paper & paperboard | 3 115| 3 197| 2 749| 2 786| 2 554| | Total | 3 693| 3 793| 3 487| 3 396| 3 236| | Total wood processing | 6 275| 6 540| 6 762| 6 975| 6 633| | Total primary wood processing | 1 363| 1 388| 1 535| 1 339| 1 482|
Source: Annual Business Survey (Office for National Statistics, May 2019)
Notes:
1. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
2. The 2013 to 2016 figures for panels have been suppressed in the figures released by ONS, so the figures here cover both panels and the manufacture of assembled parquet floors (SIC 16.22) for those years. Panels accounted for 99% of the total of SIC codes 16.21 (panels) and 16.22 in 2017.
3. Excludes other wood-using industries.
8.3 Government expenditure on public forests
Table 8.3 provides information on net expenditure on public forests by Forestry England and by Forestry and Land Scotland. This covers expenditure less income for land that is owned or managed by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland. Other expenditure by the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry is covered in Table 8.5.
Figures for Wales on a comparable basis are currently unavailable.
Net expenditure on public forests by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland in 2018-19 totalled £27 million. This comprised £15 million in Scotland and £12 million in England.
Recreation, conservation & heritage accounted for £70 million of the total expenditure in 2018-19, harvesting & haulage for £43 million and other expenditure on public forests for £111 million.
Timber sales generated a total income of £131 million in 2018-19. Recreation, conservation & heritage accounted for a further £32 million and other income from public forests for £35 million.
Table 8.3 Funding public forests - net expenditure(^1,2,3)
| | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | GB | | | | | | | Harvesting & haulage | 36.6 | 37.9 | 35.9 | 36.8 | 42.6 | | Recreation, etc(^4) | 70.2 | 67.8 | 70.9 | 72.8 | 70.2 | | Other | 81.9 | 89.2 | 89.0 | 96.5 | 111.3 | | Timber | -103.1 | -99.1 | -104.3 | -111.3 | -131.2 | | Recreation, etc(^4) | -24.3 | -24.8 | -29.6 | -32.1 | -31.5 | | Other | -25.1 | -26.8 | -27.7 | -23.1 | -34.7 | | **Net expenditure** | **36.2**| **44.2**| **34.2**| **39.6**| **26.7**|
### England
| Category | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |---------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Harvesting & haulage | 9.8 | 10.6 | 10.6 | 11.3 | 14.0 | | Recreation, etc(^4) | 41.8 | 45.0 | 49.7 | 49.4 | 49.4 | | Other | 24.5 | 29.2 | 31.3 | 32.9 | 38.3 | | Timber | -37.3| -36.7| -38.9| -43.4| -53.2| | Recreation, etc(^4) | -18.3| -21.1| -26.2| -28.3| -27.8| | Other | -11.1| -9.3 | -8.6 | -5.8 | -8.8 | | **Net expenditure** | **9.4**| **17.7**| **17.9**| **16.1**| **11.9**|
### Scotland
| Category | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |---------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Harvesting & haulage | 26.8 | 27.3 | 25.3 | 25.5 | 28.6 | | Recreation, etc(^4) | 28.4 | 22.8 | 21.2 | 23.4 | 20.8 | | Other | 57.4 | 60.0 | 57.7 | 63.6 | 73.0 | | Timber | -65.8| -62.4| -65.4| -67.9| -78.0| | Recreation, etc(^4) | -6.0 | -3.7 | -3.4 | -3.8 | -3.7 | | Other | -14.0| -17.5| -19.1| -17.3| -25.9| | **Net expenditure** | **26.8**| **26.5**| **16.3**| **23.5**| **14.8**|
Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland
Notes:
1. Expenditure by Forestry England and by Forestry and Land Scotland only. Excludes expenditure incurred by other departments.
2. Excludes notional cost of capital and any surplus/deficit on sale of properties.
3. Excludes gain on revaluation of biological assets and value of timber felled.
4. Recreation, etc includes conservation and heritage. 8.4 Other government expenditure on forestry
Table 8.4 provides information on other expenditure (excluding public forests) by the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry. It includes expenditure by National Offices in England and Scotland as well as expenditure on GB level functions. Figures for Wales on a comparable basis are not currently available. Expenditure on land that is owned or managed by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland is covered in Table 8.3.
In addition to expenditure on public forests, the Forestry Commission/Scottish Forestry spent a total of £97 million on other activities in 2018-19 (Table 8.4).
£63 million was used by the national offices in England and Scotland for grants and partnership funding and a further £12 million for policy, regulation & administration in 2018-19. At a GB level, £22 million was used for international & GB support services and £12 million for research.
Table 8.4 Other government expenditure on forestry(^1,2)
| | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | **GB** | | | | | | | Grants and partnership funding(^3) | 82.0 | 57.2 | 61.6 | 57.6 | 62.9 | | Policy, regulation & administration | 11.9 | 13.1 | 12.2 | 11.9 | 12.1 | | Research - GB funded(^4) | 8.6 | 8.4 | 9.6 | 10.5 | 11.8 | | International & GB support services(^4) | 32.5 | 32.1 | 28.4 | 25.4 | 21.6 | | Less recovery of support service costs from countries | -20.3 | -20.7 | -16.1 | -13.0 | -11.3 | | **Total** | 114.7 | 90.1 | 95.7 | 92.4 | 97.1 | | **England** | | | | | | | Grants and partnership funding(^3) | 37.4 | 24.8 | 24.0 | 13.8 | 8.3 | | Policy, regulation & administration(^5) | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 0.7 |
### 8.5 Grant schemes
Private sector woodland in Great Britain is supported by a range of grants for creating new woodland and managing existing woodland. The Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) was introduced in 1988, at the same time as tax relief was phased out. In Scotland, WGS was replaced by the Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme (SFGS) in 2003, by Rural Development Contracts in 2006 and has now been replaced by the Forestry Grant Scheme. The English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) was launched in July 2005 and has now been replaced by Countryside Stewardship. Better Woodlands for Wales (BWW) was launched in December 2005 and has now been replaced by Glastir (administered by the Welsh Government).
Because of the differences between these schemes, it is increasingly difficult to provide comparable statistics across the three countries. The following tables provide information relating to planting and grants:
- Table 1.14 for total areas of new planting and restocking;
- Table 8.4 for expenditure by the Forestry Commission/Scottish Forestry on grants and partnership funding; Table 8.5 (below) for grant expenditure by the Forestry Commission (including grant expenditure managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of Defra), by Scottish Forestry and by the Welsh Government.
Table 8.5 presents information on grant money paid in 2009-10 to 2018-19. A total of £76.6 million was paid in grants in 2018-19, a 37% increase from the total for the previous year.
At a country level, £50.2 million was paid in grants in Scotland in 2018-19 (an increase of 32% from the previous year), £20.5 million was paid in England (a 52% increase) and £5.9 million in Wales (an increase of 27%).
Table 8.5 Grant money paid, 2009-10 to 2018-19
| | England¹ | Wales² | Scotland³ | GB | |--------|----------|--------|-----------|------| | 2009-10| 24.4 | 2.9 | 5.7 | 33.0 | | 2010-11| 28.7 | 3.8 | 18.9 | 51.4 | | 2011-12| 32.5 | 5.4 | 34.2 | 72.1 | | 2012-13| 32.8 | 5.0 | 32.3 | 70.1 | | 2013-14| 33.9 | 4.1 | 35.5 | 73.5 | | 2014-15| 32.4 | 1.8 | 39.2 | 73.4 | | 2015-16| 23.0 | 3.6 | 27.5 | 54.1 | | 2016-17| 23.8 | 3.3 | 30.5 | 57.5 | | 2017-18| 13.5 | 4.7 | 37.9 | 56.1 | | 2018-19| 20.5 | 5.9 | 50.2 | 76.6 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government
Notes:
1. England includes grant scheme expenditure managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of Defra.
2. Wales relates to grant paid by the Welsh Government.
3. Scotland includes grants paid under the Forestry Grant Scheme and legacy schemes (including Rural Development Contracts).
The total grant money paid in Great Britain has fluctuated over recent years, with levels often dipping around the times that new grant schemes are introduced, followed by a sharp recovery. Figure 8.2 Grant money paid in Great Britain, 2003-04 to 2018-19
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government
Notes:
1. England includes grant scheme expenditure managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of Defra.
2. Wales relates to grant paid by the Welsh Government.
3. Scotland includes grants paid under the Forestry Grant Scheme and legacy schemes (including Rural Development Contracts). Chapter 9: International Forestry
Introduction
This chapter contains information about world forestry, presenting global figures by region alongside data for the UK and the EU. Topics covered include woodland area, carbon stocks, wood removals, production and apparent consumption of wood products and international trade in forest products.
The data are produced by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
All of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released by the FAO. For further details on revisions, see the International Forestry section of the Sources chapter.
Data for the European Union (EU) relate to all 28 current EU members, including the UK, for all of the years shown. Data for Europe cover 27 of the EU members (excluding Cyprus), the Russian Federation and a number of other European countries, including Norway, Switzerland, Serbia and Ukraine.
A copy of all International Forestry tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- At around 13% forest cover in 2015, the UK is one of the least densely forested countries in the European Union. This compares with 38% for the EU as a whole and 31% worldwide.
- The global forest area reduced by around 3.3 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2010 and 2015.
- Carbon stocks in forest living biomass have increased in both Europe and North & Central America between 2010 and 2015, but have decreased at a global level.
- A total of 3.8 billion m$^3$ underbark of wood was removed from global forests in 2017, of which around one half (50%) was for use as woodfuel and the remainder was industrial roundwood (for use by wood processors).
- Global production of wood products in 2017 totalled 486 million m$^3$ of sawnwood, 404 million m$^3$ of wood-based panels and 414 million tonnes of paper & paperboard.
- Europe consumed around one quarter (24%) of all sawnwood, around one fifth (20%) of the world's wood-based panels and around one fifth (22%) of all paper and paperboard in 2017.
- The UK was the second largest net importer (imports less exports) of forest products in 2017, with net imports of US $7.6 billion. The largest net importer was China. 9.1 Forest cover: international comparisons
The FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) is a collation of forest data undertaken by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) at the global level every five years.
The UK is one of the least densely forested countries in the European Union with around 13% of its total land area covered in forest in 2015 (Table 9.1, Figure 9.1). This compares with 38% for the EU as a whole and 31% worldwide. Table 9.1 Forest cover as a percentage of total land area: international comparisons, 2015
| Country | Forest area (million ha) | Total land area (million ha) | Forest as % of land area | |------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Europe** | | | | | United Kingdom | 3 | 24 | 13 | | Denmark | 1 | 4 | 14 | | Finland | 22 | 30 | 73 | | France | 17 | 55 | 31 | | Germany | 11 | 35 | 33 | | Ireland | 1 | 7 | 11 | | Italy | 9 | 29 | 32 | | Spain | 18 | 50 | 37 | | Sweden | 28 | 41 | 68 | | Other EU | 50 | 148 | 34 | | **Total EU-281** | **161** | **424** | **38** | | Russian Federation | 815 | 1 638 | 50 | | **Total Europe** | **1 015** | **2 214** | **46** | | Africa | 624 | 2 987 | 21 | | Asia | 593 | 3 118 | 19 | | North & Central America | 751 | 2 134 | 35 | | Oceania | 174 | 850 | 20 | | South America | 842 | 1 747 | 48 | | **World** | **3 999** | **13 049** | **31** |
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015.
Notes:
1. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO’s Asia region.
2. The Europe region covers 27 EU countries (excluding Cyprus), the Russian Federation and other countries, including Norway, Switzerland, Serbia and Ukraine.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 9.1 Forest cover as a percentage of total land area: Europe, 2015
Source: FAO.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.2 Forest area by country
Figure 9.2 shows the countries with the largest forest areas. Around one half (49%) of the total forest area of 3,999 million hectares in 2015 is located in four countries (the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada and the USA).
Figure 9.2 Forest area by country, 2015
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.3 Annual changes in forest area
The global forest area has reduced from around 4,128 million hectares in 1990 to 3,999 million hectares in 2015. This represents a decrease of around 7.3 million hectares (0.2%) per year between 1990 and 2000, of around 4.0 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2000 and 2010 and of around 3.3 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2010 and 2015 (Table 9.2).
The forest area has reduced in most regions since 1990, except for Europe (where the area increased in each time period) and Asia (where the area reduced between 1990 and 2000 but has increased by more between 2000 and 2015).
Table 9.2 Annual changes in forest area by region, 1990-2015
| Region | 1990-2000 | 2000-2010 | 2010-2015 | |-------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Europe | | | | | UK | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | | EU-281 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | | Total Europe | **0.1** | **0.1** | **0.0** | | Africa | -0.5 | -0.5 | -0.4 | | Asia | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.1 | | North and Central America| -0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Oceania | 0.0 | -0.3 | 0.2 | | South America | -0.4 | -0.4 | -0.2 | | World | **-0.2** | **-0.1** | **-0.1** |
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Notes:
1. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO’s Asia region.
2. UK figures for 2015 are 2013-based estimates. Revised estimates (from Chapter 1) suggest that Table 9.2 slightly under-estimates the change in forest area in the UK in the most recent time period.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
Between 2010 and 2015, the largest decrease in forest area was in Brazil (1.0 million hectares per year on average) and the largest increase was in China (1.5 million hectares per year on average) (Figure 9.3). Figure 9.3 Countries with largest changes in forest area, 2010-2015
Annual change (million hectares per year)
Brazil Indonesia Myanmar Nigeria Tanzania Paraguay Zimbabwe DR Congo Chile Australia China
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Notes:
1. Countries with changes of at least 0.3 million hectares per year only.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.4 Forest carbon stocks
Carbon stocks in forest living biomass have increased in Europe and North & Central America between 2010 and 2015, but have decreased at a global level, reflecting continuing trends since 1990 (Table 9.3).
The overall decrease has mainly been driven by declines in South America and Africa, where forest areas have decreased. Carbon stocks in biomass also declined slightly in Asia, where carbon sequestered in new plantations is not yet able to balance out carbon losses from areas of deforestation.
Table 9.3 Carbon stocks in forest living biomass by region, 1990-2015
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Europe | 41.4 | 42.5 | 43.2 | 44.4 | 45.5 | | Africa | 66.5 | 63.5 | 62.1 | 60.8 | 59.7 | | Asia | 38.1 | 37.7 | 37.2 | 36.8 | 36.3 | | North and Central America | 33.9 | 34.9 | 35.3 | 35.6 | 35.9 | | Oceania | 16.1 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 15.7 | | South America | 111.5| 107.8| 105.5| 104.0| 103.1| | World | 307.6| 302.3| 299.2| 297.6| 296.2|
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Notes:
1. A giga tonne is a thousand million tonnes (10^9 tonnes).
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 9.4 Forest carbon stock per hectare by region, 2015
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.5 Wood removals
A total of 3.8 billion m$^3$ underbark of wood was removed from global forests in 2017, of which around one half (50%) was for use as woodfuel and the remainder was industrial roundwood (for use by wood processors) (Table 9.4).
North & Central America and Europe together accounted for around three fifths (59%) of all industrial roundwood removals in 2017. Globally, removals of industrial roundwood increased by 3% between 2015 and 2017, resulting from increases in all regions.
Three quarters (74%) of woodfuel removals in 2017 took place in Asia and Africa. Globally, removals of woodfuel increased by 2% between 2015 and 2017.
Table 9.4 Wood removals by region, 1990-2017
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2017 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Industrial roundwood** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 6 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | | EU-28$^1$ | 317 | 344 | 338 | 351 | 362 | | **Total Europe** | 517 | 521 | 531 | 579 | 599 | | Africa | 61 | 71 | 72 | 75 | 74 | | Asia | 268 | 269 | 370 | 389 | 405 | | North & Central America | 595 | 632 | 485 | 516 | 523 | | Oceania | 34 | 47 | 58 | 63 | 70 | | South America | 110 | 147 | 198 | 217 | 231 | | **World** | 1 585| 1 688| 1 713| 1 840| 1 903| | **Woodfuel** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | | EU-28$^1$ | 68 | 79 | 98 | 109 | 119 | | **Total Europe** | 138 | 103 | 136 | 157 | 170 | | Africa | 445 | 551 | 643 | 679 | 693 | | Region | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |-------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Asia | 897 | 808 | 764 | 735 | 725 | | North & Central America | 162 | 129 | 129 | 136 | 153 | | Oceania | 9 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 10 | | South America | 162 | 185 | 162 | 171 | 169 | | **World** | 1 814| 1 789| 1 845| 1 889| 1 920|
**Total roundwood**
| Region | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |-------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 6 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 11 | | EU-281 | 385 | 423 | 435 | 460 | 481 | | **Total Europe** | 655 | 624 | 667 | 736 | 769 | | Africa | 506 | 623 | 715 | 754 | 767 | | Asia | 1 166| 1 077| 1 134| 1 125| 1 130| | North & Central America | 757 | 761 | 613 | 652 | 676 | | Oceania | 43 | 60 | 68 | 73 | 80 | | South America | 272 | 332 | 359 | 388 | 400 | | **World** | 3 399| 3 477| 3 557| 3 729| 3 823|
Source: FAO.
Notes:
1. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO’s Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 9.5 Wood removals by region, 2017
Source: FAO.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.6 Production of wood products
Global production of wood products in 2017 totalled 486 million m$^3$ of sawnwood, 404 million m$^3$ of woodbased panels and 414 million tonnes of paper & paperboard (Table 9.5).
Europe produced around one third (34%) of all sawnwood in 2017 (mainly in EU countries), with around one quarter (28%) in Asia and a further quarter (27%) produced in North & Central America. Overall, sawnwood production increased by 7% between 2015 and 2017, driven by increases in most regions.
Wood-based panels were more commonly produced in Asia, accounting for around three fifths (60%) of global production in 2017. Around one fifth (22%) were produced in Europe (mainly EU countries) and 12% in North & Central America. At a global level, wood-based panel production increased by 4% between 2015 and 2017, driven by increases in all regions.
Asia also accounted for almost one half (48%) of paper and paperboard production in 2017, with around one quarter (26%) in Europe and a further 21% in North & Central America. At a global level, paper and paperboard production increased by 2% between 2015 and 2017. Table 9.5 Production of wood products by region, 1990-2017
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2017 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Sawnwood (million m³)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | | EU-281 | 82 | 101 | 101 | 105 | 111 | | **Total Europe** | 149 | 130 | 139 | 150 | 165 | | Africa | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 10 | | Asia | 105 | 61 | 86 | 124 | 137 | | North and Central America | 129 | 146 | 102 | 127 | 133 | | Oceania | 6 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | | South America | 22 | 32 | 30 | 31 | 30 | | **World** | 419 | 385 | 376 | 452 | 486 | | **Wood-based panels (million m³)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | EU-281 | 36 | 52 | 57 | 59 | 64 | | **Total Europe** | 48 | 59 | 71 | 79 | 88 | | Africa | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | | Asia | 27 | 46 | 143 | 238 | 243 | | North and Central America | 44 | 61 | 42 | 48 | 50 | | Oceania | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | South America | 4 | 8 | 15 | 16 | 17 | | **World** | 126 | 178 | 275 | 387 | 404 | | **Paper & paperboard (million tonnes)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 5 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | EU-281 | 63 | 90 | 95 | 92 | 93 | | **Total Europe** | 74 | 100 | 106 | 104 | 106 | | Region | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | |------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Africa | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | | Asia | 57 | 95 | 170 | 191 | 197 | | North and Central America | 92 | 111 | 94 | 89 | 88 | | Oceania | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | South America | 8 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 16 | | **World** | **235** | **325** | **392** | **406** | **414** |
Source: FAO.
Notes:
1. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO’s Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
### 9.7 Apparent consumption of wood products
Apparent consumption (defined as production + imports - exports) of wood products around the world totalled 481 million m$^3$ sawnwood, 398 million m$^3$ wood-based panels and 413 million tonnes of paper and paperboard in 2017 (Table 9.6).
Two fifths (40%) of all sawnwood in 2017 was consumed in Asia and around one quarter each in North & Central America (26%) and in Europe (24%). Reflecting the increased production of sawnwood (see Table 9.5), apparent consumption of sawnwood increased by 8% overall between 2015 and 2017. This was driven by increases in apparent consumption in most regions.
Asia consumed around three fifths (59%) of the world's wood-based panels in 2017, around one fifth (20%) was consumed in Europe and 15% in North & Central America. Apparent consumption of wood-based panels worldwide increased by 4% between 2015 and 2017, largely resulting from increased demand in Europe.
One half (50%) of all paper and paperboard in 2017 was consumed in Asia, around one fifth (22%) in Europe and a further one fifth (21%) in North & Central America. At a global level, apparent consumption of paper and paperboard increased by 3% between 2015 and 2017. Table 9.6 Apparent consumption of wood products by region, 1990-2017
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2017 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Sawnwood (million m³)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 13 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | EU-28¹ | 96 | 100 | 90 | 89 | 95 | | **Total Europe** | 158 | 121 | 110 | 107 | 114 | | Africa | 10 | 10 | 17 | 19 | 17 | | Asia | 112 | 78 | 116 | 169 | 192 | | North and Central America | 119 | 143 | 95 | 119 | 126 | | Oceania | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | | South America | 20 | 27 | 26 | 25 | 24 | | **World** | 426 | 387 | 372 | 447 | 481 | | **Wood-based panels (million m³)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | | EU-28¹ | 40 | 51 | 53 | 56 | 63 | | **Total Europe** | 52 | 57 | 67 | 73 | 81 | | Africa | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | | Asia | 25 | 50 | 139 | 233 | 237 | | North and Central America | 44 | 64 | 48 | 56 | 60 | | Oceania | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | South America | 3 | 6 | 12 | 14 | 13 | | **World** | 127 | 181 | 272 | 382 | 398 | | **Paper & paperboard (million tonnes)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 9 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 9 | | EU-28¹ | 62 | 84 | 85 | 80 | 81 | | **Total Europe** | 71 | 90 | 95 | 91 | 92 | | Region | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | |-----------------------|----|----|----|----|----| | Africa | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | | Asia | 62 | 103| 178| 197| 206| | North and Central America | 88 | 110| 91 | 86 | 87 | | Oceania | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | | South America | 8 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 16 | | **World** | 236| 325| 391| 403| 413|
Source: FAO.
Notes:
1. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO’s Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
### 9.8 World trade in forest products
Figures 9.6 and 9.7 show the largest net importers and exporters (by value) of forest products in 2017. This covers trade in roundwood, sawnwood, wood-based panels, wood pulp and paper and paperboard, but excludes trade in secondary processed wood (e.g. furniture made from wood). Values are expressed in US dollars (the units reported in the data published by FAO).
The UK was the second largest net importer (imports less exports) of forest products in 2017, with net imports of US $7.6 billion (Figure 9.6). The largest net importer in 2017 was China (US $36.6 billion) and Japan was the third largest net importer (US $7.1 billion). Figure 9.6 Largest net importers of forest products, 2017
Source: FAO
Notes:
1. Excludes trade in secondary wood products.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. The largest net exporters (exports less imports) of forest products in 2017 were Canada (with net exports valued at US $18.5 billion), Finland (US $11.4 billion) and Sweden (US $11.0 billion) (Figure 9.7).
**Figure 9.7 Largest net exporters of forest products, 2017**
Source: FAO
Notes:
1. Excludes trade in secondary wood products.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1856-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 200,
"total-input-tokens": 436419,
"total-output-tokens": 100454,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
455,
1
],
[
455,
4023,
2
],
[
4023,
4023,
3
],
[
4023,
6187,
4
],
[
6187,
8148,
5
],
[
8148,
9822,
6
],
[
9822,
10425,
7
],
[
10425,
11655,
8
],
[
11655,
12963,
9
],
[
12963,
15069,
10
],
[
15069,
15580,
11
],
[
15580,
17691,
12
],
[
17691,
20308,
13
],
[
20308,
21826,
14
],
[
21826,
24451,
15
],
[
24451,
27257,
16
],
[
27257,
28227,
17
],
[
28227,
29046,
18
],
[
29046,
30803,
19
],
[
30803,
32300,
20
],
[
32300,
34160,
21
],
[
34160,
34943,
22
],
[
34943,
36784,
23
],
[
36784,
37997,
24
],
[
37997,
38391,
25
],
[
38391,
40165,
26
],
[
40165,
41449,
27
],
[
41449,
43289,
28
],
[
43289,
44923,
29
],
[
44923,
45594,
30
],
[
45594,
46008,
31
],
[
46008,
46604,
32
],
[
46604,
48486,
33
],
[
48486,
49745,
34
],
[
49745,
51595,
35
],
[
51595,
53191,
36
],
[
53191,
54871,
37
],
[
54871,
55218,
38
],
[
55218,
57210,
39
],
[
57210,
58673,
40
],
[
58673,
60280,
41
],
[
60280,
61700,
42
],
[
61700,
63321,
43
],
[
63321,
64188,
44
],
[
64188,
66054,
45
],
[
66054,
67584,
46
],
[
67584,
69465,
47
],
[
69465,
70190,
48
],
[
70190,
71258,
49
],
[
71258,
73082,
50
],
[
73082,
74499,
51
],
[
74499,
76820,
52
],
[
76820,
78939,
53
],
[
78939,
80319,
54
],
[
80319,
82418,
55
],
[
82418,
83887,
56
],
[
83887,
85047,
57
],
[
85047,
86190,
58
],
[
86190,
88154,
59
],
[
88154,
91043,
60
],
[
91043,
93206,
61
],
[
93206,
94834,
62
],
[
94834,
96499,
63
],
[
96499,
98567,
64
],
[
98567,
99481,
65
],
[
99481,
101484,
66
],
[
101484,
102904,
67
],
[
102904,
104662,
68
],
[
104662,
106388,
69
],
[
106388,
106492,
70
],
[
106492,
108244,
71
],
[
108244,
108602,
72
],
[
108602,
110208,
73
],
[
110208,
112559,
74
],
[
112559,
114279,
75
],
[
114279,
115512,
76
],
[
115512,
116514,
77
],
[
116514,
118156,
78
],
[
118156,
119501,
79
],
[
119501,
121190,
80
],
[
121190,
122791,
81
],
[
122791,
124668,
82
],
[
124668,
126106,
83
],
[
126106,
127734,
84
],
[
127734,
129100,
85
],
[
129100,
131225,
86
],
[
131225,
132740,
87
],
[
132740,
134521,
88
],
[
134521,
136584,
89
],
[
136584,
138270,
90
],
[
138270,
138339,
91
],
[
138339,
140571,
92
],
[
140571,
142273,
93
],
[
142273,
143285,
94
],
[
143285,
144586,
95
],
[
144586,
144735,
96
],
[
144735,
146133,
97
],
[
146133,
148052,
98
],
[
148052,
149705,
99
],
[
149705,
151355,
100
],
[
151355,
152904,
101
],
[
152904,
154401,
102
],
[
154401,
157586,
103
],
[
157586,
159579,
104
],
[
159579,
160428,
105
],
[
160428,
161239,
106
],
[
161239,
163264,
107
],
[
163264,
164421,
108
],
[
164421,
165244,
109
],
[
165244,
166321,
110
],
[
166321,
167444,
111
],
[
167444,
168691,
112
],
[
168691,
169910,
113
],
[
169910,
170301,
114
],
[
170301,
170859,
115
],
[
170859,
172974,
116
],
[
172974,
174410,
117
],
[
174410,
175885,
118
],
[
175885,
177059,
119
],
[
177059,
178350,
120
],
[
178350,
179543,
121
],
[
179543,
181040,
122
],
[
181040,
182228,
123
],
[
182228,
183616,
124
],
[
183616,
184804,
125
],
[
184804,
186085,
126
],
[
186085,
189903,
127
],
[
189903,
190757,
128
],
[
190757,
192276,
129
],
[
192276,
192792,
130
],
[
192792,
194321,
131
],
[
194321,
195875,
132
],
[
195875,
198223,
133
],
[
198223,
200687,
134
],
[
200687,
202710,
135
],
[
202710,
204053,
136
],
[
204053,
205321,
137
],
[
205321,
206689,
138
],
[
206689,
208578,
139
],
[
208578,
210421,
140
],
[
210421,
210780,
141
],
[
210780,
211851,
142
],
[
211851,
213594,
143
],
[
213594,
215070,
144
],
[
215070,
216903,
145
],
[
216903,
217904,
146
],
[
217904,
219929,
147
],
[
219929,
220663,
148
],
[
220663,
222488,
149
],
[
222488,
224538,
150
],
[
224538,
225983,
151
],
[
225983,
227965,
152
],
[
227965,
230165,
153
],
[
230165,
232384,
154
],
[
232384,
233222,
155
],
[
233222,
234849,
156
],
[
234849,
237038,
157
],
[
237038,
239151,
158
],
[
239151,
241256,
159
],
[
241256,
242105,
160
],
[
242105,
242924,
161
],
[
242924,
244120,
162
],
[
244120,
246584,
163
],
[
246584,
248531,
164
],
[
248531,
253188,
165
],
[
253188,
253684,
166
],
[
253684,
256178,
167
],
[
256178,
258193,
168
],
[
258193,
259559,
169
],
[
259559,
260442,
170
],
[
260442,
262378,
171
],
[
262378,
264929,
172
],
[
264929,
265821,
173
],
[
265821,
268097,
174
],
[
268097,
270264,
175
],
[
270264,
271896,
176
],
[
271896,
273911,
177
],
[
273911,
274995,
178
],
[
274995,
276797,
179
],
[
276797,
277217,
180
],
[
277217,
278444,
181
],
[
278444,
279661,
182
],
[
279661,
280127,
183
],
[
280127,
282957,
184
],
[
282957,
283154,
185
],
[
283154,
283613,
186
],
[
283613,
285725,
187
],
[
285725,
286173,
188
],
[
286173,
287625,
189
],
[
287625,
287848,
190
],
[
287848,
289859,
191
],
[
289859,
291281,
192
],
[
291281,
291446,
193
],
[
291446,
292577,
194
],
[
292577,
294653,
195
],
[
294653,
296594,
196
],
[
296594,
298680,
197
],
[
298680,
299974,
198
],
[
299974,
300209,
199
],
[
300209,
300654,
200
]
]
} |
8a15fbafb69807d1e95602e7c60579e82533f9ae | Dear Colleague
**Compliance with Consumer law**
As you may be aware, ORR recently wrote to train operators concerning compliance with condition 4 of their licence regarding information to passengers. The licence imposes obligations on train operators to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to allow passengers to plan and make their journeys with a reasonable degree of assurance, including when there is disruption. These letters have been published(^1) on the ORR website.
ORR is also a designated enforcer under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002, and our powers cover rail passengers and the companies from whom they purchase services. Our powers enable us to stop breaches of consumer protection laws where there has been an adverse impact on passengers. A key set of rules are The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). These prohibit unfair, misleading, and aggressive commercial practices.
**It is important to note that obligations under the CPR’s apply not only to train operating companies but also to companies who are third-party retailers of tickets.**
We recognise the recent difficulties faced by the rail industry in providing accurate information to passengers to enable them to make informed decisions about their journeys. However, it is important that all parties, including third-party retailers, ensure that they are providing consumers with the information that is material to their decision for example, to buy a ticket or exercise their rights, and to do so in a way that is clear, unambiguous, and timely.
(^1) [http://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0020/27047/licence-condition-4-letter-to-toc-managing-directors-2018-02-23.pdf](http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/27047/licence-condition-4-letter-to-toc-managing-directors-2018-02-23.pdf) In our letter to train operators we set out three broad principles for providing information to passengers. We have set these out below, amended as appropriate for third-party retailers:
1. Third-party retailers should be open about the impact on all passengers of the challenges they face, and take responsibility for ensuring that their customers can get the information they need to plan and purchase tickets for their journey as that information comes available.
2. Clear information on the availability of advance tickets, what is available and when, is necessary to help passengers plan journeys even when the timetable is uncertain.
3. Timetable information should be correct as far ahead as possible, and where timetables are not confirmed information about their current status should be accurate and updated frequently.
You may wish to have regard to these as we consider these principles should help you meet obligations under the CPRs in relation to tickets third-party retailers sell and the services they provide, and avoid passengers being misled.
We will publish this letter on our website.
If you would like to discuss any of the information set out in this letter please let me know.
Yours sincerely
Stephanie Tobyn
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1857-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4754,
"total-output-tokens": 721,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1833,
1
],
[
1833,
3074,
2
]
]
} |
aeb86016dd7d67f21f2fed80cd097b3187a4f9ae | VALIDATED COMPONENT SUMMARY
Name: Apache mod_rewrite module Version: Versions 1.3.41; 2.0.63; 2.2.11 Validation Completed: 28th March 2009 Validation Facility: Enex Testlab
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT COMPONENT VALIDATION
The National Archives is a government department and an executive agency under the Secretary of State for Justice, which has statutory and policy responsibility for Knowledge and Information Management (IM) for public sector information. It therefore sets standards and supports innovation on information management across the UK, in order to ensure the survival of records in whichever form they are created, be it paper or digital, and provides practical frameworks of best practice for use of public sector information.
In recognition that almost all the information created in government is now electronic, but that there is a risk that information risks becoming inaccessible as technologies and organisations change, the National Archives has been leading work on digital preservation as acknowledged in the Transformational Government Implementation Plan.
The National Archives has therefore generated a technical framework for Information Persistence for government departments and the public sector, to ensure the long term survivability of records from any systems, and guard against compromises of Integrity and Availability.
As part of this framework, a formalised system of validation of technical components has been established, to provide Stakeholders with confidence that such technologies have been independently reviewed for fitness for purpose.
COMPONENT OVERVIEW
Mod_Rewrite is a standard module packaged with the open source Apache web server available from Apache (http://www.apache.org). The module has been identified by the Stationery Office in response to a request from the National Archives to provide software that can help government departments manage URL persistence.
Mod_Rewrite is installed on Apache web server platforms to enable URL rewriting and redirection functionality to Apache. Apache server can be installed on both Microsoft and Linux server platforms to provide URL rewriting and redirection. VALIDATION DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO
The component is expected to be deployed on web servers across central government departments. This may include servers owned and managed directly by the departments, servers managed by IT suppliers, or servers set up under arrangements such as co-location and virtual hosting.
There are expected to be one or more competent individuals in each implementing department (or their suppliers) assigned to manage the implementation of the product, and the initial and ongoing configuration of the implementation rules. Those personnel are not careless, willfully negligent, nor hostile.
The environment is expected to include a set of Pragmatic, Appropriate and Cost Effective (PACE) controls, in terms of a balanced set of Personnel, Physical, Procedural and Technical (P³T) measures, to mitigate the Risks arising from the various Vectors (e.g. unauthorised access, physical damage, information release and malicious software) from various types of Adversity (e.g. directed Threats, such as Attacks, and collateral Hazards, such as extreme climatological events).
VALIDATION ENVIRONMENT
Although the Component will run on various platforms, the Claims made here relate only to the Apache versions listed above running on Windows Server 2003 (SR2 with SP2) and Red Hat Linux Enterprise version 5. CONTROLS PROVIDED
The component provides support for the technical controls listed below, provided the deployment is commensurate with the assumptions, and that the overall organisational policies are supportive. Use of the product alone should not be taken to infer in any way compliance with the listed standard.
| Control Title | Control Details | Standards Cross Reference | |----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Inventory of Assets | All assets shall be clearly identified and an inventory of all important assets drawn up and maintained. | ISO/IEC 27001 A7.1.1 | | Information back-up | Back-up copies of information and software shall be taken and tested regularly in accordance with the agreed backup policy. | ISO/IEC 27001 A.10.5.1 | | Information Exchange | System shall only release information (eye readable or non eye readable) to authorised person(s) | ISO/IEC 27001 A.10.8 | | Protection of organizational records | Important records shall be protected from loss, destruction and falsification, in accordance with statutory, regulatory, contractual, and business requirements. | ISO/IEC 27001 A.15.1.3 |
VALIDATED CLAIMS
The following specific functionality has been successfully tested in the environment and usage scenario as described above:
| Ref | Claims Statements | |------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | AMW 01 | The module uses .htaccess files in which URL rewriting and redirection rules can be programmed by users. | | AMW 02 | The module can be programmed to rewrite or redirect one or more individual URLs, and/or all URLs matching one or more specified patterns, using the PCRE syntax. Different rewrite/redirection behaviours can be specified for each URL or group of URLs affected. Redirection rules can both include and exclude URLs from rewriting or redirection. | | AMW 03 | Redirection configuration .htaccess files cannot be modified or adversely affected through use of malicious URL injection methods. | | AMW 04 | When using "RewriteRule" entries to specify URL patterns for redirection, the module functions with URL and query string lengths within the limits supported by the server software. | | AMW 05 | On multi-site Apache installations, the component can be installed either for all sites collectively, or for one or more sites individually. | | AMW 06 | The module makes no modification to the content of the page, only to the URL. | | AMW 07 | Rewrite activity can be logged to files on a directory specified by the user if necessary. | desired. This does not affect the main Apache logging.
AMW 08 The module has support for Unicode, URL characters, and UK and foreign language content in use on central government websites, based on redirection rules written in the English language.
AMW 09 Installation of the module introduces no known malicious software into the system.
AMW 10 The module makes no alteration to the original case of the URL unless specifically programmed to do so in the htaccess files.
AMW 11 The module communicates directly only with the web server(s) on which it is installed and attempts no direct communication with external systems.
PUBLICLY KNOWN VULNERABILITIES
The following publicly listed vulnerabilities from the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database and/or the (US) National Vulnerability Database (NVD) were found to apply to this Component at the time of testing. Treatment is available for all to mitigate their effects.
| ID | Summary | Treatment | |---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | CVE-2007-0450 | Directory traversal vulnerability | If using Tomcat, ensure Version 5.x is greater than 5.5.52 and Version 6.x is greater than 6.0.10 | | CVE-2006-3747 | Off-by-one error in the ldap scheme handling in the Rewrite module (mod_rewrite) | Ensure Apache httpd is at least v2.2.3 for 2.2.x fork, v2.0.59 for 2.0.x fork and 1.3.37 for 1.3.x fork | | CVE-2003-0542 | Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in (1) mod_alias and (2) mod_rewrite for Apache | Ensure Apache httpd is at least v2.0.48 for 2.0.x fork and 1.3.29 for 1.3.x fork | | CVE-2001-1072 | Apache with mod_rewrite enabled on most UNIX systems allows remote attackers to bypass RewriteRules | Ensure RewriteRule directives are written correctly so that the rules will capture more than one slash | | CVE-2000-1206 | Vulnerability in Apache allows remote attackers to retrieve arbitrary files. | Ensure Apache httpd is at least 1.3.11 for 1.3.x fork | | CVE-2000-0913 | mod_rewrite in Apache allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files. | Ensure Apache httpd is at least 1.3.12 for 1.3.x fork | OPERATIONAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Although the component will run on various other platforms, the Claims validated here relate only to the versions specified.
In deploying and operating the Component, it is assumed that Information Assurance (IA) risk assessment to either system and/or the data it is envisaged to handle attracts no higher baseline requirement than that derived from the UK National Annual Threat Assessment (ATA) and the UK National Strategic Risk Assessment (NSRA) / National Risk Planning Assumptions (NRPA).
It is furthermore assumed that the risk management measures already put in place for corporate infrastructure(s) on which the Component is deployed have mitigated any increased differential risk factors to a level commensurate with the application of baseline measures.
When installing the Component on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.3 from the specified source code packages, the user must specifically enable mod_rewrite during the source code compilation process, and check that the correct installation of mod_rewrite has occurred thereafter. COMPONENT STATEMENT OF APPLICABILITY
The Component described in this document has been independently assessed by the listed Validation Facility, which is a Test Laboratory approved by the UK Accreditation Scheme (UKAS) under ISO/IEC 17025:2005 “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories”.
This Claims made for the Component, and the Testing, have been subjected to scrutiny by a Technical Authority within the National Archives, in their capacity as the government department having statutory and policy responsibility for Knowledge and Information Management (IM) of public sector information.
It has been concluded that, when installed, configured and operated correctly, as described in associated documentation and herein, this Component is suitable for performing the Claimed functionality in support of public sector IM activities, subject to the operational and risk management considerations noted herein.
The information has been provided in good faith, and is based on the component version and usage scenario(s) as detailed in this document. This information is not therefore designed for any particular implementation, and we therefore cannot guarantee accuracy or relevance for any specific purpose. The Validation Testing is not a guarantee of freedom from security vulnerabilities. There remains a probability that exploitable security vulnerabilities may exist in any Product or IA Service, or the IS environment supporting such a Product or Service.
We do not accept responsibility for any information omitted, or errors in this information. We do not have any responsibility for the accuracy, availability, completeness or usefulness of any of the information provided.
No other terms, conditions, representations or warranties will apply.
References we make to any specific product, process or service by trade name, trademark manufacturer, or otherwise, or linking to other websites or material are not endorsements or recommendations.
The views and opinions of the National Archives shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. This information is for official purposes, and the contents may not be used for commercial purposes.
Approved By
Name: Ian Bryant Role: IMCV Technical Authority Signature: Ian Bryant Date: 27th April 2009
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1858-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 12769,
"total-output-tokens": 2672,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2166,
1
],
[
2166,
3496,
2
],
[
3496,
6701,
3
],
[
6701,
9094,
4
],
[
9094,
10184,
5
],
[
10184,
12507,
6
]
]
} |
844a99bb419842093a8f3d0fb100f83818e75535 | VALIDATED COMPONENT SUMMARY
Name: Ionics Isapi Rewrite Filter (IIRF) Version: Version v1.2.15 Validation Completed: 29th March 2009 Validation Facility: Enex Testlab
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT COMPONENT VALIDATION
The National Archives is a government department and an executive agency under the Secretary of State for Justice, which has statutory and policy responsibility for Knowledge and Information Management (IM) for public sector information. It therefore sets standards and supports innovation on information management across the UK, in order to ensure the survival of records in whichever form they are created, be it paper or digital, and provides practical frameworks of best practice for use of public sector information.
In recognition that almost all the information created in government is now electronic, but that there is a risk that information risks becoming inaccessible as technologies and organisations change, the National Archives has been leading work on digital preservation as acknowledged in the Transformational Government Implementation Plan.
The National Archives has therefore generated a technical framework for Information Persistence for government departments and the public sector, to ensure the long term survivability of records from any systems, and guard against compromises of Integrity and Availability.
As part of this framework, a formalised system of validation of technical components has been established, to provide Stakeholders with confidence that such technologies have been independently reviewed for fitness for purpose.
COMPONENT OVERVIEW
IIRF (Ionics Isapi Rewrite Filter) is a free software tool available from Codeplex (http://www.codeplex.com/IIRF). The tool has been sourced by the Stationery Office (TSO) in order to provide software that can help government departments manage URL persistence.
IIRF is installed on Microsoft web server platforms to add URL rewriting and redirection functionality to IIS, which does not provide this functionality natively. VALIDATION DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO
The component is expected to be deployed on Microsoft web servers across central government departments. This may include servers owned and managed directly by the departments, servers managed by IT suppliers, or servers set up under arrangements such as co-location and virtual hosting.
There are expected to be one or more competent individuals in each implementing department (or their suppliers) assigned to manage the implementation of the product, and the initial and ongoing configuration of the implementation rules. Those personnel are not careless, willfully negligent, nor hostile.
The environment is expected to include a set of Pragmatic, Appropriate and Cost Effective (PACE) controls, in terms of a balanced set of Personnel, Physical, Procedural and Technical (P³T) measures, to mitigate the Risks arising from the various Vectors (e.g. unauthorised access, physical damage, information release and malicious software) from various types of Adversity (e.g. directed Threats, such as Attacks, and collateral Hazards, such as extreme climatological events).
VALIDATION ENVIRONMENT
The Component has been tested Windows Server 2003 (including R2) with IIS6 and Windows Vista SP1 with IIS7. CONTROLS PROVIDED
The component provides support for the technical controls listed below, provided the deployment is commensurate with the assumptions, and that the overall organisational policies are supportive. Use of the product alone should not be taken to infer in any way compliance with the listed standard.
| Control Title | Control Details | Standards Cross Reference | |----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Inventory of Assets | All assets shall be clearly identified and an inventory of all important assets drawn up and maintained. | ISO/IEC 27001 A7.1.1 | | Information back-up | Back-up copies of information and software shall be taken and tested regularly in accordance with the agreed backup policy. | ISO/IEC 27001 A.10.5.1 | | Information Exchange | System shall only release information (eye readable or non eye readable) to authorised person(s) | ISO/IEC 27001 A.10.8 | | Protection of organizational records | Important records shall be protected from loss, destruction and falsification, in accordance with statutory, regulatory, contractual, and business requirements. | ISO/IEC 27001 A.15.1.3 |
VALIDATED CLAIMS
The following specific functionality has been successfully tested in the environment and usage scenario as described above:
| Ref | Claims Statements | |------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | IIRF01 | The component uses an ini file in which URL rewriting and redirection rules can be programmed by users. | | IIRF 02 | The component can be programmed to rewrite or redirect one or more individual URLs, and/or all URLs matching one or more specified patterns, using the PCRE syntax. Different rewrite/redirection behaviours can be specified for each URL or group of URLs affected. Redirection rules can both include and exclude URLs from rewriting or redirection. | | IIRF 03 | Redirection configuration INI files cannot be modified or adversely affected through use of malicious URL injection methods. | | IIRF 04 | When using “RedirectRule” OR “RewriteRule” entries to specify URL patterns for redirection, the component functions with URL and query string lengths within the limits supported by the server software. | | IIRF 05 | On multi-site IIS installations, the component can be installed either for all sites | collectively, or for one or more sites individually.
IIRF 06 The redirection component makes no modification to the content of the page, only to the URL.
IIRF 07 Rewrite activity can be logged to files on a directory specified by the user if desired. This does not affect the main IIS logging.
IIRF 08 The component has support for Unicode, URL characters, and UK and foreign language content in use on central government websites, based on redirection rules written in the English language.
IIRF 09 Installation of product introduces no known malicious software into the system.
IIRF 10 The component makes no alteration to the original case of the URL unless specifically programmed to do so in the ini file.
IIRF 11 The tool communicates directly only with the web server(s) on which it is installed and attempts no direct communication with external systems.
PUBLICLY KNOWN VULNERABILITIES
No publicly listed vulnerabilities from either the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database or the (US) National Vulnerability Database (NVD) were found to apply to this component at the time of testing.
OPERATIONAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Although the component will run on various other Windows and IIS platforms, the Claims validated here relate only to the versions specified.
In deploying and operating the Component, it is assumed that Information Assurance (IA) risk assessment to either system and/or the data it is envisaged to handle attracts no higher baseline requirement than that derived from the UK National Annual Threat Assessment (ATA) and the UK National Strategic Risk Assessment (NSRA) / National Risk Planning Assumptions (NRPA).
It is furthermore assumed that the risk management measures already put in place for corporate infrastructure(s) on which the Component is deployed have mitigated any increased differential risk factors to a level commensurate with the application of baseline measures. COMPONENT STATEMENT OF APPLICABILITY
The Component described in this document has been independently assessed by the listed Validation Facility, which is a Test Laboratory approved by the UK Accreditation Scheme (UKAS) under ISO/IEC 17025:2005 “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories”.
This Claims made for the Component, and the Testing, have been subjected to scrutiny by a Technical Authority within the National Archives, in their capacity as the government department having statutory and policy responsibility for Knowledge and Information Management (IM) of public sector information.
It has been concluded that, when installed, configured and operated correctly, as described in associated documentation and herein, this Component is suitable for performing the Claimed functionality in support of public sector IM activities, subject to the operational and risk management considerations noted herein.
The information has been provided in good faith, and is based on the component version and usage scenario(s) as detailed in this document. This information is not therefore designed for any particular implementation, and we therefore cannot guarantee accuracy or relevance for any specific purpose. The Validation Testing is not a guarantee of freedom from security vulnerabilities. There remains a probability that exploitable security vulnerabilities may exist in any Product or IA Service, or the IS environment supporting such a Product or Service.
We do not accept responsibility for any information omitted, or errors in this information. We do not have any responsibility for the accuracy, availability, completeness or usefulness of any of the information provided.
No other terms, conditions, representations or warranties will apply.
References we make to any specific product, process or service by trade name, trademark manufacturer, or otherwise, or linking to other websites or material are not endorsements or recommendations.
The views and opinions of the National Archives shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. This information is for official purposes, and the contents may not be used for commercial purposes.
Approved By
Name: Ian Bryant Role: IMCV Technical Authority Signature: Ian Bryant Date: 27th April 2009
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1859-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 10365,
"total-output-tokens": 2178,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2028,
1
],
[
2028,
3267,
2
],
[
3267,
5927,
3
],
[
5927,
7877,
4
],
[
7877,
10200,
5
]
]
} |
4530ecf2232b42c192e7ee1f7e5d56e36a4909ba | Minute of meeting
100% Business Rates Retention Systems Design Working Group (6th meeting)
Friday 2 September 2016 10.30 – 12.30 DCLG, 2 Marsham Street
1. The chair began the meeting by requesting comments on the minutes for the previous meeting: – At paragraph 3, DCLG confirmed that sufficient legislative power does currently exist to adjust the multiplier year on year. – At paragraph 7, the group clarified that while they were strongly in favour of the partial reset option presented, they were not necessarily strongly in favour of the illustrative 50% retained growth figure within that modelling – this would depend on future work. – At paragraph 8, it was confirmed that the VOA’s online platform for Check, Challenge, Appeal would be ready for April 2017. – The update paper for the Steering Group (scheduled for 7 September) would include an update on the group’s views on the VOA’s performance.
2. The first paper, a read out from the local authority away-day on 17 August, was introduced. Topics with significant discussion included: – The desire for better performance and better information from the VOA, particularly on appeals backdated to the beginning of the rating list, and it was suggested that areas could pilot alternative arrangements. The VOA explained that Check, Challenge, Appeal, to be introduced in 2017, was designed to address the volume of appeals, with the aim of resolving these earlier. In part this would be through requiring more information from agents at the beginning of the process, which, it was hoped, would reduce speculative appeals. The VOA did not have data to hand on the number of appeals outstanding against the 2010 list from hereditaments in London, and so could not substantiate the discussion in the paper. ACTION: The VOA were to explore whether data could be shared that substantiated the paper. DCLG stated that the performance of the VOA was not in the remit of the Systems Design Working Group, and that piloting arrangements were not within DCLG’s power, as HMRC (through the VOA) were responsible for the valuation function. The group were encouraged to look at the Check, Challenge, Appeal regulatory package as a whole. – The paper argued that, in hindsight, the business rates multiplier had been set too low, as seen by the number of subsequent appeals, and that local government would advise taking this into account when setting the new multiplier, or building in recompense from central government. DCLG confirmed that ministers would be advised of the losses against the previous list when setting the new multiplier. The Government would publish a note on the decision in due course.
**ACTION:** The VOA would look into aggregated appeals data and what might be able to be shared.
- The paper was in favour of partial resets and some form of damping arrangement. It also favoured harmonising resets with revaluations. DCLG stressed that the practical implications of the proposed harmonisation would need to be explored.
- Other topics raised in the paper included: the safety net and the possibility of an insurance style scheme (to be discussed at a future meeting), local government discretion on reliefs (where it was suggested that the group raise this issues in their responses to the current consultation on 100% business rates retention).
- Finally, members of the group noted that paragraph ‘u’ of the summarised ‘key asks’, which discusses revaluation growth, should in fact state that the group had not reached agreement. Paragraphs 83-5 represent the agreed position.
3. The second paper on **Resets** was introduced. The group discussed:
- Full growth resets should not be built into the new system, but that a mechanism to run a ‘full reset’ of the system should exist should significant outliers become apparent.
- While a growth incentive was desirable, it was of primary importance that local authorities had the certainty of funding for service delivery.
- The group was split on whether the growth retained within a 5 year reset period would constitute an acceptable growth incentive. It was also suggested that the scheme have built in growth incentives beyond redistributive policies.
- The group were not in favour of any significant cliff edges in local authorities’ income at any reset of growth or need, but were also cautious of any transitional or damping measures. Modelling of any scheme was desired, but concerns were that this would add a significant level of complexity and potentially introduce perverse incentives.
4. The third paper on **Local tax flexibilities** was introduced, and it was noted that this has separately been discussed by the Accounting & Accountability workstream. Points raised included:
- The complexity around any prior year adjustments that might need to be made by individual local authorities and the ability to track these against a baseline, where it was envisaged that a ‘base’ or ‘core’ multiplier would have to be established.
- Regarding the infrastructure levy (and the question at paragraph 11 in the paper), there was collective concern about the query about whether proposals for an infrastructure could not be taken forward until all relevant planning permissions had been granted for the project to which the levy related. It was felt that this would not be feasible for many large, complicated projects, such as those related to HS2.
– The group were also sceptical of the paper’s proposal (at paragraph 12) that, in cases where multiple LEPs whose jurisdictions overlap but are not coterminous with the Combined Authority, the approval of each LEP should be required. It was noted that often a significant proportion of a LEP could be in a separate geographical (and local authority) area than the area (and local authority) in which the planning permission was being sought.
– There was no strong view as to what definition of infrastructure might be preferable.
5. The local government paper on Tier splits (including experiences under the 50% Business Rates Retention System and issues for the new system) was introduced. This paper was the result of ongoing work between representative organisations of country and district authorities.
– It was noted that the 80:20 (upper:lower) tier split under the current system was partly designed to ensure income stability for upper tier authorities that provide adult social care.
– The group discussed the prospect of the sector determining how to set the tier split in each county level area, and thus how to share growth and risk. It was suggested that if areas could not agree, then no growth would be retained by the authorities. Or, if areas could not agree, then a fall back position would be activated (though it was noted that this might undermine the negotiating process).
– DCLG welcomed the discussions, and noted that any firm proposal may need to be substantiated in time to be included in the planned autumn technical consultation on the 100% business rates retention system.
6. The final paper on the Central List was discussed briefly, though discussion would continue at a future meeting.
– The paper outlined an approach that would ensure the Central List remained an administrative tool to deal with the billing of hereditaments that did not naturally sit on a local ratings list.
– It was suggested that, in the light of the current work on the Central List, ministers could consider a moratorium adjudicating on Central List requests.
– The group were encouraged to continue the discussion by email.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3862-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 7338,
"total-output-tokens": 1684,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2379,
1
],
[
2379,
5244,
2
],
[
5244,
7572,
3
]
]
} |
0b048a6b56574df06de3094b86be5ee3bebc3fcc | Summary Note – Meeting of Responsibilities Working Group
Title: Responsibilities Working Group Date: Tuesday 3 May 2016 Venue: Local Government House, Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ
Attendance An attendance list is attached as Annex A to this note.
1. Welcome and Introductions
1.1 The Chair welcomed attendees to the inaugural meeting of the Responsibilities Working Group, one of three working groups (alongside those on needs and redistribution and on system design) that will inform development of the policy on the 100% rates retention reform. All of the working groups would sit under the umbrella of the Steering Group.
1.2 The government is keen for the sector to feed in a clear set of ideas on how this reform should go ahead. The purpose of this group will be to provide advice to the steering group on the devolution of responsibilities that should accompany the reforms. A round of introductions followed.
2. Terms of Reference (RWG1/01)
2.1 The Chair asked attendees for their comments on the proposed draft Terms of Reference.
2.2 The following points were made in discussion:
- The group agreed that its role is to develop options for the devolution of responsibilities and funding and provide advice to the steering group on a package or packages for devolution. • There was agreement that the group’s purpose is to develop options for the devolution of responsibilities and funding, and to provide advice on a package or packages that should be devolved to local government in implementing 100% rates retention.
• The group’s Terms of Reference should reflect the need to consider ‘future proofing’ in our work, and to be clearer about the outputs from our group.
• The group recognised that membership may need to change over time as the reforms move from initial policy development to detailed consideration of implementation of responsibilities. At later stages the group may wish to invite subject matter experts to join the group, or to revisit group membership to ensure the right expertise is around the table.
• Minor drafting amendments to the text were agreed to reflect comments about future proofing in our work, and to be clearer about our outputs.
2.3 An updated terms of reference will be circulated ahead of the next working group meeting.
3. Criteria for devolution (RWG/02)
3.1 The group considered a paper seeking views on draft criteria to guide considerations about what should be devolved. The group agreed it would be useful to develop and use such criteria and made the following points in discussion:
• Criteria should be used as guiding principles, not an absolute test.
• Potential candidates for devolution would not be expected to meet all of the criteria.
• The criteria should clearly distinguish two sets of considerations: whether activities currently funded by existing grants to local government should be funded in future from retained business rates, and those about new responsibilities for local government.
• It is difficult at this stage to accurately capture all of the relevant considerations and develop a correct set of criteria. We should not therefore, limit our consideration to these criteria alone, nor should they be set in stone.
• The criteria should be kept under review, reflecting the difficulty mentioned above, and should be amended if other relevant considerations are identified.
3.2 The criteria will be refined to reflect the points made above, as well as several minor drafting changes suggested, then circulated for consideration at the next meeting. 4. Quantum (RWG1/03)
4.1 Jonathan Dallaston took the group through an early draft of a paper to the Steering Group about the potential quantum of business rates that would be available at implementation. In order for the reforms to be fiscally neutral, this amount would need to be accompanied by the phasing out of grants or devolution of new responsibilities to local government as set out in the Government’s announcement.
4.2 The group recognised that the uncertainty of business rates forecasts, alongside choices being considered by other working groups (e.g. system design), will impact on the quantum of business rates available at implementation. We will want to keep in close touch with decisions taken by other working groups in the programme to understand the impact on the quantum – particularly the systems design group. Papers for all working groups will be published on line, therefore if group members felt there are issues being discussed in another group that impact on this group it could be raised in the meetings.
4.3 In the light of this uncertainty it was agreed that our approach to identifying candidates for devolution should not aim to reach a specific target number, but that we should instead identify a ‘menu’ of potential candidates for devolution on which the Government should consult. That ‘menu’ should total in excess of the upper range of the forecast on 2020 quantum which will give flexibility to accommodate the inevitable fluctuations in the figure between now and implementation.
4.4 The group agreed to a standing agenda item on quantum at each of our meetings to ensure we are working within the latest range.
5. Potential candidates (RWG1/04)
5.1 The group considered an initial list of all the ideas that had been received either by LGA or DCLG so far for consideration. The list held no particular status, nor had any consideration been given to individual items on the list. The Chair asked the group for views on whether there were issues not listed which should be considered, and for views on how we should tackle consideration of each issue.
5.2 The group had a wide ranging initial discussion on the list and the wider considerations it raised, including the following points: • This should not be a mathematical exercise to reach a number, but instead should be the right fit for local government in terms of devolution.
• Pressures on existing services should not be forgotten in considering new responsibilities.
• Funding distribution is an important issue. For each funding stream there will need to be consideration of distribution and need. Similarly, the role of incentivises in the new system should be considered to ensure they do not conflict with appropriate with funding new responsibilities, at both national and local level
• Subsequent discussions will need to bear in mind the diverse range of interests within the group – there may be different preferred solutions and consideration should be given to not putting pressure on particular authorities.
• There should be transparency around what is being devolved, and flexibility at local level will be a key consideration.
• Need to recognise lead in times when considering implementation.
• The group requested additional background information on the central government grants included in the initial list, including departmental ownership and the activity funded.
5.3 The group agreed to revisit the list of potential candidates at the next meeting. Papers for discussion will be circulated for the next meeting.
6. Future workplan and AOB
6.1 The group’s terms of reference, including its role within business rates reform and relationship with other working groups, was discussed within the first two agenda items.
6.2 The group agreed to meet again in May, following the Steering group, and continue consideration of potential candidates for devolution. Several members requested that a date be confirmed as soon as possible to assist in scheduling.
## Annex A – Attendance List (3 May 2016)
| Member | Organisation | Attendance | |-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | Bevis Ingram | Local Government Association (LGA) | Present | | Mark Johnson | Local Government Association (LGA) | Present | | Anthony May | County Councils’ Network (CCN) | Apologies | | Allen Graham | District Councils’ Network (DCN) | Apologies | | Barry Hastie | Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities (SIGOMA) | Present | | Leigh Whitehouse | Association of Local Authority Treasurers’ Societies (ALATS) - SLT | Present | | Nikki Bishop | Association of Local Authority Treasurers’ Societies (ALATS) - SMT | Present | | Joanna Walker | Association of Local Authority Treasurers’ Societies (ALATS) - SCT | Present | | Steve Richardson | Association of Local Authority Treasurers’ Societies (ALATS) - SDCT | Present | | Sean Clark | Association of Local Authority Treasurers’ Societies (ALATS) - SUT | Alan Cross | | Joanne Pitt | Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting (CIPFA) | Present | | Alistair Townsend | Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation (IRRV) | Present | | Jeremy Skinner | Greater London Authority | Present | | Paul Honeyben | London Councils | Present | | Victoria Jones | Department for Communities and Local Government | Present | | Richard Enderby | Department for Communities and Local Government | Apologies | | Jonathan Dallaston| Department for Communities and Local Government | Present |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3863-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 10530,
"total-output-tokens": 2094,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1289,
1
],
[
1289,
3554,
2
],
[
3554,
5792,
3
],
[
5792,
7548,
4
],
[
7548,
9753,
5
]
]
} |
6f4cac44c60bd084166ebec75dab14a466b44be5 | Note of Business Rates Retention Accounting and Accountability Technical Group meeting
Title: Business Rates Retention Accounting and Accountability Working Group meeting Date: Friday 31 May 2016 Venue: 2 Marsham Street, SW1P 4DF
Attendance An attendance list is attached as Appendix A to this note.
| Item | Decisions and actions | |------|-----------------------| | 1 | Terms of Reference |
The Chair, Gareth Caller (Financial Accountant & Lead on LA Capital Borrowing and Reserves, DCLG) welcomed attendees to the first meeting of the Business Rates Retention Accounting and Accountability Group and asked for their comments on the Terms of Reference. The Group raised the following points:
- It is necessary to define what the terms accounting and accountability before discussing the terms of reference. While it is clear what it means by accounting, there should be more clarity on accountability.
- Gareth Caller (DCLG) highlighted that there are two distinct areas that the group must consider in terms of accountability;
1. Central Government accountability - with specific reference to Parliament insisting that Government Departments are ultimately responsible for certain areas of which local government spends on their behalf.
2. The Local Accountability framework and whether it is necessary for this to be modified or revised as a consequence of Business Rate reform.
- The Group considered whether Government Departments should be represented on the Group. Gareth Caller highlighted that there was a separate group with government department representatives also considering the issues. In future the Groups would combine to consider the issues together.
- Business Rates Retention needs to be more than fiscal devolution; it must focus on outcomes also.
- Mark Johnson (LGA) felt that the Terms should more closely reflect that of the Steering Group.
Recommendation
- Attendees agreed to make several alterations to the Terms of Reference as specified in the discussion.
Actions • Officers to provide an update of initial central government discussion on potential implications for accountability. • Officers to update the Terms of Reference as specified in the discussion.
2 Collection Fund Accounting and Implications for balanced budget calculation
Gareth Caller (DCLG) provided attendees with a paper which discussed how the use of the collection fund may change as a result of the reforms. Additionally he made the group aware of the legislative opportunity that they have through the Local Growth and Jobs Bill and given the Parliament’s rules around scope, it may be some time until a future opportunity arises. The conversation initially focussed around establishing what the problem was that the paper discussion should aim to solve.
In the discussion that followed, the Group raised the following points:
• There was a short discussion on whether the collection fund was easy to understand in local authority accounts and whether it was the place of the Group to help to simplify these. • There was consensus among attendees that any purely accounting changes were outside the remit of the working group and instead were for CIPFA. • Attendees agreed that the use of the Collection Fund in management of appeals was crucial. If the Collection Fund were abolished it could make local authorities even more risk averse and lead to further growth in reserves. • Attendees all agreed that any new system should not exacerbate the impact of volatility on LA budgeting. • Attendees agreed there was still a great deal that could be done around sharing of good practise and therefore legislation may not be required to get the results needed in terms of simplification. • How business rates compensation is paid needs to be looked at. Currently it is paid via section 31 which is held in the General Fund. Business rates revenue lies in the Collection Fund which means there is a mismatch between funding and cost. • The Group discussed issues with NNDR1 and NNDR3 returns. While they serve slightly different purposes, attendees suggested that they should map as closely as possible. The group wondered if this approach would improve efficiency and therefore free up some funding for other areas of spend. • Balanced budget calculation is still determined by council tax being the balancing figure in the accounts. With the council tax referendum threshold in place, in practise council tax is no longer the balancing item. Attendees agreed that it may be a better idea to look at all items in the round and instead look to adjust accounting practices so that all items must equal zero. • It will be necessary to keep the CLIP(F) group informed about potential changes to the way that BR is accounted for and the way that the balanced budget requirement is calculated so that they can consider the implications for central government data collection activities.
Actions • Officials to clarify which elements of the Collection Fund are required by statute and which by the Code of Local Authority Accounting. • Officials to explore what would need to be done to revise the way that the balanced budget requirement is calculated.
3 AOB
The following additional items of business were raised:
• The Group asked the Steering Group to consider whether it would be appropriate for individual technical groups to consider early drafts of the July consultation document. • Guy Ware (London Councils) asked whether the consultation document was still on course to be published in July, it was confirmed that it was.
Actions
## Appendix A - Attendance
| Nominee | Organisation | Attendance | |------------------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | 1. Gareth Caller | Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) | Present | | 2. Lorenzo Peri | Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) | Present | | 3. Mark Johnson | Local Government Association (LGA) | Present | | 4. Steve Powell | Birmingham City Council | Present | | 5. Guy Ware | London Councils | Present | | 6. Conrad Hall | CIPFA/LASSAC Code Board | Present | | 7. Paul Boden | CIPFA Local Authority Accounting Panel | Present | | 8. Mel Creighton| Society of Unitary Treasurers | Present | | 9. Nicole Wood | Society of County Treasurers | Present | | 10. Paul Mayers | National Audit Office (NAO) | Present (by phone) | | 11. Gary Watson | Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation (IRRV) | Present (by phone) | | 12. Sarah Sheen | Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting (CIPFA) | Present (by phone) |
**Apologies:**
- Michael Ning - DCLG
- Matthew Rowe – HMT
- Susan Mangles – HMT
- Joseph Holmes – Slough
- Jonathan Bunt – Society of London Treasurers
- Vince Green – Society of District Treasurers
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3864-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 8279,
"total-output-tokens": 1573,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2014,
1
],
[
2014,
4914,
2
],
[
4914,
5563,
3
],
[
5563,
7128,
4
]
]
} |
ecbcc8d434eadc8878ea73d3e7f0559994b5a61a | Railway Industry Health and Safety Advisory Committee (RIHSAC)
Minutes of the 110th RIHSAC Meeting
Tuesday 16 October 2018
Room 2, One Kemble Street, London
Present:
Justin McCracken ORR Ian Prosser ORR Jen Ablitt ORR Tracy Phillips ORR Matt Farrell ORR (for item 4) Matt Westlake ORR (for item 6) Claire Dickinson ORR (for item 8) Sharon Mawhood ORR (for item 8) Anna O’Connor ORR Steve Coe TSSA George Bearfield RSSB John Cartledge Co-opted (passenger interest) Trevor Rosenberg London Travelwatch-Transport Focus Bill Cooke Network Rail David Porter IOSH Alistair Young Transport Scotland Jason Connelly Transport Scotland Mick Holder ASLEF Bill Hillier HRA Rob Miguel Unite the Union Garry McKenna DRDNI Mark Newton RDG John Collins Angel Trains Andrew Knight British Transport Police Nisa Carey British Transport Police
Item one: Welcome, introductions and apologies for absence
1. Justin McCracken welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted new representation from British Transport Police, Andrew Knight and Nisa Carey, that Bill Cooke attended in the place of Lisbeth Fromling for Network Rail, and Trevor Rosenberg in place of Tim Bellenger for London TravelWatch/Transport Focus and that it was Rob Miguel’s (Unite the Union) first appearance in a while. Apologies had been received from Stephen Chamberlain (Wales), Mark Ashmore (UKTram) and David Davies (PACTS).
2. RIHSAC reviewed and accepted the minutes and actions arising from the 29 May 2018 meeting. Tracy Phillips provided verbal updates on the actions:
- On action 109.1 concerning Network Rail’s proposed electrical safe working distance changes, Anna O’Connor updated that she had written to RMT and TSSA offering to meet to discuss more fully but confirmed that Network Rail were holding workshops with staff representatives providing more clarity, which was helping to reduce previous issues of miscommunication. She confirmed that in fact Network Rail were trying to achieve better compliance with the law and improve risk control.
- Action 109.2 concerning RIHSAC input to the revision of RM3 would be addressed in Matt Farrells’ presentation later on the agenda. Mick Holder expressed caution around molding ISO standards into Taking safe decisions – he would rather standards were set by Government or the regulator.
- RIHSAC’s comments on the draft Chief Inspector’s 2017/18 annual report had been passed onto Ben Shirley (ORR) – action 109.3.
- Claire Dickinson was speaking with Paul Clyndes on the matter of preventing staff assaults and abuse – action 109.4.
3. Tracy Phillips confirmed that the minutes had been amended to incorporate David Porter’s recent comments against para 33 and advised that RAIB had had sight of ORR’s Prior Role Review as part of its Sandilands investigation. It was still ORR’s intention to publish it in due course but this could not be done whilst inquests and potential prosecutions were ongoing. In the meantime ORR was using the findings to inform its work to progress recommendation 9 of the Sandilands’ report.
4. In response to John Cartledge’s enquiry, it was still the intention that photographs taken at the last meeting (and represented logos) would be published on the RIHSAC pages of ORR’s website, but as the terms of the ORR generic approval did not match the purpose for which the photos were to be used (it was considered far too broad), ORR was working on wording approval that would comply with GDPR and satisfy RIHSAC members.
**Item two: Matters arising of interest from Health and Safety Regulation Committee (HSRC) and other ORR Board meetings**
5. There had been two meetings of HSRC, one in June another in September. Discussions included a paper on the charter and heritage sectors of the rail industry and a new strategic risk chapter of ORR guidance on heritage is to be developed and brought to RIHSAC. A new guidance note was being prepared for ORR inspectors’ use which explained how safety matters in the Channel Tunnel were regulated including the relationship with the Intergovernmental Commission (IGC) a Franco-British French body which takes the lead on regulatory matters in the tunnel. HSRC also received a progress report on the consequences of the Sandilands tram derailment.
6. Andy Thomas had appeared at the September HSRC to explain his industry wide leadership role in Occupational Health and following the Grenfell Fire Inquiry, ORR had conducted a “lessons learnt” review to see what might be applicable to the regulation of the rail sector. No major issues were highlighted.
**Item three: Chief Inspectors update**
07. Ian Prosser apologised for his absence from the last RIHSAC meeting. He reiterated the three themes of his 2017/18 Chief Inspector’s annual report – supporting our people, system pressure and technology and shared that the final determination for PR18 was well advanced and that ORR had started work on its regulatory approach for CP6. A funding scheme for the new tram standards body was ready to go to ministers for approval and the first phase of the Timetabling Inquiry had been published. This and the prior role review of ORRs involvement with the 2018 re-timetabling problems could both be found on the ORR Website.
08. ORR had launched a suicide prevention “Million Hour Challenge”, Rail Delivery Group (RDG), MTR, and Network Rail are also piloting this. Ian anticipated this would help the Samaritans and also provide a strong push for mental health support.
09. Ian Prosser would be meeting the new Chief Executive of NR and would be highlighting the value of undertaking RM3 assessments across the whole spectrum to identify strengths and weaknesses.
10. Ian also advised on senior staff changes - Paul Appleton was now RSD’s Deputy Director (operations).
11. Preliminary work had been undertaken on “What can we gain from Artificial Intelligence as a Regulator in the long term” and ORR was working with universities to improve the approach.
12. At John Cartledge’s request RIHSAC put on records its congratulations to Ian Prosser on his recent receipt of the rail industry award for “Outstanding Personal Contribution from Senior Management”
13. In response to:
Mick Holder’s enquiry Ian Prosser advised that the name Million Hour Challenge had been suggested by Samaritans.
Trevor Rosenberg’s request for an update on safety issues arising from Selective Door Operation, Ian Prosser advised that this was captured in the PTI strategy but he had no update yet. RIHSAC agreed that progress in implementing this strategy would form a good item for a future RIHSAC agenda.
**Action 110.1 RIHSAC secretary to add “PTI strategy” to the forward programme.**
ORR: Minutes of the Railway Industry Health and Safety Advisory Committee, May 2018 Item four: Timetable Inquiry – interim report findings
14. The presentation had been previously circulated (available on the ORR website) and the agenda item provided RIHSAC with an opportunity to comment. Matt Westlake added that Phase 1 ended in September, Phase 2 would lead to another report in December.
15. In response to a question from David Porter about the extent to which the language around “diffused accountability” would impact on systemic health and safety risk, Anna O’Connor advised that the relatively new Network Rail role of System Operator was key and had to take safety into account. ORR would be monitoring closely.
16. Steve Coe felt that not much had been learnt since the Finsbury Park station overcrowding incident as the issue of health and safety impacts on frontline staff remained unaddressed.
17. Ian Prosser stated that he had written to GTR (on whose system the biggest disruption was reported), addressing the impact of late cancellations, changing of platforms. Changes had since been made to make the timetable more stable. We now awaited data from British Transport Police in relation to increases in staff assaults and this matter could return to a future RIHSAC meeting. ORR would continue to engage on this issue to ensure mechanisms were in place to support staff. Ian confirmed that the key lessons which had emerged from the Inquiry related to over optimism in planning and the absence of anybody taking overall charge.
Item five: ORR’s strategic approach to the development of H&S leadership and management competence.
18. David Porter referred to the paper distributed to RIHSAC members ahead of the meeting (available on the ORR website) and summarised its key points as being the challenges to health and safety management arising from the level of competency of those at the top of individual organisations. Do organisations pay sufficient attention to this and do we need to think of alternative ways of stimulating improvements?
19. George Bearfield agreed that there was a thin spread of competency across the board and that new initiatives needed to be sought to make improvements. He explained that the Risk Management Capability Group was developing bite size sessions on Taking safe decisions to different groups and highlighted a good course run by AD Little. Noting that risk was a function of change, he questioned if we had the appropriate level of understanding at senior level.
20. Ian Prosser agreed that the course run by A D Little was worthy of promotion and that Taking safe decisions was a powerful and well-written document.
21. Ian noted that a more devolved NR increased the potential for variability so RM3 assessments would be done for each route. ORR would be organising itself to regulate NR on this basis with a likely route lead for teams. Looking at all aspects (safety, financial, technical) across each route. NR had a strong assurance function and TOC changeovers needed to be watched for points of distress (including maintaining current fleets).
22. Competence was covered in RM3 assessments and Ian Prosser would be using the industry’s Leading health and safety at route level and at meetings twice a year with RSSB (which Paul Clyndes and Manuel Cortez attended) to highlight competence issues; the relaunch of Taking Safe Decisions would be done at one of these meetings. Ian also confirmed that there was a lot of relevant guidance out there to be read and applied.
23. John Cartledge thanked Jen Ablitt (ORR) for her slides compiled in response to David Porter’s paper which helped provide further context. He asked whether the training courses suggested by George Bearfield and Ian Prosser adequately encompassed what all directors (not simply those with specific safety remits) needed to know about their legal responsibilities. Ian Prosser responded that he thought people with safety critical roles did understand “where the buck stopped”. Mick Holder felt that the threat of corporate manslaughter charges did not go far enough as they do not include prosecuting individuals so some people might be prepared to take the risks.
24. David Porter was of the opinion that it was more about the capability to deal with systemic risk and not just about the knowledge - should we be looking at it from the angle of “what is the board doing?”
25. Bill Hillier agreed that addressing the Board as a whole was important and was concerned that – in the heritage sector - people did not always fully understand their responsibilities in law.
26. Rob Miguel agreed there were issues with senior level competence and that leadership went hand in hand with worker involvement.
27. Justin thanked David again for his discussion paper and noted that there would be a further chance to reflect on some of the points made in discussion when RIHSAC reviewed the Strategic Risk Chapter (SRC) on heritage. He noted that the SRC on leadership and culture had recently been reviewed but asked Jen to discuss with David and George offline whether there was a case for revisiting it and to determine the roll out plan for the revised version of Taking safe decisions.
Action 110.2 - discussion to be arranged between Jen Ablitt, David Porter and George Bearfield to review whether the leadership and culture SRC should be revisited and to determine the roll out programme for the revised Taking safe decisions.
Item six: RM3 2019 Project – seeking RIHSAC views
28. Matt Farrell advised this was a follow up from May’s RIHSAC to illustrate how RIHSAC’s feedback had been taken on board in relation to the organisational culture criterion and broadening membership of the RM3 Governance Board, and to set out next steps in the work. His presentation (available on the ORR website) was circulated to members in advance.
29. In response to David Porter’s question about the appropriateness of having an “RM3 light”, as regardless of size the hazards still exist and whether that might lead to dilution of the Regulatory approach, Anna O’Connor advised that the proposed version of RM3 light is a tailor made approach for light rail sector use.
30. Bill Hillier commended the retaining of the culture model as it is an important contributor to achieving a base level in legal compliance.
31. Matt Farrell invited Mick Holder to a consultation on the subject of organisational culture following Mick’s comments to help more clearly define organisational culture.
32. Anna O’Connor invited Rob Miguel to join her on a visit. As Rob Miguel welcomed the inclusion in the model of an open culture enabling people to comfortably challenge managers but he was unsure how ORR would be able to see this evidenced. Matt Farrell explained that he revised model is very focused on the ability of staff to challenge confidently and this is a thread throughout the model-particularly to achieve higher levels of maturity.
33. In response to Ian Prosser’s comment that NR senior leadership involved in developing a just culture, David Porter reiterated that a just culture is not the same as a challenge culture. Justin McCracken said that trade unions being on the RM3 governance board would enable them to help ORR get this right.
**Item seven: Level Crossing update**
34. Anna O’Connor gave a presentation describing risk reduction at level crossings on mainline infrastructure and outlining ORR’s regulatory approach. She also introduced a proposed revision to the way ORR will handle Level Crossing Orders. This is in response to the government’s decision not to progress the recommendations arising from the Law Commissions’ 2013 report on Level Crossings. It was still being piloted, but would be consulted on shortly and ORR would welcome the input of RIHSAC members.
35. John Cartledge recalled that initially DIT developed an extremely comprehensive action plan which was subsequently dropped. Ian Prosser advised that he is still pushing the Department to recognise the benefits of the Law Commission reforms but acknowledged Parliamentary time is limited. Justin McCracken concluded that whilst we are unable to achieve legislative change we should continue to implement/manage improvements within the existing legislative framework.
**Item eight: Occupational Health**
36. Claire Dickinson provided an update on current ORR occupational health activity and invited RIHSAC to discuss this. The ORR’s 5 year programme is due to conclude in March 2019. ORR is well advanced with preparations for its programme end review, setting out ORR’s view of the industry’s management of health risk. This will be ORR’s 3rd review of the many data sources and will be supplemented with interviews with key stakeholders and a survey. ORR sought information on further data sources and acknowledged that there are significant limitations to the OH data.
37. Rob Miguel enquired if there was scope to deliver training on fatigue. Claire Dickinson responded that she would be welcome a discussion with him about this. She stated that both ORR’s and RSSB’s web pages contained strong guidance on Fatigue Management.
38. Mick Holder recommended that ORR approach the TUC about extracting data applicable to the rail industry from the TUC biennial survey carried out with H&S reps on their health concerns. The key issues emerging were the long hours culture, stress and musculoskeletal conditions.
39. In response to David Porter’s question on why ORR were leading on this topic, Claire Dickinson said it has started to transition now that RSSB has established the Health & Wellbeing Policy Group and subsidiary groups in response to LHSBR. At the current time, ORR is minded to drive forward on OH via the activities cited in the OH Strategic Risk Chapter (SRC) rather than proposing a third programme. The SRC will be updated following the ORR’s review. ORR will continue to monitor industry leadership on health and will be prepared to step in if necessary.
40. Steve Coe would like to see more on manager fatigue and stress management
41. The ORR work focuses on health risk rather than wellbeing (e.g. smoking cessation or obesity). Inspectors deal with health surveillance for those topics where there is a regulatory requirement (e.g. COSHH or hand-arm vibration syndrome.
42. Claire Dickinson asked everyone to encourage duty holders to offer case studies of good practice demonstrating how improvement in managing health risk has been beneficial.
43. ORR agreed to return to RIHSAC with the health review paper to discuss emerging findings.
**Item nine: Forward Plan & Meeting review**
44. If anyone has something for the forward plan they should contact Tracy Phillips.
45. A lesson learnt from today was that the meeting needs to run to agenda times. Next meeting scheduled for 15 January 2019.
### Glossary of abbreviations
| Abbreviation | Description | |--------------|-------------| | ASLEF | Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen | | COSHH | Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations | | CP | Control period | | DfT | Department for Transport | | DRDNI | Department of Regional Development (NI) | | GDPR | General Data Protection Regulations | | HMRI | Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate | | HS2 | High speed 2 | | HSRC | Health & Safety Regulation Committee | | IGC | Intergovernmental Commission (on the Channel Tunnel) | | IOSH | Institute of Occupational Safety & Health | | ISO | International Standards Organisation | | LHSBR | Leading Health & Safety on Britain’s Railways | | LUL | London Underground Ltd | | NI | Northern Ireland | | ORR | Office of Rail and Road | | OH | Occupational health | | PACTS | Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety | | PPE | Personal protective equipment | | PTI | Platform train interface | | RAIB | Rail Accident Investigation Branch | | RDG | Railway Development Group | | RIHSAC | Rail Industry Health & Safety Advisory Committee | | RM3 | Risk management maturity model | | RMT | Rail Maritime & Transport Union | | ROI | Republic of Ireland | | RSD | Rail Safety Directorate (of ORR) | | RSSB | Rail Safety & Standards Board | | TSSA | Transport Salaried Staffs Association | | TUC | Trades Union Congress |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3865-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 39941,
"total-output-tokens": 4440,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1282,
1
],
[
1282,
4142,
2
],
[
4142,
6757,
3
],
[
6757,
9691,
4
],
[
9691,
12560,
5
],
[
12560,
15399,
6
],
[
15399,
17541,
7
],
[
17541,
19170,
8
]
]
} |
02c85627006ae22d8d487dd8363880cc3b6fd12f | COUNCILLORS PRESENT: Councillor Lane (Chair), Councillors Brian Sargeant (Vice Chair), Tony Ansell, Joy Capstick, Mick Ford, Brendan Glynane, Elizabeth Gowen, Phil Larratt, Matt Lynch, Lee Mason, Nilesh Parekh, Suresh Patel, Winston Strachan and Sivaramen Subbarayan
Councillor David Mackintosh Leader of the Council Councillor Mary Markham Cabinet Member (Housing) Councillor Tim Hadland Cabinet Member (Planning, Enterprise and Regeneration) Councillor Alan Bottwood Cabinet Member (Finance) Councillor Mike Hallam Cabinet Member (Environment) Councillor Brandon Eldred Cabinet Member (Community Engagement)
Officers Steve Elsey Head of Public Protection Mick Tyrrell Contract Manager Richard Birchett Interim Head of Landlord Services Julie Seddon Director of Customers and Communities Tracy Tiff Scrutiny Officer Nicola Brindley Democratic Services Officer
1. APOLOGIES There were none.
2. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held on 25th April 2013 were approved and signed by the Chair.
3. DEPUTATIONS/PUBLIC ADDRESSES There were none.
4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (INCLUDING WHIPPING) Councillor Suresh Patel declared an interest in item 16 Report back from NBC’s representative to NCC’s Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee as the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, NCC. Councillor Joy Capstick declared an interest in item 14 Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme 2013/2014 as a Board Member for WNDC.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONTRACT ACTION PLAN
Councillor Mike Hallam and Steve Elsey, Head of Public Protection presented a briefing note on the Environmental Services Contract Action Plan to the Committee for consideration.
Councillor Phil Larratt considered that the standards that Enterprise provided had dropped and in particular Kingsthorpe and East Hunsbury, the grass had been getting too long. Once it had been cut the grass cuttings had been left all over the footpath which presented a risk to the elderly. Councillors Winston Strachan and Jamie Lane also reported a problem in their wards where the grass was high and none of the edges had been cut. In some areas residents had been tidying up after them.
Councillor Lee Mason advised that litter had been caught in the long grass in her wards and rubbish in the alleyways was also a general issue.
Councillor Mike Hallam urged Councillors to log problems with the Contact Centre so evidence could be collected if they needed to enforce penalties with the Services Provider.
In response to a question from Councillor Phil Larratt, Mick Tyrrell confirmed that there were discussions due with the Service Provider on the A45 maintenance but the status quo remained of the suspension of litter due to the accident. The A45 licences and training should start to progress as normal and they had been working with the National Traffic Management provider improvement plan. There had been no change on how that operated.
Steve Elsey advised that there were five areas of dispute with the Service Provider and as the contract was vast and complex each party interpreted it to their own advantage. Some of the issues were serious contractual issues and should remain to be discussed in private in case it escalated to the legal process.
AGREED: That the report be noted.
6. TREE AND SHRUB MAINTENANCE
Councillor Mike Hallam and Mick Tyrell presented the Tree and Shrub Maintenance report to the committee and elaborated thereon.
Councillor Mike Hallam confirmed that it was a complex process and they had a clear policy in place. The in-house and Enterprise processes were the same.
Councillor Tony Ansell reported that Abington Park was under maintained as it did once have sixteen gardeners and now only had two. Councillor Phil Larratt reported a lack of regular maintenance in the young trees. Councillor Mike Hallam confirmed that if regular maintenance was a problem then to escalate it to him to deal with.
AGREED: That the report be noted.
7. PERFORMANCE MONITORING
(A) RENT COLLECTED AS A PROPORTION OF RENT OWNED DWELLINGS (HI 12) AND RENT ARREARS AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE ANNUAL DEBT (HI 13)
Councillor Mary Markham and Richard Birchett Interim Head of Landlord Services presented a report on management of rent arrears and elaborated thereon.
Richard Birchett confirmed that two extra members of staff had been employed in April to reduce the amount of tenants in arrears and this had decreased in the last 12 months.
Councillor Mary Markham confirmed the process was that people were flagged when they were two weeks in arrears and were encouraged to open bank accounts and pay by direct debit. They had been working with the Department of Work and Pensions and hoped to tackle the problem early to give people the financial advice when they needed it.
AGREED: That the report be noted.
(B) CLEANLINESS OF OPEN SPACES/ PARKS
Councillor Mike Hallam and Mick Tyrrell attended the meeting and provided a briefing note on the Cleanliness of Open Space and Parks. Councillor Mike Hallam advised that he was proud of the open spaces and parks in Northampton and it was the second largest outside of London. He referred to the performance table on section 3 of the report and advised that the graffiti and fly tipping had shown a large improvement and had reduced by 6%. The targets for 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 had improved and the investment in Park Rangers for Delapre Park had been successful and would be rolled out in the other parks.
Councillor Matt Lynch reported problems with long grass and weeds in his ward and was slightly disappointed with the service provided.
Councillor Tony Ansell expressed concerns of the grass cutting in Abington Park.
Councillor Mike Hallam urged Councillors to log any concerns with the Contact Centre and if required it could be escalated to him. Evidence and data was required to impose any penalties to the contractors.
Mick Tyrrell confirmed that the data was collated four times a year and the cumulative gave the year end figures. It was based on the criteria for highways.
In response to a question from Councillor Elizabeth Gowen, Mick Tyrrell confirmed that the targets for fly tipping were high and demanding and were achieved by proactive crews on the road to clear the graffiti. The targets were 24 hours for racist and 5 days for non-offensive graffiti. The scores were only let down by graffiti in alleyways as it was not always seen. Private residents could contact the Centre and report graffiti on their property which would be removed if they signed an indemnity form. Councillor Ford reported that the clean up had been completed well after the Beer Festival at Delapre Park and the Northampton Carnival although he had still received complaints of litter in the surrounding streets.
Councillor Mike Hallam confirmed that feedback was important and at the next big event of Alive at Delapre Park it would be noted to clear the surrounding streets as well.
**AGREED: That the report be noted.**
(C) **CAR CRIME**
Councillor David Mackintosh and Julie Seddon, Director of Customers and Communities addressed the Committee and presented a report on the general overview of the vehicle crime problem in Northampton.
Councillor David Mackintosh elaborated there on and confirmed that they had been working with the Police and urged people not to leave valuables on show. There had also been a trend of car parts being stolen which included catalytic converters which were on show and easy to access.
In response to a question from Councillor Brendon Glynane, Julie Seddon confirmed that work had been carried out with regard to the light switch off in the county and they were unable to establish a fair link between car crime and the light switch off.
**AGREED: That the update is noted.**
(D) **PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SCRUTINY ABSENCES MANAGEMENT DATA**
Councillor Alan Bottwood presented a report to the Committee on the Performance Management Scrutiny Absences Data.
Councillor Lane suggested that the report was not required to continue to be presented to the Committee on a regular basis but to be monitored.
Councillor Larratt agreed that they were close to Management Targets but to keep an overview on it.
**AGREED: That the report be noted and continued to be monitored via the performance monitoring report. Separate reports on absence management data are not required at Committee.**
8. **LICENSING FUNCTION PERFORMANCE**
Councillor Mike Hallam and Julie Seddon, Director of Customers and Communities presented the Licensing Function Performance report to the Committee.
**AGREED: That the report be noted.** 9. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACCEPTED RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY REPORTS
(A) NEIGHBOURHOOD MODEL This item was removed from the Overview and Scrutiny Monitoring Work Programme 2013/2014.
(B) COUNCILLOR EMPOWERMENT FUND Councillor Brandon Eldred and Julie Seddon, Director of Customers and Communities presented the Councillor Empowerment Fund report to the Committee.
Councillor Joy Capstick congratulated the Council administration team on distributing the money quickly when it was requested.
Councillor Winston Strachan found the process of requesting the money and obtaining signatures time consuming when it should be completed by email.
Julie Seddon agreed that this could be incorporated into the process.
AGREED: That the report be noted.
(C) LEASE BETWEEN NORTHAMPTON BOROUGH COUNCIL, NORTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB AND RUGBY AND NORTHAMPTON ATHLETICS CLUB Councillor Tim Hadland presented the report to the committee and confirmed that the difficulties between the athletics and football club had subsided and everyone was relatively happy with the lines of communication open to them. He requested that officer recommendation of Enterprise Loan Panel was too restrictive and be changed to Enterprise Funding in general.
AGREED: That the report be noted and this item be removed from the Overview and Scrutiny Monitoring Work Programme 2013/2014.
10. O&S ANNUAL REPORT 2012/13 The O&S Annual Report was presented to the Committee.
The Chair advised that he would present the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2012/2013 to full Council on 15 July 2013.
AGREED: That the report be noted. 11. SCRUTINY PANELS
(A) SCRUTINY PANEL 1- IMPROVING THE TOWN’S PARKS
Councillor Elizabeth Gowen confirmed that there had been research on how they could work with the organisations in the community. Councillor David Palethorpe had joined the panel and the next meeting is due to be held on 1st July 2013. A reminder would be sent to Councillors inviting them to join the panel and if they knew of any organisations in the area which dealt with parks and open spaces then to let her know.
Councillor Joy Capstick reported of issues in her ward of play equipment being vandalised and there was no maintenance or repair insurance in place. She confirmed that she was going to escalate it to the Audit Committee to clarify the situation of indemnity insurance.
AGREED: (1) That the Scope of the Review be approved.
(B) SCRUTINY PANEL 2- RETAIL EXPERIENCE
Councillor Matt Lynch presented the report to the Committee. He thanked everyone for their hard work and the Council had taken up the recommendations which would make the town a more vibrant place in the future.
Councillor Jamie Lane confirmed he would present the report to Cabinet and await their response.
Councillor Tim Hadland suggested that it would be beneficial to update recommendation 6.1.8 of the final report to read:
Promote the Enterprise funding to the retail sector, Northampton BID and the University of Northampton.
AGREED: That the report be approved subject to the update of recommendation 6.1.8.
12. SCRUTINY PANEL 3 - INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS AND SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS
Councillor Phil Larratt presented the report and confirmed that the Panel had achieved its objectives of the Review. He highlighted the funding gap of £439.6 million which Cabinet needed to review. There was an issue with the North West bypass and the impact on the local area as well as the A45 not meeting standards and not enough funds available.
He gave thanks to all those involved in the project.
Councillor Jamie Lane confirmed that he would present it to Cabinet on 17th July 2013.
AGREED: That the report be approved. 13. **OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY REPORTING AND MONITORING WORKING GROUP**
It was agreed that the membership to the Overview and Scrutiny Reporting and Monitoring Working Group be confirmed:
- Councillor Leslie Marriott be replaced by Councillor Jamie Lane as Chair.
- Councillor Beverley Mennell be replaced by Councillor Suresh Patel
- Councillor Danielle Stone be replaced by Councillor Sivaraman Subbarayan.
**AGREED:** Councillors Jamie Lane, Suresh Patel and Sivaraman Subbaryan join the Overview and Scrutiny Reporting and Monitoring Working Group.
14. **OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME 2013/2014**
Councillor Jamie Lane suggested that questions be put to the Planning Department with regards to WNDC and if the answers were not satisfactory then they could be scrutinised.
Councillor Joy Capstick advised that there was uncertainty of the stage of the successor of the WNDC in September and they needed to have capacity to raise any issues. The scope management was urgent and the timetable of O&S 3 had the capacity to proceed afterwards.
Councillor Jamie Lane confirmed that they would scope at the next meeting and would then proceed from there.
Councillor Phil Larratt advised that there was insufficient knowledge of the ownership of street lighting at NBC and we would miss an opportunity to obtain an upgrade.
Councillor Jamie Lane requested a report on the ownership of NBC’s street lighting to be brought to the next meeting.
**AGREED:** That the ownership of NBC’s street lighting and the successor of the WNDC be discussed at the next meeting.
(A) **SCRUTINY PANEL 2 - MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING (INCLUDING HIMOS)**
Councillor Joy Capstick agreed to Chair Scrutiny Panel 2 and requested an invite to go to the Councillors to sit on the panel.
**AGREED:** Councillor Joy Capstick to Chair Scrutiny Panel 2 and an invite be sent to Councillors to join the Panel.
15. **MONITORING WORK PROGRAMME 2013/2014**
**AGREED:** That the report be noted. 16. REPORT BACK FROM NBC’S REPRESENTATIVE TO NCC’S HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Councillor Matt Lynch presented a short report advising that NCC’s Health, Adult Care and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee (formally Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee) had agreed that it be recommended to Northamptonshire County Council’s full Council that voting co-optees from districts and borough Councils be appointed for 2013/2014. Should NCC’s full Council approve this, Councillor Lynch would attend future meetings and provide briefings to this Committee.
AGREED: That the report be noted.
17. POTENTIAL FUTURE PRE DECISION SCRUTINY
Councillor Phil Larratt requested a report on street lights in NBC’s housing stock.
Councillor Jamie Lane confirmed that a report will be collaborated to come to Committee.
18. URGENT ITEMS
There were none.
The meeting concluded at 19.55
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3866-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 16133,
"total-output-tokens": 3883,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1291,
1
],
[
1291,
3785,
2
],
[
3785,
6531,
3
],
[
6531,
8594,
4
],
[
8594,
10243,
5
],
[
10243,
12331,
6
],
[
12331,
14332,
7
],
[
14332,
15216,
8
]
]
} |
8b60b6d2c0a9d894d957a072c502da029ff86c63 | JUDGMENT
1. The claims against the first respondent are dismissed on withdrawal.
2. No response to the claim having been entered by the second respondent, Judgment is entered against it pursuant to rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
3. Having heard evidence from the claimant and considered documents, compensation is assessed as follows:
a. Unlawful deduction from wages 10.09.18: £ 100 b. Unlawful deduction from wages 10.10.18: £1,200 c. Harassment c 15 August 2018 £1,500 d. Injury to feelings on discrimination arising from disability, harassment and victimisation - deductions from wages and assignment of routes Case Number: 2304464/2018
to others: £2,250
e. Personal injury (exacerbation of disability September 2018-September 2019): £3,000
Total payable forthwith: £8,050
______________________________________________________________________
Employment Judge K Andrews
Date: 5 July 2019
Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3867-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3109,
"total-output-tokens": 404,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
660,
1
],
[
660,
1185,
2
]
]
} |
Subsets and Splits