Community Action Workshop (CAW)
Tuesday 17th June, 1.00pm – 5.00pm
Sure Start Centre
109a Randlesdown Road
Bellingham SE6 4BT
For further information contact:
Bellingham Community Project Maria Clough
Julian Rouse Marie.Clough@slam.nhs.uk
or see website http://www.londonshealth.gov.uk/well_london.htm
This document was produced by the Well London Community Engagement & Mapping Teams
at The Institute of Health & Human Development, University of East London
Community Action Workshop Agenda....................................................... 3
What is Well London? ................................................................................. 4
Community Action Workshop: Diagnostic Event ...................................... 5
Themed Summaries..................................................................................... 7
Ideas for Improvements and projects ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.18
Interactive Mapping Information Summary ............................................... 7
Community Services and Amenities Mapping......................................... 15
Pen Profile .................................................................................................. 18
Well London Projects Overview ............................................................... 24
Appendix A - Raw Data……………………………....see separate document
Community Action Workshop Agenda
1.00pm Arrival and coffee
1.30pm Welcome and introduction to event.
1.40pm Session 1:
Shared agendas: What is important to us?
Aim of session:
To identify personal and organisational agendas and collect data on key areas of
2.30am Session 2:
Presentation of current data and feedback. including:
Community café themes
Area profile: from partners and desk research
Outline of boundaries of Well London project areas.
3.00pm Coffee and break
3.15pm Session 3: Appreciative Inquiry
“How can Well London best support improved health in your community?”
What works well in this community and what is valuable about these
4.00pm Session 4: Visual mapping
What are our aspirations for Well London in terms of the 3 key themes?
What ideas, solutions or projects will help to meet these aspirations?
What needs to be in place for Well London to be successful?
Who else needs to be involved/ who we need to target?
What are our priorities?
5.00pm Feedback and discussion about next steps
What is Well London?
Well London is a partnership involving the London Health Commission; Arts Council England,
London; Central YMCA; Groundwork London; London Sustainability Exchange; South London and
Maudsley NHS Trust and University of East London. It was initially formed to bid for BIG Lottery
Funding under the Well-being strand and has been awarded a grant of £9.46m.
Well London will deliver a series of projects in 20 of the most deprived Lower Super Output Areas
(LSOAs)1 in London over the next five years. Each project will focus on improving a particular area
of physical health or mental well-being under five key themes: culture and tradition; healthy eating;
mental health and well-being; open spaces; physical activity. The London Health Commission has
brought together the Well London Alliance – a partnership of leaders in these areas to develop a
suite of 14 projects that combine an evidence base of what works and the latest developments in
Initially, Well London will engage each community to identify which projects they will benefit most
from. The mix of projects that are delivered in their area will then be matched to the needs that
they identify. The whole of the £9.46m BIG grant is committed to this suite of projects and
management costs which are less than 10% of the total. The programme will run for three years in
each location. The Well London programme also seeks to play a brokerage role which will ensure
that existing service providers in the area reflect local people‟s needs and aspirations in their future
A rigorous evaluation framework will be used to measure the effectiveness of each of the projects
and the overall impact. All of the projects will connect with current work going on in the local area
and will look to empower the people involved, giving them the knowledge, resources and networks
to continue to improve their health and surroundings long after the lifetime of the partnership.
Small geographical areas with an average of 1500 residents
For more info see www.londonshealth.gov.uk/well_london.htm
Why do we need „Well London‟?
London is a leading world city on so many fronts. But behind the economic and cultural buzz lie
some of the starkest inequalities in health and deprivation to be found anywhere in the UK. The
child poverty rate in inner London is higher than any other region or part of Great Britain. Travel
east on the Jubilee Line from Westminster to Canning Town and each of the 8 stops represents a
year of life expectancy lost.
Community Action Workshop: Diagnostic Event
The Community Action Workshop (CAW) is the second phase of the Well London Community
Engagement Process. The first phase was the Community Cafés held in the selected Super Output
Area (SOA) earlier in October or November 2008. This involved local residents discussing the Well
London issues. Their views are meant to set the agenda, and are presented elsewhere in this
What is the CAW?
This CAW is designed to bring together the various themes and perspectives along with the range
of stakeholders involved in each SOA. It is intended to bring together the emerging themes from
both desk based research and community cafés and begin to develop ideas for the Well-being
programme portfolio. Appreciative Enquiry (AE) will be used as one of the methods to facilitate this
AE is a whole systems based, planning for change method. It is based on the assumption that
every organisation, group or community has something which works well and that by identifying
this positive core it is possible to use the key components to build a strategy for change which is
positive, energised and relevant.
It is the opposite of a traditional problem solving approach which begins with the problem and
reduces it down to the core issue, often leading to blame and negativity on the way. Instead AE
begins with what works well and tries to expand understanding of the issue by making connections
and linkages across the disparate strands and consequently often produces solutions which tackle
problems from a more lateral perspective.
AE is therefore particularly useful when there are multiple perspectives and agendas; where there
has been a history of activity, conflict or dissatisfaction; or where there are layers of complexity and
contradiction which need to be explored if old assumptions and inadequate strategies are not to be
repeated. This is the context of many deprived, inner city communities and AE is a positive tool to
use in generating a shared vision for change across diverse groups.
Who should be involved?
Key stakeholders: WL staff, including WL Borough lead partner and delivery partners; Co-hosts,
community members, statutory partners and other key groups or organisations who work in the
area. It is essential there is a good mix of stakeholders including WL teams and a mixture of
people with knowledge about the different WL themes.
Co hosts need to take responsibility for inviting key community members and any partners they
work with; WL team need to take responsibility for inviting key statutory partners, WL delivery
teams and other key players linked to the strategic context. Numbers should be a minimum of 15-
20 and up to around 30 maximum if half a day is planned. There is no upper limit if a whole day is
planned but minimum of 20-25 people needed to ensure knowledge about each theme is reflected
in the discussion.
WL teams and co-hosts should also allocate scribes to participate and capture key ideas.
What is the process?
The event begins with a brief presentation about outcomes and themes generated from both the
Café events and desk based research.
The AE method is then used, based on a 4 stage process:
o Stage 1: Discover: what works well about improving health in your community; what is
happening when things go well and what is valuable about your
team/community/organisation. This is the “appreciating” stage of AI.
o Stage 2: Dream: imagine what might be…What could happen to make things better, what
would a healthy community in (e.g. Limehouse) look like. What are our key objectives? This
is the envisioning stage of AE.
o Stage 3: Design: creating the structure and organisational design of what the ideal might
look like. Suggestions and proposals for methods, structures, processes which can build on
the positive core and the vision. This is the constructing stage.
o Stage 4: Delivery: How can we best implement the design, how can this best be achieved
and what practical steps need to be in place to deliver? This is the practical action planning
People work in pairs and small groups during stage 1 and 2 and then in larger groups of about 5 –8
people for stage 3 and 4.
For the WL project, stage 3 and 4 are combined in a visual mapping process which is based on
identifying core objectives and choosing a few to work up in detail. If a whole day event (5/6 hours)
is feasible and numbers are 30 plus, it is possible to identify an objective for each WL theme and
work this up. If not, themes can be prioritised or kept general.
o Stage 1 produces a number of key principles, values and practical steps which are known
to create success in that community.
o Stage 2 produces a vision for how things could be better in that community based on the
positive, successful principles identified from stakeholders‟ experience.
o Stage 3 and 4 produce a number of key objectives and ideas and if enough time is allowed
these can be worked up in some detail by stakeholders in partnership with WL teams. This
creates a stronger sense of shared ownership of ideas and solutions amongst key
stakeholders. It allows for the subtleties and contradictions of experience in each SOA to be
taken into account rather than developing general solutions across the board.
At the end of this meeting we want to know:
What projects should be delivered
Which are the most important for this area (prioritise/rank them 1-6)
To whom should they be delivered (demographic focus groups)
Who could deliver them
How should they be delivered (set out general guiding principles)
What leverage activities are needed
How important are these (prioritise/rank)
Who could deliver them (principles)
The answers to these questions lay down a tentative decision framework which is made definitive
in subsequent stages of the engagement process.
This information goes forward to a Consortium Portfolio Workshop in early September 2008, where
the Well London partners will finalise the project and activity portfolio for each SOA. This
information will be fed back to the community residents and stakeholders in early October 2008 at
a Stakeholder Review Meeting, and after that projects and activities will be initiated.
The following information is taken from a number of sources, including the community café events,
street interviews with residents from the LSOA. This enabled us to delve deep into the needs, the
fears and the aspirations of the local residents to reveal the type of local knowledge required to
make choices regarding the suitability of projects and interventions that are particularly needed in
the area. In total, we spoke to 33 people at the café events, 15 via street interviews, and an
additional 10 young people (aged 10-17).
The numbers next to the comments refer to the paragraph numbers form the data transcripts,
these are provided as an appendix (Appendix A in separate document). The quotations are used to
illustrate some of the key responses from participants. Responses reflect the „perceptions‟ of
people in the area. They may not necessarily reflect a complete reality. However, considering such
perceptions is crucial in order to address some of the problems that residents face.
2 HEALTHY EATING
There was a general understanding amongst participants that healthy food is important (31, 918,
921, 927, 930). Healthy food was mainly described as eating fruit, brown rice, fish and avoiding red
meats, sugar and fat (918, 927, 930).
2.1 Lack of education
However, a number of participants also pointed out the problems with maintaining a healthy diet. A
key problem raised was the lack of education about healthy eating (114, 272, 466).
“For people that work buying food is not an issue, education is the issue” (272)
This seems to cover all ages from very young people and their parents (292, 296, 538, 570), to
elderly people (110, 37), although in the latter case there were some exceptions (278, 540). In
terms of younger school children, the problem was linked to their parents‟ inability to prepare
breakfast, and giving them unhealthy packed lunches (300). Teenagers were also seen as eating
Alongside education, a major theme highlighted was the lack of affordability of healthy food (274,
294, 516, 562, 566, 642, 750).
“It‟s expensive to eat good fresh healthy food” (516)
There was a discussion about the extent to which people can afford healthy food. Some
respondents argued that it is not necessarily a financial problem but an educational one (750, 562).
More generally, respondents highlighted that some types of food (e.g. meat) are a lot more
expensive while others (pasta and rice) are less so (566). A problem with quality versus quantity
was also highlighted (302).
“You can go to Waitrose and get three salads, or LIDL and get 10 sacks of crap” (302)
2.3 Lack of time available
In addition to education and affordability, a major theme highlighted was the lack of time available
to cook food.
“Working people tend to have time problems. They need fast food that is healthy” (841)
The lack of time to prepare food, and sometimes a negative attitude towards it, influence the way
people choose to eat. Participants pointed out problems with parents not giving their children
breakfast (542, 548). In some cases, the limited time available pushed participants to eat
takeaways (951, 963).
The lack of time available for cooking was also associated to lack of education about how to cook
(564, 728). This was also seen as a generational problem based upon the fact that the ability to
cook is not transmitted through different generations (278, 540, 564). This was reinforced by the
opinion of one respondent who suggested that when parents eat healthily, their children are more
likely to eat healthily too.
2.4 Access to food retailers
Although there were exceptions (821, 514), the vast majority of respondents commented that the
availability of healthy food in local shops is limited (362, 851, 859, 879, 880, 881, 889, 455, 488).
“No places to eat healthily in the area e.g. Kebab and Fried Chicken Shops are the options”
Participants felt that most local shops were selling the wrong type of food (e.g. Kebab, fried
chicken, fish and chips, sweets rather than fruit) and at higher price than large non-local food
retailers (879, 455). Most respondents travelled outside the area to Sainsbury, LIDL, and Iceland to
buy their food and lamented the lack of transport available to reach their destination which was
seen as a considerable problem especially for the elderly and residents with disabilities (362, 881).
Such trips were particularly important in order to buy fruit and vegetables (514).
There was, however, some disagreement in terms of the extent to which large food retailers were
offering a good and fresh range of fruits and vegetables. Whilst some respondents felt that LIDL
provided healthy food (558, 514), others commented that LIDL offered a poor range of fruits and
vegetables (302, 557).
Finally, one respondent (120) regularly went to the farmers‟ market to buy fresh fruits and
vegetables. However, the problem of distance was raised again as the respondent needed to take
two buses to reach her destination.
2.5 Lack of information
An important issue in terms of choosing a healthy diet is the lack of readily accessible relevant
information about healthy food. On the one hand, one respondent (142) pointed out the lack of
availability of information about healthy food. On the other, one respondent (726) mentioned the
huge amount of takeaways advertising through the post and how that influences people‟s choice of
what food to consume.
“There are a lot of takeaways, I am bombarded by leaflets for pizzas” (726)
3 PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Most local residents interpreted physical activity as „anything that is not just sitting around‟ (982)
and generally walking and running are the most popular answers (970,973, 976, 992).
3.1 Physical activities/infrastructure
It is not clear whether local residents felt that physical activities are available in the area (393) or
not (528). Respondents pointed out that a range of activities are available including tennis courts
(395, 508), tai chi (429), yoga in the evening at the Greenvale school (867), and DUMPS
adventure playground which is seen as very good for kids (877). In particular, the tennis courts
seem to benefit from a significant demand from pupils at school (508). This might signal the
opportunity to extend this beyond school time and to local adult residents.
On the other hand, some respondents lamented the lack of physical activities/infrastructure in the
local area (811). A range of needs were expressed including a local gym (439, 904), football
pitches with Astroturf (445), swimming pool (482, 904), a bike riding group (494), yoga, meditation
(670), dance classes, and tai chi (811).
In addition, other respondents pointed to the need to organise trips (theatre, sea side) that involved
all the local residents and all age groups, particularly teenagers and even younger kids (230, 240).
An initiative involving the use of a van to take kids out on holidays e.g. fishing and farming had
been particularly successful, but it was not clear whether this was still ongoing (877).
3.2 Lack of information about activities available
There was considerable „gap‟ in information about the activities available in or just outside the
estate. Residents were genuinely surprised to find out that more activities than they expected were
available (584, 482). For example there was a lack of information about the presence of a local
swimming pool facility (482, 578).
The library was mentioned as a place where information was available, but most activities were
advertised through word of mouth (582) rather than the circulation of leaflets.
3.3 Attitudes towards physical activity
Some respondents highlighted the lack of willingness in local residents to practice physical activity
(199, 230, 258)
“Problem with getting people out. They never got out and do things” (199)
It was suggested that one explanation is that parents don‟t sufficiently motivate their children and
themselves (258, 262).
Some respondents commented that one of the problems is the lack of affordable activities (262,
520). One respondent pointed out that families are more willing to send their children to cheaper
“There‟s lots of stuff around for kids but parents are lazy. Sometimes, it‟s about money.
People can‟t afford £5 for something. But there‟s Rugby that‟s only £1 so you get a real mix
of people and everyone has the opportunity to participate”(262).
3.5 Links between physical activity and community cohesion
Respondents also saw physical activity as a way to strengthen the links between local residents
and beyond. It was argued that physical activity helps with raising self-esteem, improving social
skills (especially important for younger people), and was seen as an important opportunity for
socialising (263, 383, 668). One particular example deserves mention: tai chi (811) as important to
get young and old people together, and even an entire family (391).
4 MENTAL WELL-BEING
4.1 Mental health
Local residents mentioned a range of individuals that are affected by mental health problems.
These included people suffering from autism, problems around obesity, and problems amongst the
elderly (44, 356, 425, 377). „Mobility‟ was an important problem for these groups alongside
„following doctors‟ instructions‟. A range of support is available in terms of family learning, family
and behaviour management in order to help local residents to prevent mental health problems. An
important need was expressed around the elderly and how they might be able to cope with
depression. The need to encourage them to get out of the house and join various activities (e.g.
trips) was highlighted (80). One respondent (425) pointed out the need for a mapping exercise in
order to identify how many elderly people are affected by problems of depression. Some
respondents pointed to the importance of social contact as a preventative measure against mental
health problems (765, 767).
The interviews undertaken revealed that tackling problems related to young people is a priority
(858). The future development and the well-being of the area were seen by residents to be strongly
dependent upon the presence of „good‟ young people. The views of respondents on young people
were mixed. Some residents pointed out that the majority are good and well behaved (86, 612,
868), but others felt that they can create a number of problems that can generally be summarised
under the theme of „lack of education‟, and young people having „nothing to do‟ and make use of
drugs (873, 856, 597)
“Nothing for teenagers to do in the holidays, they just hang around intimidating people”
“But not much to do for kids especially teenagers they need more. They hang around on
street corners with big dogs” (856).
A key general problem was that anti-social behaviour orders were issued but not enforced in
practice. A more specific problem was around „noise pollution‟ in the area (652, 718, 720, 911,
898). Mopeds and motorbikes ride up and down Dunfield Rd and in some pathways. This was
seen as dangerous for younger kids playing around these areas.
Residents also provided some explanations as to why some teenagers are not „educated‟ or have
„nothing to do‟. Some respondents commented that parents play a fundamental role in the
education of their children and were blamed for the lack of their education.
“One child he was one of the worse ones but it was the way he was brought up one day he
was shouting and using bad language then his mum said “I want you to come shopping”
but he called out to her „no you don‟t you want me to shoplift for you‟” (90)
Other explanations included the lack of aspiration, confidence, self-esteem, and social/life skills or
young people (419, 423).
“Confidence and self esteem stops people making better choices” (419).“Without
aspirations children tend to want to be like one of their parents” (420)
In some cases the problem was one of lack of parents‟ time to dedicate to children and this was
seen as having a negative impact on children‟s education (15, 74).
“There are not enough mothers around anymore. You would go out with your children and
say, for example, don‟t throw that on the ground and teach them but now this doesn‟t
A wide range of solutions were put forward by respondents (268, 306, 310 476, 480, 498, 500,
704, 769, 797, 815). In order to tackle the problem of young people having „nothing to do‟
especially in the evening (up to 10pm), some respondents put forward the following:
A proper community centre for later in the evening where you do not have to pay (310, 498,
658, 769, 799). This also emerged strongly from interviews with younger people (aged 10-
Adventure playground in the evening (up to 10pm) involving the 15-20 age group (498)
Need childcare for longer hours to help working parents (825)
Building on the DUMPS as an existing facility (interviews with young people)
Some more specific initiatives included:
Track for mopeds with first aid workers to advise more supervision to have good riding kits
and a safer environment (500)
Balloon workshops to teach the older kids (480)
4.3 Community building
Community building was also seen as an important influence on mental well-being. The sense of a
community spirit, community cohesion, and the opportunity to talk to neighbours were seen as
particularly important. The vast majority of residents felt that there was little sense of community
(132, 366, 443, 532, 666, 754, 894), but there were some limited exceptions (883, 905).
Interestingly, there were contradictory responses in terms of the extent to which people come and
go in the estate. Some residents felt that there was a substantial turnover of people living in the
area (153, 250), but one resident commented that people live in the area for a long time (869).
The lack of local spaces to socialise was partly blamed for this (756, 866). In this vein, residents
felt that the community hall was not fully utilised (580, 660). On a more positive note, one resident
pointed out that there is an affordable breakfast club in the area which caters for working parents
and provides their kids with a bus to take them to school (266).
Further issues were raised around tensions between generations and cultures (in some cases
racism) were mentioned (441, 443).
“In the area people have nothing in common. Elderly stick to themselves, and there is an
issue around colour” (443)
Some other participants understood community building as a notion associated with the need to
raise the „aspirations‟ of the community. The area was seen as characterised by low aspirations
and lack of education (340, 342, 344).
“Education, lots of single parents, it is hard to raise aspirations” (340). “My uncle was a
plasterer so I can do that, but no one goes a step further and says I will run my own
plastering business” (342)
As a potential solution to this, one respondent suggested the need to mix people from a
disadvantaged background with people from a rich background in order to raise their aspirations
“If you only mix with disadvantaged kids, you have lower aspirations, we need different
parts of the community working together” (250)
The area was not seen as particularly dangerous by respondents (9, 593, 744, 787, 855, 893),
“I have been here 15 years and have no problems with the area” (744)
On the other hand, other respondents disagreed (320, 322). In some instances, the danger of the
area was seen more as perceived than real (322) but nonetheless would discourage people from
going out, particularly in the evening. Young children (10-17 age group) were particularly conscious
of safety issues within the area highlighting problems of gangs, fights and bullying.
Some criticisms were aimed at the police and in particular the lack of community support officers
patrolling the area (11). A murder was reported but the police were ineffective at tackling the crime,
even though, it was suggested, key evidence was collected (13).
5 OPEN SPACES
Although the provision of green spaces was commented positively (58, 193), the majority of
respondents pointed out that the parks could be improved. Most respondents mentioned the need
for better facilities for children under 10 (752, 795, 680, 490, 492 781, 875), particularly in terms of
building climbing frames and football/basketball facilities. Other comments related to the fitting of
benches and the construction of toilet facilities (496, 492). All the interviews with children (age 10-
17) confirmed that parks constitute a very important space that needs to be maintained and
A particular concern was the lack of access to the tennis courts within the school to local residents.
This was restricted by issues with health and safety regulation and the need for a caretaker (395,
508, 326). This was seen as missed opportunity given the significant local demand for playing
“The tennis courts across the road aren‟t used you cant get access from the school they
say it‟s a health and safety issue and that they need a caretaker” (326)
Local residents were also concerned with dog faeces and suggested the introduction of „dog free
zones‟ (282, 779).
“Parks need dog free zones and also on the estates dog mess is a real bug bear” (282)
6 ARTS AND CULTURE
Some residents pointed out the importance of „arts and cultural activities‟ in order to improve the
chance of social interaction, and as particularly useful to engage and motivate young people in the
A variety of activities were proposed including dancing and street dancing especially for younger
people (403, 524), wood carving (346), singing and playing music (346, 449), going to the theatre,
pottery (348), cultural events for the whole family (397), a graffiti wall (552).
Ideas for improvements and projects
Lack of allotments (185)
Cookery clubs (387)
Prizes to eat vegetables? (459)
No breakfast club at the school (546, 550): survey suggested the need for a breakfast club at the
Need more places where people can talk about their health issues (791)
Allotments – grow your own (185)
DUMP (adventure playground) (most interviews with young people)
Theatre trips (230)
Need to organise trips (theatre, sea side) that involve all the local residents and all age groups,
particularly teenagers and even younger kids (230, 240).
Bike riding group (494)
Gym open 24 hours (1021)
Cash incentives (i.e. vouchers) for people to use the gym more often (1026)
Tai chi (811) was seen as important to get young and old people together, even an entire family
and/or people over 50s (391, 60).
Mapping exercise to find out how many elderly suffer from depression (425)
Organise trips outside the area, especially for elderly (80)
A proper community centre for later in the evening where you do not have to pay (310, 498,
658, 769, 799)
Adventure playground in the evening (up to 10pm) involving the 15-20 age group (498)
Need childcare for longer hours to help working parents (825)
Track for mopeds with first aid workers to advise more supervision to have good riding kits
and a safer environment (500)
Want balloon workshops and teach the older kids (480)
Greater use of the hall (580, 660)
Need for a space where people can talk to each other (756, 866)
Mix people with different background (250)
Building on the existing affordable breakfast club in the area (266)
Greater presence of community support officers (11)
Arts and culture
Dancing and street dancing especially for younger people (403, 524)
Wood carving (346)
Singing and playing music (346, 449)
Organised trips to the theatre (232)
Cultural events for the whole family (397)
Graffiti wall (552).
Access tennis courts to the wider public (395, 508, 326)
Dogs‟ free zones (282, 779)
More facilities for under 10 in local parks (752, 795, 680, 490, 492 781, 875 and interviews with
Interactive Mapping Information Summary
Beckenham Hill Station is clearly a safety concern for some residents. It was noted that the station
is cut of from the main road, therefore feels isolated. There is no access for vehicles, which
prevents traffic flow, causing a number of residents feel separated and unsafe. The approach to
the station goes around a bend, making it out of site from the main road. It was stated that groups
congregate here, which can be intimidating for some people. Another resident said that it was
dangerous to walk near the station at night because it is very quiet and isolated. Southend Lane
was highlighted by one resident as an area where young kids and „boy racers‟ have robbed people
and driven off. Southend Park was considered to be unsafe after dark as was the alley way behind
the community centre. Residents felt that Forster Memorial Park and Beckenham Place Park were
unsafe at night due to fear of stabbings and rapists. One resident said that while his girlfriend felt
unsafe at the Dunfield shops after 7pm because of groups of youths, he was confident walking
anywhere in the area.
Some younger residents cited The Dumps as a safe place to go because of the presence of staff
and other people as well as the presence of security cameras. A similar comment was made
about the presence of helpful staff at the community centre. Two residents very close to Sedgehill
Road stated that they felt safe in the areas immediately around where they lived because they
knew people and were not aware of any incidents here. Some residents felt intimidated by school
children using mini motorbikes and cars driving continuously around the block at high speeds on
Sedgehill and Lushington Road. Most residents felt that there were no issues with walking places
other than groups congregating at night and other safety issues detailed above. One resident felt
that better connected bus routes would encourage her to drive less.
Dog muck was a commonly raised topic. One resident suggested that more bins on Lushington
Road would help. Southend Park was also cited as an area where dog mess is a problem; one
resident suggested splitting the park into two sections, one for use by dogs and one go free area.
The Bellingham Green area was recently flattened and landscaped, with new facilities added.
However, several residents felt there could be further improvements. There are no toilets;
therefore if you take your children there you need to leave the park and go to a local pub or to the
station to use the toilet. Clearly this is inconvenient and stops families using the park for longer
periods. Other residents suggested a café with toilets would be popular and solve this problem
and childcare facilities or supervision would allow parents to go to the local shops while their
children enjoyed a safe environment.
Other comments include:
There‟s lots of potential to make this area very attractive. If young
children knew it was dog free it would be popular.
Make better use of this green space. the playing fields are small by
Needs to be dog free
One local primary school has a link with this special needs school and its
very positive, other schools should do the same
They do a lot to clean the area and keep greenery well
Security cameras and speed humps
Bellingham Green was a popular development and it was suggested that similar work on
Bellingham Playing Field, next to Bellingham Station would improve the area. This playing field
was discussed by several residents who felt that more could be done to improve the facilities
available. It was suggested that the mixed toilet and changing facilities were inadequate as they
limited use to single sex activities, whereas an extension or adaptation to incorporate separate
changing facilities would be more appropriate. Other suggestions for facilities here included all
weather all weather Astroturf pitches, which could be made sustainable with investment from local
sports teams. The two main places people went to be active were Bellingham Playing Field and
Bellingham Place Park. One resident reported that the gym on the north side of Bellingham
Playing Field was good for children ages 6-8 years old, it‟s affordable but the staffs are poorly
trained. The Dumps was also highlighted as a place for young children to be active although was
suggested that there is a lack of facilities for children around the age of eleven. One resident used
a bodybuilding gym „Metroflex‟, next to Lower Sydenham station regularly.
Other comments about being active include:
After school activities are not accessible for all children with working parents.
These facilities could be better used for.
Sports facilities here are excellent, Astroturf, but not everyone knows its here
because it‟s off the main road.
The cricket club could have a scheme to exchange children‟s equipment
when it‟s outgrown.
There‟s enough space for rugby, football and Astroturf pitches. There are no
rugby facilities locally.
This is a private members club.
Other than this building I take my children to facilities outside the area.
Good for walking and there‟s a play park.
There‟s a really nice warm training pool.
Ride my bike here. but I don‟t get much time with three kids.
Running machine swimming pool.
Run around the local area.
Not many people go here, its quiet. there are loads of dog owners, but not
many go here.
I go here on my bike, they‟ve got a bike course here, its quiet.
All residents said that they buy fruit and vegetables, as well as other food at Sainsbury‟s near Bell
Green or at Lidl off Southend Lane either because it was convenient, close by or they used the
home delivery service.
Other comments regarding eating locally include:
There‟s nowhere in this area to get something to eat while out, so I eat at
other places, cafes, sandwiches, further away.
Chip shop for adults and chips, cheap and good portions, clean, fresh. but no
It was evident that there were no arts projects locally that the residents were aware of. One
resident used the DMB theatre school for singing and dancing activities for children and Hornimans
museum, further a field. Several residents explicitly stated that there are no arts projects available
in the area, whilst one suggested that the community centre would be a suitable venue for such
activities and that motor vehicle workshops would be popular.
Community Services and Amenities Mapping
SOA & ONS code Borough WL partner Co-host
Bellingham/ E01003192 Lewisham SLaM Bellingham Community Project
Post codes in LSOA
SE6--- 3DP, 3QH, 3RR, 3QT, 3QU, 3PU, 3RN, 3RD, 3RW, 3RE, 3RP, 3DW, 3QS, 3QP, 3QR, 3WG, 3QY, 3RH, 3RJ, 3QF, 3RL,
3RF, 3RQ, 3RG,1SY, 1TG, 3QW, 1TH, 3QN, 1TF, 1TQ, 3QA, 3QD, 3QB
Snapshot/context information Narrative description
Population: General overview and key features of the area
1523 The area lies within Bellingham ward which is located along the southern
Demographics: border of the borough. The ward is one of the five most deprived in Lewisham.
Multiethnic community with Bellingham Estate is bordered to the east and west by railway lines running
largest groups being White south from Catford. Southend lane cuts across the estate from east to west.
(57%), black Caribbean (11%) Housing in the area consists mainly of social/council houses and flats built
and black African (11%)
between 1920 and 1936 on what was at the time farm land. Most of the
Borough-wide, ~11% of the housing within Bellingham is managed by Phoenix Community Housing
population is aged 65+ and over Association, a not-for-profit resident-led housing association which has taken
compared to 16% nationally. over the management and ownership of Lewisham council housing in the
Projections indicate that Bellingham.
Lewisham‟s 65+ population has
been declining since 2001 and
will continue to do so until 2011Bellingham suffers many social problems, in particular low educational
except in BME groups where it achievement and low income levels. Only a quarter of students achieve five or
will increase from 13% in 2001 tomore GCSEs of A*-C compared with the national average of 53%. There is a
20% in 2011.
high level of dependency with 10% of working age residents claiming disability
Housing: allowance, 14% incapacity benefit, and 17% income support. Other measures
Household size– 2.14 people/unit of deprivation are evident in higher than average rates of low birth weight,
Overcrowding – 22% respiratory diseases and poor nutrition. Teenage pregnancy is also twice as
high as the national average and well above levels in the rest of London.
Owner occupier – 8%
Owned with mortgage - 18% The SOA is based in the part of Lewisham known as South Bellingham or
Rented from LA – Sedgehill. It comprises an ethnically diverse, young population, close to a
Rented from housing assoc- quarter of who are under 16. The area is served by Beckenham Hill train
station and contains a small parade of shops, three schools - Sedgehill
Top 5% of most deprived SOAs Primary, St Augustine‟s and Watergate School that specializes in children with
in London special needs, plus The Dumps Adventure playground & Sedgehill Community
Centre which is home to the Base Zero and Happy Days children‟s clubs. A
Regeneration: large part of the SOA contains Beckenham Place Park Golf Course, Tennis
Historically, Bellingham was
overlooked by major Courts, Stumphill and Summerhouse Woods. The 'Friends of Beckenham
development funding Place Park' arrange a number of events in the park, including walks and talks.
mechanisms such as the Single The Bellingham Green Park is at the centre of the Estate, and was for many
Regeneration Budget (SRB), years overgrown and a security threat to local residents until the Bellingham
New Deal For Communities
(NDC) and City Challenge.
Community Project successfully campaigned to have it flattened and re-
Regeneration in Bellingham has designed.
notably been driven locally
through the efforts of BellinghamCommunity concerns by local residents emphasise feeling of intimidation by
Interagency and Bellingham groups ((especially youths) hanging around Beckenham Hill Station, and fear
of robbery and attack. Southend lane which runs across the area is perceived
At the borough level, Lewisham‟s to divide the community in a psychological (but not physical) sense that might
Neighbourhood Renewal impact negatively on community cohesion.
programme targets 7 themes: Healthy Eating summary
- Housing and Environment
There are few opportunities for healthy eating in the SOA. There a small
- Crime and Community Safety parade of shops in Dunfield Road consisting of a Sandwich shop (which only
- Neighbourhood Management opens at peak eating times and not at weekends), a fish and chip shop, a
- Children and Young People hairdressers, a newsagents/convenient store and a Londis mini market.
- Employment and Enterprise Outside the SOA, there is a Lidl supermarket off Southend Lane and a
- Community Development
Strategy Sainsbury‟s at Bell Green further afield.
Physical Activity summary
The SOA has a large green area - Beckenham Place Park - containing Golf
HE Healthy Eating
PA Physical Activity Course, Tennis Courts and The Dumps Adventure Playground. The
MH Mental Health Bellingham Leisure and Lifestyle Centre is about ½ mile outside the SOA and
GS Green spaces offers a gym, large ball pit for under 10‟s, aerobics, activities for the elderly,
AC Arts and Culture line dancing, social events gymnastics etc. Also just outside the SOA is the
Gateway Children‟s centre offering a youth club & youth related activities and
trips such as fun days, ice skating, bowling, Quassar etc.
Mental Health summary
MH services are provided predominantly by South London and Maudsley NHS
- opened in March 2007.
Lewisham Ageing Well – for people aged 55+; provides a wide range of PA
sessions for all levels of mobility and fitness.
Metroflex gym - near Lower Sydenham station
NRF Lewisham Healthy Walks (with Health First)
NRF Sports Action Zone (with LB Lewisham) - aims to deliver in partnership
with local groups and providers, sport and heath related activities for young
people, in the four most deprived wards in Lewisham and to produce a
partnership plan for sport.
MH services are provided South London and Maudsley NHS Trust (SLaM)
predominantly by South London
and Maudsley NHS Trust
(SLaM), with the involvement of Speedwell Community Mental Health Team (CMHT)
some independent organisations
in aspects of addiction treatment. NRF Mental Health Early Intervention Initiative (with Lewisham PCT)
MH service sites are mostly
concentrated in the centre of the
borough and in Deptford. A
NRF Mental Health Promotion - BME Communities (with SLaM) - project to
number of borough wide NRF promote mental well being within BME communities through working with,
funded initiatives target capacity and building the capacity of, existing community groups around MH health
building in MH promotion for promotion
Key voluntary sector providers NRF Move On Up Programme (with LCDP) - to bring together people with
include Lewisham Mental low level unaddressed MH needs. Separate programmes for men and
Health Foundation, Ladywell women include psychological therapy, address stress and help them build
Mental Health Carers‟ Support healthy lifestyles with a particular emphasis on exercise, nutrition and
Group, ISIS Family Health,
(Lewisham and Greenwich
Branch), and PLUS (Providence Ladywell Mental Health Carers‟ Support Group - for carers of friends or
Link United Services) relatives with a MH problem
Lewisham Mental Health Foundation - network for all MH agencies, including
user, voluntary and statutory organisations in Lewisham
ISIS Family Health, 183-185 Rushey Green, SE6 4BD - offers support for
people of African and African-Caribbean descent with MH difficulties.
Services include individual and group support, advocacy, counselling,
recreational activities, training, awareness and advice on issues that affect
the mental well-being of African and African-Caribbean people
.Alzheimer's Society (Lewisham and Greenwich Branch), 52 Deptford
Broadway, Deptford SE8 4PH - supports people with dementia and their
carers; services include a Helpline, monthly carers support group meetings
and a monthly newsletter
PLUS (Providence Link United Services) - provides support for older people
and BME elders and their carers who are disadvantaged by mental illness.
User led workshops and forums are provided by a qualified artist tutor, using
art therapy to enable older people with mental health needs to express
needs and engage in decision making.
Other service provision and amenities
: Bellingham Interagency
Sure Start (Bellingham) - 22 Randlesdown Road, Catford SE6 3BT
Bellingham Community Nursery, 109A Randlesdown Road, Bellingham, SE6
ABC Day Nursery, 1A Melfield Garden, Beckenham Hill, SE6 3AH
Bellingham Safer Neighbourhoods Teams
Lewisham Intervention Site
In 2001 Lewisham contained a population of 248,922 ranking it as the ninth largest of the London
Boroughs and the second largest in the East London. Within Lewisham borough the majority ethnic
group is White (57%) however there are sizeable Black groups. Specifically within Bellingham SOA
1,523 residents can be accounted for over a quarter (22%) of whom are under 16 placing the area
among the bottom 30% for London5. BME residents comprise 34% of the population, compared
with an average of 43% across the borough. The BME population includes roughly equal numbers
of black Caribbeans and black Africans (11.2% and 10.6% respectively)2. Bellingham ranked in the
top 5% of most deprived SOAs in London with an IMD score of 52.07.
There is uneven distribution of deprivation across the Borough, with some pockets experiencing
high levels of deprivation. Thirty seven percent of the Borough‟s SOAs are in the top 20% most
deprived SOA‟s nationally. Road injuries and deaths are high, even for London which has higher
rates than England.8 The five most deprived wards in Lewisham are: Evelyn, New Cross,
Lewisham Central, Bellingham and Brockley.9 Under the Lewisham PCT administrative areas,
Bellingham ward is grouped in Neighbourhood Four together with Crofton Park, Forest Hill, Perry
Vale and Sydenham wards in the western part of the Borough. The Neighbourhood constitutes
29% of the local population.8
Population level estimates represent Bellingham as a predominantly inner area ‘metro multiculture’
community with residents who live in rented public housing.1 Only 8.48% residents own their house
outright and 17.52% own with a mortgage (both categories ranking in the bottom 15% for all
London SOAs). The average household size is 2.14 and more than a fifth of households (22.4%)
suffer overcrowding.2 Population estimates suggest that residents perceptions about the
neighbourhood differ considerably from the national average in respect of whether they consider
the neighbourhood a good place to live in (23% below the national average). Other major predicted
neighbourhood issues relate to racism, noisy neighbours, burnt out cars and poor condition of
homes (106%, 94%, 85% and 77% above the national average respectively). 1 These problems are
much more pronounced among the residents of the multi ethnic community social housing.
Borough level health indicators are generally poorer compared to national figures. Life expectancy
is lower than the average for England and deaths from smoking, heart disease and stroke, and
cancers are more common. There is a higher rate of avoidable admissions to hospital than in
England, and people in Lewisham are also more likely to feel in poor health. However, few people
are recorded with diabetes, and the level of children‟s tooth decay is low compared to the national
average. Significant inequalities however exist across the borough and wards with the lowest life
expectancy lie to the north and west of the borough.10
At the ward level, Bellingham SOA lies in an area of poorer health indicators. With 85 years of
potential life lost per 1000 person years, the area ranks among the top 20% of London SOAs.
Twenty three percent of the community suffer a life long illness (top 4% of London)7. Emergency
admissions to hospital are well below the national average within this community by 18% 8. At ward
level, synthetic estimates rank the area high in the proportion of smokers - 32% (77th percentile)
and obese adults - 21.9% (81st percentile)6
At the Borough level, the number of people registered with the GP for severe mental health
problems is high, which may be a reflection of higher than average need or higher utilisation
rates.5 Bellingham‟s Index of Mental Health of 0.43 ranks it in the top 10% for London and hospital
admissions for mental health in the top 50% London SOAs3. Five percent of the population claim
incapacity benefit for mental health issues (top 2% for London). Mental health concerns are above
the national average for all communities. Some of the factors driving are predicted by Experian
data highlighting worries about being pestered or insulted within their home area, (85% more than
the national average) and worries about racial attacks (102% above the average).1
At ward level 24.9% of adults and 34.7% of children consume the recommended amounts of fruit
and vegetables. This compares with 23.7% of the general adult and 37.5% of the general children
population.6 Locally, there are four Time Banks (which are community development initiatives
designed to foster community participation and skills sharing), intergenerational projects, physical
activity and nutrition projects in Downham, Bellingham and Deptford and New Cross. There is also
the Bellingham Nutrition Project – a project which provides healthy community lunches and fresh
fruit for local people.
Physical activity is poor in the area and combines with other lifestyle factors to drive health
inequalities. Indicators of exercise through employment of Experian population estimates show
below average rates in almost all areas. Gym membership would be below national average by just
under 26% for most of the community. Marathon participation is expected well below the national
average by 76%, cycling below average by 26%, football 4% below, and hiking and walking 37%
below. However, charity work is suggested to be enjoyed at the same rate as the national
London estimates present a picture of very high benefit dependency in the area.4 Ten percent of
residents claim disability allowance, placing the area in the top 7% of London SOAs. Fourteen
percent claim incapacity benefit (top 2% of LSOAs), 17% income support (top 6%) and 8% job
seekers allowance (ranking in the top 4%).
About a quarter of the population in Lewisham aged 16 to 74 do not have any qualifications.
Educational attainment is even lower in Bellingham where almost 4 in 10 residents (37.1%) have
no qualifications, ranking the area among the top 10% for all London SOAs; 16.7% have level 1
qualifications (just outside of the top 25%); 17.6% have level 2 (top 50%); 6.2% have level 3
(bottom 10%) and 16.1% are qualified at level 4 (top 20%)2
Population estimates suggest that the fear of crime is a bigger concern in Bellingham SOA than in
England as a whole. Of particular concern are likely to be racial attacks, people using or dealing
drugs, burnt out cars, vandalism and graffiti, and rape. Percentage differences above the national
average value for these indicators range from 38 to 102%. 1
Lewisham has a wide range of parks from small local spaces to metropolitan parks like Blackheath
and Beckenham Place Park. The Greenscene department oversees the management of public
parks by the Council‟s contractors, Glendale Grounds management, and directly manages nature
conservation sites, allotments and other open spaces. The Council runs 36 allotment sites. There
are also three sites of major ecological importance in London – both Beckenham Place Park and
Blackheath, and the Thames/Deptford Creek.8
Lewisham has an economy that has undergone substantial change. Over the last 20 years the
borough has lost the majority of large private sector firms, with small retail and business
service companies becoming dominant. With an employment base of 60,000 jobs and a
workforce of around 115,000, Lewisham is a net exporter of labour to the London economy.
Nevertheless, unemployment remains high in various pockets of the borough – notably the
ones with high deprivation in general.8 Only 57% of residents in Bellingham SOA are
economically active (bottom 10% for London SOAs) and an unemployment rate of 6% places
them in the top 25%.2
Borough-wide, the Lewisham Strategic Partnership brings together about 20 representatives from
the public private and voluntary sectors. There are a number of other projects taking place
Project Revive – one in four „ for Survivors of sexual abuse with mental health problems to
promote volunteering as a staff development and confidence building group
Allotment and garden project – a group of mental health service users who volunteer to
develop allotment garden for community use.
The Sydneham Garden outreach project - a therapeutic garden project for people with chronic
illness including mental health issues, and with a particular focus on BME outreach.
„What‟s love got to do with it?‟ – Malachi Mentoring project -a one-to-one mentoring project
targeting young black men with severe and enduring mental health problems.
Volunteer project – Lewisham day centre for refugees and asylum seekers project. Voluntary
projects for those with severe and enduring mental health problems from excluded
communities in Lewisham. They are working to develop a team of outreach volunteers to
inform and educate specific refugee and asylum seeker groups about mental health issues.
At the ward level, Bellingham was one of four most deprived neighbourhoods in Lewisham
prioritised to receive Neighbourhood Renewal Funding. The four neighbourhoods received £5.5m
over a three-year period ending in April 2004.3 The Education Achievement Zone supports joint
funding of a number of nutrition projects in Downham and Bellingham
1. Experian Data
2. Census Data 2001
3. London Health Observatory
4. Department of Work and Pensions.
5. 2004 Population estimates.
6. HSE (2000-2002).
7. Office of National Statistics
8. Groundwork London, 2007
9. Lewisham PCT Health Data and Information
10. Health profile for Lewisham 2006
11. Health Survey for England, 2004
Characteristics derived from Experian Profiles
LSOA Code E01003192
Ward Name Bellingham
Demographic Education Economic Benefits
Population (2004) 1523 Percent no qualifications 37.13
Males 727 Rank in London (out of 4765) 465 Economic Activity Rate 57% % claiming Disability Living Allowance 10%
Working Age 970 Percent level 1 quals 16.73 Rank in London (out of 4765) 4385 Rank in London (out of 4765) 302
% claiming incapacity benefit or severe
% under 16 22% Rank in London (out of 4765) 1217 disablement allowance 14%
Ranking in London %under 16 (of 4765) 1224 Percent level 2 quals 17.65 Unemployment rate 6% Rank in London (out of 4765) 85
Percent White 66.3 Rank in London (out of 4765) 2130 Rank in London (out of 4765) 1067 % claiming income support 17%
Ranking in London (out of 4765) 3087 Percent level 3 quals 6.25 Rank in London (out of 4765) 266
Percent Black Caribbean 11.23 Rank in London (out of 4765) 4384 % claiming jobseekers allowance 8%
Percent Black African 10.65 Percent level 4 quals 16.08 Rank in London (out of 4765) 159
Rank in London (out of 4765) 3963
Health Health Health Mental Health
Years of potential life lost ( per Cause of death -all: age
Synthetic estimate of % smokers 32 1000) 84.95 standardised rate 971.3 Index of Mental Health (mean=0) 0.43
Percentile 77% Ranking in London (4765) 746 Ranking in London (4765) 1139 Ranking in London (4765) 393
Cause of Death: MI age- Hospital admissions for mental health:
Synthetic estimate of % binge drinkers 11.9 Percent with LLTI 22.97 standardised rate . age-standardised rate 327.2
Percentile 23% Ranking in London (4765) 162 Ranking in London (959) . Ranking in London (959) 461
Cause of Death: Stroke age- % pop claiming Incapacity benefit or SDA
Synthetic estimate of % obese 21.9 % working-age pop with LLTI 21.56 standardised rate . for MH 5%
Percentile 81% Ranking in London (4765) 57 Ranking in London (959) . Ranking in London (4765) 650
Hospital Admissions Stroke
SE %Adults 5+ fruits 24.9 age-standardised rate .
Percentile 32% Ranking in London (959) .
SE % Children 5+ fruits 34.7
Level 1: 1+ 'O' level passes, 1+ CSE/GCSE any grades, NVQ level 1, Foundation GNVQ
Level 2: 5+ 'O' level passes, 5+ CSEs(grade 1s), 5+ GCSEs (grades A-C), School Certificate, 1+ 'A' levels/AS levels, NVQ level 2, Intermediate GNVQ
Level 3: 2+ 'A' levels, 4+ AS level, Higher School certificate, NVQ level 3, Advanced GNVQ
Level 4: First degree, Higher Degree, NVQ levels 4 & 5, HNC, HND, Qualified teacher status, Qualified Medical Doctor, Qualified Dentist, Qualified Nurse, Midwife, health Visitor
% own outright 8.48 Average household size 2.14
Ranking in London (4765) 4084 Ranking in London (4765) 3644
% own with mortgage 17.52 Rooms per household 4.04
Ranking in London (4765) 4091 Ranking in London (4765) 3880
% rent from LA 63 percent overcrowded 22.39
Ranking in London (4765) 179 Ranking in London (4765) 1422
% rent private landlord 4.73 Without central heating 7.93
Ranking in London (4765) 3956 Ranking in London (4765) 1985
% rent from housing association 1.81 Without sole use of bath/shower/toilet 0.56
Ranking in London (4765) 3698 Ranking in London (4765) 2462
Characteristics derived from Experian Profiles
YOU CAN CLICK ON THE HYPERLINKS TO SEE THE EXPERIAN PROFILES
Experian Archetype Postcodes
D27: Settled Minorities 25.81
F36: Metro Multiculture 48.39
F37: Upper Floor Families 16.13
G43: Ex-industrial Legacy 3.23
H46: White Van Culture 6.45
In the table below the numbers are the percentage which the area is expected to be above or below the national average value
Diet Neighbourhood problems
bad diet 26 Noisy Neighbours 94
Teenagers hanging about 33
Physical Activity Rubbish 28
gym membership -26 Vandalism and graffiti 48
marathon participation -76 Racism 106
People using or dealing in drugs 44
Smoke and Drink Homes in bad condition 77
smoker 16 Burnt out cars 85
heavy smoker 34
Drink alcohol daily -35 Worries
Heavy/medium beer drinking 32 Things stolen from car 24
Car stolen -11
Hospital Admissions Mugging 27
HES Total admissions 14 Burglary 12
HES Emergency -18 Rape 38
HES Alcohol and drug abuse 63 Attack from strangers 28
HES Mental Health 65 Insulted or pestered 85
Racial attack 102
HES Teenage Pregnancies 63 Leisure
Social Capital Football -4
Neighbours help each other -30 Golf -43
Neighbours go own way 24 Hiking and walking -37
Good place to live -23 Skiing and snowboarding -25
Average place to live 106 Theatre and the arts -13
Bad place to live 136 Voluntary and charity work 0
Well London Projects Overview
The programme has a two-tier design. Of the fourteen projects, eight are 'theme-based' and
promote mental well-being, healthy eating and open spaces and physical activity. Overarching
these are seven 'Heart of the Community' projects that will deliver capacity building and training,
community consultation and engagement and promote access.
Will make it easier for people in our target communities to eat healthily because good quality,
affordable, culturally appropriate and healthy food will be easier to buy. Responding to local needs
identified in our ongoing assessment, Buywell will support organisations and individuals to:
Introduce healthier choices on the menus and ranges of local food to restaurants and/or
Increase the use of healthy, seasonal food in community meals, e.g. older people's lunch
Set up new community-led "food co-ops" as social enterprises (where gaps exist), linked to
Expand the role of existing "food co-ops" so that they help people to access other food,
mental health and physical activity-related services. Assist them to become more financially
Buywell links closely to Eatwell and with the Well London delivery team project. A number of Well
London members will be trained to design, run and evaluate food access initiatives that meet the
needs of local residents (see "Training Communities"). The Big Lottery Grant will pay for a Food
Access Development Worker and a Retail Worker, the set up of 6 "food co-ops", and some staff
time within a local partner in each community to help coordinate local delivery.
Will increase the take-up of healthy food and build a sense of community by
a) Raising awareness of how to eat for good physical and mental health
b) Making healthy eating more attractive and easier to do
c) Celebrating food
The grant will pay for:
New healthy "Cook and eat" clubs (where they do not already exist), with support initially
but later led by trained members of the community. Sessions will be fun, safe, sociable and
"Community feasts" to bring the community together in celebration, showcase healthy,
seasonal and local foods, and celebrate cultural traditions represented in each area.
Members of the Well London Delivery Team will support people to eat healthily by helping them to
take up the activities above and existing support through schemes like "5 a day", with some of
them receiving community food work training (see "Training Communities").As a result, people will
increase in their confidence, awareness and ability to eat healthily, and in ways that contribute to
wider environmental and social goals (such as reducing "food miles" and reducing social isolation).
Where an individual has caring responsibilities, they will be able to feed their dependent(s) in a
more healthy and sustainable fashion.
Activate London will increase physical activity (PA) levels through:
Increasing range of sports and active recreation activities available within, or accessible to,
the community through signposting existing opportunities and delivering new activities;
Through the co-production approach, incentivise local people to be more physically active
and become catalysts for change;
Promote Active Living for all;
Working with target groups to identify, develop and deliver activities that engage them.
Activities will be developed and delivered locally by the Peer/Community Health Activators in
partnership with residents, with specialist programmes bought in as appropriate. Individuals/groups
will be supported to access existing and WL programmes and be more active every day.
Activities may include: using the outdoors, including use of Wellbeing maps to access existing
programmes or for walking; sports/active recreation, from football to yoga, seated classes for
elders to street games and circus skills for children/young people. Through inter-generational and
cross-cultural programmes (E.g. Active Community festivals), it will also increase social cohesion.
Culture and creativity
Be Creative, Be Well will use the arts and cultural activity to help engage communities and
individuals in a process of change, to improve environments and provide accessible physical
60 tailor-made projects designed in response to and led by the needs assessments of and
consultations with communities will be delivered. A project manager will broker relationships
between communities, other portfolio providers and professional arts organisations with extensive
experience of community-led delivery.
The programme will achieve:
Community networking/bonding through intergenerational/reminiscence projects,
particularly those which promote greater community understanding
Improvement in the mental health of individuals by increasing social networks with uplifting,
collaborative projects, building on local community traditions and cultures e.g choirs and
Support communities to develop their commissioning skills (e.g. contracting/ designing
projects) to embed the arts as an effective, viable tool for engagement and regeneration
Links for GPs to arts-based referral systems for mild to moderate mental health issues to
lessen reliance on medication and reintroduce people to their communities
Increased physical activity through dance, especially for 11 - 19 years and over 60s.
Use of the arts to promote healthy eating and living e.g. creating materials that 'talk' to local
people and interpret complex information.
Improve employability and self confidence by signposting of young people to the Arts Award, an
individually designed programme accredited at NVQ level 1-3
Programmes build on the opportunities that open spaces offer for communities' health and
wellbeing. Physical improvements that involve the local community in every step of the
programmes from planning to implementation will be complemented by structured programmes of
activities. The grant can pay for
Revenue-based activities including:
therapeutic horticulture schemes, based on open recruitment and GP referral schemes
family learning schemes for parents and children, including outdoor programmes such as a
health walks, growing fresh food and healthy eating
community gardening, also linking to the WL physical activity and food projects
open space maintenance and management plans that are linked to employment
opportunities in CADBE.
The grant can also be used for small physical improvements such as improving opens spaces
through community arts approaches, designing community gardens and play areas improving
access through landscaping, signage, sculpture trails etc.
All activities will support local people in developing a sense of ownership for their spaces and
foster community cohesion, thereby also tackling social isolation and related mental health
Mental health and well-being
Changing Minds will recruit and train local people with direct experience of mental ill health to
deliver mental health awareness training in SOA communities, empowering people to use their
experience to help reduce the stigma and discrimination faced by many people with mental health
problems and promote understanding of mental health and well-being.
The project will:
a) reduce stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental health problems
b) increase understanding of mental health and well-being
c) provide employment opportunities for people with mental health problems
d) develop the capacity of local organisations to deliver their own tailored Changing Minds
Changing Minds aims to
train 3 local people from each SOA (60 in total) as mental health awareness (MHA) and
anti-stigma trainers (6 month part-time course)
train 50 people from local community and statutory organisations as MHA trainers to work
with direct-experience trainers (free 4 day course in return for 4 days training delivery each
produce Train-the-Trainers pack and guidance
support host organisations to deliver Train-the-Trainer packages.
co-ordinate learning network events every six months to bring trainers together for
professional development, refresher training and problem-solving. (These learning
networks will link with the Wellnet project.)
DIY Happiness will deliver concrete, evidence-based messages and resources around what
keeps people mentally healthy and well, and increase understanding of how people can protect
themselves and their communities from the long-term effects of chronic stress.
The project will use humour, creativity and evidence emerging from the field of positive psychology
to provide practical advice and information that will increase people's ability to 'bounce back' from
adversity, reduce both the physical and the psychological impact of stress, increase resilience, and
build durable personal resources.
Activities will include:
1. 'Can Money Buy Happiness?'
Theatre-in-health-education play to provoke discussion about what we think makes us happy.
Humour and 'hot-seating' approach act as catalysts, enabling audiences to relax and absorb the
information conveyed in an entertaining and interactive way.
2. D.I.Y. Happiness Kits:
Individual and group resource kits including tools, tips and techniques for well-being to reinforce
key messages and improve understanding of determinants of mental well-being.
3. 'Dare to Dream' awards
Individual and group awards to realise ideas that promote well-being and increase local happiness.
Neighbourhood panels will decide awards and WL will work with recipients to provide support
Mental Well-being Impact Assessment (MWIA) enables stakeholders to identify
the potential impacts on mental well-being of their proposals/projects/programmes. It results in an
action plan to maximise positive and minimise negative impacts and enables the creation of
stakeholder measures of mental well-being.
Over the first 18 months the project will support and train, 4-6 local people from each SOA to
undertake 40 MWIAs. (50% of MWIAs will be on Well London projects and 50% on key local issues
identified through local consultation).
The project will take an "active learning" approach. Trainees will be supported by an experienced
facilitator on their first MWIA before leading on a second MWIA. This will be underpinned by
training in facilitation and mental well-being provided by the Training Communities project. A
learning network, (linked to Wellnet), will bring together MWIA trainees from across SOA every six
Each MWIA will be delivered in partnership with a local organisation identified through the Well
London consultation and supported by an MWIA advisor to build local capacity.
The project will:
Deliver a portfolio better tuned to deliver mental well-being across all activities;
Deliver a set of well-being indicators set by local stakeholders
Engage communities and increasing understanding around mental well-being
Develop local capacity to undertake MWIAs
Heart of the Community projects
CADBE (Community Engagement, Assessment, Design, Brokerage, Enterprise) has five roles
within the Well Programme:
Leading the community engagement process, an ongoing process of engagement
Mapping existing service, initiative and project provision
Baselining the current state of the communities in relation to the Well London themes, both
at the start and finish of the Well London programme, in order to evaluate Well London‟s
Delivering local brokerage and leverage of service providers, and developing social
Delivering a multimedia record of the journey.
Well London Delivery Team
This project aims to give people from our 20 SOAs the motivation, support, skills and confidence to
increase opportunities for others in the community to improve their well-being.
Before submitting the bid to BIG Lottery, our community engagement process highlighted the
opportunity to train and support residents already active in their communities as volunteers to:
a) “signpost” people to services and resources, for example counselling services or a local
b) act as advocate for people as they engage with service providers
c) increase the responsiveness of local services by providing a “feedback loop”, linking to the
brokerage work in our CADBE project
d) encourage people to take up healthier lifestyles
We considered commissioning a local partner organisation to identify and support 5-10 volunteers
as “Well London Delivery Team” members for 18 months per borough, with accredited training. As
we have continued to discuss this within our communities, we have been made increasingly aware
of the challenge foreseen in engaging and retaining the locally-based volunteers who will make up
the proposed Delivery Teams.
Timebanks for Wellbeing - We have therefore been exploring potential co-production
models along the lines of Timebanks that would offer incentives for people to get (and stay)
involved in the Delivery Teams, as well as other elements of Well London. This is potentially a
very exciting development, which should really support the sustainability of programmes in each
community for the longer term.
Representatives of our co-hosts have been invited to attend a workshop in December to develop
the project further and explore how this could be implemented for each community.
This project will set up and support a well-being focused Learning Network for communities and
professionals. Interventions to promote well-being across London will be more effective because
new insights, tools and ways of working developed through Well London and other programmes in
London will be shared between our 20 target communities, and with the Borough and PCTs where
they are located, and with strategic agencies working pan London
The grant will pay for:
a) An Events series Pan London: 2 events per year for communities and professionals will offer a
mix of high-level learning for senior policy makers and practitioners and more specific learning for
those working at community level. Borough level: 3-4 sessions per year in our 20 target Boroughs
will be held as part of an existing network. They will ensure that Well London activities in the SOA
fit into local strategies and approaches developed in the SOA are replicated more widely. Existing
sub-regional networks will also be used to share learning.
b) Regular newsletters, and publications and a CD-Rom toolkit including inspiring case studies, top
tips, tools and techniques) Fully interactive micro site for Wellnet members including online
resources and e-discussion groups Wellnet will be operational from April 2008 for 3.5 years.
The Training Communities project will coordinate, develop and commission training for community
members on behalf of all of the Well London projects The Training Communities project will fulfil
the 'Dual Task' of delivering high quality projects that increase physical activity, healthy eating and
mental wellbeing through investing in the capacity of the local community to develop and deliver
these projects, a wish that was strongly expressed throughout the consultation process. Besides
providing training and personal development resources that support and enable the other Well
London projects, it will also be a key step in ensuring sustainability through creating pathways of
training, employment and social enterprise for local service delivery, and hence close links with the
learning and social enterprise projects. WL will provide access to bespoke or existing accredited
and non-accredited programmes in the following areas:
Practical skills: E.g. fitness, exercise or sports leadership; food activators; horticulture and
design; digital media skills. A skills audit of local organisations and residents will support
these training programmes.
Process skills: including leadership training; community development processes;
consultation facilitation; mental health impact assessment; negotiation and communication
skills; evaluation methodologies.
The Alliance recognises the specific issues underpinning training and employment in highly
deprived communities and will ensure ongoing support and individually-focused learning are built
Youth.comUnity seeks to ensure that the voices of children and young people are heard in all
aspects of Well London's development and delivery and that they are involved in all projects as
valued and equal members of the local community.
It will work with project partners by providing support as they include the participation of young
people in the development and initiation of projects. This support will be delivered in a variety of
way and is flexible depending on the needs of the partners and the projects.
It will work alongside local school councils and youth fora but also through partners, actively
engage with young people not in employment, education or training, who may be on the street or
involved in other provision.
Wellbeing funding will employ two youth.com workers who will work across the WL portfolio, along
with a small programme budget for engagement activities.
Active Living Map
Using GIS technology web based maps will be developed for each SOA. Building on existing
provision e.g. Local Authority' sources, London Green Map http://www.london21.org/map.php the
map will draw together in a single resource a broad range of well being opportunities within easy
access of each community.
Information ranging from green spaces and parks, physical activities facilities and food co-ops,
allotments, farmers markets etc, will be displayed in a simple accessible format.
A paper map will be delivered to households in the target SOA via our well-being delivery team, as
well as GPs, community centres, local delivery agents and local authorities. The web-based maps
will be updated quarterly and the paper versions reprinted annually.
The map will:
Increase local knowledge and awareness of resources and services
Increase opportunities for making healthy eating choices
Increase opportunities for and levels of physical activity
Create opportunities for employment or volunteering as walk leaders, brokered through