Migration within London
Key points
- Every year, there is significant movement between London boroughs.
- In nine London boroughs, over 10% of the population of the resident population moved in or out in 2008
- This population turnover is more pronounced in Inner than Outer London, and Inner West than Inner East
Migration in and out of boroughs, as a proportion of total borough populations
What does this graph show?
In nine London boroughs - Haringey, Southwark, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Islington, Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham, Camden and Westminster - 10% or more of the population moved in and out of the borough in 2008.
Notably, all of these areas are in Inner London, which has an overall higher rate of population turnover than Outer London. Boroughs in the Inner West have a higher turnover still.
The equivalent of half the current population has moved in and out of 10 London boroughs in the last five years. Even in boroughs with settled populations such as Havering and Bexley, the equivalent of one-fifth of the current population has moved in and out in the last five years.
By way of comparison, about one-quarter of the populations of Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool moved in and out in the last five years, while two-fifths of the populations of Nottingham and Manchester did so: all these figures are higher than the overall proportion for London. This means that the issue of the churning population in the capital is at borough level, rather than at the level of London as a whole.
When looking at the effects of 'churn' on poverty and social exclusion, there are two aspects to consider. Firstly, some of the population turnover in London is a result of its ability to attract highly skilled people from all over the world to come and work. This group is highly mobile, but not the subject of this study.
On the other hand, there are other highly mobile groups within London whose needs are often substantial and who may place greater pressure on public services. While it is not easy to measure the extent to which the highly mobile population of the capital results in higher costs for providing services, these costs are real. Research conducted by the New Policy Institute (NPI) on behalf of the Audit Commission found that local service providers saw population churn as one of the biggest obstacles to public service provision. This was compounded by the fact that, while overall deprivation levels were reflected in the formula for funding local services, the turnover of the population was not.
Data used
ONS Migration Indicators;
Palmer, G., Kenway, P (2004) Comprehensive Performance Assessment and Deprivation, NPI
There is more information about London's migration and population from the Greater London Authority.