A Portrait of Jews in London and the South-East: a community study:
3/ Housing

Introduction

The main issues affecting the Jewish voluntary sector in the coming two decades concern the provision of services in two areas--care for older people and the infirm, and schooling--each of which has been the focus of an earlier JPR report.¹⁴ Both issues are closely related to where members of the community reside. This means that residential patterns and processes--where people have lived in the recent past, where they currently live and where they are planning to live in the foreseeable future--are of considerable interest to decision-makers. Decisions need to be taken on where to locate new facilities and which existing ones to close. Moreover, with increasing emphasis on providing services at home to a population that is living longer and entering care homes at an increasingly advanced age, issues such as accessibility to voluntary services, volunteers and volunteering, as well as relationships with family members and friends, take on a new complexion and importance. The overall issue, then, is being able to interpret area stability, and to forecast decline and growth of neighbourhoods.

The majority of respondents appeared to be reasonably settled in their current homes. Three in 5 (60 per cent) had lived at their current address for more than ten years, while only 4 per cent had been at their current address for less than a year. However, there was evidence of higher levels of recent movement among younger respondents, as Table 3.1 shows.

Table 3.1: Length of time at current address, by age

The length of time respondents had lived at their current address also varied somewhat by area (Table 3.2 overleaf). Most notably, respondents in South Hertfordshire tended to have moved more recently: only 42 per cent had been at their address for more than ten years. By contrast, 76 per cent of those from Redbridge had lived at the same address for longer than ten years. These data are consistent with synagogue memberships reported by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and reflect both the fact that the sample contains fewer renters than the British population as a whole and that it is older.

Respondents were also asked how much longer they expected to remain at their current address. Again, most appeared to be fairly settled. Only 5 per cent of respondents expected to move within a year, although another 20 per cent thought they might move within 2_5 years. Younger respondents were more likely to be planning a move, while older respondents were more likely to express uncertainty about their future (Table 3.3 overleaf).

As before, there were also differences by area. Respondents from South London were slightly more likely to have plans to move within five years. Those from North-east London (especially Redbridge) appeared the least certain about their plans (Table 3.4 overleaf).

Those respondents who were considering a move within the next five years were asked a series of follow-up questions concerning their plans. The majority of these respondents (78 per cent) intended to purchase a new property. The most common reasons giving for considering a move within the coming five years were: needing more space (32 per cent); just wanting a change (28 per cent); and needing less space (21 per cent).

Table 3.2: Length of time at current address, by London area

* Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Housing Statistics Summary 007, December 2000,
Table 2: www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/statistics/publicat/summaries/007/03.htm (viewed 12 November 2002).

Table 3.3: How much longer at current address, by age

Table 3.4: How much longer at current address, by London area

Of those respondents planning to move within five years, only 3 per cent had actually signed a contract or tenancy agreement, and another 4 per cent had made an offer on a property. Most of these (88 per cent) planned to move within the London area. Although the numbers were small, it was quite evident that the vast majority of planned moves were local and that people planned to remain within the area in which they were currently living.

Current housing

More than 6 in 10 respondents (64 per cent) owned their home outright on freehold or leasehold (Figure 3.1). This figure was higher for couples without children (78 per cent) and single-person households (77 per cent). Reflecting the correlation between age and household size, it was also much higher among older respondents: 93 per cent of the 65_74 age-group and 88 per cent of those over 75 owned their home outright compared with 29 per cent of the 18_34 age-group. Meanwhile, those in South London were slightly less likely to own their homes outright than others (56 per cent compared with 64 per cent overall); this compares with a national average of 27 per cent.¹⁵

Table 3.5: Tenure, by household type

A further 30 per cent of respondents were buying their home with the help of a mortgage or loan. Among couples with children, this figure rose to 60 per cent. More generally, it was higher among younger members of the sample: 53 per cent of the 18_34 age-group and 58 per cent of the 35_44 age-group, compared with only 2 per cent of those over 75. The national figure in this case was 42 per cent.

Quite a low number were renters, though this may simply reflect sampling bias. Less than 1 per cent were renting a fully furnished property, about 1 per cent were in a partly furnished property and 2 per cent were renting unfurnished, making renters just over 3 per cent of households overall. This was slightly higher among respondents in South London at 6 per cent.

Figure 3.1: Housing tenure

Eight out of every 10 respondents (80 per cent) lived in a single-family house or bungalow. Those in Inner London were less likely to live in this type of housing (53 per cent), but were more likely than others to live in a flat or apartment (39 per cent compared with 13 per cent total). Unsurprisingly, however, the largest differences in housing reflected household type: single people were most likely to live in flats while families with children and extended households overwhelmingly lived in single-family houses or bungalows. These differences are shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Type of home lived in, by household type

Table 3.7: Access to a motor vehicle, by London area

Moreover, although the total of respondents living in flats is relatively small, Figure 3.2 illustrates the low numbers of these who live in social housing. This corroborates what we know from earlier studies of Jews in Greater London.¹⁶

Six in 10 respondents lived in homes in which the living space was spread over two storeys. Another 20 per cent lived in homes on a single floor, and the same proportion lived in a home with at least three storeys. Unsurprisingly, single respondents were more likely to live on a single floor (46 per cent compared with only 5 per cent of couples with children and 2 per cent of extended households with children). Meanwhile, those in South London were most likely (33 per cent), and those in North-east London least likely (5 per cent), to live in a home with three or more storeys.

Figure 3.2: Types of landlords in rental housing

Motor vehicles

Respondents were asked how many motor vehicles they and other members of their household owned or had use of. The vast majority (around 92 per cent) had access to at least one vehicle; most had more than one. The comparable figure for the Greater London boroughs as a whole was 61 per cent.¹⁷ Respondents from Redbridge were most likely to report no access to a motor vehicle, as Table 3.7 shows.

Respondents were also less likely to have access to a motor vehicle if they were:

· aged over 75 (29 per cent of this group did not have access to a vehicle);

· from a single-person household (29 per cent had no access);

· female (11 per cent of women reported no access to a vehicle compared with only 4 per cent of men).

Neighbourhood Jewishness

Jewish neighbourhoods are highly concentrated. There is not a single ward in Greater London in which the Jews form a majority, although there are agglomerations of adjacent and contiguous small areas in which this is the case.¹⁸ In this sense, there are several neighbourhoods in which Jews are either
a majority or a very substantial minority, and there are many streets in these neighbourhoods that approach 100 per cent Jewish occupancy.

Respondents were asked to say whether or not they had Jewish neighbours living on their street, both next door and within a radius of three doors.


Table 3.8: Whether respondent has Jewish neighbours, by area

Bearing in mind that in North-west and North-east London the sample was selected by targeting small areas in which we expected to find large numbers of Jewish households relative to the general population and at high Jewish densities, there were very marked differences by area. Respondents in North-west London and North-east London were far more likely than those from South London to know of other Jewish people living on their street. For example, in North-east London, 98 per cent of respondents knew of other Jewish people on their street and the figure was similarly high in North-west London (97 per cent). In contrast, only 22 per cent in South London answered 'yes' to this question and these respondents were by far the most likely to say they did not know if there were other Jewish people on their street. The same pattern was present for Jewish people living next door and within a radius of three doors. These differences are shown in Table 3.8 above.

Neighbourhood problems

Respondents were presented with a series of neighbourhood problems, and asked to say how common each problem was in their area. This gives some idea of the perception of social problems among Jews living in different parts of metropolitan London.

Table 3.9: Neighbourhood problems, by London area

The problems most likely to be reported as 'very' or 'fairly' common by respondents were litter and rubbish in the streets (42 per cent), dog litter (40 per cent) and burglary (33 per cent). Meanwhile, people damaging respondents' homes, racial harassment, problems with neighbours and drug dealing were only rarely reported as common problems by respondents. In other words, local environmental issues and crimes against property were regarded as the main neighbourhood concerns.

Unsurprisingly, there were large differences according to where respondents lived. Those in South Hertfordshire tended to report a lower than average incidence of neighbourhood problems, as did those in Essex (and to some extent those in the outer suburbs of North London). Those in Highgate and Garden Suburb reported litter, graffiti and vandalism as problems less frequently than the average, but burglary was seen as more common in this generally high-status area. In comparison, respondents in the outer suburbs of North-west London were more likely to report litter and rubbish, and graffiti as being of concern. Similarly, respondents from Redbridge reported slightly higher litter and noise levels. Meanwhile, there was a tendency among South London respondents to report higher levels of many of the neighbourhood problems asked about. These differences are shown in Table 3.9.

Summary

The outer suburbs of North-east and North-west London appeared to be the areas with least problems. These were the areas in which, for the most part, Jewish households had most recently arrived, and from which respondents were least likely to migrate in the near future. The problems perceived in these neighbourhoods were what are generally termed 'environmental issues': litter, graffiti and vandalism. The two areas that people most wanted to leave, Redbridge and South London, were also the areas in which residents perceived the highest number of neighbourhood problems. By contrast, in one of the most stable and environmentally attractive areas, Highgate and Garden Suburb, burglary was perceived as being the most vexing problem. All in all, this evidence suggests that no major changes are to be expected in the overall geographic distribution of the Jewish community in Greater London over the next decade.

 

Notes

14 Valins, Kosmin and Goldberg, The Future of Jewish Schooling; Valins, Facing the Future.[back]
15 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Housing Statistics Annual 2001, Table 7.1: www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/statistics/publicat/housestats/annual/2001/
download/hsan7/hsan71.xls (viewed 12 November 2001).[back]
16 Barry A. Kosmin and D. de Lange, 'Conflicting urban ideologies: London's New Towns and the metropolitan preference of London's Jews', London Journal, vol. 6, 1980, 162_75.[back]
17 Office for National Statistics, Households with one or more cars: by type of area, 1996_1998, Social Trends 30: www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/st30v8.pdf, Table 12.7, p. 198 (viewed 12 November 2002).[back]
18 Wards are administrative subdivisions of boroughs, with an average population of around 10,000 each. [back]