shopping area health check - welcome to...
TRANSCRIPT
Harrow Road District Centre
Shopping Area Health Check
January 2007
CONTENT
PART 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART 2: MAIN REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
The Study..................................................................................................................... 1National and London Policy ......................................................................................... 1The London Hierarchy ................................................................................................. 2
2.0 DIVERSITY OF USE AND REPRESENTATION......................................................... 5
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5Total Retail Floorspace ................................................................................................ 5Diversity of Use............................................................................................................ 6NLP’s Attitudinal Assessment ...................................................................................... 7Range of Shops and Services ..................................................................................... 7Quality of Shops and Services..................................................................................... 9Food Supermarkets ................................................................................................... 10Places to Eat and Drink.............................................................................................. 11Entertainment and Leisure Facilities .......................................................................... 13Mix of Use Summary.................................................................................................. 14
3.0 HARROW ROAD’S ROLE AND CATCHMENT AREA............................................. 16
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 16Catchment Area and Customer Profile ...................................................................... 16Main Purpose of Visit to the Centre ........................................................................... 20Duration and Frequency of Visit................................................................................. 23
4.0 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE.................................................................................... 25
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 25Business Trading Performance in Harrow Road........................................................ 25Property Indicators..................................................................................................... 26Availability of Premises and Vacancy Levels ............................................................. 26Property Requirements .............................................................................................. 27Business Occupier’s Views on Rents and Rates ....................................................... 27
5.0 NLP’S AMENITY APPRAISAL.................................................................................. 29
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 29Day-Time Amenity Appraisal...................................................................................... 29Night-Time Amenity Appraisal.................................................................................... 29
6.0 ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT ......................................................................... 31
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 31Layout of the Centre .................................................................................................. 31Modal Split ................................................................................................................. 32Public Transport ......................................................................................................... 33Car Parking ................................................................................................................ 35Pedestrian Flow ......................................................................................................... 38Traffic Congestion...................................................................................................... 39Accessibility Summary ............................................................................................... 40
7.0 SAFETY AND CRIME................................................................................................ 41
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 41
Personal Safety.......................................................................................................... 41Business Security ...................................................................................................... 42Safety and Crime Summary ....................................................................................... 43
8.0 THE CENTRE’S ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. 44
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 44Shopping Environment............................................................................................... 44Litter and Cleanliness ................................................................................................ 45Environmental Summary............................................................................................ 46
9.0 CENTRE BOUNDARY AND FRONTAGE DESIGNATIONS .................................... 47
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 47Defining Harrow Road District Centre’s Boundary and Frontages............................. 47Shopping Frontages................................................................................................... 48
10.0 RETAIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS................................................................................ 50
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 50Local Catchment Area ............................................................................................... 50Population and Spending........................................................................................... 50Existing Retail Floorspace ......................................................................................... 51Existing Spending Patterns 2006............................................................................... 51Operator Demand for Space...................................................................................... 54Development Opportunities........................................................................................ 54
11.0 SUMMARY OF THE DISTRICT CENTRE’S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ... 57
Strengths.................................................................................................................... 57Weaknesses .............................................................................................................. 57Opportunities.............................................................................................................. 58Threats....................................................................................................................... 58
APPENDICES
Appendix A - MethodologyAppendix B - PPS6 Measures of Vitality and ViabilityAppendix C - NLP’s Attractions AppraisalAppendix D - NLP’s Day-Time Amenity AppraisalAppendix E - NLP’s Night-Time Amenity AppraisalAppendix F - PMRS Pedestrian Flowcounts and thermal mapsAppendix G - In-street Visitor Survey ResultsAppendix H - Household Residents Survey ResultsAppendix I - Business Occupier Survey ResultsAppendix J - Land Use MapAppendix K - National and Local Policy - Centre Boundaries and FrontageAppendix L - Retail Capacity Assessment Methodology Appendix M - Operator Requirements
Glossary
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
The Study
Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners has undertaken a vitality and viability study of the 7
designated District Shopping Centres in Westminster. This report provides an analysis of
Harrow Road. The Government (PPS6) advises local authorities to base their development
plans on assessments of their retail centres, and are advised to monitor the health of their
shopping centres.
Harrow Road’s Current Role and Structure
Harrow Road District Centre mainly serves residents in the north west of Westminster and
neighbouring Kensington & Chelsea. The centre is made up of one primary shopping street
(Harrow Road), and is linear in shape. The main concentration of A1 retail use is located
towards the eastern end of the centre. Harrow Road District Centre is in close proximity to
Westbourne Park Underground tube station.
Harrow Road is a relatively small centre, compared with the other District Centres in
Westminster, and has a reasonable range of shops and services of comparatively poor
ii
quality. The centre has a lack of national multiples, but a good range of specialist and
independent retailers. There is a selection of food stores within the centre, and the centre
attracts a high proportion of food and grocery shopping trips.
The range and quality of shops and services was rated reasonably well by visitors, but poorly
by residents and businesses. In addition to retail facilities Harrow Road has a small number
of other non-retail services, including places to eat and drink, compared to the other District
Centres. Those that is has are rated poorly by visitors, residents and businesses. Harrow
Road has particularly poor entertainment and leisure facilities when compared with other
District Centres in Westminster.
Harrow Road’s primary role is serving local residents from its catchment area and other parts
of West London; it also serves occasional visitors from across London and beyond.
Harrow Road attracts a mix of customers; however, this mix differs from the socio-economic
characteristics of the local catchment area. This centre appears to attract a lower proportion
of AB customers and a higher proportion of C1, C2 and DE customers when compared with
the local catchment area’s characteristics, which implies that more affluent local residents
are more likely to shop elsewhere. The centre also attracts a higher proportion of Asian
customers, and a lower proportion of White British and Afro-Caribbean customers when
compared with the local catchment area.
Harrow Road’s catchment area has a lower proportion of high-earning households compared
with the average for all District Centres, and a higher proportion of low-income households
(under £25,000). The centre’s local catchment area appears to be one of the least affluent of
the 7 District Centres, and is broadly comparable with Church Street/Edgware Road’s local
catchment area.
Health Check Summary
A summary of the Health Check analysis is shown in Table 1 below. Factors highlighted
gold are rated as positive attributes in Harrow Road. Factors highlighted as grey are
negative attributes, while green represents neutral factors where views were mixed. Harrow
Road’s rank amongst Westminster’s 7 District Shopping Centres is also shown.
Table 1 suggests that Harrow Road rates relatively poorly for most factors, with the exception
of current business occupier performance. Generally satisfaction levels are highest amongst
visitors, then residents, and then business occupiers.
iii
Table 1: Health Check Summary
Visitors’Views/Rank
Residents’Views/Rank
BusinessOccupiers’Views/Rank
NLP Analysis
Current Business Occupier Performance
n/a n/a Positive1st
n/a
Past Business OccupierPerformance
n/a n/a Neutral6th
n/a
Future Business OccupierPerformance
n/a n/a Positive3rd
n/a
Range of Shops/Services Positive3rd
Neutral6th
Negative7th
Positive
Quality of Shops/Services Positive6th
Neutral7th
Negative7th
Negative
Food supermarkets Positive4th
Neutral4th
n/a Positive
Places to Eat/Drink Positive7th
Negative7th
Negative7th
Negative
Entertainment/Leisure/Night-time facilities
Neutral6th
Negative7th
Very Negative7th
Negative
Layout of centre Positive4th
n/a n/a n/a
Bus services Very Positive4th
Positive5th
n/a
Train/Underground services n/aPositive
5th Neutral7th
n/a
Car parking availability Very Negative7th
Very Negative7th
n/a
Car parking charges Very Negative6th
Negative1st Very Negative
1stn/a
Traffic congestion Negative7th
Negative6th
Neutral5th
n/a
Personal Safety Positive7th
Very Negative7th
n/a
Security n/aNeutral
7th Negative7th
n/a
Shopping Environment Positive6th
Neutral6th
Negative5th
n/a
Street cleaning n/a Positive6th
n/a Neutral
Average Score – Over +1 = Very Positive, + 0.26 to +0.99 = Positive, +0.25 to -0.25 = Neutral, -0.26 to -0.99 = Negative, less than -1.00 = Very Negative.
In terms of its vitality and viability and general economic health this centre is still considered
to be in decline, although evidence suggests the centre has not declined significantly since
the 2002 health check.
Retail Capacity
Based on the survey results we estimate that Harrow Road District Centre’s current market
penetration (or market share) within the local catchment area is as follows:
Comparison expenditure - 5%; i.e. 95% of the catchment area’s comparisonexpenditure is spent elsewhere – outside of HarrowRoad District Centre, and potentially outside the localcatchment area.
iv
Convenience expenditure - 34%.
These figures indicate that the majority of expenditure (both comparison and convenience)
within the local catchment area is not spent within Harrow Road. For comparison shopping
Oxford Street/the West End attract a significant amount of shopping trips. For convenience
shopping there are a large number of destinations for local residents to choose from,
including Sainsbury’s at Ladbroke Grove, Tesco at Portobello Road, Waitrose at Kensington
High Street, and Tesco at Notting Hill Gate. The inflow of expenditure from beyond the
catchment area has been estimated based on the in-street survey results. The current inflow
estimate for Harrow Road District Centre is 30% for both convenience and comparison
shops. Therefore 70% for each comes from the District Centre local catchment area.
The quantitative retail floorspace capacity based on population and expenditure projections
is 767 sqm gross by 2011, or 1,254 sqm gross by 2016. There are limited opportunities for
major development within or adjacent to this centre. The need for additional retail floorspace
could be achieved by the occupation of vacant units by Class A1 use or through higher
density development and changes of use.
The projected need for retail floorspace in this centre suggests that the Council should
continue to control and prevent the loss of existing Class A1 floorspace in this District Centre.
Defining Harrow Road’s Centre Boundary and Frontages
The current Secondary Frontages are contiguous with the Core Shopping Frontages. The
land-use survey indicates that these Secondary Frontages still retain a predominance of
Class A1 to A5 uses but the vacancy levels are relatively high. There is no reason to
exclude any of the Secondary Frontages from the centre boundary, but a more flexible
approach to changes of use could be considered to assist the reoccupation of vacant units.
The Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) states that no more than 30% of
Harrow Road’s Core Frontage will be permitted to be used for non-A1 use and no more than
45% of this centre’s Secondary Frontage will be permitted to be used for non-A1 use. The
current proportion of Core Frontage in non-A1 usage is 28% and the current proportion of
Secondary Frontage in non-A1 usage is 72%. The threshold in the Core Frontage has
nearly been reached, but the current policy criteria for the Secondary Frontages has been
breached and the 45% threshold should be reviewed.
v
We believe the Council should review its frontage policies, considering the following options:
No change – keep the Core and Secondary Frontages as they are and keep the
current limits on non-A1 use.
Change the non-A1 limit – keep the Core and Secondary Frontages as they are
but increase or remove the current limits on non-A1 use in the Secondary
Frontages to provide more flexibility.
Change the Core and Secondary Frontages – keep the maximum limits as they
are (30% and 45%) but re-designate peripheral parts of the Core Frontage as
Secondary Frontage.
Adopt a new approach – define a much smaller Core area (as above) but
prevent all changes of use from A1 to non-A1 use therein. A more flexible
approach to changes of use could be adopted in the Secondary Shopping
Frontages.
These options should be discussed by policy and development control officers at
Westminster.
LON2007\R10820-014 (Harrow Road FINAL)
PART 2 – MAIN REPORT
LON2006/R10820-014 (Harrow Road FINAL) 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Study
1.1 Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) were commissioned by Westminster City
Council to carry out a vitality and viability study of the 7 designated District Shopping
Centres in the City. This Health Check provides an analysis of Harrow Road. A
summary of the methodology adopted is contained in Appendix A of this report.
1.2 This report provides a basis for assessing the vitality and viability of the District
Centre and for future monitoring of the 'health' of the District Centre. Westminster
carried out Health Check Appraisals in 1997 and 2002. In 1997, Health Checks for
46 centres were undertaken throughout Westminster. In 2000, four of these were
updated and two Health Checks for new centres were also undertaken. Health
checks were undertaken in 2002 study for all centres in Westminster. Health checks
for the 7 District Centres have been undertaken in 2006. Where possible
comparisons have been made with the results of these previous Health Checks.
National and London Policy
1.3 The Government advises local authorities to base their development plans and
policies on assessments of their retail centres, as set out in guidance contained within
Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6 revised) March 2005. Local authorities are
advised to monitor the health of their shopping centres and to regularly collect
information on key indicators. A list of key indicators, as set out at paragraph 4.4 of
PPS6, is shown in Appendix B of this report.
1.4 Policy 3D.1 within the London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy 2004 relates to
town centres, and this policy states that the Mayor and London Boroughs should:
“enhance access to goods and services and strengthen the wider role of town
centres, including UDP policies to:
Encourage retail, leisure, and other related uses in town centres, and discourage them outside the town centres;
Improve access to town centres by public transport, cycling and walking;
Enhance the quality for retail and other consumer services in town centres
LON2006/R10820-014 (Harrow Road FINAL) 2
Support a wide role for town centres as locations for leisure and cultural activities, as well as business and housing;
Require the location of appropriate health, education and other public andcommunity servicing in town centres;
Designate core areas primarily for shopping uses and secondary areas for shopping and other uses and set out policies for the appropriate management of both types of area;
Undertake regular town centre Health Checks; and
Support and encourage town centre management, partnerships and strategies including the introduction of Business Improvement Districts in appropriate locations.”
1.5 This centre Health Check will form part of the background information to assist in the
preparation of policies and proposals in the Development Plan. This study will feed
into the preparation of relevant Development Plan Documents prepared as part of the
Council’s Local Development Framework, including the Core Strategy and the
shopping policies within the Development Control Policies Development Plan
Document (DPD).
The London Hierarchy
1.6 The London Plan sets out a hierarchy/classification of town centres across London,
i.e. International Centres (2), Metropolitan Centres (10), Major Centres (35) and
District Centres (160).
1.7 Knightsbridge and the West End are identified as the two International Centres, at the
top of the hierarchy of shopping centres in London. Both are within Westminster.
Metropolitan Centres are the main centres servicing the outer London Boroughs (e.g.
Bromley, Croydon, Kingston and Harrow). Major and District Centres are spread
across London. The City of Westminster has one Major Centre and seven District
Centres designated in the London Plan, although the Council classifies
Queensway/Westbourne Grove as a District Centre and Edgware Road South as
‘CAZ Frontage’. Harrow Road is classified as a District Centre in the London Plan.
The London Plan indicates that this broad classification of centres should be refined
in the light of local circumstances through Development Plans.
1.8 The City of Westminster is divided into two zones in terms of retail policy, the Central
Activities Zone (CAZ) and CAZ Frontages; and areas outside the CAZ. The CAZ
LON2006/R10820-014 (Harrow Road FINAL) 3
contains the two International Centres in London; the West End and Knightsbridge;
other shopping areas such as Victoria Street, as well as numerous small parades and
individual shops. Outside the CAZ there are 7 District Centres and 39 Local Centres
designated in the UDP.
Harrow Road and the Surrounding Area
1.9 Harrow Road District Centre is located in the north west of Westminster and is
located near the Kensington & Chelsea boundary. The nearest competing Major
Centres are Kilburn to the north and Kensington High Street and
Queensway/Westbourne Grove to the South. Harrow Road is located reasonably
close to the proposed shopping centre development at White City to the west.
1.10 Harrow Road District Centre is made up of one primary shopping street (Harrow
Road), along which the centre is situated. Harrow Road itself extends over 20 miles
from east to west, however the District Centre covers a stretch of just under half a
mile. The main concentration of A1 retail uses is located on Harrow Road between
the intersections with Great Western Road and Bravington Road. The centre is in
close proximity to Westbourne Park Underground tube station.
LON
2006
/R10
820-
014
(Har
row
Roa
d F
INA
L)4
5
2.0 DIVERSITY OF USE AND REPRESENTATION
Introduction
2.1 This section examines the mix of town centre uses within Harrow Road District
Centre, and highlights changes since the 2002 Health Check Survey was undertaken.
For the first time the views of visitors, residents and business occupiers have also
been assessed and are included within the survey results. It should be noted that the
Use Classes Order has changed since the 2002 Health Check Reports were
undertaken, and Class A3 has now been broken down into three categories; Class A3
- restaurants/cafés, Class A4 -pubs/bars and Class A5 hot-food takeaways.
Therefore, direct comparisons are not always possible.
Total Retail Floorspace
2.2 Total retail floorspace in Harrow Road is broken down in Table 2.1. In total, Harrow
Road has 14,051 sqm of retail floorspace; this has decreased slightly since 2002
when there was 14,652 sqm of ground floor floorspace. The total retail floorspace
(14,051 sqm) is significantly below the average (22,492 sq. m) for the 7 District
Centres. Harrow Road has a higher proportion of A1 convenience retail and Class A5
floorspace than the District Centre average. Conversely, the centre has a lower than
average proportion of A1 comparison retail, Class A3 and Class A4 use floorspace.
Harrow Road District Centre has a significantly higher than average proportion of
vacant premises suggesting there is relatively low demand for retail floorspace in the
area.
Table 2.1: Total Retail Floorspace
Use A1 - Conv A1- Comp A2 A3 A4 A5 SG Vacant TOTAL
Floorspace Sqm 3,759 4,725 1,204 1,053 357 624 60 2,269 14,051
Percentage 26.8% 33.6% 8.6% 7.5% 2.5% 4.4% 0.4% 16.2% 100.0%
District Centre Ave. 3,657 9,408 2,048 3,340 883 330 376 2450 22,492
District Centre Ave Percentage.
16.3% 41.8% 9.1% 14.8% 3.9% 1.5% 1.7% 10.9% 100.0%
Source: City of Westminster GIS System and Site Survey October 2006
6
Retail Floorspace in Harrow Road
A1- Conv27%
A1- Comp34%
A29%
A37%
A43%
A54%
SG0%
Vacant16%
Figure 2.1 Retail Floorspace in Harrow Road
Diversity of Use
2.3 Harrow Road is a mixed-use District Centre, serving mainly residents in the local
area. The centre is one of the smaller District Centres, and it does not provide the
range and selection of shops and services found in Westminster’s larger District
centres, including Queensway/Westbourne Grove or Marylebone High Street.
However, the centre has a good selection of food shops, including specialist ethnic
shops, but has a limited number of restaurants, bars and banks. The diversity of uses
represented in the centre is summarised in Table 2.2.
2.4 The overall number of units has decreased from 119 to 116 units since 2002. The
number of A1 units in Harrow Road District Centre has decreased by 7 units, most of
which are the result of a decline in independent retailers (-6 units). Also within the A1
Class, the number of specialist independent retailers has fallen (-2 units) while the
number of national retailers has increased from 2 to 3 units. The number of Class A2
uses has fallen by over a third (-5 units) and the number of A3 uses has almost
doubled (+4 units). The numbers of A4 and A5 uses have remained the same since
2002, as has the number of sui generis units. The number of vacant units has risen
by 4 while the number of health uses had decreased by 2 units. Since 2002 the one
arts/culture unit has changed use.
7
Table 2.2: Diversity of Uses
Use Class Number Number % %of Units of Units of Units of Units
2002 2006 2002 2006
Class A1 Retail 74 67 62.2% 57.8%Department/principlestores 0 0 0.0% 0.0%International retailers 0 0 0.0% 0.0%National retailers 2 3 1.7% 2.6%Specialist Independent 12 10 10.1% 8.6%Independent 31 25 26.1% 21.6%Convenience 29 29 24.4% 25.0%
Class A2 13 8 10.9% 6.9%Class A3 Takeaway/Restaurant 2 n/a 1.7% n/aClass A3 Restaurant/Café 3 9 2.5% 7.8%Class A4 Pubs/Bars 2 2 1.7% 1.7%Class A5 Takeaway 7 7 5.9% 6.0%Sui Generis 1 1 0.8% 0.9%Vacant Units 12 16 10.1% 13.8%Arts/Culture 1 0 0.8% 0.0%Health uses 4 6 3.4% 5.2%Hotels 0 0 0.0% 0.0%TOTAL 119 116 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Land Use Survey May 2002 and October 2006
NLP’s Attitudinal Assessment
2.5 NLP’s attitudinal assessment of the attractions and amenity of Harrow Road District
Centre is summarised in Appendix C. Harrow Road’s attractions score has
decreased slightly since 2002, and its overall score for attractions is now 26.9%. This
is much lower than the average across all 7 of the District Centres of 48.4%, which is
reflected by Harrow Road’s ranking as bottom out of the 7 District Centres in the City.
Harrow Road scores highly for its prominence of independent and specialist shops,
and its availability of food shopping. Harrow Road District Centre has a number of
weaknesses, in particular the quality of its retail environment, its availability of
restaurants, pubs/bars, and cultural facilities, and its lack of service provision.
Range of Shops and Services
2.6 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on the range of shops and
services in the centre (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are summarised in
Table 2.3 below.
8
Table 2.3: Visitors’ Views on the Range of Shops and Services (% of visitors)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 12 28 12 61 4 10 18Quite Good 59 51 55 35 55 49 42Neither Good/Poor 19 11 28 2 31 20 16Quite Poor 8 1 6 2 4 13 12Very Poor 9 1 0 0 3 4 4Don’t Know 2 8 0 0 3 4 9Average Score 0.74 1.13 0.73 1.55 0.56 0.48 0.63Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.7 The numbers rating Harrow Road District Centre as good for its range of shops and
services, significantly outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score
was +0.74; just below the quite good mark (a score of zero is neutral i.e. neither good
nor poor). All of Westminster’s District Centres achieved above neutral scores (above
0). Harrow Road achieved the 3rd best average score (+0.74), behind Marylebone
High Street (+1.55) and Queensway/Westbourne Grove (+1.13) in this respect.
2.8 Residents interviewed in the household survey were asked a similar question
(Question 07 Appendix H) relating to the range of shops and services. The results
are summarised in Table 2.4 below.
Table 2.4: Residents’ Views on the Range of Shops and Service (% of residents)
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 19 9 14 43 10 7 14Quite Good 36 30 14 26 19 14 15Neither Good/Poor 28 31 30 19 37 29 38Quite Poor 7 21 23 6 20 27 26Very Poor 5 6 14 0 10 16 5Don’t Know 5 3 5 6 4 7 1Average Score 0.60 0.15 -0.09 1.11 -0.01 -0.34 0.07Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.9 The average score for Harrow Road was slightly negative (-0.09); residents’ views
tended to be less positive than visitors’ views across all of the District Centres.
Harrow Road was ranked 6th, ahead only of Praed Street in terms of its range of
shops and services. Within Westminster’s other District Shopping Centres views
amongst residents were mixed (i.e. scores around neutral – zero).
2.10 Businesses in Harrow Road were also asked about the range of shops and services
(Question 10 Appendix I), and the results are summarised in Table 2.5 below. There
were mixed, but mainly negative, views amongst businesses in relation to the range
of shops and services in Harrow Road, with an overall score just above quite poor (-
0.82) being recorded. Harrow Road had the lowest overall score of all the seven
9
centres. These figures suggest that businesses may be more concerned with the
range of shops and services than residents/customers. However, businesses’ views
on this subject were mixed in most of the other centres. Marylebone High Street was
the only District Centre to achieve a positive rating for its range of shops and services
based on the response of local businesses.
Table 2.5: Businesses’ Views on the Range of Shops and Services (% of businesses)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 4 4 31 0 0 6Quite Good 9 22 29 41 35 15 17Neither Good/Poor 27 39 25 21 24 19 28Quite Poor 36 17 21 2 31 31 28Very Poor 27 9 14 2 3 27 17Don’t Know 0 9 7 2 7 8 5Average Score -0.82 -0.05 -0.15 0.98 -0.04 -0.75 -0.35Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Quality of Shops and Services
2.11 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on the quality of shops
and services in Harrow Road (Question 14 – Appendix G). The results are
summarised in Table 2.6 below.
Table 2.6: Visitors’ Views on the Quality of Shops and Services (% of visitors)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 7 16 11 67 6 7 26Quite Good 55 59 55 31 61 48 44Neither Good/Poor 21 15 27 2 22 20 10Quite Poor 13 1 6 0 8 16 3Very Poor 2 0 0 0 0 3 4Don’t Know 2 9 2 0 3 6 13Average Score 0.53 0.99 0.73 1.65 0.68 0.43 1.00Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.12 The number of visitors rating Harrow Road District Centre for its quality of shops and
services as good significantly outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The
average score was +0.53 slightly above neutral (0.00). All 7 centres achieved above
neutral scores (above zero). Harrow Road achieved the 6th best average score
(+0.53), ahead only of Praed Street.
2.13 Residents interviewed in the household survey were asked a similar question
(Question 07 Appendix H) and the results are summarised in Table 2.7 below. The
average score for Harrow Road was slightly negative (-0.09); generally residents’
views were less positive than visitors’ comments in all of the District Centres. Harrow
Road was ranked bottom of all 7 District Centres for the quality of it’s’ shops and
10
services. Within all of Westminster’s other District Centres views amongst residents
were mixed (i.e. scores around neutral i.e. zero).
Table 2.7: Residents’ Views the Quality of Shops and Service (% of residents)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 13 14 7 45 10 7 21Quite Good 20 38 21 43 16 23 36Neither Good/Poor 28 26 39 4 48 39 33Quite Poor 16 12 21 2 18 9 6Very Poor 19 5 9 0 4 11 2Don’t Know 4 5 3 6 4 11 2Average Score -0.09 0.45 -0.03 1.39 0.10 0.05 0.68Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.14 Businesses in Harrow Road were also asked about the quality of shops and services
(Question 10 Appendix I), and the results are summarised in Table 2.8 below.
Table 2.8: Businesses’ Views on the Quality of Shops and Services (% of businesses)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 0 4 31 0 0 6Quite Good 0 44 29 48 31 15 39Neither Good/Poor 55 30 29 12 31 19 22Quite Poor 18 0 18 2 24 35 22Very Poor 27 13 0 5 7 19 0Don’t Know 0 13 0 2 7 12 11Average Score -0.73 0.20 -0.21 1.00 -0.07 -0.65 0.31Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.15 The views amongst businesses in relation to the quality of shops and services in
Harrow Road District Centre were largely negative, with none rating it as very good or
quite good. Harrow Road attained an overall score just above quite poor (-0.73).
The centre was ranked bottom, just below Praed Street; Marylebone High Street was
the only centre to achieve a significant positive rating in relation to the businesses’
views on the quality of shops and services.
Food Supermarkets
2.16 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on the size quality of
supermarkets in the Harrow Road (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are
summarised in Table 2.9 below. All of the District Centres achieved a positive score
(above zero). Harrow Road achieved the 4th best average score (+0.55), behind
Marylebone High Street, Queensway/Westbourne Grove and Warwick
Way/Tachbrook Street.
11
Table 2.9: Visitors’ Views on Food Supermarkets (% of visitors)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 3 18 0 29 4 4 9Quite Good 63 50 34 48 72 41 29Neither Good/Poor 21 15 57 5 11 15 19Quite Poor 7 0 6 2 7 17 11Very Poor 3 3 1 1 7 4 11Don’t Know 3 14 2 15 8 19 21Average Score 0.55 0.93 0.26 1.20 0.79 0.27 0.17Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.17 Residents interviewed in the household survey were asked a similar question
(Question 07 Appendix H) and the results are summarised in Table 2.10 below. The
average score for each of the District Centres was much lower than those achieved in
the visitor survey, with the exception of Marylebone High Street, which suggests local
residents are generally more dissatisfied with food store provision in the District
Centres, than the District Centre customers. In Harrow Road residents had mixed
views on supermarket provision, with an average score recorded around the neutral
mark (zero). Harrow Road was ranked 4th behind Marylebone High Street, Warwick
Way/Tachbrook Street and Queensway/ Westbourne Grove in this respect. Within
all of the other District Centres views amongst residents were mixed (i.e. scores
around the neutral zero mark).
Table 2.10: Residents’ Views on the Supermarkets (% of residents)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 14 9 7 43 18 11 6Quite Good 20 17 16 36 30 18 13Neither Good/Poor 24 34 16 15 18 9 34Quite Poor 24 19 36 6 18 30 35Very Poor 13 7 20 0 11 21 10Don’t Know 5 14 6 0 5 11 2Average Score -0.01 0.02 -0.48 1.15 0.28 -0.33 -0.29Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Places to Eat and Drink
2.18 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on the quality and number
of places to eat and drink in Harrow Road (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are
summarised in Table 2.11 below.
12
Table 2.11: Visitors’ Views on Places to Eat and Drink (% of visitors)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 5 28 5 61 11 11 40Quite Good 60 50 51 31 60 57 40Neither Good/Poor 18 11 38 1 15 16 7Quite Poor 8 2 24 3 3 6 4Very Poor 5 1 0 0 3 2 1Don’t Know 3 8 3 4 8 8 8Average Score 0.54 1.11 0.58 1.56 0.79 0.76 1.24Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.19 The numbers rating Harrow Road District Centre for the quality/number of places to
eat and drink as good significantly outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The
average score was +0.54 in-between neutral and quite good. All of the District
Centres achieved above neutral scores (above 0). Harrow Road scored the most
poorly out of all 7 District Centres.
2.20 Residents interviewed in the household survey were asked a similar question
(Question 07 Appendix H), and the results are summarised in Table 2.12 below. The
average score for Harrow Road was negative (-0.55). Harrow Road was again
ranked bottom of all the centres.
Table 2.12: Residents’ Views on Places to Eat and Drink (% of residents)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 8 29 13 47 15 9 20Quite Good 8 24 16 34 29 21 41Neither Good/Poor 14 24 21 13 21 18 23Quite Poor 20 10 16 0 15 18 11Very Poor 20 3 11 0 1 11 2Don’t Know 30 9 23 6 19 23 3Average Score -0.55 0.72 0.04 1.36 0.51 -0.03 0.67Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.21 Businesses in Harrow Road were also asked about places to eat and drink (Question
10 Appendix I), and the results are summarised in Table 2.13 below. The results
were broadly comparable with residents’ views (Tables 2.11 and 2.12), with an
average score of -0.45 being achieved.
13
Table 2.13: Businesses’ Views on Places to Eat and Drink (% of businesses)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 17 0 38 17 8 22Quite Good 18 44 36 50 45 42 22Neither Good/Poor 36 13 7 5 17 15 28Quite Poor 27 0 29 5 14 8 6Very Poor 18 4 25 2 3 8 6Don’t Know 0 22 4 0 3 19 17Average Score -0.45 0.89 -0.44 1.17 0.61 0.43 0.60Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Entertainment and Leisure Facilities
2.22 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on entertainment and
leisure facilities (day-time and night-time facilities) in Harrow Road (Question 14 –
Appendix G). The results are summarised in Table 2.14 below.
2.23 Both day-time and night-time facilities entertainment/leisure facilities in this centre
achieved similar scores, and were both rated positively, although only slightly above
the zero/neutral mark. Harrow Road attained the 2nd lowest scores for both day-time
and night-time facilities, ahead only of Warwick Way/Tachbrook Street.
Table 2.14: Visitors’ Views on Entertainment and Leisure Facilities (% of visitors)
Day Time Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 1 7 9 13 4 4 13Quite Good 43 54 46 20 23 29 40Neither Good/Poor 14 13 26 13 13 18 12Quite Poor 10 3 10 8 15 12 3Very Poor 14 0 1 7 11 4 12Don’t Know 19 23 8 39 34 33 20Average Score 0.08 0.85 0.57 0.39 -0.08 0.22 0.48Night Time Harrow Road Queensway/
WestbourneGrove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 1 8 6 11 2 5 9Quite Good 44 43 46 26 23 24 28Neither Good/Poor 12 17 29 9 17 11 6Quite Poor 10 3 9 5 10 14 4Very Poor 14 0 2 7 15 6 14Don’t Know 19 30 7 42 33 40 39Average Score 0.10 0.79 0.50 0.50 -0.21 0.13 0.21Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.24 Residents interviewed in the household survey were asked a similar question
(Question 07 – Appendix H) relating to evening/night-time facilities in Harrow Road.
The results are summarised in Table 2.15 below. Harrow Road obtained the lowest
score: -0.78 in terms of its perceived night-time facilities.
14
Table 2.15: Residents’ Views on Night-Time Facilities (% of residents)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 4 10 6 17 7 4 3Quite Good 5 31 16 36 14 18 24Neither Good/Poor 15 17 21 23 23 23 28Quite Poor 15 17 11 2 20 14 14Very Poor 23 0 13 2 8 9 14Don’t Know 38 24 33 19 27 32 16Average Score -0.78 0.45 -0.15 0.79 -0.13 -0.07 -0.14Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.25 Businesses in the centre were also asked about the entertainment and leisure
facilities (Question 10 – Appendix I), and the results are summarised in Table 2.16
below. Again Harrow Road was ranked bottom of all 7 District Centres (-1.36) from
businesses regarding its perceived night-time facilities.
Table 2.16: Businesses’ Views on Entertainment and Leisure Facilities (% of businesses)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 4 0 9 0 0 11Quite Good 0 30 4 24 31 4 0Neither Good/Poor 9 39 18 24 14 27 22Quite Poor 46 9 18 19 24 15 28Very Poor 45 0 46 17 21 46 17Don’t Know 0 17 14 7 10 8 22Average Score -1.36 0.37 -1.25 -0.10 -0.38 -1.12 -0.50Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Mix of Use Summary
2.26 A summary of the above analysis is shown in Table 2.17. Factors highlighted in gold
are rated as positive attributes in Harrow Road. Factors highlighted in grey are
negative attributes, while green represents neutral factors where views were mixed.
Harrow Road’s rank amongst Westminster’s 7 District Shopping Centres is also
shown.
15
Table 2.17: Summary Analysis for Range/Quality of Facilities
Visitors’Views/Rank
Residents’Views/Rank
BusinessOccupiers’Views/Rank
NLP Analysis
Range of Shops/Services Positive3rd
Neutral6th
Negative7th
Positive
Quality of Shops/Services Positive6th
Neutral7th
Negative7th
Negative
Food supermarkets Positive4th
Neutral4th
n/a Positive
Places to Eat/Drink Positive7th
Negative7th
Negative7th
Negative
Entertainment/Leisure/Night-time facilities
Neutral6th
Negative7th
Very Negative7th
Negative
Average Score – Over +1 = Very Positive, + 0.26 to +0.99 = Positive, +0.25 to -0.25 = Neutral, -0.26 to -0.99 = Negative, less than -1.00 = Very Negative.
16
3.0 HARROW ROAD’S ROLE AND CATCHMENT AREA
Introduction
3.1 Harrow Road District Shopping Centre’s role is demonstrated by the mix of uses
outlined in the previous section. In addition the results of an in-street survey of
visitors to the District Centre, and the household survey of local residents provide
information on how customers use the District Centre and what catchment area it
serves. This section explores how the centre is used and the characteristics of the
centre’s customers and local residents.
Catchment Area and Customer Profile
3.2 About 86% of the in-street visitors in Harrow Road indicated where they live by
postcode. Of those who gave their postcode, only 10% were found to live within the
local postcode area, W9 and W10. A further 74% lived within other West London
postcodes and 7% lived in the rest of London. These results are consistent with the
proportions of visitors who walked (45%) and travelled by public transport (44%) to
the centre. Only 8% of visitors to Harrow Road lived outside London. These results
indicate that Harrow Road’s primary role is serving local residents (of postcode areas
W9 and W10) and visitors from other parts of West London. Its also serves
occasional visitors from across London and beyond.
3.3 The household survey results indicated that 79% of local residents in the Harrow
Road catchment area had shopped in the Harrow Road during the last three months.
This was the 3rd highest figure out of the 7 District Centres, behind St John’s Wood
(92%) and Marylebone High Street (79.7%). Over 80% of residents who regularly
use Harrow Road indicated that they choose to shop there because the centre is
convenient to get to from home (83.5%), which is above the average for the 7 District
Centres of 78%. These results suggest that Harrow Road has an important local
shopping role, perhaps to a greater extent than some other District Centres in
Westminster. Household respondents were asked (Question 11 Appendix H) which
other shopping centres they use once a month or more, the main centres were:
Oxford Street/the West End 9%;
Kensington High Street 8%;
Brent Cross 6%;
17
Kilburn 6%;
Queensway/Westbourne Grove 6%; and
Ladbroke Grove 6%.
Socio-Economic Characteristics
3.4 The SEG socio-economic characteristics of visitors interviewed within Harrow Road are
shown in Table 3.1, and these are compared with visitors within the other District
Centres. The socio-economic characteristics obtained from the household survey
within the local catchment area of each centre are also shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Visitors and Residents (% of visitors and residents)
SEG of Visitors(%)
HarrowRd
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
TachbrookSt
PraedStreet
StJohn’sWood
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
AllCentres
ABProfessional/Managerial
12 25 37 22 25 54 5 26
C1Skilled Non-Manual
34 35 45 39 31 25 37 35
C2Skilled Manual
17 17 6 17 12 11 16 14
DESemi-Skilled/Unskilled
35 24 10 22 32 10 40 25
Refused 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 1SEG of Residents
(%)Harrow
RdQueensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
TachbrookSt
PraedStreet
StJohn’sWood
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
AllCentres
ABProfessional/Managerial
29 28 54 39 36 48 33 37
C1Skilled Non-Manual
26 47 31 27 40 30 28 33
C2Skilled Manual
12 11 7 7 6 7 13 9
DESemi-Skilled/Unskilled
27 8 8 18 13 7 18 15
Refused 6 7 0 9 5 8 8 6Source: NEMS Household and in- Street Surveys 2006 NB – SEG is Socio-Economic Group
3.5 Harrow Road District Centre attracts a broad mix of customers, and this mix is
broadly consistent with the socio-economic characteristics of the local catchment
area. However, the centre appears to attract a lower proportion of AB customers and
a higher proportion of C1, C2 and DE customers when compared with the local
catchment characteristics, which implies that more affluent local residents are more
likely to shop elsewhere. This is a pattern experienced within all of the District
Centres/local catchment areas with the exception of St. John’s Wood.
3.6 The proportions of visitors in Harrow Road within in each SEG differed from the
average for all 7 District Centres surveyed in that it attracted less AB customers and
more DE customers. Harrow Road has a lower proportion of the most affluent AB
18
customers than all other District Centres with the exception of Church Street/Edgware
Road.
3.7 Local residents were also asked about their combined household income, the results
are shown in Table 3.2. A relatively high proportion refused to give details within all
areas. However, the results do provide a broad indication of the relative affluence of
each centre’s local catchment area.
Table 3.2: Household Income of Residents (% of residents)
Income £ HarrowRd
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
AllCentres
Below £25,000 50 20 25 31 27 16 48 31£25,000 – 50,000 15 19 24 22 22 18 19 20£50,000 – 100,000 8 14 14 16 18 13 7 13£100,000 + 6 18 20 7 13 25 6 13Don’t Know Refused
21 30 17 24 21 28 20 23
3.8 Harrow Road’s catchment area has a lower proportion of high-earning households
(over £100,000) compared with the average for all of Westminster’s District Centres,
and a higher proportion of low-income households (under £25,000). The centre’s
local catchment area appears to be one of the least affluent of all the District Centres,
and is broadly comparable to Church Street/Edgware Road’s local catchment area
profile.
Ethnicity
3.9 The ethnicity characteristics of visitors interviewed within Harrow Road is shown in
Table 3.3, and this is compared with in-street visitors within the other District Centres.
The ethnicity characteristics obtained from the household survey within each centre’s
local catchment area is also shown in Table 3.3.
3.10 Harrow Road attracts a broad mix of ethnic groups/customers, however, this mix
differs somewhat from the ethnicity characteristics of the local catchment area. There
was a lower proportion of White British (28%) and Afro-Caribbean (13%) customers
than there were residents (where the proportions were 41% and 22% respectively),
and a higher proportion of Asian and ‘Other’.
19
Table 3.3: Ethnicity of Visitors and Residents (% of visitors and residents)
Ethnic Group of Visitors
(%)
HarrowRd
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
AllCentres
White British 28 60 78 71 48 64 32 54Afro Caribbean 13 12 3 7 3 13 17 10
Asian 20 0 1 4 21 3 22 10European 17 9 9 5 9 4 8 8
Other 12 15 9 10 11 6 13 12Refused 10 4 0 3 8 10 8 6
Ethnic Group of Residents
(%)
HarrowRd
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
AllCentres
White British 41 66 75 72 75 69 65 66Afro-Caribbean. 22 6 0 4 1 0 6 5
Asian 5 3 9 2 6 8 6 5European 14 11 10 10 7 10 10 8
Other 6 7 6 5 7 9 9 12Refused 3 7 0 7 4 4 4 4
Source: NEMS Household and in- Street Surveys 2006
Car Ownership
3.11 Car ownership of visitors and residents is shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Car Ownership Amongst Visitors and Residents (% of visitors and residents)
Number of Cars owned by
Visitors(%)
HarrowRd
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
AllCentres
None 65 47 29 60 66 26 69 521 28 27 43 34 26 42 27 322 5 20 19 5 8 25 5 12
3+ 2 6 9 1 0 6 0 3Number of
Cars owned by Residents (%)
HarrowRd
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
AllCentres
None 49 38 39 38 34 22 57 401 37 41 36 49 51 50 29 422 10 16 22 11 10 16 9 13
3+ 0 2 3 0 1 10 1 2Refused 4 4 0 2 4 2 4 3
Source: NEMS Household and in- Street Surveys 2006
3.12 Car ownership amongst visitors interviewed in Harrow Road District Centre was 35%,
significantly below the average for all 7 District Centres surveyed (48%). However,
the Centre appears to attract a lower proportion of car owning in-street customers
when compared with the local catchment area’s characteristics (which suggests a
higher car ownership rate of 47%). The in-street visitor and household surveys
identified that most customers walk or get the bus to Harrow Road, which implies that
car ownership is not necessarily an important issue affecting the vitality and viability
of the centre. The results also imply that local residents without access to a car are
20
more likely to shop in their local centre. This is a pattern experienced within all of the
District Shopping Centres/local catchment areas with the exception of Marylebone
High Street.
Main Purpose of Visit to the Centre
3.13 The survey of in-street visitors to Harrow Road established the main reason for their
visit to the District Centre (Question 01 Appendix G). The results, as shown in Table
3.5, provide a good indication of the District Centre’s current role.
Table 3.5: Main Purpose of Visit (% of visitors)
Reason for Visit (%) HarrowRd
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
TachbrookSt
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Church St/Edgware
Rd
Shopping for Food 40 51 27 40 14 27 56Shopping for Both Food and Non-Food
14 9 13 8 9 8 8
Shopping for Non-Food Goods 14 1 12 27 5 4 3Visit the Market 1 0 0 0 1 0 9Window Shopping 5 2 3 1 0 3 1Overall Proportion Shopping 73 75 72 84 55 59 76Services e.g. bank, PO, hairdresser
4 15 9 3 10 8 2
Work/Business Purposes 19 9 15 7 23 19 18Restaurant/Café/Public House 2 5 10 1 2 20 0Social/Leisure e.g. Meeting Friends, gym
4 3 1 7 5 3 4
To Have a Walk/Stroll Around 5 5 8 4 4 10 7Healthcare e.g. Doctor, Dentist, Optician
1 2 5 1 16 4 2
Tourism, e.g. Holiday, Day Trip 0 1 0 0 3 0 0Live here/going home 0 0 0 2 3 2 3School/College 3 8 0 3 2 0 0Other 2 3 5 7 9 6 1Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
NB – Totals add to more than 100% because more than one purpose for visit was given by some respondents.
3.14 The majority of in-street respondents’ main purpose for visiting Harrow Road was to
shop. The centre had the joint 3rd highest proportion undertaking both food shopping
and non-food shopping (14%) out of Westminster’s 7 District Centres.
21
Figure 3.1 - Main purpose of Visit (% of visitors)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Queen
sway
/Wes
tbou
rne
Grove
Mar
ylebo
neHigh
Street
War
wickW
ay/ T
achb
rook
Street
Praed
Street
St Joh
n'sW
ood
Churc
hSt/
Edgwar
eRoa
d
Harro
wRoa
d
Other
Live Here/going home
Healthcare
To Have a Walk/Stroll Around
Social/Leisure/Tourism
Restaurant/Café/Public House
Work/Business/Education
Services e.g. bank, PO, hairdresser
Window Shopping
Visit the Market
Shopping for Non-Food Goods
Shopping for Both Food and Non-Food
Shopping for Food
3.14 Of those who did not indicate shopping was a main reason for their visit, 24%
suggested they intended to do some shopping during their visit to Harrow Road
(Question 02 – Appendix G). Overall 73% of in-street visitors intended to do some
shopping during their visit. These results suggest that a significant number of trips to
Harrow Road have a multi-purpose, i.e. shopping and another activity.
3.15 Harrow Road had the 2nd highest proportion of in-street visitors undertaking non-food
shopping (14%), and a relatively high proportion of in-street visitors undertaking
work/business related purposes (19%) in comparison to the other District Centres.
3.16 A relatively low proportion of in-street visitors were in Harrow Road District Centre for
either services e.g. Hairdresser/bank/post office (4%) or for social/leisure purposes
(4%).
3.17 Harrow Road had a particularly low proportion of in-street visitors who were going to
restaurants/cafés/public houses, or who were visiting for ‘healthcare’ reasons.
3.18 None of the respondents interviewed in Harrow Road District Centre were there either
because they lived there, or for tourism reasons.
22
Intended Visitor Purchases
3.19 In-street respondents were asked what they intended to buy during their visit to
Harrow Road (Question 03 – Appendix G). The majority of customers intended to
buy food and grocery items within all 7 District Centres. Harrow Road had 84% of
visitors buying food and grocery goods, which is just above the average across all
centres of 72%. The average spend on food and grocery goods here was £11.70 per
customer (Question 04 Appendix G), which was the 4th highest of the 7 District
Centres surveyed and below the overall average of £12.60. Most customers in
Harrow Road (79%) spent less than £20 on food and groceries.
Table 3.6: Intended Main Purchases (% of shopping visitors)
Type of Goods (%) HarrowRoad
QueenswayWestbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh St
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Food and Groceries 84 95 89 68 84 57 78Newspapers/Magazines 19 1 6 3 13 3 9Confectionery/Tobacco 11 1 5 0 20 7 3Clothing/Footwear 18 3 1 13 2 24 6Furniture/Carpets/SoftFurnishings
0 0 0 3 1 0 0
Domestic Electrical 1 4 1 1 3 3 0Other electrical (TV/Hi-Fi)
1 1 0 1 0 0 0
Gifts/Jewellery/Chinaand Glass
2 1 0 1 2 3 3
Health/Beauty/ChemistItems
5 5 1 21 5 0 10
Books/CD’s/Videos/Toys/Hobbies
5 3 0 14 2 7 2
DIY/hardware/gardening 1 4 0 1 2 0 2Other household 4 0 1 4 4 0 2Flowers 0 0 4 0 1 0 2Other 1 1 0 6 7 11 5Don’t Know 2 0 5 3 3 8 5Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
NB – Total add to more than 100% because more than one product was suggested by some respondents.
3.20 For non-food shopping only 38% of customers across all 7 District Centres indicated
how much they would spend on non-food goods (another 38% intended to spend
nothing). In Harrow Road 49% of customers suggested they would spend nothing on
non-food goods. Under 5% suggested they did not know how much they would
spend, which may imply that a low proportion of customers had visited the District
Centre to browse rather than to specifically to buy certain products. The average
expenditure (i.e. customers who knew how much they would spend) was £12.70 per
customer, which is lower than the average for all 7 District Centres of £14.90 for non-
food shopping.
23
Figure 3.2 – Intended Main Purchases (% of customers)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Queen
sway
/Wes
tbour
neGro
ve
Maryle
bone
HighStre
et
War
wickW
ay/ T
achb
rook
Street
Praed
Street
St Joh
n'sW
ood
Church
St/ Edg
ware Roa
d
Harro
wRoa
d
Other/Don'tknow
Other household
DIY/hardware/gardening
Books/CD's/Videos/Toys/ Hobbies
Health/Beauty/Chemist Items
Gifts/Jewellery/China and Glass
Other Electrical (TV/Hi-Fi)
Domestic Electrical
Furniture/Carpets/Soft Furnishings
Clothing/Footwear
Confectionery/Tobacco
Newspapers/Magazines
Food and Groceries
3.21 19% of in-street visitors to Harrow Road intended to buy newspapers/magazines
which was the highest proportion across all 7 District Centres. Relatively high
proportions of visitors intended to buy either confectionary/tobacco (11%) or
clothing/footwear (18%).
Duration and Frequency of Visit
3.22 Table 3.7 shows the time in-street visitors intended to spend in Harrow Road District
Centre. The overall average length of stay there was approximately 48 minutes,
which was joint 4th highest of the 7 District Centres and slightly below the average for
the District Centres combined (50 minutes).
24
Table 3.7: Duration of Visit
Duration of Visit % of Respondents
0-15 min 2016-30 min 1831 min-1 hour 321-1½ hours 231½-2 hours 32-3 hours 4Over 3 hours 1Don’t Know 2Average Duration 48 minutes Other Centres Average Duration of VisitQueensway/Westbourne Grove 73 minutesSt John’s Wood 57 minutesMarylebone High Street 49 minutesHarrow Road 48 minutesPraed Street 48 minutesChurch St./Edgware Rd 43 minutesWarwick Way / Tachbrook Street 43 minutesAverage for All Centres 50 minutes
Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
3.23 Table 3.8 indicates that the majority of in-street respondents in Harrow Road District
Centre visit there regularly with 70% visiting once a week or more, although 13% visit
the Centre once a month or less and 6% never visit Harrow Road (i.e. they were
interviewed during their first visit to the centre). The average number of visits per
week is 1.9, just below the average for all 7 District Centres.
Table 3.8: Frequency of Visit and Average Frequency
Frequency of Visit % of Respondents
Everyday 182-3 times a week 25Once a week 27Once a fortnight 10Once a month 6Less than once a month 7Never 6Don’t Know 1Average visits per week 1.9 per weekOther Centres Average FrequencyWarwick Way / Tachbrook Street 2.7 per weekChurch St./Edgware Rd 2.5 per weekQueensway/Westbourne Grove 2.3 per weekMarylebone High Street 2.2 per weekHarrow Road 1.9 per weekSt John’s Wood 1.9 per weekPraed Street 1.5 per weekAverage for All Centres 2.1 per week
Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
25
4.0 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE
Introduction
4.1 The business occupier survey results provide information on how trading performance
is perceived within the seven centres surveyed. The canvas of operators provides
information on the level of demand for premises within each centre. In addition trends
in rental levels can indicate how a centre is performing.
Business Trading Performance in Harrow Road
4.2 Postal questionnaire responses were received from 11 businesses within Harrow
Road District Centre. Most of these respondents (73%) were long established
businesses who have been located there for over 5 years.
4.3 Businesses were asked to describe their current, past and expected future trading
performance.
Table 4.1: Businesses’ Views on Trading Performance (% of businesses)
CurrentPerformance
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 18 4 7 12 14 8 11Good 18 22 18 36 28 31 33Satisfactory 46 48 39 36 38 38 28Poor 9 26 32 12 17 19 28Don’t Know 9 0 4 4 3 4 0Average Score 0.50 0.04 0.00 0.50 0.39 0.28 0.28Past Performance(last 12 months)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Improved 18 22 14 45 31 42 22Stayed the same 27 35 32 24 28 15 45Declined 36 39 50 26 38 39 33Don’t Know 18 4 4 5 3 4 0Average Score -0.22 -0.18 -0.37 0.20 -0.07 0.04 -0.11Expected Future Performance(next 12 months)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Improve 27 43 18 55 52 31 22Stay the same 27 35 43 24 24 39 67Decline 9 22 21 7 17 15 6Don’t Know 37 0 18 14 7 14 5Average Score 0.29 0.22 -0.04 0.56 0.37 0.18 0.18Average Score – Very good=2, Good/improve = 1, satisfactory/stay the same r= 0, Poor/decliner= -1.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
4.4 Business occupiers’ views on current trading performance in Harrow Road were
generally positive with more suggesting performance was ‘good/very good’ than
‘poor’. About half of respondents describe their performance as satisfactory (46%).
More businesses (36%) suggested performance had declined during the past 12
26
months than those who suggested it had improved in this District Centre. Opinions
regarding future performance here were mixed, with 27% both predicting an
improvement and a continuation of current levels, and only 9% forecasting a decline
in performance. However, a large proportion of respondents in Harrow Road District
Centre (37%) were unsure of how their business would perform in the future.
Property Indicators
4.5 The comparative performance and importance of shopping centres can be measured
by Zone A rental levels for retail property. Published information is available for some
centres in central London, including Queensway/Westbourne Grove and Marylebone
High Street, as shown in Table 4.2. However, published information is not currently
available for Harrow Road. In 1997 Zone A rents in Harrow Road were £269-322 per
sqm, significantly below the average for all of Westminster’s District Centres. In 2002
Zone A rents were £323-431 per sqm in Harrow Road, still significantly below the
District Centre average.
Table 4.2: Zone A Retail Rents (£ Per Sqm)
Centre 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Harrow Road 269-
322
- - - - 323-
431
- - - -
Oxford Street 3767 5651 5113 4844 4844 5059 5167 5221 5490 5651Kensington High St 2153 2422 2153 2691 3229 3322 3444 3283 3283 2960
Westbourne Grove 700 700 861 1076 1615 1938 2153 2099 2260 2422
Notting Hill Gate 700 700 861 1292 1399 1507 1507 1615 1615 1776
Queensway 1076 1076 1292 1615 1615 1615 1615 1668 1722 1776
Marylebone High St 538 915 1023 1292 1292 1292 1399 1399 1399 1453
Edgware Road 646 646 1292 1292 1292 1292 1292 1346 1346 1346
Baker Street 861 861 915 1076 1184 1184 1184 1184 1238 1292
Portobello Road - - - - - 1076 1076 1076 1076 1238
Wigmore Street 484 646 753 861 1076 1076 1076 1076 1076 1184
Source: Colliers CRE In-Town Retail Rents
4.6 These figures demonstrate Oxford Street’s dominant position at the top of the
shopping hierarchy. Rental levels in Harrow Road were lower than most other central
London centres in 2002, and rental growth has not been as strong as elsewhere in
Westminster.
Availability of Premises and Vacancy Levels
4.7 There were 16 vacant units in Harrow Road District Centre in 2006. The vacancy rate
(13.8%) is above the national average (over 10%). The number of vacant units has
27
risen since 2002, from 12 to 16. The high vacancy rate and the rise in the number of
vacant units since 2002 suggest that the demand for premises in Harrow Road is not
as strong as in the other District Centres. Rental growth outlined above in table 4.2
may have affected vacancy levels here.
Property Requirements
4.8 A postal questionnaire was sent to over 300 national and regional multiple retailers
and leisure operators, in order to ascertain their potential space requirements in the 7
District Centres in Westminster. A summary of the results is shown in Appendix M.
This canvas of operators confirmed only one specific requirement for Harrow Road.
Business Occupier’s Views on Rents and Rates
4.9 Businesses were asked about their views on rents and rates in Harrow Road
(Question 10 Appendix I). The results are summarised in Table 4.3 below. The
majority of businesses suggested rents were neither good nor poor and of the rest
slightly more considered the rents to be poor rather than good. When asked about
rates the proportion of respondents who considered they were poor significantly
outnumbered those suggesting they were good, although a fairly high proportion
(36%) considered rates to be neither good nor poor. The average score in all of the
District Centres was below zero (i.e. below neutral). In general dissatisfaction was
slightly worse for rates rather than rents, with the exception of St. John’s Wood where
rents were perceived to be particularly high.
4.10 Harrow Road was rated the top of all 7 District Centres in terms of satisfaction with
rents and rates. However, despite relatively low levels of dissatisfaction, 64% of
businesses in Harrow Road suggested that high overheads/rents were a main issue
constraining their business.
4.11 Based on our experience of similar business surveys across the country rents and
rates are usually a major issue and bone of contention amongst businesses in town
centres.
28
Table 4.3: Businesses’ views on Rents and Rates
Average Score – Very Good=5, Quite Good=4, Neither Good nor Poor=3, Quite Poor=2, Very Poor=1Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Rents Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Quite Good 0 0 11 12 21 4 6Neither Good norPoor
64 44 32 45 21 19 17
Quite Poor 0 4 18 17 28 23 6Very Poor 9 30 14 19 17 23 44Don’t Know 27 9 14 2 10 4 11Not Answered 0 13 11 5 3 27 17Average Score -0.46 -0.83 -0.48 -0.46 -0.48 -0.94 -1.23Rates Harrow Road Queensway/
WestbourneGrove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 0 0 0 0 4 0Quite Good 9 4 4 5 7 4 6Neither Good norPoor
36 22 21 41 31 15 22
Quite Poor 18 35 21 26 24 19 6Very Poor 18 22 32 19 28 39 50Don’t Know 18 9 7 5 7 4 6Not Answered 0 9 14 5 3 15 11Average Score -0.56 -0.89 -1.05 -0.66 -0.81 -1.05 -1.20
29
5.0 NLP’S AMENITY APPRAISAL
Introduction
5.1 NLP undertook an amenity appraisal during the day-time and during the night-time in
November 2006. This appraisal was also undertaken in 2002, which allows
comparisons to be made.
Day-Time Amenity Appraisal
5.2 The day-time amenity rating for Harrow Road District Centre has increased
significantly since 2002, the overall score having risen from 39.1% to 52.2%, however
its ranking remains the same at 6th out of the 7 District Centres. Harrow Road scores
highly on a number of safety and security factors including the limited presence of
rough sleepers, beggars, street drinkers and illegal street traders, and the reduced
evidence of drunkenness/anti-social behaviour and of touting. Harrow Road is rated
as ‘poor’ for all categories concerning the identity of the town, and for the presence of
refuse bags on the street and a lack of special features. There have been a number
of notable improvements made to the centre over the last four years, most markedly
in environmental issues, but also in safety perception during shopping hours. There
has, however, been a worsening in special features (e.g. pedestrianisation, street
furniture etc.) according to this survey.
Night-Time Amenity Appraisal
5.3 Harrow Road’s overall night-time appraisal rating has increased since 2002 having
risen from 44.7% to 55.3%, however, improvements in other centres has led to a fall
in its ranking from joint 6th to 7th. As with its day-time appraisal Harrow Road scores
generally well in its security ratings, but poorly in the identity of the town centre and
evidence of vandalism and graffiti. There have been notable improvements made
since 2002 in the areas of reducing; evidence of drunkenness, street fouling, and the
presence of street drinkers and illegal street traders.
30
Somerfield on Harrow Road. Rubbish on Street.
Residential on upper floors. Junction at east of Harrow Road
Wide pavements with grocers stalls. CCTV provision.
31
6.0 ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT
Introduction
6.1 Accessibility to Harrow Road District Centre and pedestrian movement within the
centre has been examined based on the following elements of work:
an analysis of public transport linkages;
NLP’s on site visits during the day and night-time;
analysis of the in-street survey results to establish visitors’ views;
analysis of the household survey results to establish local resident visitors’ views; and
analysis of the business postal survey results to establish local occupiers’ views.
Layout of the Centre
6.2 Harrow Road District Centre is made up of one primary shopping street (Harrow Road),
and is a linear centre. The Centre is in close proximity to Westbourne Park tube
station.
6.3 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on the layout of the District
Centre (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are summarised in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1: Visitors’ Views on the Layout of the Centre (% of visitors)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 3 19 1 32 3 3 19Quite Good 73 56 62 51 52 39 37Neither Good/Poor 15 10 28 13 28 36 23Quite Poor 3 2 3 3 5 12 4Very Poor 3 0 0 0 3 2 0Don’t Know 3 13 6 1 9 8 17Average Score 0.72 1.06 0.65 1.13 0.53 0.31 0.87Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.4 The number of in-street visitors rating the Harrow Road’s layout as good significantly
outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score was +0.72, which is
slightly below the quite good mark (a score of zero is neutral i.e. neither good nor
poor). All of Westminster’s District Centres achieved above neutral scores (above 0).
Harrow Road achieved the 4th best average score (+0.72), behind Marylebone High
Street, Queensway/Westbourne Grove and St John’s Wood.
32
Modal Split
6.5 Respondents to the in-street visitor survey were asked (Question 07 Appendix G)
how they had travelled to the centre. The results are summarised in Table 6.2 below.
In addition, residents interviewed in the household survey (those who have shopped
in Harrow during the past 3 months) were asked how they normally travel to Harrow
Road (Question 08 Appendix H). The results are summarised in Table 6.3 below.
Table 6.2: Visitors’ Mode of Travel (% of Visitors)
Travel Mode Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Walked 45 58 60 51 78 31 44Car (Driver) 4 0 4 6 2 3 20Car (Passenger) 1 0 0 2 2 2 1Motorbike/Scooter 0 0 0 2 0 0 0Bus/Coach 27 7 26 7 9 34 4Train/Tube 17 32 8 26 6 28 26Taxi 0 3 1 3 1 1 4Bicycle 6 0 2 2 3 1 1Other 0 0 0 3 0 0 0Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.6 The majority of visitors had walked to Harrow Road (45%), 5% of the 113
respondents had travelled by car. Similarly, car travel was very low (8% or less) in all
7 District Centres with the exception of St John’s Wood (21%). Harrow Road had the
2nd highest proportion of visitors travelling by bus (27%), however, the proportion
travelling by train/tube was relatively low (17%) compared with the other 6 District
Centres. Harrow Road had the highest proportion of respondents who had cycled to
the centre (6%).
6.7 The household survey results indicate (unsurprisingly) that local residents are more
likely to walk to Harrow Road (77%) than visitors in general, but less likely to travel
there by bus (13%). The results also suggest that local residents do not usually use
the tube, but that some local residents drive to Harrow Road (4%). The results
suggest that visitors from outside the local catchment area are more likely to use the
bus and the tube than residents within Harrow Road’s catchment area.
33
Table 6.3: Local Residents’ Mode of Travel (% of Respondents)
Travel Mode Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Walked 77 69 79 81 88 84 58Car (Driver) 4 7 4 6 4 5 20Car (Passenger) 1 0 1 2 1 0 0Motorbike/Scooter 0 0 0 2 0 0 0Bus/Coach 13 19 11 2 4 7 10Train/Tube 0 0 3 0 2 0 2Taxi 0 0 0 0 0 2 0Bicycle 3 2 1 2 6 0 0Don’t Know 3 0 0 3 1 2 11Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Public Transport
6.8 Harrow Road has reasonably good accessibility by public transport. There is one
Underground tube station (Westbourne Park) located close to the centre, served by
the Hammersmith and City line. The centre has good tube access to the Paddington
and Edgware Road areas to the east, the Ladbroke Grove area to the west and the
Shepherd’s Bush area to the south. However, tube access from areas which are not
served by the Hammersmith and City line is not good, which may explain the
relatively low proportion of visitors who use the tube (17%).
6.9 The centre has excellent access by bus from the north and east, being served by five
bus routes (Nos. 18, 28, 36, 328, 31). There are five routes serving the Westbourne
Park area, which is just South of the Harrow Road centre. The No. 18 bus serves the
Wembley and Harlesden areas to the north-west, and the Euston area to the east. The
no. 28 bus serves the Wandsworth, Fulham and Kensington areas to the south-west,
and the No. 328 bus serves the Notting Hill and Kensington areas to the south. The
No. 36 serves the Peckham and Belgravia areas to the south-east and Queen’s Park to
the north. The Camden area, to the north-east is served by the No. 31 bus, which also
serves the Holland Park and Shepherd’s Bush Green areas to the south. These
excellent bus links may explain why the centre has the 2nd highest proportion of visitors
travelling by bus to the centre after Praed Street. Local residents interviewed in the
household survey were asked to rate the centre in terms of public transport, and the
results are in Table 6.4.
34
Table 6.4: Residents’ Views on Public Transport Accessibility (% of Respondents)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 28 33 34 17 25 39 49Quite Good 39 36 31 19 31 39 27Neither Good/Poor 15 12 13 13 10 4 7Quite Poor 1 3 4 4 8 0 2Very Poor 5 3 3 17 1 4 0Don’t Know 11 12 14 30 25 14 15Average Score 0.94 1.04 1.05 0.21 0.93 1.24 1.45Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor=0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.10 The numbers rating public transport accessibility as good in Harrow Road significantly
outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score there was +0.94,
which is around the quite good mark (a score of zero is neutral i.e. neither good nor
poor). All 7 of Westminster’s District Shopping Centres achieved above neutral
scores (above 0). Harrow Road achieved the 5th best average score (+0.94),
comparable with the average score for all of the centres (+1.04).
6.11 Visitors interviewed in the in-street survey were asked to rate the centre in terms of
bus services, and the results are show in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5: Visitors’ Views on Bus Services (% of Respondents)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 19 12 10 4 21 29 35Quite Good 66 39 66 14 50 52 22Neither Good/Poor 3 27 22 4 3 4 5Quite Poor 4 5 1 5 3 3 3Very Poor 0 1 0 13 2 1 3Don’t Know 8 17 1 60 22 11 32Average Score 1.08 0.67 0.86 -0.22 1.09 1.20 1.25Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor=0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.12 Again the numbers rating bus services in Harrow Road District Centre as good
outnumbered those suggesting it was poor, and the average score here was +1.08.
All of the centres achieved above neutral scores (above 0), except Marylebone High
Street. Harrow Road was ranked 4th out of the 7 District Centres for bus services.
6.13 Businesses in the Harrow Road were also asked to rate Harrow Road District Centre
in terms of public transport, and the results are show in Table 6.6 below.
6.14 The number of respondents rating Harrow Road’s bus services as good outnumbered
those who rated them as poor, however, a large proportion answered that they did not
know how good the bus services were. For its bus services the centre achieved an
overall score of +0.57, and was ranked 5th out of the 7 District Centres. When asked
35
about Harrow Road’s train/underground accessibility, the majority of respondents
answered that they did not know (55%). Of those respondents who did have an
opinion, most rated the train/underground accessibility as neither good nor poor,
which is reflected by the Centre’s overall score of +0.20, which is the lowest score of
all of Westminster’s 7 District Centres.
Table 6.6: Businesses’ Views on Public Transport Accessibility (% of businesses)
Bus Services Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 18 13 14 0 10 31 6Quite Good 18 35 50 29 59 38 33Neither Good/Poor 18 13 14 17 17 23 11Quite Poor 0 9 4 12 7 0 6Very Poor 9 0 4 26 0 0 11Don’t Know 36 30 14 17 7 8 33Average Score 0.57 0.75 0.79 -0.43 0.78 1.08 0.25Train/Underground
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 26 11 7 24 31 11Quite Good 9 30 54 50 62 46 67Neither Good/Poor 36 22 14 24 10 11 0Quite Poor 0 4 7 7 3 4 0Very Poor 0 4 7 7 0 0 0Don’t Know 55 13 7 5 0 8 22Average Score 0.20 0.80 0.58 0.45 1.07 1.13 1.14Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor=0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Car Parking
6.15 The in-street survey results suggest that the proportion of visitors travelling by car to
Harrow Road is fairly low. Respondents were asked about their views on the
availability and cost of car parking in the District Centre (Question 14 Appendix G).
Local residents were asked a similar question in the household survey (Question 07
Appendix H), see Table 6.7 below.
6.16 Due to the low proportion of car-borne visitors, a high proportion of respondents
indicated they did not know about car parking availability and charges (57% and 58%
respectively). Of those who did express a view, the numbers rating car parking
availability and charges as poor in Harrow Road significantly outnumbered those
suggesting it was good. The average scores were -1.55 and -1.49 respectively,
which are between quite poor and very poor (a score of zero is neutral i.e. neither
good or poor). All centres achieved below neutral scores (below 0) with the exception
of Church Street/Edgware Road which achieved more positive scores. Harrow Road
achieved the worst average score for parking availability (-1.55), significantly below
the average score for all of Westminster’s District Centres (-0.86). Harrow Road
36
achieved the 2nd worst score for charges (-1.49), again significantly below the
average for all of Westminster’s District Centres (-0.96).
Table 6.7: Visitors’ Views on Availability of Car Parking and Parking Charges (% of visitors)
Availabilityof Parking
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 2 6 2 2 0 2Quite Good 2 11 34 5 9 3 17Neither Good/Poor 3 6 27 4 3 2 12Quite Poor 7 10 17 7 5 6 17Very Poor 31 32 5 18 19 19 28Don’t Know 57 39 11 64 62 70 25Average Score -1.55 -0.97 0.23 -0.94 -0.80 -1.32 -0.70Parking Charges Harrow Road Queensway/
WestbourneGrove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 2 6 2 1 0 2Quite Good 0 7 38 2 3 0 20Neither Good/Poor 5 7 22 6 7 0 11Quite Poor 11 7 16 4 8 9 5Very Poor 26 34 6 22 18 13 26Don’t Know 58 43 13 64 63 78 36Average Score -1.49 -1.12 0.24 -1.17 -1.60 -0.53 -1.05Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor=0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.17 The views of local residents in the Harrow Road catchment area were less negative
than those of its in-street visitors, with an average score being recorded of -0.67;
better than the average for the 7 District Centres (-0.90), and the joint highest
average score across all of the centres. Despite these relatively negative views
regarding car parking, only 8% of household survey respondents (Question 12
Appendix H) suggested they would shop more often in Harrow Road if there was
more or cheaper car parking. Therefore improving car parking may not significantly
increase the attraction of the centre, and may exacerbate traffic congestion and result
in a reduction in the use of public transport.
Table 6.8: Residents’ Views on Availability of Car Parking and Parking Charges (% of residents)
Availability/Price of Parking
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 8 2 4 6 4 2 0Quite Good 11 7 6 2 6 7 2Neither Good/Poor 11 14 7 13 3 2 15Quite Poor 9 7 11 19 12 7 22Very Poor 33 22 27 17 22 41 21Don’t Know 28 48 44 43 53 41 40Average Score -0.67 -0.80 -0.92 -0.67 -0.91 -1.31 -1.02Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor=0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.18 The views of businesses in Harrow Road were also sought in relation to the cost and
availability of car parking (Question 10 Appendix I), and the results are shown in
37
Table 6.9 below. The average scores for Harrow Road based on businesses’
responses were -1.64 for the availability of car parking and -1.00 for charges, which
suggests that businesses are more dissatisfied than residents and visitors with
regards to availability and charges. Harrow Road attained the lowest score of all of
Westminster’s District Centres for parking availability, however, it achieved the most
positive score for parking charges.
Table 6.9: Businesses’ Views on Availability of Car Parking and Parking Charges (% of businesses)
Availabilityof Parking
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Quite Good 0 0 14 24 7 12 11Neither Good/Poor 9 22 11 14 14 12 0Quite Poor 18 39 14 43 31 4 33Very Poor 73 30 57 19 48 65 50Don’t Know 0 9 4 0 0 7 6Average Score -1.64 -1.10 -1.19 -0.57 -1.21 -1.33 -1.29Parking Charges Harrow Road Queensway/
WestbourneGrove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 4 0 0 0 0 0Quite Good 0 0 4 0 7 4 11Neither Good/Poor 46 9 21 7 7 8 11Quite Poor 9 17 29 38 10 15 22Very Poor 46 61 43 50 76 58 44Don’t Know 0 9 4 5 0 15 11Average Score -1.00 -1.43 -1.15 -1.45 -1.55 -1.50 -1.12Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor=0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.19 When asked what the main issues constraining their business were (Question 07
Appendix I), 64% of businesses in Harrow Road District Centre mentioned the limited
availability/location of car parking and 27% mentioned the high price of parking.
These issues were amongst the most commonly mentioned factors throughout the
District Centres.
6.20 A summary of visitors’, local residents’ and businesses’ views on car parking in
Harrow Road is shown in Table 6.10. These results confirm that car parking (limited
availability and high price) is generally less of a concern for local residents than for
both businesses and visitors to the centre. Based on our experience of similar
surveys across the country, views amongst businesses are usually stronger than
customers in relation to car parking problems.
38
Table 6.10: Summary of Views on Availability of Car Parking and Parking Charges
Average Score Visitors LocalResidents
Businesses
Availability of Car Parking -1.55 ) -1.64) -0.67
Car Parking Charges -1.49 ) -1.00
Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor=0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Pedestrian Flow
6.21 Pedestrian counts were recorded at 30 different locations within this centre between 3
pm and 5 pm and 9 pm to 11 pm. The results are shown in Appendix F.
6.22 During the afternoon (3 pm to 5 pm), the average pedestrian flow across all 30
locations in Harrow Road was 710 per hour, which is the lowest average for all the 7
District Centres surveyed. The average for all of Westminster’s District Centres was
1,257 per hour between these times. The evening average was much lower (344 per
hour in Harrow Road) than the afternoon average, and was considerably lower than
the overall average (626 per hour) for the 7 District Centres combined. These figures
suggest that Harrow Road is not a particularly busy centre either during the day or the
evening.
6.23 The distribution of pedestrian flows around Harrow Road is shown on thermal maps in
Appendix F. During the afternoon the highest pedestrian flows in this centre were
recorded in the central part of Harrow Road near Costcutter and Iceland (both on
Harrow Road), with counts of 1,770 and 1,680 per hour recorded respectively (see
Appendix F). The figures, together with the thermal map, indicate that the central-
western side of Harrow Road generally has much higher pedestrian flows than the
central-eastern side. The lowest flow counts (around 150-180 per hour) were
recorded at peripheral areas of the zone such as the western end of Harrow Road,
and along Sutherland Avenue.
6.24 During the night pedestrian flows around Harrow Road were slightly different than the
day-time flows, and were concentrated more towards the eastern end of Harrow Road
than during the afternoon. The highest pedestrian flows were in the middle of the
zone, near the intersection of Harrow Road and Great Western Road (990 per hour),
near Antello’s Wine Merchant, and towards the eastern end of the zone (780 per
hour), near William Hill Bookmakers.
39
Traffic Congestion
6.25 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on traffic congestion in
Harrow Road District Centre (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are summarised
in Table 6.11 below.
Table 6.11: Visitors’ Views on Traffic Congestion (% of visitors)
TrafficCongestion
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 1 5 1 1 3 5Quite Good 12 17 35 16 12 26 32Neither Good/Poor 6 13 39 33 26 17 13Quite Poor 5 13 14 16 9 15 15Very Poor 20 31 3 10 18 6 20Don’t Know 57 26 5 24 34 33 15Average Score -0.77 -0.75 0.26 -0.24 -0.47 0.07 -0.15Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.26 The numbers of visitors rating traffic congestion as poor in Harrow Road
outnumbered those suggesting it was good. The average score here was -0.77,
worse than the average for all of Westminster’s District Centres (-0.29) combined.
Harrow Road achieved the worst average score for traffic congestion.
6.27 The views of local residents in Harrow Road’s catchment area were slightly less
negative than those of the in-street visitors, with an average score recorded of -0.67,
marginally worse than the average for the 7 District Centres combined (-0.52).
Table 6.12: Residents’ Views on the Amount of Traffic (% of residents)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 5 2 9 0 10 2 4Quite Good 18 12 19 13 14 18 13Neither Good/Poor 19 22 20 40 30 30 38Quite Poor 16 29 21 21 23 14 24Very Poor 38 28 29 21 23 27 21Don’t Know 4 7 3 4 0 9 0Average Score -0.67 -0.74 -0.44 -0.53 -0.37 -0.50 -0.43Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor=0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.28 Businesses in Harrow Road were asked about their views on traffic congestion in the
District Centre (Question 10 Appendix I). The results are summarised in Table 6.13
below. Businesses’ views on traffic here were mixed and the average score (-0.22)
was close to neutral (0.00). All other centres achieved a negative score, with the
exception of Queensway/Westbourne Grove.
40
Table 6.13: Businesses’ Views on Traffic Congestion (% of businesses)
TrafficCongestion
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 9 4 0 0 3 6Quite Good 36 17 11 17 31 23 22Neither Good/Poor 9 44 32 52 17 31 22Quite Poor 18 17 18 19 10 15 22Very Poor 18 9 32 7 38 12 11Don’t Know 18 4 4 5 3 15 17Average Score -0.22 0.00 -0.66 -0.17 -0.57 -0.09 -0.13Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.29 A summary of visitors’, local residents’ and businesses’ views on traffic congestion in
Harrow Road is shown in Table 6.14. These results suggest that traffic congestion is
more a concern for local residents and visitors than for businesses.
Table 6.14: Summary of Views on Traffic Congestion
Average Score Visitors LocalResidents
Businesses
Traffic congestion/amount -0.77 -0.67 -0.22
Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor=0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Accessibility Summary
6.30 A summary of the above analysis is shown in Table 6.15.
Table 6.15: Summary Analysis for Accessibility
Visitors’Views/Rank
Residents’ Views/Rank BusinessOccupiers’Views/Rank
Layout of centre Positive4th
n/a n/a
Bus services Very Positive4th
Positive5th
Train/Underground services n/aPositive
5th Neutral7th
Car parking availability Very Negative7th
Very Negative7th
Car parking charges Very Negative6th
Negative1st Very Negative
1st
Traffic congestion Negative7th
Negative6th
Neutral5th
Average Score – Over +1 = Very Positive, + 0.26 to +0.99 = Positive, +0.25 to -0.25 = Neutral, -0.26 to -0.99 = Negative, less than -1.00 = Very Negative.
41
7.0 SAFETY AND CRIME
Introduction
7.1 Safety and crime issues in the Harrow Road District Centre have been examined
based on the following elements of work:
NLP’s on site visits during the day and night-time;
analysis of the in-street survey results to establish visitors’ views;
analysis of the household survey results to establish local resident visitors’ views; and
analysis of the business postal survey results to establish business occupiers’ views.
Personal Safety
7.2 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on personal safety in
Harrow Road (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are summarised in Table 7.1
below.
Table 7.1: Visitors’ Views on Personal Safety (% of visitors)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 8 18 14 36 14 12 33Quite Good 68 50 56 57 62 63 49Neither Good/Poor 13 19 28 2 13 19 8Quite Poor 7 2 1 3 2 3 2Very Poor 1 2 0 2 3 1 2Don’t Know 3 9 1 0 6 3 6Average Score 0.77 0.88 0.83 1.22 0.86 0.84 1.18Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
7.3 The numbers rating Harrow Road for personal safety as good significantly
outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score here of +0.77, which
is slightly below the quite good mark (a score of zero is neutral i.e. neither good nor
poor). All 7 of Westminster’s District Centres achieved above neutral scores (above
0). Harrow Road obtained the lowest average across all seven centres.
7.4 Despite these comparatively negative results, only about 11% of visitors in Harrow
Road suggested the centre should be made safer e.g. by installing more CCTV
cameras and police officers (Question 15 Appendix G).
42
7.5 Residents interviewed in the household survey were asked a similar question
(Question 07 Appendix H) relating to safety and security. The results are
summarised in Table 7.2 below. The average score for Harrow Road was neutral
(+0.00). Harrow Road was again ranked bottom out of the 7 District Centres.
However, only 4% of respondents suggested they would visit Harrow Road more
often if safety and security was improved (Question 12 Appendix H).
Table 7.2: Residents’ Views on Safety and Security (% of residents)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 16 17 11 49 23 14 32Quite Good 19 31 37 28 33 34 38Neither Good/Poor 27 31 16 15 32 23 21Quite Poor 14 9 21 4 7 11 4Very Poor 19 3 10 0 4 9 3Don’t Know 5 9 4 4 1 9 2Average Score 0.00 0.55 0.19 1.27 0.65 0.35 0.92Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
7.6 Businesses in Harrow Road were also asked about personal safety (Question 10
Appendix I), and the results are summarised in Table 7.3 below. The views amongst
businesses were generally negative in relation to personal safety in Harrow Road,
with an average score of –1.09 being recorded overall. Harrow Road, again, scored
most poorly out of all seven centres. These figures suggest that businesses may be
more concerned with personal safety than residents and customers in this centre.
Table 7.3: Businesses’ Views on Personal Safety (% of businesses)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 9 0 10 7 0 11Quite Good 9 17 18 62 38 35 17Neither Good/Poor 18 35 18 14 31 35 28Quite Poor 27 17 18 7 14 15 17Very Poor 46 9 43 5 10 4 17Don’t Know 0 13 4 2 0 12 11Average Score -1.09 0.00 -0.89 0.66 0.17 0.13 -0.12Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Business Security
7.7 Businesses were asked about their views on security in Harrow Road (Question 10
Appendix I). The results are summarised in Table 7.4 below. There were largely
negative views amongst businesses in terms of security. The overall average score (-
0.90) achieved in this District Centre was just above the quite poor score (-1.00).
Harrow Road is ranked bottom in terms of business security. In accordance with
43
these results, security issues were one of the most commonly cited business
constraints in the Business Occupier Survey in Harrow Road.
Table 7.4: Businesses’ Views on Security (% of businesses)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 0 0 7 10 0 6Quite Good 9 26 21 41 31 39 17Neither Good/Poor 9 30 36 21 28 35 22Quite Poor 55 4 4 21 21 8 28Very Poor 18 17 36 5 10 8 17Don’t Know 9 22 4 5 0 11 11Average Score -0.90 -0.17 -0.56 0.25 0.10 0.17 -0.37Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Safety and Crime Summary
7.8 A summary of the above analysis is shown in Table 7.5.
Table 7.5: Summary Analysis for Safety and Crime Perception
Visitors’Views/Rank
Residents’Views/Rank
Business Occupiers’ Views/Rank
Personal Safety Positive7th
Very Negative7th
Security n/aNeutral
7th Negative7th
Average Score – Over +1 = Very Positive, + 0.26 to +0.99 = Positive, +0.25 to -0.25 = Neutral, -0.26 to -0.99 = Negative, less than -1.00 = Very Negative.
44
8.0 THE CENTRE’S ENVIRONMENT
Introduction
8.1 The quality of the environment in Harrow Road District Centre has been examined
based on the following elements of work:
NLP’s on-site visits during the day and night-time;
analysis of the in-street survey results to establish visitors’ views;
analysis of the household survey results to establish local resident visitors’ views; and
analysis of the business postal survey results to establish business occupiers’ views.
Shopping Environment
8.2 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on the shopping
environment in Harrow Road (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are summarised
in Table 8.1 below.
Table 8.1: Visitors’ Views on the Shopping Environment (% of visitors)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 5 24 9 45 5 3 24Quite Good 69 56 55 45 64 50 49Neither Good/Poor 18 9 30 5 18 24 6Quite Poor 4 1 2 4 4 13 9Very Poor 2 0 0 0 1 4 1Don’t Know 2 10 4 1 8 5 11Average Score 0.73 1.14 0.74 1.32 0.74 0.36 0.97Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
8.3 The numbers rating Harrow Road for its shopping environment as good significantly
outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score here was +0.73 just
below the quite good mark (a score of zero is neutral i.e. neither good nor poor). All
of Westminster’s District Centres achieved above neutral scores (above 0). Harrow
Road District Centre obtained the 6th best average score (0.73), ahead only of Praed
Street.
8.4 Residents interviewed in the household survey were asked a similar question
(Question 07 Appendix H) relating to the shopping environment. The results are
summarised in Table 8.2 below. The average score for Harrow Road was neutral (-
45
0.25), and residents’ views were less positive than visitors’ views here. Generally
residents’ views were less positive than visitors’ comments in most of the District
Centres with the exception of Marylebone High Street. Harrow Road was ranked 6th
out of the 7 centres surveyed in this respect.
Table 8.2: Residents’ Views on the Shopping Environment (% of residents)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 9 16 11 60 14 5 19Quite Good 18 33 24 30 27 16 35Neither Good/Poor 32 29 20 4 26 20 33Quite Poor 17 10 24 6 25 25 7Very Poor 21 9 14 0 7 25 5Don’t Know 4 3 6 0 1 9 2Average Score -0.25 0.38 -0.06 1.43 0.17 -0.55 0.56Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
8.5 Businesses in Harrow Road District Centre were also asked about the general
shopping environment of the centre (Question 10 Appendix I), and the results are
summarised in Table 8.3. There were largely negative views amongst businesses in
relation to the shopping environment there, with a negative overall score of -0.45.
These figures suggest that businesses may be more concerned with the shopping
environment than residents/customers of this centre. Harrow Road was ranked 5th
most attractive in terms of shopping environment amongst its local businesses.
Despite the relatively negative views, no businesses identified the quality of the
shopping environment in Harrow Road as a major issue affecting their business
(Question 07 Appendix I).
Table 8.3: Businesses’ Views on the Shopping Environment (% of businesses)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 0 9 0 36 0 4 6Quite Good 9 26 11 43 31 8 33Neither Good/Poor 55 35 36 19 31 23 33Quite Poor 18 17 25 0 21 31 0Very Poor 18 0 21 2 14 23 6Don’t Know 0 13 7 0 3 12 22Average Score -0.45 0.30 -0.62 1.10 -0.18 -0.70 0.43Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Litter and Cleanliness
8.6 Residents interviewed in the household survey were asked about street cleaning in
Harrow Road District Centre (Question 07 Appendix H). The results are summarised
in Table 8.4 below. The average score for this centre was positive (+0.44) although it
was ranked 6th out of the 7 centres surveyed.
46
Table 8.4: Residents’ Views on Street Cleaning (% of residents)
Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Very Good 25 9 19 36 26 18 39Quite Good 23 48 29 53 38 34 51Neither Good/Poor 27 24 29 9 23 21 9Quite Poor 9 7 13 0 10 11 1Very Poor 11 0 9 0 3 5 0Don’t Know 5 12 3 2 0 11 0Average Score 0.44 0.67 0.37 1.28 0.75 0.56 1.28Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
8.7 Only 2% of visitors interviewed during the in-street survey of Harrow Road suggested
the centre should be made cleaner when asked what improvements to the centre they
would like (Question 15 Appendix G).
Environmental Summary
8.8 A summary of the above analysis is shown in Table 8.5 below.
Table 8.5: Summary Analysis for Environmental Issues
Visitors’Views/Rank
Residents’Views/Rank
BusinessOccupiers’Views/Rank
NLP Analysis
Shopping Environment Positive6th
Neutral6th
Negative5th
n/a
Street cleaning n/a Positive6th
n/a Neutral
Average Score – Over +1 = Very Positive, + 0.26 to +0.99 = Positive, +0.25 to -0.25 = Neutral, -0.26 to -0.99 = Negative, less than -1.00 = Very Negative.
47
9.0 CENTRE BOUNDARY AND FRONTAGE DESIGNATIONS
Introduction
9.1 This section reviews the boundary designations and frontage policies in Harrow Road
District Centre. An overview of Central Government guidance (PPS6) and current
UDP policy is set out in Appendix K.
Defining Harrow Road District Centre’s Boundary and Frontages
9.2 Harrow Road District Centre consists of Core and Secondary Shopping Frontages.
The majority of the centre is Core Frontage, including most of Harrow Road. Only
peripheral shop premises towards either end of the zone on Harrow Road, and also
on Woodfield Place, Great Western Road, Collins Close, Fernhead Road, Second
Avenue and Third Avenue are identified as Secondary Frontages.
9.3 The relevant issues that need to be considered in Harrow Road are:
Should the centre boundary be contracted to exclude parts of the Secondary Shopping Frontages?
Should the centre boundary be extended to include other commercial uses outside the designated centre?
Is the demarcation between the Core and Secondary Frontages correct?
Are the policy criteria for the Core and Secondary Frontages correct?
9.4 Dealing with these points in term, the current Secondary Frontages are contiguous
with the Core Shopping Frontages. The land use survey indicates that these
Secondary Frontages still retain a predominance of Class A1 to A5 uses, with the
exception of the Secondary Frontage on the north side of Harrow Road at the east
end of the District Centre, where there is cluster of health related uses and vacant
premises. However, there is no reason why the vacant premises cannot
accommodate Class A uses in the future, and therefore we do not believe this
Secondary Frontage should be excluded from the centre boundary. There are no
nearby commercial uses that should be included within the centre boundary and no
changes to the centre boundary are recommended.
48
Shopping Frontages
9.5 The Council’s UDP states that no more than 30% of Harrow Road’s Core Frontage
will be permitted for non-A1 usage. The current proportion of Core Frontage in non-
A1 usage here is 28%, which is just within the council’s maximum threshold. At
present 72% of Harrow Road is defined as Core Shopping Frontage, with the
Secondary Frontages being located on the periphery of the centre.
9.6 The Council’s Adopted UDP January 2007 states that no more than 45% of Harrow
Road’s Secondary Frontage will be permitted to be used for non-A1 usage. The
current proportion of Secondary Frontage in non-A1 usage here is 66%, which greatly
exceeds the Council’s threshold and the current policy criteria for the Secondary
Frontages have been breached in this District Centre.
9.7 Given that the percentage threshold limit has been breached within the Secondary
Frontages in Harrow Road, strict interpretation of UDP Policy SS6 would effectively
represent a ban on any further changes of use from Class A1 to non-A1 use in these
frontages, and this could restrict the reoccupation of vacant premises in these areas
in certain circumstances. UDP Policy SS 9 deals with long-term vacant shop units on
the periphery of District Centres. Restricting reoccupation may be difficult to defend
because the maximum limit has been significantly exceeded, and there is a
reasonably high level of vacant floorspace.
9.8 The adoption of maximum thresholds on non-A1 use also creates practical problems.
The land use within the centre needs to be monitored on a regular basis. All
applications for change of use would need to be assessed on up to date information,
and the balance between A1 and non-A1 may change frequently. An alternative
approach could be considered.
9.9 We believe the Council should review its frontage policies, and the following options
should be considered:
No change – keep the Core and Secondary Frontages as they are and keep the current UDP percentage threshold limits on non-A1 use. This approach may be appropriate if the Council considers that no more Class A1 uses should be lost to non-A1 use anywhere in this District Centre. The Council must also be confident that this approach can be upheld at appeals.
Change the UDP Non-A1 percentage threshold limit – keep the Core and Secondary Frontages as they are and but increase the current UDP percentage threshold limits on non-A1 use within the Secondary Frontages from 45% to say 70%, so they become more meaningful. Alternatively a restriction in the
49
Secondary Frontages could be removed altogether in order to encourage the reoccupation of vacant units.
Change the boundaries of the Core and Secondary Frontages – keep themaximum percentage non-A1 frontage limits as they are (30% in the Core Frontage and 40% in the Secondary Frontage) but change the boundaries of the Core and Secondary Frontages. Peripheral parts of Core Frontage, where there are higher proportions of non-A1 use and vacant units, could be re-designated as Secondary Frontages, i.e. the Core Frontages between Bravington Road and Second Avenue towards the west end of the centre. This could also make the current limits on non-A1 use in the Secondary Frontagesmore meaningful.
Adopt a new approach – define a much smaller core area where all changes of use from A1 to non-A1 use will be resisted. The policy would argue this is the ‘Core Retail Area’ which must be protected, and all changes of use from Class A1 would be resisted. However there would be no restrictions elsewhere in the centre, which would allow flexibility. The revised (smaller) Core Area is likely to include the north side of Harrow Road between Bravington Road in the west and the Harrow Road/Elgin Avenue Junction in the east, and the Core Frontage on the south side of Harrow Road as currently defined.
9.10 These options should be discussed by policy and development control officers at
Westminster.
50
10.0 RETAIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Introduction
10.1 This section assesses the quantitative scope for new retail floorspace in Harrow Road
in the period from 2006 to 2016. The methodology adopted is summarised in
Appendix L.
Local Catchment Area
10.2 The local catchment area for Harrow Road District Centre is shown in figure 10.1
below. An explanation regarding the identification of this catchment area is set out in
paragraph (ii) in Appendix L.
Figure 10.1: Harrow Road’s Local Catchment Area
Population and Spending
10.3 The local catchment area population and expenditure projections for 2006 to 2016 are
set out in Table 10.1 below. Population within the catchment area is expected to
remain relatively stable between 2006 and 2016 (see explanation in paragraph viii in
51
Appendix L). Convenience expenditure is expected to increase by 5.6% between
2006 and 2016, and comparison expenditure is expected to increase by 28.5% (see
explanation in paragraph (v) in Appendix L).
Table 10.1: Population and Expenditure
2006 2011 2016
Local catchment population 31,039 30,735 30,667[is population here expected
to decline?]Convenience expenditure per capita (annual) £1,455 £1,490 £1,555
Total convenience expenditure (millions) £45.16 £45.79 £47.69Comparison expenditure per capita (annual) £2,818 £3,379 £3,989
Total comparison expenditure (millions) £87.47 £103.85 £122.33
Existing Retail Floorspace
10.4 As indicated in land use table 2.1, the breakdown of convenience and comparison
retail floorspace in this centre is 3,759 sqm gross and 2,921 sqm gross respectively.
In terms of net sales floorspace (assuming an average net to gross ratio of 65%-70%)
the split would be 2,700 sqm net for convenience shops and 2,000 sqm net for
comparison shops.
Existing Spending Patterns 2006
10.5 The results of the household shopper questionnaire survey undertaken by NEMS in
October 2006 have been used to estimate existing shopping patterns. Based on
these survey results we estimate that Harrow Road District Centre’s market
penetration (or market share) within the local catchment area is as follows:
Comparison expenditure - 5%; and
Convenience expenditure - 34%.
10.6 These figures indicate that the majority of expenditure (both comparison and
convenience) within the local catchment area of Harrow Road District Centre is not
spent within Harrow Road District Centre. For comparison shopping, Oxford
Street/the West End and Kensington High Street attract a significant amount of
shopping trips. For convenience shopping there are a large number of destinations
for residents to choose from, including Sainsbury’s at Ladbroke Grove, however a
52
reasonable proportion of food shopping trips were found to have been undertaken at
the Somerfield store on Harrow Road.
10.7 These market share estimates have been used to estimate the amount of expenditure
attracted to Harrow Road District Centre as shown in Tables 10.2 and 10.3 below.
The inflow of expenditure from beyond the catchment area has been estimated based
on the in-street survey results (see Appendix G). The inflow estimate for Harrow
Road District Centre is 30% for both convenience and comparison shops.
Table 10.2: Convenience Floorspace Capacity 2006 to 2011 in Harrow Road District Centre
2006 2011 2016
A - Total expenditure attracted to £22.16 £21.20 £22.08 Harrow Road Centre £M
B - Convenience floorspace sq m net 2,700 2,700 2,700
C - Turnover density £ per sq m £8,206 £7,000 £7,000
D - Expected turnover £M of existing £22.16 £18.90 £18.90 convenience floorspace
E - Surplus/deficit expenditure £M n/a £2.30 £3.18
F - Additional sales floorspace n/a 328 455 capacity sq m net
G - Additional gross floorspace n/a 469 650 sq m gross
A - Total expenditure from Tables 1 and 3 in Appendix LB - Total sales floorspace sq m net estimated from the NLP land use survey November 2006 C - 2006 sales density equals available expenditure divided by floorspace Future sales density assumed at £7,000 per sq m netD - Expected benchmark turnover equals floorspace multiplied by expected sales density E - Difference between available expenditure and expected benchmark turnover F – Floorspace requirement – expenditure surplus divided by projected turnover density. G – Gross Floorspace based on 70% net to gross
10.8 These tables project available expenditure on the basis that Harrow Road District
Centre can maintain its existing 2006 market share of expenditure. However, in
reality major retail development elsewhere outside Westminster may result in a
decrease in this District Centre’s market share, for example the White City
development in Shepherd’s Bush west London, which is likely to reduce Harrow
Road’s market share of comparison expenditure in particular. The comparison
53
projections could be viewed as a maximum figure in view of the likely increase in
competition.
Table 10.3: Comparison Floorspace Capacity 2006 to 2011 in Harrow Road District Centre
2006 2011 2016
A - Total expenditure attracted to £9.66 £11.50 £13.59 Harrow Road Centre £M
B - Comparison floorspace sq m net 2,000 2,000 2,000
C - Turnover density £ per sq m £4,832 £5,205 £5,607
D - Expected turnover £M of existing £9.66 £10.41 £11.21 convenience floorspace
E - Surplus/deficit expenditure £M n/a £1.09 £2.37
F - Additional sales floorspace n/a 209 423 capacity sq m net
G - Additional gross floorspace n/a 298 604 sq m gross
A - Total expenditure from Tables 1 and 3 in Appendix LB - Total sales floorspace sq m net estimated from the NLP land use survey November 2006 C - 2006 sales density equals available expenditure divided by floorspace Future sales density assumed to grow at 1.5% per annumD - Expected benchmark turnover equals floorspace multiplied by expected sales density E - Difference between available expenditure and expected benchmark turnover F – Floorspace requirement – expenditure surplus divided by projected turnover density. G – Gross Floorspace based on 70% net to gross
10.9 Projected available expenditure at 2011 and 2016 is compared with the expected
turnover of existing retail floorspace within the centre to provide an estimate of
surplus expenditure at 2011 and 2016. This surplus expenditure is converted into an
additional floorspace requirement based on the existing sales density (annual
turnover per sqm) projected to grow at 0.3% per annum for convenience floorspace
and 1.5% per annum for comparison floorspace. The results are shown in Table 10.2
and 10.3 above. The figures in Table 10.2 indicate that in 2006 the average sales
density for convenience sales floorspace in Harrow Road District Centre was £8,206
per sqm net, which is above the high company average turnover densities of
Somerfield and Iceland.
54
10.10 The figures in Table 10.3 indicate that in 2006 the average sales density for
comparison sales floorspace was £4,832 per sqm net in Harrow Road District Centre.
This figure is within the range we would expect for high street comparison shops and
is fifth highest figure in relation to Westminster’s other District Centres.
10.11 Surplus expenditure (convenience and comparison) in this centre is expected to be
£3.39 million by 2011 or £5.55 million by 2016. The combined (comparison and
convenience) quantitative floorspace capacity is 767 sqm gross by 2011, or 1,254
sqm gross by 2016 in Harrow Road.
Operator Demand for Space
10.12 The results of a canvas of national operators is shown in the questionnaire in
Appendix M asking about their requirements in Westminster. In total only 13
companies indicated that they do have a requirement in the near future in
Westminster. The most popular location in which respondents wished to open a new
unit was Marylebone High Street with four identifying it specifically.
Queensway/Westbourne Grove and St John’s Wood District Centres were the next
most popular locations with three respondents identifying each as a location for a
prospective new unit. Church Street/Edgware Road and Praed Street were third most
popular with 2 respondents identifying them in particular as a location for a new unit.
Warwick Way/Tachbrook Street and Harrow Road were the least popular locations
identified by respondents for a new unit, with only one specifically identifying each
centre.
Development Opportunities
10.13 In terms of available sites there are limited opportunities for major development within
or adjacent to Harrow Road District Centre. It is surrounded by residential streets and
there is limited room for expansion. There are no identified vacant or underused sites
near this District Centre identified in the UDP.
10.14 The additional A1 retail floorspace potential shown in this section (about 1,254 sqm
gross by 2016) could be achieved by the reoccupation of vacant units by Class A1
uses (2,269 sqm of vacant floorspace).
10.15 The Council should seek to prevent the loss of existing Class A use floorspace in this
centre.
55
10.16 The Council are currently working with Harrow Road Local Area Renewal Partnership
on ways of improving the shopping environment and retail offer in this District Centre
as it is currently one of Westminster’s worst performing District Centres. Improving
the quality of the retail offer in Harrow Road may make it a more attractive centre for
investment, which would help fill the existing vacant units, and improve the
appearance and performance of the centre overall. There is less need for extra
convenience floor space in Harrow Road than in other District Centres, but there is
some potential for additional comparison retail floor space. This could help enhance
the existing retail mix as the area is currently overbalanced with comparatively poor
quality convenience stores. Here retail chains may be equally important as small
independent shops in ensuring the District Centre's survival.
10.17 Westminster’s UDP policies state that new retail development should primarily be
located within the existing hierarchy of defined shopping centres inside the CAZ,
District and Local Shopping centres.
10.18 The re-development/re-design of the ‘Prince of Wales Junction’ at the eastern end of
this centre will be encouraged to help kick-start improvements in the rest of the
Harrow Road in terms of its retail offer and reducing crime and the fear of crime. A
Planning Brief for this site is currently being prepared by the Council to promote
development at the junction between Harrow Road and Elgin Avenue. Improvements
here would encourage shoppers back into the centre and so help revive the local
economy.
10.19 Although there may be a threat to Westminster’s shopping centres once the White
City development in Shepherds Bush comes on stream in 2008, it is likely that the
new development would attract different customers to those visiting Westminster’s
District Shopping Centres. The latter serve their local catchment areas and cater for
the passing trade of workers and visitors. Harrow Road’s catchment area comprises
the highest proportion of relatively low-income residents in comparison with the other
District Centres. Car ownership in the catchment area is lower than five of the other
District Centres, and almost 80% of visitors were found to have walked to the centre.
From this it would appear unlikely that these customers would travel to White City on
a regular basis once it opens instead of using their local shops.
10.20 In terms of required floorspace, it should be noted that the retail capacity estimates
cited in this report may generally be under-estimates as they are based on a capped
population estimate as used by the Greater London Authority (GLA). They are also
56
calculated using catchment areas based on postcode boundaries from where the
District Centre is expected to derive most of its trade which may not represent the
whole catchment area of each centre, and on population expenditure which is in part
based on in-street survey responses. These figures combined may not represent
actual expenditure within this centre and from its catchment area, therefore the
demand levels detailed are somewhat subjective. In Harrow Road for example,
additional demand is shown for convenience, and to a lesser extent comparison retail
floorspace. Although additional units may help improve the centre, improvements to
the quality of the existing retail offer may make more of a difference to the vitality and
viability of the centre than increasing the actual amount of floorspace. Due to
Westminster’s nature, many of the District Centre catchment areas are also likely to
overlap making actual demand for floorspace within any one District Centre difficult to
estimate.
57
11.0 SUMMARY OF THE DISTRICT CENTRE’S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
In terms of its vitality and viability and general economic health this centre is still
considered to be in decline, although evidence suggests the centre has not declined
significantly since the 2002 health check.
Strengths
Although Harrow Road is a comparatively small centre in relation to the other 6 District Centres in Westminster, it appears to be a very important centre in terms of meeting the needs of local residents. It has a reasonably good rangeof specialist and independent retailers, and has a good range of food shops.
The public transport links to the centre are good with one underground station and a good number of bus links. This is reflected in the number of users traveling by public transport to the centre and the low car usage. A high proportion of users regularly cycle to the centre.
The business survey suggests that many occupiers in Harrow Road District Centre perceive that their current trading performance is good. Harrow Road received the most positive response regarding the current trading performance of all 7 District Centres. Views on past and future performance were generally mixed.
Harrow Road was ranked top of all 7 District Centres for its perceived relatively low rents and rates levels, and many businesses rated them neutrally. Property costs are generally lower in Harrow Road than elsewhere in the Borough.
Weaknesses
The availability and price of car parking is generally poor in the Harrow Road District Centre, although residents and businesses were least concerned about car parking charges in comparison with the other District Centres. Both limited parking availability and high parking charges were major factors cited by businesses in Harrow Road as constraints they face.
Traffic congestion is considered to be a particular problem in Harrow Road, especially by residents and visitors to the Centre.
Harrow Road scored particularly poorly for safety and security, and was ranked bottom of all 7 District Centres by visitors, residents and businesses in this respect.
Harrow Road is a relatively small District Centre compared to the other 6 District Centres in Westminster, and the provision of national multiple retailers is limited. The overall quality of the centre’s shops is rated poorly.
In addition to its poor retail facilities Harrow Road lacks a good range of places to eat and drink, and is ranked bottom of all 7 District Centres in this respect.
58
The centre’s leisure/entertainment and night-time facilities are also rated particularly poorly.
The average expenditure amongst visitors to Harrow Road is lower than the average for all of the District Centres combined, and very few visitors attend the centre to browse the shops and services.
The vacancy rate here is higher than the national average suggesting that demand for premises is fairly weak. The vacancy rate has risen slightly since 2002.
Pedestrian flow information indicates that Harrow Road is a quiet centre during the day and evening; it had the lowest average pedestrian flow in the afternoon of all 7 District Centres, and the 2nd lowest in the evening.
Opportunities
The Harrow Road District Centre has a number of vacant units that could provide opportunities for new shops and services to locate in the centre, which could improve the vitality and viability of the centre.
Threats
Harrow Road District Centre may come under pressure from the development of the White City Shopping Centre development in Shepherd’s Bush. This may restrict the potential to improve comparison shopping in Harrow Road District Centre in particular.
Appendix A
Methodology
Diversity of main town centre uses
i. Information relating to existing shopping facilities have been collected, based on theCouncil’s District Centre land use survey 2005, updated where necessary. The totalground floor retail floorspace has been analysed and broken down into useclasses/key categories e.g. A1, A2, A3/A4/A5 and vacant shop units. The floorspacefigures exclude uses such as B1 office uses and residential units which do not attractvisiting members of the public. The definitions of A1 comparison and A1 convenience and other uses are set out at the end of this methodology statement.
ii. EGI’s Retailer Requirements provide published floorspace requirements for multipleoperators. This has been used to assess the level of demand for floorspace in eachof Westminster’s District Centres, and includes details of existing retailers who maywish to change. This has been supported by data from the postal survey of occupiers in each District Centre. A canvas of over 300 national multiple operators was alsoundertaken.
Vacancy Rate
iii. The proportion of vacant street level property has been calculated from the land use
survey 2006, and comparisons between each centre and the GOAD national vacancy
rate have been undertaken.
Pedestrian Footfall
iv. Pedestrian Market Research Services Ltd. (PMRS) were commissioned to undertake
pedestrian flow count surveys in each District Centre. Flow measurements were
recorded in the afternoon (3 pm to 5 pm) and night-time (9 pm to 11 pm) in each
centre. Flow counts were undertaken at each point for 5 minutes per hour and the
counts have been factored up to provide an hourly estimate.
Accessibility
v. Accessibility is a key issue addressed in PPS6 and is an essential criterion in
ensuring the vitality and viability of centres. The Health Check analysis reviews
transport services (bus, rail and underground) serving each District Centre. The
location, quality, quantity and price of car parking and the pedestrian linkages in each
centre has been assessed.
vi. Data from the attitudinal surveys, including anecdotal views from business occupiers,
visitors and local residents in relation to public transport, car parking, congestion and
other factors affecting accessibility have been undertaken.
Attitudinal Surveys
vii. Attitudinal surveys have been used to feed into the Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis of each centre, focusing on a wide range
of issues. The following survey analysis has been undertaken:
o household telephone survey of local residents;
o on-street visitor survey;
o business occupier survey; and
o canvas of multiple operators.
viii. Household Survey: This survey was undertaken by NEMS Market Research and the
results have been used to model existing shopping patterns of the local catchment
area surrounding each District Centre. The aim of this survey was to capture the
views of local residents who regularly visit each District Centre and also residents
who do not necessarily shop or visit their nearest centre. On average at least 100
interviews have been completed within each catchment area (657 completed
interviews in total – conducted between 13th October and 4th November 2006). The
household surveys have been used to assess how residents use their local District
Centre, or otherwise, and to obtain their views on the strengths and weakness of their
centre, and other destinations visited for shopping.
ix. On-Street Visitor Surveys: NEMS has undertaken on-street visitor surveys in the 7
District Centres. These surveys help to establish the views of customers. A survey of
at least 100 customers (completed interviews) has been undertaken within each
centre (776 in total). The surveys were conducted during 11th and 20th October
2006. The breakdown of interviews for each day of the week is as follows:
Day Harrow Road Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Monday 23 2 - 32 - - -Tuesday - - - - 25 23 -Wednesday 44 24 43 38 23 23 23Thursday 23 - 43 - 23 23 23Friday 23 75 0 30 18 21 23Saturday - - 23 - 27 23 45Total 113 101 109 100 116 113 114
x. Business Occupier Survey: a postal questionnaire was sent to 1,206
retail/leisure/service occupiers within the 7 District Centres. The number sent in each
centre varied depending on the size of the centre. In total 177 questionnaires were
completed and returned (a response rate of 15%).
xi. Canvas of Multiple Operators: a questionnaire was sent to approximately 300
retail/leisure/restaurant multiple operators, who might reasonably be expected to be
located within the District Centres. The survey will also include some multiple
operators currently represented in the District Centres who may have plans to
expand. The questionnaire examined: operators’ perceptions of the centres; potential
space requirements; the availability and need for premises and sites; and changes
that would be required to make the centres more attractive to them. In total 34
completed questionnaires were returned, a response rate of about 10%.
Perception of Safety and Occurrence of Crime
xii. Data from the attitudinal surveys highlighted above have been supported by NLP’s
own assessments, comparable with the approach adopted in previous studies
including daytime and night-time perceptions of crime/safety. The following elements
of security were evaluated: evidence of vandalism and graffiti; evidence of
drunkenness, anti-social behaviour, rowdiness; presence of rough sleepers; presence
of beggars; evidence of on-street drinking; evidence of touting and illegal street
traders, and effectiveness of deterrent measures e.g. CCTV.
Environmental quality
xiii. NLP has re-examined the amenity scores provided in the 2002 Health Check
Reports. The analysis criterion include: air pollution, noise, clutter, litter and graffiti,
landscaping and open space. The analysis has been compared with the 2002 Health
Check Survey and 1997 Health Check Surveys, and is based on fieldwork by NLP.
The state of the environmental quality in each centre has been supplemented by the
attitudinal surveys of visitors, occupiers and residents.
District Centre Boundaries and Frontage Designations
xiv. A review of the defined District Centre boundaries was undertaken. Where necessary
changes to the boundaries have been recommended.
Retail Capacity Assessment
xv. As indicated above, the business survey, EGI’s retailer requirements, and canvas of
operators provides valuable input into the potential operator demand for space within
each of the centres. In addition a retail capacity assessment has been undertaken for
each centre based on the household and visitor survey results. For each centre a
primary catchment area has been defined based on postcode areas, taking into
account the proximity of other competing centres. These local catchment areas
(approximately 1km around each District Centre) represent the area within which
each centre is expected to attract most of its trade. Population and expenditure data
has been obtained for each catchment area.
xvi. The household survey results have been used to estimate each centre’s market
share of expenditure within their primary catchment area (including the outflow of
expenditure to other centres). Expenditure inflow is estimated from the visitor survey
results. The amount of expenditure attracted to each District Centre (comparison
goods and convenience goods) is compared with the amount of retail floorspace in
centre (derived from the Geographical Information System (GIS electronic mapping
system) database) and the sales density achieved has been calculated to assess the
strength of trading in each centre. Available expenditure has been projected into the
future to assess the potential scope for new retail floorspace in each centre.
Health Check Outputs
xvii. The analysis of each District Centre has involved site visits by the NLP team, desk
research, and analysis of the survey results. The analysis provides a comprehensive
SWOT analysis into the strengths and weaknesses of each centre.
Appendix B
PPS6 – Measures of Vitality and Viability
diversity of main town centre uses (by number, type and amount offloorspace): the amount of space in use for different functions – such as offices;shopping; leisure, cultural and entertainment activities; pubs, cafes andrestaurants; and, hotels;
the amount of retail, leisure and office floorspace in edge-of-centre and out-of-centre locations;
the potential capacity for growth or change of centres in the network:opportunities for centres to expand or consolidate, typically measured in theamount of land available for new or more intensive forms of town centredevelopment;
retailer representation and intentions to change representation: existenceand changes in representation of types of retailer, including street markets, andthe demand of retailers wanting to come into the centre, or to change theirrepresentation in the centre, or to reduce or close their representation;
shopping rents: pattern of movement in Zone A rents within primary shoppingareas (i.e. the rental value for the first 6 metres depth of floorspace in retail unitsfrom the shop window);
proportion of vacant street level property: vacancies can arise even in thestrongest town centres, and this indicator must be used with care. Vacancies inSecondary Frontages and changes to other uses will also be useful indicators;
commercial yields on non-domestic property (i.e. the capital value inrelation to the expected market rental): demonstrates the confidence ofinvestors in the long-term profitability of the centre for retail, office and othercommercial developments. This indicator should be used with care;
pedestrian flows (footfall): a key indicator of the vitality of shopping streets,measured by the numbers and movement of people on the streets, in differentparts of the centre at different times of the day and evening, who are available forbusinesses to attract into shops, restaurants or other facilities;
accessibility: ease and convenience of access by a choice of means of travel,including – the quality, quantity and type of car parking; the frequency and qualityof public transport services and the range of customer origins served; and, thequality of provision for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people and the ease ofaccess from main arrival points to the main attractions;
customer and residents’ views and behaviour: regular surveys will helpauthorities in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of town centreimprovements and in setting further priorities. Interviews in the town centre and athome can be used to establish views of both users and non-users of the centre,including the views of residents living in or close to the centre. This informationcould also establish the degree of linked trips;
perception of safety and occurrence of crime: should include views andinformation on safety and security, and where appropriate, information formonitoring the evening and night-time economy; and
state of the town centre environmental quality: should include information onproblems (such as air pollution, noise, clutter, litter and graffiti) and positivefactors (such as trees, landscaping and open spaces).
Appendix C
NLP’s Attractions Appraisal
NL
P's
Att
ract
ion
s A
pp
rais
al
Qu
een
sway
/Wes
tbo
urn
eM
aryl
ebo
ne
Hig
h S
t.S
t Jo
hn
's W
oo
dE
dg
war
e R
/Ch
urc
h S
tW
arw
ick
Way
/Tac
hb
roo
kP
raed
Str
eet
Har
row
Ro
ad
Att
ract
ion
s20
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
06
22
12
11
00
01
00
00
22
22
11
22
22
22
22
12
12
22
21
21
20
22
Pro
min
ence
of s
peci
alis
t sho
ps1
11
22
22
11
10
12
2
Qua
lity
of m
arke
t (fr
eque
ncy,
var
iety
etc
)-
--
--
-2
21
1-
--
-
Qua
lity
of r
etai
l env
ironm
ent
11
22
22
01
11
12
00
Qua
lity
of r
esta
uran
ts (
avai
labi
lity/
num
ber
etc)
22
22
22
11
21
22
00
Qua
lity
of p
ub/c
lub/
bars
11
22
11
11
11
11
00
Ran
ge o
f cul
tura
l/com
mun
ity e
vent
s (t
heat
res,
co
ncer
ts)
11
00
00
10
00
00
00
Ava
ilabi
lity
of s
port
s an
d le
isur
e fa
cilit
ies
22
00
00
00
00
00
11
Loca
l ser
vice
s (in
form
atio
n, li
brar
y et
c)2
11
02
21
11
10
00
0
12
11
11
00
11
11
10
11
22
11
00
00
11
00
1718
1517
1515
1210
1211
1010
87
Per
cent
age
65.4
69.2
57.7
65.4
57.7
57.7
46.2
38.5
46.2
42.3
38.5
38.5
30.8
26.9
Ran
k1
.=2
.=2
.=4
.=4
67
Ret
ail P
rovi
sio
n
Pro
min
ence
of m
ultip
le r
etai
lers
Pro
min
ence
of i
ndep
ende
nt s
hops
Ava
ilabi
lity
of fo
od s
hopp
ing
Art
/Cu
ltu
re
Em
ploy
men
t/offi
ce s
pace
Ban
k/bu
ildin
g so
ciet
y pr
ovis
ion
To
tal
Ser
vice
Pro
visi
on
Appendix D
NLP’s Day-Time Amenity Appraisal
NL
P's
Day
Tim
e A
men
ity
Ap
pra
isal
M
aryl
ebo
ne
Hig
h S
t.S
t Jo
hn
's W
oo
dW
arw
ick/
Tac
hb
roo
kQ
uee
nsw
ay/W
estb
ou
rne
Pra
ed S
tree
tH
arro
w R
oad
Ed
gw
are/
Ch
urc
h S
t.20
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
06
Pre
senc
e of
litte
r2
22
20
21
12
20
10
1P
rese
nce
of r
efus
e ba
gs o
n th
e st
reet
22
12
12
21
22
00
01
Evi
denc
e of
str
eet f
oulin
g1
22
22
21
22
20
10
2P
rese
nce
of g
lass
/gla
sses
/oth
er d
ebris
incl
. foo
d an
d fo
od c
onta
iner
s2
22
21
21
11
10
10
2C
ondi
tion
22
22
01
11
11
11
01
Qua
lity
of b
uild
ings
22
22
11
11
11
11
00
Spe
cial
feat
ures
(pe
dest
riani
satio
n, s
tree
t fur
nitu
re e
tc)
11
11
11
11
00
10
11
Impa
ct o
f vac
ant s
ites
12
22
02
11
01
11
01
Evi
denc
e of
van
dalis
m a
nd g
raffi
ti (in
cl. o
n st
reet
fu
rnitu
re)
22
22
12
12
11
01
01
Sec
urity
dur
ing
shop
ping
hou
rs (
avai
labi
lity,
acc
ess,
se
curit
y et
c(2
21
11
12
20
11
11
1E
ase
of p
assa
ge fo
r pe
dest
rians
(in
c. p
rese
nce
of
obst
acle
s e.
g. il
lega
lly p
arke
d ve
hicl
es0
21
11
11
10
11
12
1E
vide
nce
of d
runk
enne
ss, a
nti-s
ocia
l, be
havi
our,
ro
wdi
ness
22
22
12
22
12
22
10
Pre
senc
e of
rou
gh s
leep
ers
22
22
22
22
21
22
20
Pre
senc
e of
beg
gars
22
22
22
11
02
22
01
Pre
senc
e of
str
eet d
rinke
rs2
22
22
22
22
21
20
1E
vide
nce
of to
utin
g (e
.g. m
ini c
abs,
ric
ksha
ws,
pr
ostit
utio
n, d
rug
deal
ing
etc)
22
22
22
21
22
22
22
Pre
senc
e of
ille
gal s
tree
t tra
ders
, e.g
. cou
nter
feit
good
s,
hot d
ogs,
pea
nuts
etc
22
22
22
22
22
12
11
Effe
ctiv
enes
s of
any
det
erre
nt m
easu
re (
CC
TV
, pol
ice
patr
ols,
doo
r se
curit
y et
c)1
11
11
12
21
11
12
1Q
ualit
y of
str
eet l
ight
ing
21
12
11
11
11
11
11
Saf
ety
perc
eptio
n in
sho
ppin
g ho
urs
22
22
11
11
12
01
00
Fea
ture
s w
hich
iden
tify
the
cent
re (
e.g.
flag
ship
sto
res,
bu
ildin
gs e
tc)
21
11
10
22
11
00
20
Pro
mot
ion/
stre
et e
vent
s0
00
00
10
00
00
01
1F
eel g
ood
fact
or o
f tow
n ce
ntre
'2
22
21
11
11
10
00
0T
ota
l38
4037
3925
3431
3124
3018
2416
20
Per
cent
age
82.6
87.0
80.4
84.8
54.3
73.9
67.4
67.4
52.2
65.2
39.1
52.2
34.8
43.5
Ran
k1
12
24
33
45
56
67
7
Saf
ety
and
Sec
uri
ty Is
sues
Iden
tity
of
tow
n c
entr
e
En
viro
nm
ent
Issu
es
Appendix E
NLP’s Night-Time Amenity Appraisal
NL
P's
Nig
ht
Tim
e A
pp
rais
alM
aryl
ebo
ne
Hig
h S
t.S
t Jo
hn
's W
oo
dW
arw
ick/
Tac
hb
roo
kQ
uee
nsw
ay/W
estb
ou
rne
Pra
ed S
tree
tE
dg
war
e/C
hu
rch
St.
Har
row
Ro
ad20
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
0620
0220
06
11
22
01
11
11
01
11
11
10
10
20
10
01
11
22
22
22
12
11
11
12
Pre
senc
e of
gla
ss/g
lass
es/o
ther
deb
ris in
cl.
22
22
11
11
11
11
11
food
and
food
con
tain
ers/
wra
ppin
g
Fee
ling
of s
ecur
ity2
22
21
11
21
10
10
0E
vide
nce
of V
anda
lism
and
Gra
ffiti
22
22
12
12
11
01
00
(in
cl. o
n st
reet
furn
iture
)E
ase
of p
assa
ge fo
r pe
dest
rians
(in
cl. p
rese
nce
22
22
22
11
22
22
22
of o
bsta
cles
eg
illeg
ally
par
ked
vehi
cles
)E
vide
nce
of d
runk
enne
ss, a
nti-s
ocia
l 2
22
21
21
22
20
11
2B
ehav
iour
, row
dine
ss2
22
22
21
21
21
22
2
22
22
22
12
22
22
22
22
22
12
12
12
01
12
Pre
senc
e of
ille
gal s
tree
t tra
ders
22
22
22
12
22
22
12
e.g
cou
nter
feit
good
s, h
ot d
ogs,
pea
nuts
etc
.E
vide
nce
of to
utin
g (e
.g. m
ini c
abs,
ric
ksha
ws,
2
22
22
21
22
22
22
2P
rost
itutio
n, d
rug
deal
ing
etc.
)E
ffect
iven
ess
of a
ny d
eter
rent
mea
sure
s 1
11
11
11
11
11
11
1(C
CT
V, p
olic
e pa
trol
s, d
oor
secu
rity
etc)
22
12
11
11
11
11
11
22
22
11
11
11
00
00
Fea
ture
s w
hich
iden
tify
the
cent
re
22
11
11
22
11
11
00
(e.g
. qua
lity
of fo
od a
nd d
rink
prem
ises
, bui
ldin
g et
c)
10
11
11
10
10
00
00
22
22
11
11
11
01
00
3433
3333
2427
2127
2424
1422
1721
89.5
%86
.8%
86.8
%86
.8%
63.2
%71
.1%
55.3
%71
.1%
63.2
%63
.2%
36.8
%57
.9%
44.7
%55
.3%
Ran
k1
(=)1
2(=
)1(=
)3(=
)35
(=)3
(=)3
57
66
7
‘Fee
l goo
d’ fa
ctor
of c
entr
e at
nig
ht
Tot
al
Per
cent
age
Qua
lity
of s
tree
t lig
htin
g
Saf
ety
perc
eptio
n ou
t of s
hopp
ing
hour
s
Iden
tity
of
tow
n c
entr
e
Pro
mot
ion/
Str
eet e
vent
s
Sec
uri
ty a
nd
Cri
me
Issu
es
Pre
senc
e of
rou
gh s
leep
ers
Pre
senc
e of
beg
gars
Pre
senc
e of
str
eet d
rinke
rs
En
viro
nm
enta
l Iss
ues
Pre
senc
e of
litte
r
Pre
senc
e of
ref
use
bags
on
the
stre
et
Evi
denc
e of
str
eet f
oulin
g
Appendix F
PMRS Pedestrian Flowcounts October 2006
Table F.1: PMRS Day-time Pedestrian Flow Counts
Average Pedestrian Flow3pm - 5pm
Index
1 2033 253%
2 1821 226%
3 1478 184%
4 1150 143%
5 876 109%
6 733 91%
7 710 88%
805 100
Location
Harrow Road
Praed Street
Edgware Road
Warwick Way
Queensway
St Johns Wood
Marylebone High Street
Average
AveragePedestrian Flow
Average number of pedestrians passing each count point in both directions
Index Percentage of average flow all centres
Table F.2: PMRS Night-time Pedestrian Flow Counts
Average Pedestrian Flow9pm - 11pm
Index
1 1237 350%
2 810 229%
3 645 183%
4 633 179%
5 537 152%
6 344 97%
7 178 50%
353 100
Index Percentage of average flow all centres
St Johns Wood
Marylebone High Street
Average
AveragePedestrian Flow
Average number of pedestrians passing each count point in both directions
Location
Harrow Road
Praed Street
Edgware Road
Warwick Way
Queensway
Table F.3: Harrow Road District Centre Day and Night-Time Pedestrian Flows
STREET & ADDRESS Note Count Index Count Index OSE OSN
104 Bourne Terrace 570 80 330 96 525612.58 181762.31
328 Harrow Road 660 93 450 131 525418.15 181931.45
Sutherland Avenue 540 76 330 96 525392.48 182008.04
358 Harrow Road 1,200 169 510 148 525334.45 182010.41
Marylands Road 210 30 150 44 525315.5 182034.49
408 Harrow Road 480 68 300 87 525159.57 182046.33
472 Harrow Road 690 97 360 105 524934.9 182095.19
4 Fernhead Road 660 93 240 70 524855.13 182171.73
480-482 Harrow Road 1,770 249 660 192 524842.29 182147.64
512-516 Harrow Road 1,680 237 660 192 524765.74 182204.38
532 Harrow Road 1,290 182 420 122 524706.32 182250.42
552 Harrow Road 1,440 203 480 140 524645.29 182307.16
570 Harrow Road 960 135 150 44 524596.58 182340.89
595 Harrow Road 720 101 90 26 524508.09 182359.21
614 Harrow Road 990 139 180 52 524433.37 182373.72
481 Harrow Road 180 25 60 17 524292.28 182389.98
547 Harrow Road 210 30 90 26 524016.24 182426.46
525 Harrow Road 180 25 210 61 524101.07 182410.19
441 Harrow Road 120 17 120 35 524392.93 182364.93
419 Harrow Road 540 76 390 113 524665.63 182264.34
399 Harrow Road 780 110 330 96 524709.53 182222.59
371 Harrow Road 990 139 300 87 524806.42 182149.25
6 Great Western Road 690 97 990 288 524847.64 182102.14
341 Harrow Road 570 80 240 70 524894.75 182091.97
Chippenham Road 240 34 90 26 525146.54 182072.78
364 Harrow Road 690 97 780 227 525285.9 182021.07
Marylands Road 300 42 90 26 525341.16 182041.59
Sutherland Avenue 150 21 270 78 525363.27 182017.12
340 Harrow Road 930 131 600 174 525394.46 181967.38
278 Harrow Road 870 123 450 131 525550.13 181780.55710 100 344 100
Fig
ure
F.1
:H
arro
w R
oad
Dis
tric
t C
entr
e D
ay a
nd
Nig
ht-
Tim
e P
edes
tria
n F
low
co
mp
aris
on
HA
RR
OW
RO
AD
- O
CT
OB
ER
20
06
0
200
400
600
800
10
00
12
00
14
00
16
00
18
00
20
00
12
34
56
78
91
01
11
21
31
415
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
CO
UN
T P
OIN
TS
INDEXEDPEDESTRIANFLOW
3pm
- 5
pm
9pm
- 1
1pm
Fig
ure
F.2
:H
arro
w R
oad
Dis
tric
t C
entr
e D
ay a
nd
Nig
ht-
Tim
e P
edes
tria
n F
low
Th
erm
al M
ap
Appendix G
In-Street Visitor Survey Results
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 48
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
Q01 What is the main purpose of your visit to Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street?
Shopping for food only 39.8% 45 43.9% 25 35.7% 20 32.6% 15 40.0% 16 51.9% 14 34.0% 18 44.8% 26Shopping for non-food goods
only14.2% 16 12.3% 7 16.1% 9 13.0% 6 15.0% 6 14.8% 4 15.1% 8 13.8% 8
Shopping for both food &non-food items
14.2% 16 12.3% 7 16.1% 9 13.0% 6 17.5% 7 11.1% 3 13.2% 7 15.5% 9
Shopping for specialist foods/ goods / items specific tocentre
0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Window shopping 5.3% 6 5.3% 3 5.4% 3 4.3% 2 7.5% 3 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 8.6% 5To visit the Market 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0To visit a restaurant / café /
public house1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 1.7% 1
To have a walk / strollaround
5.3% 6 3.5% 2 7.1% 4 8.7% 4 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 9.4% 5 1.7% 1
To use services e.g. bank,post office, hairdresser
3.5% 4 5.3% 3 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 11.1% 3 1.9% 1 5.2% 3
Work / business purposes 18.6% 21 15.8% 9 21.4% 12 23.9% 11 25.0% 10 0.0% 0 18.9% 10 17.2% 10Healthcare e.g. doctor,
dentist, optician0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1
Social / leisure reason e.g.meeting friends, going togym
3.5% 4 3.5% 2 3.6% 2 6.5% 3 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 5.2% 3
Tourism, e.g. holiday, daytrip
0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Other 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Going to school / college 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Live here 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Going to the hospital 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Going home 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0(None) 1.8% 2 3.5% 2 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 1.7% 1
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Q02 Do you intend to do any shopping in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street today ? Those who did not mention shopping for food, non food or both food and non food at Q01
Yes 24.4% 10 30.0% 6 19.0% 4 15.0% 3 30.8% 4 37.5% 3 19.0% 4 26.3% 5No 75.6% 31 70.0% 14 81.0% 17 85.0% 17 69.2% 9 62.5% 5 81.0% 17 73.7% 14Base: 41 20 21 20 13 8 21 19
Q03 What do you intend to buy in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street today ? Those who intend to shop in the centre at Q01
Food and groceries 84.1% 69 81.4% 35 87.2% 34 86.2% 25 83.9% 26 81.8% 18 83.3% 30 84.1% 37Newspapers / Magazines 19.5% 16 16.3% 7 23.1% 9 10.3% 3 19.4% 6 31.8% 7 16.7% 6 22.7% 10Confectionery / Tobacco 11.0% 9 9.3% 4 12.8% 5 6.9% 2 12.9% 4 13.6% 3 8.3% 3 13.6% 6Clothing / Footwear 18.3% 15 23.3% 10 12.8% 5 24.1% 7 19.4% 6 9.1% 2 22.2% 8 15.9% 7Furniture / Carpets / Soft
furnishings0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Domestic electrical goods 1.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 3.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1Other electrical goods (TV,
Hi-fi etc)1.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 3.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1
DIY / Hardware / Gardening 1.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 3.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1Other household goods 3.7% 3 0.0% 0 7.7% 3 6.9% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.8% 1 4.5% 2Gifts / Jewellery / China and
Glass2.4% 2 0.0% 0 5.1% 2 3.4% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.5% 2
Books / CD’s / DVDs / Toys/ Hobbies
4.9% 4 2.3% 1 7.7% 3 6.9% 2 6.5% 2 0.0% 0 2.8% 1 6.8% 3
Health / Beauty / Chemistitems
4.9% 4 2.3% 1 7.7% 3 3.4% 1 0.0% 0 13.6% 3 5.6% 2 4.5% 2
Specialist foods / goods / items specific to thatcentre
1.2% 1 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.5% 1 0.0% 0 2.3% 1
Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Flowers 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 2.4% 2 0.0% 0 5.1% 2 3.4% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 5.6% 2 0.0% 0
Base: 82 43 39 29 31 22 36 44
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 49
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
Q04 Approximately how much will you spend in total on each of the following during your visit to Church Street-Edgware Road / HarrowRoad / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street?Those who intend to shop in the centre at Q01
Food & Grocery
Nothing 14.6% 12 18.6% 8 10.3% 4 10.3% 3 16.1% 5 18.2% 4 16.7% 6 13.6% 6Less than £5.00 8.5% 7 7.0% 3 10.3% 4 6.9% 2 6.5% 2 13.6% 3 5.6% 2 9.1% 4£5.01-£10.00 25.6% 21 27.9% 12 23.1% 9 34.5% 10 16.1% 5 27.3% 6 30.6% 11 22.7% 10£10.01-£20.00 30.5% 25 27.9% 12 33.3% 13 27.6% 8 38.7% 12 22.7% 5 36.1% 13 27.3% 12£20.01-£30.00 12.2% 10 7.0% 3 17.9% 7 13.8% 4 9.7% 3 13.6% 3 8.3% 3 13.6% 6£30.01-£40.00 2.4% 2 4.7% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 6.5% 2 0.0% 0 2.8% 1 2.3% 1£40.01-£50.00 1.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1£50.01-£75.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0£75.01-£100.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0£100.01-£150.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0More than £150.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 4.9% 4 7.0% 3 2.6% 1 6.9% 2 3.2% 1 4.5% 1 0.0% 0 9.1% 4Mean: 11.7 10.6 13.0 11.1 13.8 9.6 10.9 12.4
Base: 82 43 39 29 31 22 36 44
Non-food
Nothing 48.8% 40 58.1% 25 38.5% 15 51.7% 15 48.4% 15 45.5% 10 47.2% 17 50.0% 22Less than £5.00 9.8% 8 4.7% 2 15.4% 6 3.4% 1 6.5% 2 22.7% 5 5.6% 2 13.6% 6£5.01-£10.00 6.1% 5 2.3% 1 10.3% 4 10.3% 3 3.2% 1 4.5% 1 5.6% 2 6.8% 3£10.01-£20.00 8.5% 7 9.3% 4 7.7% 3 6.9% 2 16.1% 5 0.0% 0 11.1% 4 6.8% 3£20.01-£30.00 9.8% 8 11.6% 5 7.7% 3 10.3% 3 12.9% 4 4.5% 1 11.1% 4 9.1% 4£30.01-£40.00 3.7% 3 2.3% 1 5.1% 2 6.9% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 6.8% 3£40.01-£50.00 3.7% 3 4.7% 2 2.6% 1 3.4% 1 3.2% 1 4.5% 1 5.6% 2 2.3% 1£50.01-£75.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0£75.01-£100.00 3.7% 3 2.3% 1 5.1% 2 6.9% 2 0.0% 0 4.5% 1 5.6% 2 2.3% 1£100.01-£150.00 1.2% 1 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.8% 1 0.0% 0More than £150.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 4.9% 4 2.3% 1 7.7% 3 0.0% 0 3.2% 1 13.6% 3 5.6% 2 2.3% 1Mean: 12.7 12.7 12.6 14.5 13.1 9.3 16.8 9.8
Base: 82 43 39 29 31 22 36 44
Eating / drinking out
Nothing 74.4% 61 76.7% 33 71.8% 28 79.3% 23 71.0% 22 72.7% 16 72.2% 26 77.3% 34Less than £5.00 4.9% 4 2.3% 1 7.7% 3 6.9% 2 6.5% 2 0.0% 0 2.8% 1 6.8% 3£5.01-£10.00 13.4% 11 16.3% 7 10.3% 4 6.9% 2 19.4% 6 13.6% 3 13.9% 5 13.6% 6£10.01-£20.00 3.7% 3 2.3% 1 5.1% 2 6.9% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 8.3% 3 0.0% 0£20.01-£30.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0£30.01-£40.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0£40.01-£50.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0£50.01-£75.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0£75.01-£100.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0£100.01-£150.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0More than £150.00 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 3.7% 3 2.3% 1 5.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 13.6% 3 2.8% 1 2.3% 1Mean: 1.74 1.67 1.82 1.72 2.10 1.18 2.43 1.22
Base: 82 43 39 29 31 22 36 44
Q05 Do you intend to visit any leisure / entertainment facilities or eat / drink in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / MaryleboneHigh Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street today?
Yes 26.5% 30 24.6% 14 28.6% 16 28.3% 13 35.0% 14 11.1% 3 26.4% 14 27.6% 16No 72.6% 82 73.7% 42 71.4% 40 71.7% 33 62.5% 25 88.9% 24 73.6% 39 70.7% 41(Don’t know) 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 50
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
Q06 And what type of facilities do you intend to visit today?Those who said Yes at Q05
Sports facilities 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Pubs / bars 40.0% 12 35.7% 5 43.8% 7 38.5% 5 35.7% 5 66.7% 2 50.0% 7 31.3% 5Restaurants 33.3% 10 50.0% 7 18.8% 3 46.2% 6 21.4% 3 33.3% 1 28.6% 4 37.5% 6Takeaway food 16.7% 5 21.4% 3 12.5% 2 15.4% 2 14.3% 2 33.3% 1 28.6% 4 6.3% 1Walk about / look around 3.3% 1 7.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 0.0% 0 6.3% 1Cafes / Coffee Shops 26.7% 8 7.1% 1 43.8% 7 23.1% 3 28.6% 4 33.3% 1 7.1% 1 43.8% 7Theatre / cinema 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Library 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Base: 30 14 16 13 14 3 14 16
Q07 How did you travel to Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-WestbourneGrove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street today ?
Car-driver 3.5% 4 5.3% 3 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 7.5% 3 3.7% 1 3.8% 2 3.4% 2Car-passenger 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Bus / coach 27.4% 31 29.8% 17 25.0% 14 26.1% 12 22.5% 9 37.0% 10 18.9% 10 34.5% 20Train / Tube 16.8% 19 12.3% 7 21.4% 12 21.7% 10 17.5% 7 7.4% 2 15.1% 8 17.2% 10Taxi 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Walked 45.1% 51 42.1% 24 48.2% 27 41.3% 19 50.0% 20 44.4% 12 52.8% 28 39.7% 23Bicycle 6.2% 7 8.8% 5 3.6% 2 8.7% 4 2.5% 1 7.4% 2 7.5% 4 5.2% 3Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Q08 Where did you park your car in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street today ? Those who said car-driver at Q07
Supermarket car park 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Work car park 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Masterpark / NCP car park 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Off street public car park 50.0% 2 66.7% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 2 0.0% 0On-street / car park meter 50.0% 2 33.3% 1 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 66.7% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Residential parking 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Base: 4 3 1 0 3 1 2 2
Q09 Was this your first choice place to park ? Those who said car-driver at Q07
Yes 75.0% 3 100.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 66.7% 2 100.0% 1 100.0% 2 50.0% 1No 25.0% 1 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1Base: 4 3 1 0 3 1 2 2
Q10 How long was your journey time to reach Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street today ? Those who said car-driver / passenger at Q07
0-5 minutes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 06-10 minutes 40.0% 2 25.0% 1 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 100.0% 1 33.3% 1 50.0% 111-15 minutes 40.0% 2 50.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 66.7% 2 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 50.0% 116-30 minutes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 030 minutes or more 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know / can’t
remember)20.0% 1 25.0% 1 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 0.0% 0
Base: 5 4 1 1 3 1 3 2
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 51
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
Q11 Which other shopping centres or towns do you use regularly, i.e. at least once a month ?
No other centre 8.0% 9 10.5% 6 5.4% 3 6.5% 3 10.0% 4 7.4% 2 9.4% 5 6.9% 4Ashcroft Kings Mall 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Baker Street 3.5% 4 1.8% 1 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 7.4% 2 1.9% 1 5.2% 3Bayswater 20.4% 23 24.6% 14 16.1% 9 23.9% 11 22.5% 9 11.1% 3 26.4% 14 15.5% 9Bluewater 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Brent Cross 8.9% 10 7.0% 4 10.7% 6 4.3% 2 12.5% 5 11.1% 3 9.4% 5 8.6% 5Broadway Shopping Mall 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Brompton Road 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Camden Town 8.0% 9 5.3% 3 10.7% 6 13.0% 6 2.5% 1 7.4% 2 5.7% 3 8.6% 5Church Street – Edgware
Road North32.7% 37 35.1% 20 30.4% 17 26.1% 12 32.5% 13 44.4% 12 28.3% 15 36.2% 21
Covent Garden 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Edgware Road (south of
Harrow Road Flyover)30.1% 34 31.6% 18 28.6% 16 37.0% 17 22.5% 9 29.6% 8 35.8% 19 24.1% 14
Hammersmith 4.4% 5 3.5% 2 5.4% 3 6.5% 3 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 7.5% 4 1.7% 1Harrow Road 3.5% 4 3.5% 2 3.6% 2 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 7.4% 2 1.9% 1 3.4% 2Kensington High Street 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Kings Road 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Knightsbridge 7.1% 8 3.5% 2 10.7% 6 6.5% 3 10.0% 4 3.7% 1 13.2% 7 1.7% 1Ladbroke Grove 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.6% 2 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 1.7% 1Marylebone High Street 6.2% 7 5.3% 3 7.1% 4 2.2% 1 10.0% 4 7.4% 2 11.3% 6 1.7% 1Oxford Street / West End /
Regent Street / BondStreet
69.0% 78 57.9% 33 80.4% 45 76.1% 35 65.0% 26 63.0% 17 69.8% 37 67.2% 39
Praed Street 4.4% 5 1.8% 1 7.1% 4 4.3% 2 2.5% 1 7.4% 2 5.7% 3 3.4% 2Queensway / Westbourne
Grove6.2% 7 5.3% 3 7.1% 4 10.9% 5 2.5% 1 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 10.3% 6
Shepherd’s Bush W12 4.4% 5 3.5% 2 5.4% 3 4.3% 2 7.5% 3 0.0% 0 5.7% 3 3.4% 2St Johns Wood 2.7% 3 1.8% 1 3.6% 2 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 3.7% 1 3.8% 2 1.7% 1Tottenham Court Road 5.3% 6 5.3% 3 5.4% 3 6.5% 3 5.0% 2 3.7% 1 5.7% 3 5.2% 3Vauxhall Bridge Road 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Warwick Way / Tachbrook
Street0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Waterloo 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Other 8.9% 10 12.3% 7 5.4% 3 8.7% 4 7.5% 3 11.1% 3 5.7% 3 12.1% 7Ealing 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Finchley 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 3.8% 2 0.0% 0Islington 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Kilburn 8.9% 10 10.5% 6 7.1% 4 2.2% 1 12.5% 5 14.8% 4 9.4% 5 6.9% 4Lakeside 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Primrose Hill 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Swiss Cottage 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Victoria Street 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Watford 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Q12 Approximately how much time will you spend in the shopping area in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone HighStreet / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street today?
0-15 minutes 20.4% 23 26.3% 15 14.3% 8 21.7% 10 20.0% 8 18.5% 5 30.2% 16 12.1% 716-30 minutes 17.7% 20 15.8% 9 19.6% 11 10.9% 5 22.5% 9 22.2% 6 22.6% 12 13.8% 831 minutes – under 1 hour 31.9% 36 36.8% 21 26.8% 15 30.4% 14 35.0% 14 29.6% 8 24.5% 13 37.9% 221 – 1 ½ hours 23.0% 26 21.1% 12 25.0% 14 26.1% 12 20.0% 8 22.2% 6 20.8% 11 24.1% 14Over 1 ½ - 2 hours 2.7% 3 0.0% 0 5.4% 3 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 7.4% 2 0.0% 0 5.2% 3Over 2-3 hours 3.5% 4 0.0% 0 7.1% 4 8.7% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 5.2% 3Over 3 hours 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Q13 How often do you shop in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street?
Everyday 17.7% 20 19.3% 11 16.1% 9 10.9% 5 15.0% 6 33.3% 9 18.9% 10 17.2% 102-3 times a week 24.8% 28 28.1% 16 21.4% 12 26.1% 12 22.5% 9 25.9% 7 24.5% 13 24.1% 14Once a week 27.4% 31 26.3% 15 28.6% 16 30.4% 14 27.5% 11 22.2% 6 30.2% 16 25.9% 15Once a fortnight 9.7% 11 5.3% 3 14.3% 8 10.9% 5 12.5% 5 3.7% 1 7.5% 4 10.3% 6Once a month 6.2% 7 5.3% 3 7.1% 4 8.7% 4 5.0% 2 3.7% 1 7.5% 4 5.2% 3Less than once a month 7.1% 8 7.0% 4 7.1% 4 8.7% 4 7.5% 3 3.7% 1 7.5% 4 6.9% 4Never 6.2% 7 7.0% 4 5.4% 3 4.3% 2 7.5% 3 7.4% 2 3.8% 2 8.6% 5(Don’t know) 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 52
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
Mean Score - Very good=5, Quite good=4, Neither good nor poor=3, Quite poor=2, Very poor=1
Q14 Please rate Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / StJohn’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street in respect of the following factors?
Availability of parking
Very good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Quite good 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.6% 2 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 1.7% 1Neither good nor poor 3.5% 4 5.3% 3 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 5.0% 2 3.7% 1 5.7% 3 1.7% 1Quite poor 7.1% 8 5.3% 3 8.9% 5 4.3% 2 10.0% 4 7.4% 2 11.3% 6 3.4% 2Very poor 31.0% 35 28.1% 16 33.9% 19 26.1% 12 37.5% 15 29.6% 8 30.2% 16 31.0% 18(Don’t know) 56.6% 64 61.4% 35 51.8% 29 65.2% 30 45.0% 18 59.3% 16 50.9% 27 62.1% 36Mean: 1.45 1.41 1.48 1.44 1.50 1.36 1.58 1.32
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Parking charges
Very good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Quite good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Neither good nor poor 5.3% 6 5.3% 3 5.4% 3 4.3% 2 7.5% 3 3.7% 1 7.5% 4 3.4% 2Quite poor 10.6% 12 10.5% 6 10.7% 6 8.7% 4 10.0% 4 14.8% 4 11.3% 6 8.6% 5Very poor 25.7% 29 19.3% 11 32.1% 18 19.6% 9 35.0% 14 22.2% 6 26.4% 14 25.9% 15(Don’t know) 58.4% 66 64.9% 37 51.8% 29 67.4% 31 47.5% 19 59.3% 16 54.7% 29 62.1% 36
Mean: 1.51 1.60 1.44 1.53 1.48 1.55 1.58 1.41
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Traffic congestion
Very good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Quite good 11.5% 13 10.5% 6 12.5% 7 8.7% 4 12.5% 5 14.8% 4 5.7% 3 15.5% 9Neither good nor poor 6.2% 7 3.5% 2 8.9% 5 6.5% 3 10.0% 4 0.0% 0 5.7% 3 6.9% 4Quite poor 5.3% 6 5.3% 3 5.4% 3 4.3% 2 5.0% 2 7.4% 2 9.4% 5 1.7% 1Very poor 19.5% 22 17.5% 10 21.4% 12 15.2% 7 25.0% 10 18.5% 5 26.4% 14 13.8% 8(Don’t know) 57.5% 65 63.2% 36 51.8% 29 65.2% 30 47.5% 19 59.3% 16 52.8% 28 62.1% 36
Mean: 2.23 2.19 2.26 2.25 2.19 2.27 1.80 2.64
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Bus service
Very good 18.6% 21 22.8% 13 14.3% 8 15.2% 7 12.5% 5 33.3% 9 20.8% 11 15.5% 9Quite good 66.4% 75 63.2% 36 69.6% 39 67.4% 31 75.0% 30 51.9% 14 64.2% 34 70.7% 41Neither good nor poor 2.7% 3 3.5% 2 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 1.9% 1 3.4% 2Quite poor 4.4% 5 3.5% 2 5.4% 3 6.5% 3 2.5% 1 3.7% 1 3.8% 2 5.2% 3Very poor 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 8.0% 9 7.0% 4 8.9% 5 8.7% 4 10.0% 4 3.7% 1 9.4% 5 5.2% 3Mean: 4.08 4.13 4.02 4.00 4.08 4.19 4.13 4.02
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Personal safety
Very good 8.0% 9 12.3% 7 3.6% 2 6.5% 3 7.5% 3 11.1% 3 7.5% 4 6.9% 4Quite good 68.1% 77 73.7% 42 62.5% 35 76.1% 35 62.5% 25 63.0% 17 69.8% 37 67.2% 39Neither good nor poor 13.3% 15 8.8% 5 17.9% 10 13.0% 6 12.5% 5 14.8% 4 11.3% 6 15.5% 9Quite poor 7.1% 8 3.5% 2 10.7% 6 4.3% 2 10.0% 4 7.4% 2 7.5% 4 6.9% 4Very poor 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 2.7% 3 1.8% 1 3.6% 2 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 3.4% 2Mean: 3.77 3.96 3.57 3.85 3.66 3.81 3.75 3.77
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 53
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
Range of shops and services available
Very good 11.5% 13 14.0% 8 8.9% 5 8.7% 4 7.5% 3 22.2% 6 15.1% 8 8.6% 5Quite good 59.3% 67 63.2% 36 55.4% 31 58.7% 27 60.0% 24 59.3% 16 58.5% 31 58.6% 34Neither good nor poor 18.6% 21 12.3% 7 25.0% 14 28.3% 13 15.0% 6 7.4% 2 17.0% 9 20.7% 12Quite poor 8.0% 9 7.0% 4 8.9% 5 4.3% 2 12.5% 5 7.4% 2 9.4% 5 6.9% 4Very poor 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1(Don’t know) 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2
Mean: 3.74 3.82 3.65 3.72 3.66 3.89 3.79 3.68
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Quality of shops and services available
Very good 7.1% 8 8.8% 5 5.4% 3 4.3% 2 5.0% 2 14.8% 4 7.5% 4 6.9% 4Quite good 54.9% 62 59.6% 34 50.0% 28 56.5% 26 50.0% 20 59.3% 16 47.2% 25 60.3% 35Neither good nor poor 21.2% 24 17.5% 10 25.0% 14 19.6% 9 22.5% 9 22.2% 6 26.4% 14 17.2% 10Quite poor 13.3% 15 10.5% 6 16.1% 9 17.4% 8 15.0% 6 3.7% 1 15.1% 8 12.1% 7Very poor 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2
Mean: 3.53 3.64 3.42 3.49 3.36 3.85 3.40 3.64
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Daytime entertainment and leisure facilities
Very good 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Quite good 42.5% 48 35.1% 20 50.0% 28 50.0% 23 37.5% 15 37.0% 10 43.4% 23 41.4% 24Neither good nor poor 14.2% 16 12.3% 7 16.1% 9 19.6% 9 15.0% 6 3.7% 1 9.4% 5 19.0% 11Quite poor 9.7% 11 10.5% 6 8.9% 5 10.9% 5 15.0% 6 0.0% 0 15.1% 8 5.2% 3Very poor 14.2% 16 14.0% 8 14.3% 8 6.5% 3 17.5% 7 22.2% 6 20.8% 11 8.6% 5(Don’t know) 18.6% 21 26.3% 15 10.7% 6 13.0% 6 12.5% 5 37.0% 10 11.3% 6 24.1% 14Mean: 3.08 3.00 3.14 3.30 2.91 2.88 2.85 3.30
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Evening entertainment and leisure facilities
Very good 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Quite good 44.2% 50 36.8% 21 51.8% 29 52.2% 24 42.5% 17 33.3% 9 45.3% 24 44.8% 26Neither good nor poor 11.5% 13 10.5% 6 12.5% 7 15.2% 7 10.0% 4 7.4% 2 9.4% 5 13.8% 8Quite poor 9.7% 11 12.3% 7 7.1% 4 8.7% 4 15.0% 6 3.7% 1 13.2% 7 6.9% 4Very poor 14.2% 16 14.0% 8 14.3% 8 6.5% 3 17.5% 7 22.2% 6 20.8% 11 8.6% 5(Don’t know) 19.5% 22 24.6% 14 14.3% 8 17.4% 8 12.5% 5 33.3% 9 11.3% 6 24.1% 14Mean: 3.10 3.00 3.19 3.37 2.97 2.78 2.89 3.32
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Town Centre events
Very good 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 1.7% 1Quite good 42.5% 48 40.4% 23 44.6% 25 47.8% 22 40.0% 16 37.0% 10 41.5% 22 43.1% 25Neither good nor poor 13.3% 15 14.0% 8 12.5% 7 15.2% 7 12.5% 5 11.1% 3 13.2% 7 13.8% 8Quite poor 12.4% 14 14.0% 8 10.7% 6 13.0% 6 15.0% 6 7.4% 2 13.2% 7 12.1% 7Very poor 6.2% 7 7.0% 4 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 7.5% 3 11.1% 3 1.9% 1 10.3% 6(Don’t know) 23.9% 27 22.8% 13 25.0% 14 21.7% 10 22.5% 9 29.6% 8 28.3% 15 19.0% 11Mean: 3.28 3.20 3.36 3.39 3.19 3.21 3.39 3.17
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Liveliness / street life / character
Very good 10.6% 12 12.3% 7 8.9% 5 10.9% 5 7.5% 3 14.8% 4 13.2% 7 8.6% 5Quite good 65.5% 74 63.2% 36 67.9% 38 65.2% 30 72.5% 29 55.6% 15 64.2% 34 67.2% 39Neither good nor poor 14.2% 16 14.0% 8 14.3% 8 13.0% 6 12.5% 5 18.5% 5 17.0% 9 10.3% 6Quite poor 1.8% 2 3.5% 2 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 3.4% 2Very poor 2.7% 3 3.5% 2 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 3.4% 2(Don’t know) 5.3% 6 3.5% 2 7.1% 4 6.5% 3 5.0% 2 3.7% 1 3.8% 2 6.9% 4Mean: 3.84 3.80 3.88 3.86 3.87 3.77 3.90 3.80
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 54
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
The market
Very good 9.7% 11 10.5% 6 8.9% 5 6.5% 3 10.0% 4 14.8% 4 11.3% 6 8.6% 5Quite good 72.6% 82 75.4% 43 69.6% 39 73.9% 34 72.5% 29 70.4% 19 75.5% 40 69.0% 40Neither good nor poor 8.9% 10 5.3% 3 12.5% 7 8.7% 4 10.0% 4 7.4% 2 9.4% 5 8.6% 5Quite poor 2.7% 3 3.5% 2 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 5.2% 3Very poor 2.7% 3 3.5% 2 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 3.4% 2(Don’t know) 3.5% 4 1.8% 1 5.4% 3 6.5% 3 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 5.2% 3
Mean: 3.87 3.88 3.87 3.86 3.87 3.89 3.96 3.78
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Quality / number of places to eat-drink
Very good 5.3% 6 5.3% 3 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 5.0% 2 11.1% 3 3.8% 2 6.9% 4Quite good 60.2% 68 56.1% 32 64.3% 36 69.6% 32 60.0% 24 44.4% 12 66.0% 35 53.4% 31Neither good nor poor 17.7% 20 21.1% 12 14.3% 8 19.6% 9 17.5% 7 14.8% 4 11.3% 6 24.1% 14Quite poor 8.0% 9 7.0% 4 8.9% 5 4.3% 2 7.5% 3 14.8% 4 9.4% 5 6.9% 4Very poor 5.3% 6 7.0% 4 3.6% 2 2.2% 1 10.0% 4 3.7% 1 7.5% 4 3.4% 2(Don’t know) 3.5% 4 3.5% 2 3.6% 2 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 11.1% 3 1.9% 1 5.2% 3
Mean: 3.54 3.47 3.61 3.67 3.43 3.50 3.50 3.56
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
General shopping environment
Very good 5.3% 6 8.8% 5 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 5.0% 2 11.1% 3 3.8% 2 6.9% 4Quite good 69.0% 78 64.9% 37 73.2% 41 73.9% 34 67.5% 27 63.0% 17 69.8% 37 67.2% 39Neither good nor poor 17.7% 20 19.3% 11 16.1% 9 19.6% 9 15.0% 6 18.5% 5 17.0% 9 19.0% 11Quite poor 4.4% 5 3.5% 2 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 7.5% 3 3.7% 1 5.7% 3 3.4% 2Very poor 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 3.4% 2Mean: 3.73 3.77 3.69 3.78 3.60 3.85 3.64 3.80
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Layout of centre
Very good 2.7% 3 5.3% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 11.1% 3 0.0% 0 5.2% 3Quite good 73.5% 83 73.7% 42 73.2% 41 80.4% 37 70.0% 28 66.7% 18 79.2% 42 67.2% 39Neither good nor poor 15.0% 17 12.3% 7 17.9% 10 15.2% 7 12.5% 5 18.5% 5 7.5% 4 22.4% 13Quite poor 3.5% 4 1.8% 1 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 7.5% 3 0.0% 0 5.7% 3 1.7% 1Very poor 2.7% 3 3.5% 2 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 3.7% 1 3.8% 2 1.7% 1(Don’t know) 2.7% 3 3.5% 2 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 1.7% 1Mean: 3.72 3.78 3.65 3.80 3.55 3.81 3.69 3.74
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Size / quality of supermarket(s)
Very good 2.7% 3 3.5% 2 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 0.0% 0 5.2% 3Quite good 62.8% 71 59.6% 34 66.1% 37 69.6% 32 57.5% 23 59.3% 16 62.3% 33 63.8% 37Neither good nor poor 21.2% 24 24.6% 14 17.9% 10 19.6% 9 27.5% 11 14.8% 4 22.6% 12 20.7% 12Quite poor 7.1% 8 5.3% 3 8.9% 5 4.3% 2 5.0% 2 14.8% 4 5.7% 3 6.9% 4Very poor 3.5% 4 5.3% 3 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 7.5% 3 3.7% 1 5.7% 3 1.7% 1(Don’t know) 2.7% 3 1.8% 1 3.6% 2 4.3% 2 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 1.7% 1Mean: 3.55 3.52 3.59 3.73 3.38 3.52 3.47 3.65
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 55
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
Q15 What improvement would you like to see made to Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street /Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street?
Nothing in particular 21.2% 24 28.1% 16 14.3% 8 21.7% 10 15.0% 6 29.6% 8 17.0% 9 25.9% 15Increase the range of national
/ multiple chain stores20.4% 23 14.0% 8 26.8% 15 17.4% 8 27.5% 11 14.8% 4 18.9% 10 22.4% 13
Increase the range of local /speciality retailers
11.5% 13 3.5% 2 19.6% 11 13.0% 6 7.5% 3 14.8% 4 7.5% 4 15.5% 9
Improve quality of shops andservices
34.5% 39 29.8% 17 39.3% 22 39.1% 18 37.5% 15 22.2% 6 32.1% 17 34.5% 20
Improve the appearance ofthe town centre
28.3% 32 22.8% 13 33.9% 19 28.3% 13 30.0% 12 25.9% 7 34.0% 18 24.1% 14
Improve the market 11.5% 13 15.8% 9 7.1% 4 4.3% 2 12.5% 5 22.2% 6 13.2% 7 8.6% 5Make the centre safer (more
CCTV, policing, betterlighting etc)
10.6% 12 8.8% 5 12.5% 7 4.3% 2 20.0% 8 7.4% 2 7.5% 4 13.8% 8
Remove / reduce trafficcongestion
4.4% 5 3.5% 2 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 7.5% 3 3.7% 1 5.7% 3 3.4% 2
Provide more housing in thetown-centre
0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0
Improve frequency of publictransport
2.7% 3 5.3% 3 0.0% 0 4.3% 2 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 5.7% 3 0.0% 0
Improve car parkingavailability / reduceparking charges
9.7% 11 8.8% 5 10.7% 6 8.7% 4 12.5% 5 7.4% 2 5.7% 3 13.8% 8
Provide better entertainment/ leisure
0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1
Improve quality and range ofcafes and restaurants
8.9% 10 10.5% 6 7.1% 4 4.3% 2 12.5% 5 11.1% 3 7.5% 4 10.3% 6
Improve pedestrian links andfacilities in the town centre
3.5% 4 3.5% 2 3.6% 2 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 11.1% 3 1.9% 1 5.2% 3
Improve food store 1.8% 2 3.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 1.7% 1Other 4.4% 5 3.5% 2 5.4% 3 8.7% 4 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 7.5% 4 1.7% 1A cinema 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Make it cleaner 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 1.7% 1A Marks and Spencers 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0A supermarket 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0More food outlets 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0More shops in general 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Lower the prices 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0More independent shops 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 2.7% 3 1.8% 1 3.6% 2 2.2% 1 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 1.7% 1
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Q16 Do you or other members of your household ever come to Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / PraedStreet / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street in the evenings?
Yes 38.1% 43 36.8% 21 39.3% 22 28.3% 13 50.0% 20 37.0% 10 49.1% 26 27.6% 16No 61.9% 70 63.2% 36 60.7% 34 71.7% 33 50.0% 20 63.0% 17 50.9% 27 72.4% 42Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Q17 What do you or other members of your household do in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / PraedStreet / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street in the evening?Those who said Yes at Q16
Sports facilities 30.2% 13 23.8% 5 36.4% 8 30.8% 4 35.0% 7 20.0% 2 30.8% 8 31.3% 5Pubs / bars 18.6% 8 9.5% 2 27.3% 6 0.0% 0 30.0% 6 20.0% 2 23.1% 6 12.5% 2Restaurants 27.9% 12 19.0% 4 36.4% 8 30.8% 4 35.0% 7 10.0% 1 30.8% 8 25.0% 4Cafes / coffee shops 44.2% 19 38.1% 8 50.0% 11 38.5% 5 50.0% 10 40.0% 4 38.5% 10 56.3% 9Services (eg. cash tills) 46.5% 20 38.1% 8 54.5% 12 61.5% 8 35.0% 7 50.0% 5 42.3% 11 56.3% 9Takeaway food 20.9% 9 23.8% 5 18.2% 4 15.4% 2 30.0% 6 10.0% 1 11.5% 3 31.3% 5Walk about / look around 27.9% 12 38.1% 8 18.2% 4 30.8% 4 25.0% 5 30.0% 3 26.9% 7 31.3% 5Cinema 20.9% 9 4.8% 1 36.4% 8 23.1% 3 20.0% 4 20.0% 2 19.2% 5 25.0% 4Theatre 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 4.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 10.0% 1 3.8% 1 0.0% 0Nightclubs 4.7% 2 4.8% 1 4.5% 1 7.7% 1 5.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.8% 1 6.3% 1Other 2.3% 1 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 10.0% 1 0.0% 0 6.3% 1Shopping 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Base: 43 21 22 13 20 10 26 16
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 56
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
Q18 What do you like about visiting the leisure / pubs and bars / restaurant facilities in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road /Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street?
Nothing in particular 56.6% 64 59.6% 34 53.6% 30 52.2% 24 52.5% 21 70.4% 19 62.3% 33 50.0% 29Close to home / easy to get
to27.4% 31 22.8% 13 32.1% 18 30.4% 14 32.5% 13 14.8% 4 24.5% 13 31.0% 18
Good theatre 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Good choice of restaurants 18.6% 21 19.3% 11 17.9% 10 21.7% 10 15.0% 6 18.5% 5 15.1% 8 22.4% 13Good quality of restaurants 8.0% 9 3.5% 2 12.5% 7 10.9% 5 5.0% 2 7.4% 2 5.7% 3 10.3% 6Good quality of pubs / bars 3.5% 4 1.8% 1 5.4% 3 6.5% 3 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 3.4% 2Good choice of pubs / bars 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 1.7% 1Good health / fitness
facilities4.4% 5 1.8% 1 7.1% 4 2.2% 1 10.0% 4 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 5.2% 3
Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Atmosphere 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Convenient 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Friendly 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 4.4% 5 7.0% 4 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 5.0% 2 7.4% 2 3.8% 2 5.2% 3
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Q19 What do you dislike about visiting the leisure / pubs and bars / restaurant facilities in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John’s Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street?
Nothing in particular 59.3% 67 68.4% 39 50.0% 28 63.0% 29 57.5% 23 55.6% 15 58.5% 31 58.6% 34Poor choice of facilities 11.5% 13 10.5% 6 12.5% 7 6.5% 3 12.5% 5 18.5% 5 11.3% 6 12.1% 7Too expensive 9.7% 11 5.3% 3 14.3% 8 13.0% 6 12.5% 5 0.0% 0 7.5% 4 12.1% 7Unsafe / poor security /
dangerous8.9% 10 7.0% 4 10.7% 6 4.3% 2 15.0% 6 7.4% 2 11.3% 6 6.9% 4
Lack of car parking 8.0% 9 3.5% 2 12.5% 7 4.3% 2 12.5% 5 7.4% 2 5.7% 3 10.3% 6Car parking charges 3.5% 4 1.8% 1 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 5.0% 2 3.7% 1 3.8% 2 3.4% 2Lack of public transport 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Other 3.5% 4 3.5% 2 3.6% 2 4.3% 2 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 3.8% 2 3.4% 2It needs cleaning 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Poor quality facilities 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Too smokey 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Too busy 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Close too early 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 6.2% 7 8.8% 5 3.6% 2 4.3% 2 7.5% 3 7.4% 2 7.5% 4 5.2% 3Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
SEX Sex:
Male 50.4% 57 100.0% 57 0.0% 0 39.1% 18 60.0% 24 55.6% 15 49.1% 26 51.7% 30Female 49.6% 56 0.0% 0 100.0% 56 60.9% 28 40.0% 16 44.4% 12 50.9% 27 48.3% 28Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
AGE Age Group:
18 - 24 years 25.7% 29 21.1% 12 30.4% 17 63.0% 29 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 22.6% 12 29.3% 1725 - 34 years 15.0% 17 10.5% 6 19.6% 11 37.0% 17 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 22.6% 12 6.9% 435 - 44 years 16.8% 19 19.3% 11 14.3% 8 0.0% 0 47.5% 19 0.0% 0 18.9% 10 15.5% 945 - 54 years 18.6% 21 22.8% 13 14.3% 8 0.0% 0 52.5% 21 0.0% 0 24.5% 13 13.8% 855 - 64 years 11.5% 13 14.0% 8 8.9% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 48.1% 13 5.7% 3 15.5% 965+ years 12.4% 14 12.3% 7 12.5% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 51.9% 14 5.7% 3 19.0% 11Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
SEG Socio-economic group
AB 12.4% 14 15.8% 9 8.9% 5 8.7% 4 17.5% 7 11.1% 3 26.4% 14 0.0% 0C1 34.5% 39 29.8% 17 39.3% 22 43.5% 20 40.0% 16 11.1% 3 73.6% 39 0.0% 0C2 16.8% 19 14.0% 8 19.6% 11 19.6% 9 17.5% 7 11.1% 3 0.0% 0 32.8% 19DE 34.5% 39 38.6% 22 30.4% 17 26.1% 12 25.0% 10 63.0% 17 0.0% 0 67.2% 39(Refused) 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 57
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
INC Approximate income of main wage earner:
Less than £15,000 36.3% 41 42.1% 24 30.4% 17 32.6% 15 25.0% 10 59.3% 16 17.0% 9 53.4% 31£16,000-£25,000 31.9% 36 22.8% 13 41.1% 23 34.8% 16 40.0% 16 14.8% 4 34.0% 18 31.0% 18£26,000-£35,000 13.3% 15 14.0% 8 12.5% 7 15.2% 7 15.0% 6 7.4% 2 22.6% 12 5.2% 3£36,000-£50,000 3.5% 4 1.8% 1 5.4% 3 6.5% 3 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 5.7% 3 1.7% 1£50,000 + 6.2% 7 7.0% 4 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 10.0% 4 7.4% 2 13.2% 7 0.0% 0(Refused) 8.9% 10 12.3% 7 5.4% 3 8.7% 4 7.5% 3 11.1% 3 7.5% 4 8.6% 5
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
ETH Ethnicity:
White - British 28.3% 32 26.3% 15 30.4% 17 13.0% 6 30.0% 12 51.9% 14 24.5% 13 29.3% 17White - Irish 3.5% 4 1.8% 1 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 7.4% 2 1.9% 1 5.2% 3Any other White background 6.2% 7 5.3% 3 7.1% 4 8.7% 4 5.0% 2 3.7% 1 7.5% 4 5.2% 3White and Black Caribbean 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0White and black African 4.4% 5 3.5% 2 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 7.5% 3 3.7% 1 7.5% 4 1.7% 1White and Asian 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Any other mixed background 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Indian 3.5% 4 3.5% 2 3.6% 2 4.3% 2 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 5.2% 3Pakistani 5.3% 6 7.0% 4 3.6% 2 6.5% 3 7.5% 3 0.0% 0 9.4% 5 1.7% 1Bangladeshi 7.1% 8 8.8% 5 5.4% 3 8.7% 4 5.0% 2 7.4% 2 1.9% 1 12.1% 7Any other Asian background 2.7% 3 3.5% 2 1.8% 1 4.3% 2 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 3.4% 2Caribbean 1.8% 2 3.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 1.7% 1African 6.2% 7 3.5% 2 8.9% 5 10.9% 5 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 7.5% 4 5.2% 3Any other black background 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Chinese 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Chinese other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Other ethnic group 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Australian 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 4.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 0.0% 0Canadian 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Danish 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.6% 2 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 1.7% 1French 1.8% 2 3.5% 2 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2Greek 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Italian 3.5% 4 3.5% 2 3.6% 2 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 7.4% 2 3.8% 2 3.4% 2Polish 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0Spanish 2.7% 3 0.0% 0 5.4% 3 4.3% 2 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 3.4% 2Swedish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Turkish 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 1.7% 1USA 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Iranian 1.8% 2 3.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 1.7% 1Iraq 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1Lebanon 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0(Refused) 9.7% 11 14.0% 8 5.4% 3 10.9% 5 10.0% 4 7.4% 2 11.3% 6 8.6% 5Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
ADU Number of adults (incl. respondent):
One 31.0% 35 22.8% 13 39.3% 22 30.4% 14 30.0% 12 33.3% 9 20.8% 11 39.7% 23Two 41.6% 47 47.4% 27 35.7% 20 34.8% 16 42.5% 17 51.9% 14 45.3% 24 37.9% 22Three 16.8% 19 14.0% 8 19.6% 11 17.4% 8 17.5% 7 14.8% 4 24.5% 13 10.3% 6Four or more 10.6% 12 15.8% 9 5.4% 3 17.4% 8 10.0% 4 0.0% 0 9.4% 5 12.1% 7
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
CHI No. of children 15 years and under:
None 74.3% 84 73.7% 42 75.0% 42 76.1% 35 60.0% 24 92.6% 25 71.7% 38 77.6% 45One 13.3% 15 8.8% 5 17.9% 10 17.4% 8 15.0% 6 3.7% 1 13.2% 7 12.1% 7Two 9.7% 11 14.0% 8 5.4% 3 6.5% 3 17.5% 7 3.7% 1 11.3% 6 8.6% 5Three 2.7% 3 3.5% 2 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 7.5% 3 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 1.7% 1Four or more 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
CAR Number of cars in household:
None 64.6% 73 66.7% 38 62.5% 35 69.6% 32 52.5% 21 74.1% 20 56.6% 30 70.7% 41One 28.3% 32 29.8% 17 26.8% 15 26.1% 12 35.0% 14 22.2% 6 32.1% 17 25.9% 15Two 5.3% 6 0.0% 0 10.7% 6 4.3% 2 7.5% 3 3.7% 1 7.5% 4 3.4% 2Three 1.8% 2 3.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 0.0% 0Four or more 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 58
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
DAY Day of Interview:
Monday 20.4% 23 17.5% 10 23.2% 13 26.1% 12 22.5% 9 7.4% 2 17.0% 9 22.4% 13Tuesday 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Wednesday 38.9% 44 38.6% 22 39.3% 22 43.5% 20 37.5% 15 33.3% 9 39.6% 21 39.7% 23Thursday 20.4% 23 22.8% 13 17.9% 10 15.2% 7 20.0% 8 29.6% 8 22.6% 12 19.0% 11Friday 20.4% 23 21.1% 12 19.6% 11 15.2% 7 20.0% 8 29.6% 8 20.8% 11 19.0% 11Saturday 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
LOC Location:
Church Street-Edgware Road 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Harrow Road 100.0% 113 100.0% 57 100.0% 56 100.0% 46 100.0% 40 100.0% 27 100.0% 53 100.0% 58Marylebone High Street 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Praed Street 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Queensway-Westbourne
Grove0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
St John’s Wood 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Warwick Way-Tachbrook
Street0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 59
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
PC
B1 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1BD18 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0BH6 7 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1BN2 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0BR2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0BS32 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Blank 14.2% 16 17.5% 10 10.7% 6 13.0% 6 12.5% 5 18.5% 5 9.4% 5 19.0% 11CB3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0CO16 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0CR0 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0CR3 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0DA14 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0DB6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E10 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E10 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E12 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E13 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E13 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E14 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E15 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1E15 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E17 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E17 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E18 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E5 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E5 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E7 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E8 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E9 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0EN7 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0EN9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0EX4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0GU16 7 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0GU2 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0GU26 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0GU35 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0HA0 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0HA0 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1HA3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0HA3 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0HA4 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0HA4 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0HA7 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0HU17 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0HU8 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0IG1 3 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1IG11 6 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0JI46 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0LU2 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0LU5 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0M13 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1M25 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0ME17 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0MW8 8 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1N1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N1 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N10 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N11 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N12 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N13 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N15 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1N15 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N16 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N17 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0N20 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N29 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 60
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
N4 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N7 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N8 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0ND3 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NN8 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NN8 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NP14 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW1 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW1 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW1 5 2.7% 3 0.0% 0 5.4% 3 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 5.7% 3 0.0% 0NW1 6 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0NW1 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW1 9 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 1.7% 1NW10 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW10 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0NW10 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW10 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW10 6 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1NW11 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW11 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW2 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW2 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW2 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW3 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW4 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW5 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW5 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW6 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW6 2 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2NW6 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW6 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW6 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW6 7 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0NW6 8 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0NW8 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.6% 2 4.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 0.0% 0NW8 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0NW8 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW8 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW8 4 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.6% 2 2.2% 1 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2NW8 6 1.8% 2 3.5% 2 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 1.7% 1NW8 7 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.6% 2 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2NW8 8 20.4% 23 22.8% 13 17.9% 10 17.4% 8 15.0% 6 33.3% 9 20.8% 11 20.7% 12NW8 9 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1NW9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0OX2 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0OX4 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0PR2 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RH10 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RH19 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RM1 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RM10 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RM13 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RM18 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RM6 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RM6 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RM6 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RM8 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RM8 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RM9 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0RU19 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0S23 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE1 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1SE1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE11 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE11 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE15 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE15 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE16 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE19 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 61
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
SE2 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE28 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE3 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE5 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE5 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE5 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE5 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE6 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SG8 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SL2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SL3 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SM4 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SN11 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SO31 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SP11 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SS15 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SS4 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1SW1 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0SW1 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW10 2 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0SW10 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW11 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW11 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW11 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW12 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW13 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW14 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW15 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW15 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW15 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW16 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW17 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW18 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW19 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW19 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW19 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1P 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1P 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1P 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1P 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1S 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1U 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1U 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1U 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1V 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1V 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1V 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1V 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1V 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1X 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW3 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW3 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW4 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW6 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW6 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW6 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW6 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW7 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW8 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW8 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW8 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW9 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0TI5 1 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1TN2 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0TW11 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0TW11 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0TW4 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0TW9 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0UB6 2 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1
Harrow Road Westminster In Street Survey Page 62
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
UB6 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1 5 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1W10 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W10 3 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1W10 4 2.7% 3 1.8% 1 3.6% 2 2.2% 1 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 1.7% 1W10 5 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 5.0% 2 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 0.0% 0W10 6 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 3.8% 2 0.0% 0W10 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W11 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W12 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W12 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W12 8 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0W12 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W13 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W14 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1A 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1G 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1G 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1K 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1N 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1P 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1U 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1U 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W1V 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W2 3.5% 4 5.3% 3 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 5.0% 2 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 5.2% 3W2 1 5.3% 6 5.3% 3 5.4% 3 6.5% 3 5.0% 2 3.7% 1 7.5% 4 3.4% 2W2 2 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0W2 3 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1W2 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W2 5 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1W2 6 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1W21 1.8% 2 1.8% 1 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0W3 6 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1W4 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W4 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W5 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W5 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0W5 5 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0W6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W6 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W7 1 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0W7 2 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0W8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W8 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W9 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 0.0% 0W9 1 0.9% 1 1.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1W9 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W9 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WD23 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WD2H 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WD6 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WD6 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WIG 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WIG 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WIG 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WIU 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WW1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WW1 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WW10 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WW2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WW2 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WW8 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0YO24 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Base: 113 57 56 46 40 27 53 58
Appendix H
Household Residents Survey Results
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
1
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Q01
Whe
redo
you
norm
ally
shop
for
non-
food
(com
pari
son)
good
s i.e
.clo
thes
,foo
twea
r, b
ooks
etc
?
Oxf
ord
Stre
et /
Wes
tEnd
45.8
%30
142
.1%
107
48.1
%19
467
.7%
2153
.5%
3843
.4%
111
42.0
%47
35.3
%6
47.5
%21
841
.3%
6444
.0%
166
Ken
sing
ton
Hig
hSt
reet
7.6 %
508.
3%21
7.2%
299.
7%3
11.3
%8
8.6%
225.
4%6
0.0%
08.
7%40
5.8%
98.
0%30
Vic
toria
Stre
et,W
estm
inst
er3.
0 %20
3.2%
83.
0%12
0.0%
01.
4%1
4.3%
110.
9%1
0.0%
02.
8%13
2.6%
43.
4%13
Que
ensw
ay /
Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve2.
4 %16
2.8%
72.
2%9
0.0%
02.
8%2
2.7%
71.
8%2
5.9%
11.
7%8
3.2%
52.
4%9
Edgw
are
Roa
d2.
4 %16
3.2%
82.
0%8
0.0%
01.
4%1
1.2%
31.
8%2
0.0%
01.
3%6
5.8%
90.
8%3
Kin
gsR
oad
2.1 %
141.
6%4
2.5%
103.
2%1
4.2%
32.
3%6
2.7%
35.
9%1
2.6%
120.
6%1
3.4%
13M
aryl
ebon
eH
igh
Stre
et1.
5 %10
2.0%
51.
2%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.7%
70.
9%1
0.0%
01.
7%8
1.3%
22.
4%9
Bre
ntC
ross
1.5 %
102.
0%5
1.2%
50.
0%0
1.4%
12.
0%5
3.6%
40.
0%0
1.7%
81.
3%2
2.4%
9M
ailo
rder
/del
iver
ed /
inte
rnet
1.5 %
101.
6%4
1.5%
60.
0%0
1.4%
12.
0%5
0.0%
05.
9%1
1.5%
71.
9%3
1.6%
6
Abr
oad
(uns
peci
fied
loca
tion)
1.1 %
71.
2%3
1.0%
40.
0%0
4.2%
30.
8%2
0.9%
10.
0%0
1.3%
60.
0%0
1.1%
4
Kilb
urn
1.1 %
70.
0%0
1.7%
70.
0%0
0.0%
02.
3%6
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.1%
50.
6%1
1.1%
4M
arbl
eA
rch
0.9 %
60.
8%2
1.0%
40.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.9%
15.
9%1
0.9%
40.
6%1
0.5%
2W
hite
ley'
sSho
ppin
gC
entre
0.9 %
61.
2%3
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%4
1.8%
20.
0%0
1.1%
50.
6%1
1.1%
4H
arro
wR
oad
0.9 %
60.
8%2
1.0%
43.
2%1
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.4%
22.
6%4
0.5%
2M
arke
t,Po
rtobe
lloR
oad
0.9 %
62.
0%5
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.9%
111
.8%
20.
9%4
0.6%
10.
3%1
Mar
ket,
Chu
rch
Stre
et0.
8 %5
0.4%
11.
0%4
0.0%
01.
4%1
1.2%
30.
9%1
0.0%
00.
4%2
1.9%
30.
5%2
StJo
hnsW
ood
0.8 %
50.
4%1
1.0%
43.
2%1
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.9%
40.
0%0
0.8%
3R
egen
tStre
et0.
6 %4
1.2%
30.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
21.
8%2
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.0%
01.
1%4
Not
ting
Hill
0.6 %
40.
8%2
0.5%
20.
0%0
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
40.
0%0
0.8%
3Po
rtobe
lloR
oad
0.6 %
41.
2%3
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
1.8%
20.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.5%
2B
ond
Stre
et,L
ondo
n0.
6 %4
0.4%
10.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
9%1
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.6%
10.
5%2
Tesc
o,C
hurc
hSt
reet
,St
John
sWoo
d0.
5 %3
0.8%
20.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.3%
20.
5%2
War
wic
kW
ay /
Tach
broo
kSt
reet
0.5 %
30.
8%2
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.0%
05.
9%1
0.4%
20.
6%1
0.5%
2
Bay
swat
er0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
10.
9%1
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.6%
10.
3%1
Ham
mer
smith
0.5 %
30.
4%1
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
11.
3%2
0.5%
2G
erm
anSt
reet
,Wes
tmin
ster
0.5 %
31.
2%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
6%1
0.3%
1K
nigh
tsbr
idge
0.5 %
30.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.8%
20.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.8%
3C
entra
lLon
don
0.5 %
30.
4%1
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.9%
15.
9%1
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.5%
2B
aker
Stre
et0.
3 %2
0.8%
20.
0%0
3.2%
11.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Cov
entG
arde
n0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
3%1
O2
Cen
tre,F
inch
ley
Roa
d0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
9%1
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Prae
dSt
reet
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0La
dbro
keG
rove
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0C
amde
nTo
wn
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05.
9%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Pr
imar
k(u
nspe
cifie
dlo
catio
n)0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
Sain
sbur
y's,
Cro
mm
elR
oad,
Bar
net
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Wem
bley
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1W
estm
inst
er0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
2
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Park
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.2%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1B
rom
ley
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1C
ardi
nalJ
unct
ion
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Sh
ephe
rd's
Bus
hW
120.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Chu
rch
Stre
et,K
ent
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
13.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0C
laph
am0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Cric
klew
ood
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
13.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Fi
nchl
eyR
oad,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Gol
dbou
rne
Roa
d,K
ensi
ngto
n0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ham
pste
ad0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Har
row
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05.
9%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0H
yde
Park
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0K
eble
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1M
arke
t,Li
tchf
ield
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1M
arke
t(un
spec
ified
loca
tion)
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1
May
fair
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1M
arks
&Sp
ence
r,M
arbl
eA
rch
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Mar
ket,
Brix
ton
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1O
ster
ley
Lane
,Eal
ing
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1O
xbrid
ge0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Cob
urn
Mew
s0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
Sain
sbur
y's,
O2
Cen
tre,
Finc
hley
Roa
d0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Sloa
nesC
ourt
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1W
aitro
se,T
wyf
ord
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1St
anm
ore
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0(D
on't
know
/var
ies)
13.2
%87
13.8
%35
12.9
%52
0.0%
05.
6%4
11.7
%30
19.6
%22
5.9%
112
.6%
5815
.5%
2413
.5%
51
Bas
e:65
725
440
331
7125
611
217
459
155
377
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
3
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Q02
Atw
hich
stor
edo
you
norm
ally
do
mos
tofy
our
food
and
groc
ery
(con
veni
ence
)sho
ppin
g?
Wai
trose
,Hig
hSt
reet
,M
aryl
ebon
e8.
2 %54
6.3%
169.
4%38
6.5%
21.
4%1
10.5
%27
8.0%
95.
9%1
10.2
%47
2.6%
49.
8%37
Tesc
o,C
hurc
hSt
reet
,St
John
sWoo
d7.
2 %47
7.9%
206.
7%27
19.4
%6
11.3
%8
5.9%
156.
3%7
5.9%
14.
1%19
14.2
%22
3.4%
13
Sain
sbur
y's,
Wilt
onR
oad,
Vic
toria
5.9 %
397.
1%18
5.2%
216.
5%2
5.6%
47.
4%19
3.6%
45.
9%1
6.1%
285.
8%9
5.8%
22
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Ladb
roke
Gro
ve,C
hels
ea5.
0 %33
3.5%
96.
0%24
3.2%
14.
2%3
4.3%
118.
0%9
5.9%
14.
4%20
7.7%
125.
6%21
Som
erfie
ld,E
dgw
are
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
3.8 %
255.
9%15
2.5%
103.
2%1
5.6%
43.
1%8
5.4%
65.
9%1
3.9%
183.
9%6
2.4%
9
Sain
sbur
y’s,
O2
Cen
tre,
Finc
hley
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
3.5 %
232.
0%5
4.5%
186.
5%2
4.2%
34.
3%11
1.8%
20.
0%0
4.1%
191.
9%3
5.6%
21
Mai
lord
er/ i
nter
net /
de
liver
ed3.
3 %22
0.8%
25.
0%20
0.0%
09.
9%7
5.1%
130.
0%0
0.0%
03.
9%18
2.6%
44.
2%16
Som
erfie
ld,H
arro
wR
oad
3.0 %
203.
2%8
3.0%
123.
2%1
1.4%
12.
7%7
1.8%
20.
0%0
2.4%
115.
2%8
2.1%
8W
aitro
se,F
inch
ley
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
2.7 %
182.
8%7
2.7%
110.
0%0
0.0%
02.
7%7
2.7%
30.
0%0
2.8%
132.
6%4
2.7%
10
Tesc
o,Po
rtobe
lloR
oad,
Lond
on2.
4 %16
3.9%
101.
5%6
0.0%
08.
5%6
2.3%
60.
9%1
0.0%
02.
2%10
2.6%
41.
9%7
Tesc
o,W
arw
ick
Way
,V
icto
ria2.
0 %13
3.2%
81.
2%5
0.0%
01.
4%1
1.6%
41.
8%2
0.0%
01.
3%6
2.6%
41.
3%5
Wai
trose
,Sw
issC
otta
ge,
Lond
on2.
0 %13
1.2%
32.
5%10
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.0%
52.
7%3
0.0%
02.
0%9
1.3%
23.
2%12
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Edgw
are
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
1.7 %
111.
2%3
2.0%
80.
0%0
0.0%
02.
0%5
2.7%
30.
0%0
2.0%
91.
3%2
0.5%
2
Tesc
o,B
rent
Cro
ss1.
5 %10
1.6%
41.
5%6
3.2%
11.
4%1
0.4%
13.
6%4
0.0%
01.
5%7
1.3%
21.
6%6
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Oxf
ord
Stre
et1.
4 %9
1.6%
41.
2%5
3.2%
10.
0%0
2.0%
50.
0%0
5.9%
11.
5%7
0.6%
11.
6%6
Ladb
roke
Gro
ve1.
4 %9
0.8%
21.
7%7
0.0%
01.
4%1
1.2%
31.
8%2
5.9%
11.
3%6
1.9%
31.
1%4
Icel
and,
Har
row
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
1.1 %
70.
0%0
1.7%
79.
7%3
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
13.
2%5
0.3%
1
Tesc
o,C
rom
wel
lRoa
d,K
ensi
ngto
n1.
1 %7
1.6%
40.
7%3
3.2%
12.
8%2
0.8%
20.
9%1
0.0%
00.
9%4
1.3%
21.
1%4
Mar
ket,
Porto
bello
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
1.1 %
71.
6%4
0.7%
30.
0%0
2.8%
20.
8%2
1.8%
20.
0%0
1.5%
70.
0%0
1.1%
4
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Mar
ble
Arc
h1.
1 %7
0.8%
21.
2%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
01.
1%5
1.3%
21.
1%4
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Edgw
are
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
1.1 %
72.
4%6
0.2%
10.
0%0
2.8%
21.
6%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.1%
50.
6%1
0.8%
3
Wai
trose
,Hig
hSt
reet
,K
ensi
ngto
n0.
9 %6
0.8%
21.
0%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
01.
8%2
0.0%
00.
7%3
1.3%
21.
1%4
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Kilb
urn
Hig
hR
oad
0.9 %
60.
8%2
1.0%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.7%
31.
9%3
1.1%
4
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Whi
tele
ysof
Bay
swat
er,Q
ueen
sway
0.8 %
50.
4%1
1.0%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
2.7%
30.
0%0
0.9%
40.
6%1
1.1%
4
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
4
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Mar
ks&
Spen
cerS
impl
yFo
od,M
aryl
ebon
eSt
atio
n0.
8%5
0.8%
20.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
5.9%
11.
1%5
0.0%
00.
8%3
Tesc
o,N
ottin
gH
illG
ate
0.8 %
50.
4%1
1.0%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.1%
50.
0%0
0.8%
3Sa
insb
ury
Loca
l,A
lling
ton
Stre
et,V
icto
ria0.
8 %5
0.4%
11.
0%4
0.0%
02.
8%2
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.6%
10.
8%3
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Swis
sCot
tage
,Lo
ndon
0.6 %
41.
2%3
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
40.
0%0
1.1%
4
Asd
a,Pa
rkR
oyal
0.6 %
40.
8%2
0.5%
20.
0%0
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.7%
30.
6%1
0.8%
3Sa
insb
ury’
s,W
ilton
Roa
d,V
icto
ria0.
6 %4
0.0%
01.
0%4
3.2%
11.
4%1
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.0%
01.
1%4
Sain
sbur
y's,
Kin
gsga
tePa
rade
,Vic
toria
Stre
et0.
6 %4
0.4%
10.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
01.
8%2
5.9%
10.
4%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Que
ensw
ay0.
5 %3
0.4%
10.
5%2
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.6%
10.
8%3
Tesc
o,M
eadv
ille
0.5 %
30.
8%2
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.3%
1Sa
insb
ury’
s,W
estb
ourn
eG
rove
,Lon
don
0.5 %
30.
4%1
0.5%
20.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.5%
2
Sain
sbur
yLo
cal,
Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve0.
5 %3
0.8%
20.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
9%1
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
5%2
Sain
sbur
y's,
Vau
xhal
l0.
5 %3
0.8%
20.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
9%1
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
5%2
Asd
a,C
laph
amJu
nctio
n0.
5 %3
0.8%
20.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
1.3%
20.
5%2
Tesc
o,B
aker
Stre
et,L
ondo
n0.
5 %3
0.8%
20.
2%1
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
5%2
Fres
h&
Wild
,Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve,L
ondo
n0.
5 %3
0.8%
20.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
9%1
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.6%
10.
3%1
Sain
sbur
yLo
cal,
Padd
ingt
onSt
atio
n0.
5 %3
0.4%
10.
5%2
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
8%3
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Cro
mw
ellR
oad,
Ken
sing
ton
0.5 %
30.
4%1
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.8%
3
Tesc
o,Ed
gwar
eR
oad
0.5 %
30.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
11.
3%2
0.3%
1Te
sco
Expr
ess,
Prae
dSt
reet
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.3%
1M
arks
&Sp
ence
rSim
ply
Food
,Pad
ding
ton
Stat
ion
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
23.
2%1
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.0%
0
Tesc
o,H
amm
ersm
ith0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.6%
10.
5%2
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Cam
den
Tow
n0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.6%
10.
0%0
Sain
sbur
y's,
Kin
gsm
all,
Ham
mer
smith
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.5%
2
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Har
row
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2
Tesc
o,H
igh
Stre
et,
Mar
yleb
one
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.3%
1
Wai
trose
,Kin
gsR
oad
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
05.
9%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.5%
2M
arke
t,W
arw
ick
Way
,W
estm
inst
er0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
3%1
Mor
riso
ns,C
amde
nTo
wn
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2M
arks
&Sp
ence
r,C
amde
nTo
wn
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Hig
h0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
3%1
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
5
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Stre
et,K
ensi
ngto
nC
o-O
p,H
eath
field
0.3 %
20.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2Te
sco,
Circ
usR
oad
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
23.
2%1
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Sa
insb
ury’
s,Pi
mlic
o0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
5%2
Whi
tele
y'sS
hopp
ing
Cen
tre0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.6%
10.
5%2
Tesc
o,B
aysw
ater
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
13.
2%1
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.0%
0Sa
insb
ury'
s,O
xfor
dSt
reet
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.5%
2W
aitro
se,M
otco
mb
Stre
et0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
9%1
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
3%1
Bud
gens
,Que
ensw
ay0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Vic
toria
Car
dina
lPla
ce0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Kilb
urn
Hig
hR
oad,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Safe
way
,Edg
war
eR
oad,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Plan
etO
rgan
ic,W
estb
ourn
eG
rove
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Porto
bello
Who
leFo
ods,
Porto
bello
Gre
en0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Loca
lsho
ps,V
ince
ntSt
reet
,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Oxf
ord
Stre
et,L
ondo
n0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Asd
a,C
olin
dale
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0Sa
insb
ury
Loca
l,W
ater
loo
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.3%
1Sa
insb
ury’
s,H
igh
Gat
e0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
5.9%
10.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Sain
sbur
yLo
cal,
Sout
ham
pton
Stre
et,
Cov
entG
arde
n
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1
Fres
h&
Wild
,Cam
den
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1Sa
insb
ury
Loca
l,B
rom
pton
Roa
d0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Bud
gens
,Tot
tenh
amC
ourt
Roa
d0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Que
enst
own
Roa
d,La
mbe
th0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mar
ket,
Bor
ough
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
Brid
ge0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Supe
rsav
e,Pr
aed
Stre
et0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Wes
tmin
ster
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Sa
insb
ury’
s,A
lper
ton
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1M
arks
&Sp
ence
r,V
icto
riaSt
atio
n0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Tesc
oM
etro
,Reg
entS
treet
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0G
reen
Val
ley,
Bar
clay
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Glo
uces
ter
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Tesc
o,C
amde
nTo
wn
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
6
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Kin
gsR
oad,
Che
lsea
0.2%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Sain
sbur
y's,
Ham
mer
smith
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1M
arks
&Sp
ence
r,N
ottin
gH
illG
ate
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Tesc
o,En
glan
dsLa
ne,
Bel
size
Park
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
13.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Loca
lsho
ps,V
icto
ria,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
Tesc
o,K
ings
Cro
ss0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Asd
a,C
onna
ught
Hal
lA
ppro
ach,
Wes
tmin
ster
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Tesc
o,M
onk
Stre
et,L
ondo
n0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Bud
gens
,Por
ches
terR
oad,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Tesc
o,Pe
rival
e0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
3%1
Cris
pen’
s,O
xfor
dSt
reet
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Te
sco,
Prae
dSt
reet
,Lon
don
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0Te
sco,
Que
ensw
ay,L
ondo
n0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
5.9%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Tesc
o,Sh
ephe
rdsB
ush
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Te
sco,
Totte
nham
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Ic
elan
d,M
eadv
ille
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0W
aitro
se,G
louc
este
rRoa
d,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Loca
lsho
ps,E
dgw
are
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05.
9%1
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0
Loca
lsho
ps,N
ottin
gH
ill0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Wai
trose
,Tem
ple
Fortu
nePa
rade
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Wai
trose
,Tw
yfor
d0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve,L
ondo
n0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Farm
ersm
arke
t(un
spec
ified
loca
tion)
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Mar
ket,
Stru
tton
Gro
und,
Wes
tmin
ster
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Mar
ket,
Tebw
orth
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Te
sco
Expr
ess,
Cha
ring
Cro
ss0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Som
erfie
ld,C
amde
nTo
wn
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Te
sco
(uns
peci
fied
loca
tion)
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0Sa
insb
ury'
s,Is
lingt
on0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Finc
hley
Roa
d,G
olde
rsG
reen
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Tesc
o,G
old
Stre
et,K
ent
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0Te
sco,
Clif
ton
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Lo
cals
hops
,Kin
gsC
ross
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1(D
on’t
know
/va
ries)
12.6
%83
15.0
%38
11.2
%45
6.5%
25.
6%4
12.5
%32
18.8
%21
23.5
%4
11.8
%54
14.8
%23
12.7
%48
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
7
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Bas
e:65
725
440
331
7125
611
217
459
155
377
Q03
Wha
tis
the
mai
nre
ason
why
you
choo
sedo
your
mai
nfo
odan
d gr
ocer
ysh
oppi
ngat
(STO
RE
MEN
TIO
NE
DA
TQ
02)?
Con
veni
ence
toho
me
45.2
%29
749
.2%
125
42.7
%17
267
.7%
2156
.3%
4048
.4%
124
30.4
%34
58.8
%10
45.1
%20
746
.5%
7241
.9%
158
Qua
lity
ofsh
opsa
ndse
rvic
es9.
3 %61
10.2
%26
8.7%
356.
5%2
4.2%
310
.2%
2610
.7%
1211
.8%
210
.5%
486.
5%10
10.6
%40
Val
uefo
rmon
ey7.
6 %50
7.9%
207.
4%30
12.9
%4
4.2%
37.
0%18
11.6
%13
0.0%
07.
0%32
9.7%
158.
0%30
Pref
eren
cefo
rret
aile
r5.
3 %35
3.5%
96.
5%26
0.0%
04.
2%3
4.3%
1111
.6%
1311
.8%
25.
7%26
4.5%
74.
5%17
Goo
dor
chea
pca
rpar
king
4.1 %
273.
9%10
4.2%
170.
0%0
2.8%
23.
5%9
8.0%
90.
0%0
5.0%
232.
6%4
7.2%
27R
ange
ofsh
opsa
ndse
rvic
esav
aila
ble
4.0 %
265.
5%14
3.0%
120.
0%0
0.0%
02.
7%7
5.4%
65.
9%1
4.1%
192.
6%4
4.5%
17
Goo
dqu
ality
prod
uce
2.6 %
172.
0%5
3.0%
120.
0%0
1.4%
12.
3%6
3.6%
40.
0%0
2.6%
121.
9%3
3.2%
12Ea
syto
gett
o2.
3 %15
2.4%
62.
2%9
3.2%
12.
8%2
0.8%
23.
6%4
5.9%
12.
6%12
1.3%
22.
9%11
Larg
est
ore
2.1 %
142.
0%5
2.2%
96.
5%2
4.2%
32.
7%7
0.9%
10.
0%0
1.7%
82.
6%4
2.4%
9G
ood
serv
ice
/frie
ndly
2.0 %
132.
0%5
2.0%
80.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%4
0.9%
15.
9%1
1.5%
73.
9%6
1.6%
6R
ange
ofgo
ods
2.0 %
131.
2%3
2.5%
103.
2%1
0.0%
02.
7%7
0.9%
10.
0%0
1.7%
82.
6%4
1.9%
7N
oot
hers
hops
loca
lly1.
5 %10
0.8%
22.
0%8
0.0%
01.
4%1
1.6%
41.
8%2
0.0%
00.
9%4
2.6%
41.
1%4
Prov
ide
ade
liver
yse
rvic
e1.
5 %10
0.0%
02.
5%10
0.0%
01.
4%1
2.3%
60.
0%0
0.0%
01.
5%7
1.9%
32.
1%8
Hab
it/a
lway
suse
s it
1.5 %
102.
8%7
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.3%
61.
3%2
1.1%
4C
onve
nien
ceto
wor
k1.
1 %7
1.2%
31.
0%4
0.0%
02.
8%2
1.2%
31.
8%2
0.0%
01.
3%6
0.0%
00.
5%2
They
sell
orga
nic
prod
uce
0.9 %
61.
2%3
0.7%
30.
0%0
2.8%
20.
8%2
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.9%
41.
3%2
0.8%
3Ip
refe
rthe
irgo
ods
0.8 %
50.
0%0
1.2%
50.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.7%
30.
0%0
0.9%
40.
0%0
0.3%
1G
ener
ally
conv
enie
nt0.
6 %4
0.4%
10.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.2%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.0%
00.
8%3
Goo
dcu
stom
erse
rvic
e0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
8%3
Oth
ersh
opsa
ndse
rvic
esne
arby
0.5 %
30.
4%1
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
6%1
0.0%
0
Itis
asm
all/
quie
tsto
re0.
5 %3
0.4%
10.
5%2
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
01.
8%2
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
8%3
Idis
like
supe
rmar
kets
0.5 %
30.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
6%1
0.3%
1R
ewar
dsc
hem
e/d
isco
unts
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.3%
1C
onge
stio
nch
arge
sare
inpl
ace
near
toot
hers
tore
s0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Ihav
eyo
ung
child
ren
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.5%
2To
supp
ortl
ocal
busi
ness
es0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
IfIa
mpa
ssin
gth
roug
h0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Long
erop
enin
gho
urs
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0Ig
ow
itha
fam
ilym
embe
r /
frien
d0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
(Don
’tkn
ow /
nore
ason
inpa
rticu
lar)
2.1 %
142.
4%6
2.0%
80.
0%0
1.4%
12.
3%6
1.8%
20.
0%0
1.1%
54.
5%7
1.3%
5
Bas
e:65
725
440
331
7125
611
217
459
155
377
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
8
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Q04
Atw
hich
stor
e or
loca
lcen
tre
doyo
udo
mos
tofy
our
top-
upfo
odan
d gr
ocer
ysh
oppi
ngsu
chas
brea
dan
dm
ilk ?
Tesc
o,C
hurc
hSt
reet
,St
John
sWoo
d8.
7 %57
10.2
%26
7.7%
316.
5%2
11.3
%8
7.8%
209.
8%11
5.9%
16.
1%28
16.1
%25
6.6%
25
Wai
trose
,Mar
yleb
one
Hig
hSt
reet
4.0 %
263.
2%8
4.5%
186.
5%2
2.8%
24.
3%11
3.6%
45.
9%1
5.2%
240.
6%1
5.0%
19
Sain
sbur
y,W
ilton
Roa
d,V
icto
ria4.
0 %26
4.3%
113.
7%15
0.0%
07.
0%5
6.6%
171.
8%2
0.0%
04.
1%19
3.2%
54.
5%17
Som
erfie
ld,E
dgw
are
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
3.3 %
224.
3%11
2.7%
110.
0%0
4.2%
33.
5%9
5.4%
65.
9%1
3.1%
144.
5%7
2.4%
9
Som
erfie
ld,H
arro
wR
oad
2.9 %
192.
8%7
3.0%
123.
2%1
5.6%
42.
7%7
1.8%
20.
0%0
2.2%
105.
2%8
2.7%
10Te
sco
Met
ro,P
orto
bello
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
2.6 %
173.
5%9
2.0%
80.
0%0
7.0%
50.
4%1
3.6%
411
.8%
22.
2%10
3.2%
52.
4%9
Tesc
o,C
ircus
Roa
d2.
0 %13
1.2%
32.
5%10
9.7%
32.
8%2
2.0%
51.
8%2
0.0%
02.
4%11
0.6%
12.
4%9
Tesc
o,W
arw
ick
Way
,V
icto
ria1.
7 %11
2.0%
51.
5%6
3.2%
11.
4%1
1.6%
42.
7%3
0.0%
01.
1%5
2.6%
41.
3%5
Loca
lsho
ps,S
tJoh
nsW
ood
1.5 %
102.
0%5
1.2%
53.
2%1
0.0%
00.
8%2
3.6%
40.
0%0
2.0%
90.
6%1
2.4%
9M
arks
&Sp
ence
r,Ed
gwar
eR
oad
1.5 %
101.
6%4
1.5%
60.
0%0
0.0%
02.
0%5
0.0%
05.
9%1
1.7%
81.
3%2
0.5%
2
Mar
ks&
Spen
cerS
impl
yFo
od,N
ottin
gH
ill1.
4 %9
0.0%
02.
2%9
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.0%
50.
0%0
0.0%
01.
5%7
1.3%
21.
6%6
Icel
and,
Har
row
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
1.2 %
80.
8%2
1.5%
66.
5%2
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
14.
5%7
0.5%
2
Mar
ks&
Spen
cerS
impl
yFo
od,M
aryl
ebon
eSt
atio
n1.
2 %8
2.0%
50.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.6%
40.
9%1
0.0%
01.
3%6
0.6%
10.
8%3
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Oxf
ord
Stre
et1.
2 %8
2.0%
50.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.6%
40.
9%1
0.0%
01.
5%7
0.6%
11.
6%6
Loca
lsho
ps(u
nspe
cifie
dlo
catio
n)1.
2 %8
1.2%
31.
2%5
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
3%6
1.3%
21.
3%5
Tesc
o,Ed
gwar
eR
oad
0.9 %
60.
4%1
1.2%
50.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%4
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.7%
31.
9%3
0.3%
1Lo
cals
hops
,Abb
eyR
oad,
Lond
on0.
9 %6
0.8%
21.
0%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.2%
30.
9%1
5.9%
11.
1%5
0.0%
01.
6%6
Tesc
oEx
pres
s,Pr
aed
Stre
et0.
9 %6
0.8%
21.
0%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.6%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%4
1.3%
20.
5%2
Tesc
o,N
ottin
gH
illG
ate
0.9 %
60.
4%1
1.2%
50.
0%0
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
40.
6%1
0.3%
1Sa
insb
ury’
s,K
ilbur
nH
igh
Roa
d,B
rent
0.9 %
61.
2%3
0.7%
30.
0%0
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.0%
05.
9%1
1.1%
50.
6%1
1.1%
4
Loca
lsho
ps,L
upus
Stre
et,
Wes
tmin
ster
0.8 %
51.
6%4
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.4%
21.
9%3
0.5%
2
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Ladb
roke
Gro
ve,L
ondo
n0.
8 %5
0.4%
11.
0%4
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.8%
20.
9%1
0.0%
00.
7%3
1.3%
20.
8%3
Sain
sbur
y,O
xfor
dSt
reet
0.8 %
50.
4%1
1.0%
43.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.7%
31.
3%2
0.5%
2B
estb
uy,L
adbr
oke
Gro
ve0.
6 %4
0.8%
20.
5%2
0.0%
01.
4%1
1.2%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.6%
10.
3%1
Cos
tcut
ter,
Gol
born
eR
oad,
Ken
sing
ton
0.6 %
40.
8%2
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.0%
02.
6%4
0.3%
1
Loca
lsho
ps,K
enda
lStre
et,
Hig
hPa
rk0.
6 %4
0.4%
10.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
9%1
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.0%
01.
1%4
Wai
trose
,Sw
issC
otta
ge0.
6 %4
1.2%
30.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.2%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.0%
00.
8%3
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
9
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Hig
hSt
reet
,Ken
sing
ton
0.6%
40.
4%1
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.7%
30.
6%1
0.8%
3
Tesc
oEx
pres
s,M
eadv
ille
0.6 %
41.
2%3
0.2%
10.
0%0
2.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
40.
0%0
1.1%
4M
arks
&Sp
ence
r,W
hite
leys
ofB
aysw
ater
,Que
ensw
ay0.
6 %4
0.0%
01.
0%4
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
02.
7%3
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.0%
00.
5%2
Loca
lsho
ps,E
dgw
are
Roa
d,W
estm
inst
er0.
6 %4
0.8%
20.
5%2
3.2%
11.
4%1
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
1.3%
20.
8%3
Loca
lsho
ps,H
arro
wR
oad,
Lond
on0.
6 %4
0.0%
01.
0%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
9%1
0.0%
00.
4%2
1.3%
20.
3%1
Mar
ket,
Porto
bello
0.6 %
40.
8%2
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.0%
05.
9%1
0.9%
40.
0%0
0.8%
3W
aitro
se,F
inch
ley
Roa
d0.
6 %4
0.8%
20.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
9%1
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.0%
00.
8%3
Tesc
o,B
aker
Stre
et,L
ondo
n0.
6 %4
0.4%
10.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.2%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.6%
10.
5%2
Whi
tele
y'sS
hopp
ing
Cen
tre0.
5 %3
0.4%
10.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
3%1
Fres
h&
Wild
,Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.2%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
5%2
Mai
lord
er/ i
nter
net /
de
liver
ed0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
5.9%
10.
2%1
0.6%
10.
3%1
Sain
sbur
y,K
ings
gate
Para
de,
Vic
toria
Stre
et0.
5 %3
0.8%
20.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
5.9%
10.
4%2
0.0%
00.
3%1
Sain
sbur
yLo
cal,
Padd
ingt
onSt
atio
n0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
8%3
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Mar
ble
Arc
h0.
5 %3
0.4%
10.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
8%3
Tesc
o(u
nspe
cifie
dlo
catio
n)0.
5 %3
0.4%
10.
5%2
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
5%2
Loca
lsho
ps,L
isso
nG
rove
,M
aryl
ebon
e0.
5 %3
0.4%
10.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
9%1
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
5%2
Mar
ket,
Chu
rch
Stre
et,
Lond
on0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
3%1
Ladb
roke
Gro
ve0.
5 %3
0.4%
10.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
9%1
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
8%3
Tesc
o,G
reat
Pete
rStre
et,
Lond
on0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Tesc
o,M
alco
mC
ourt
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.5%
2Te
sco,
Hig
hSt
reet
,M
aryl
ebon
e0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Loca
lsho
ps,B
ound
ary
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.5%
2
Tesc
oEx
pres
s,Pr
aed
Stre
et,
Padd
ingt
on0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
02.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Sain
sbur
yLo
cal,
Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve0.
3 %2
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
9%1
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
3%1
Tesc
o,B
aysw
ater
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
23.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.0%
0Po
rtlan
dSt
ores
,Mar
yleb
one
0.3 %
20.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2Lo
cals
hops
,Vic
toria
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
01.
3%2
0.3%
1C
ostc
utte
rs(u
nspe
cifie
dlo
catio
n)0.
3 %2
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
02.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Sain
sbur
yLo
cal,
Alli
ngto
nSt
reet
,Vic
toria
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
2.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.3%
1
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
10
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Mar
ks&
Spen
cerS
impl
yFo
od,F
inch
ley
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.3%
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Vic
toria
Car
dina
lPla
ce0.
3%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Swis
sC
otta
ge0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
9%1
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Loca
lsho
ps,C
hurc
hSt
reet
,Lo
ndon
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
13.
2%1
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.3%
1
Cos
tcut
ter,
Lupu
sStre
et,
Wes
tmin
ster
0.3 %
20.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.0%
0
Cris
pen’
s,O
xfor
dSt
reet
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2Te
sco,
Shur
land
Ave
nue,
Lond
on0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Icel
and,
Mea
dvill
e0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Tesc
o,M
eadv
ille
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
13.
2%1
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Lo
cals
hops
,War
wic
kW
ay,
Wes
tmin
ster
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2
Loca
lsho
ps,P
orto
bello
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.5%
2
Tesc
oEx
pres
s,M
onk
Stre
et,
Lond
on0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Not
ting
Hill
Gat
e0.
3 %2
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
3%1
Mar
ks&
Spen
cerS
impl
yFo
od,P
addi
ngto
nSt
atio
n0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Tesc
o,B
rent
Cro
ss0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
01.
8%2
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
3%1
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Mar
ble
Arc
h0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
02.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Wilt
onR
oad,
Bar
net
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2
Tesc
oM
etro
,Reg
entS
treet
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.3%
1W
aitro
se,M
otco
mb
Stre
et0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Loca
lsho
ps,P
imlic
o0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Loca
lsho
ps,N
ewga
teC
lose
,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.3%
1
Sain
sbur
y,V
auxh
all
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Te
sco
Expr
ess,
Cha
ring
Cro
ss0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Vic
toria
Stat
ion
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Dar
tStre
et,L
ondo
n0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Finc
hley
Roa
d,H
amps
tead
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Glo
uces
ter
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Loca
lsho
ps,G
reat
Portl
and
Stre
et0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Loca
lsho
ps,M
ozar
tStre
et,
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
11
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Padd
ingt
onLo
cals
hops
,Cla
rem
ont
Clo
se,L
ondo
n0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Sain
sbur
y’s,
O2
Cen
tre,
Finc
hley
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Mar
ks&
Spen
cer,
Kilb
urn
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Sa
insb
ury’
s,V
icto
riaSt
reet
,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Wes
tbou
rne
Roa
d,N
ottin
gH
illG
ate
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Loca
lsho
ps,C
heps
tow
Roa
d,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Mar
ks&
Spen
cerS
impl
yFo
od,N
ottin
gH
illG
ate
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Loca
lsho
ps,P
raed
Stre
et,
Padd
ingt
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Chi
psto
wSt
ores
,Chi
psto
wR
oad,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Mor
riso
ns,C
amde
nTo
wn
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Pl
anet
Org
anic
,Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
3%1
Porto
bello
Who
leFo
ods,
Porto
bello
Gre
en0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Loca
lsho
ps,S
uthe
rland
Ave
nue,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Tesc
oM
etro
,Mar
sham
Stre
et,W
estm
inst
er0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Emba
ssy
New
s,Em
bass
yR
oad,
Not
ting
Hill
Gat
e0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Tesc
oM
etro
,StJ
ohns
Woo
d0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Som
erfie
ld,H
arro
wR
oad,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
3%1
Som
erfie
ld,H
igh
Stre
et,
Cam
den
Tow
n0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
John
Lew
is,O
xfor
dSt
reet
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Sa
insb
ury’
s,Q
ueen
stow
nR
oad,
Lam
beth
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Loca
lsho
ps,B
arlb
yG
arde
ns0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Loca
lsho
ps,B
lenh
eim
Terr
ace,
Padd
ingt
on0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Sain
sbur
y’s,
Wes
tmin
ster
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Te
sco,
Mel
com
beSt
reet
,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Loca
lsho
ps,C
herr
ettC
lose
,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Sain
sbur
yLo
cal,
Wat
erlo
o0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Tesc
o,W
hite
leys
of0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
12
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Bay
swat
er,Q
ueen
sway
The
Gin
gerP
ig,H
igh
Stre
et,
Mar
yleb
one
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Cris
pin’
s,K
enda
lStre
et,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Loca
lsho
ps,G
reat
Wes
tern
Roa
d,Pa
ddin
gton
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Safe
way
,Edg
war
eR
oad,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
Loca
lsho
ps,H
igh
Stre
et,
Mar
yleb
one
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1
Padd
ingt
onSt
reet
,M
aryl
ebon
e0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Frui
tGar
den,
Mal
colm
Stre
et0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Loca
lsho
ps,A
lgui
nC
ourt,
Stan
mor
e0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Loca
lsho
ps,M
acke
nnal
Stre
et,L
ondo
n0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
3%1
Loca
lsho
ps,M
osco
wR
oad,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Mar
ket(
unsp
ecifi
edlo
catio
n)0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Fairh
azel
Gar
dens
,Cam
den
Tow
n0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Sain
sbur
y's(
unsp
ecifi
edlo
catio
n)0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Sain
sbur
y's,
Keb
leR
oad,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Suff
olk
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Lo
cals
hops
,Reg
ency
Stre
et,
Wes
tmin
ster
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Loca
lsho
ps,R
egen
tsPa
rkR
oad
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Loca
lsho
ps,S
hirla
ndM
ews,
Padd
ingt
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
The
Lisb
oaD
eli,
Gol
born
eR
oad,
Wes
tHam
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Mar
ket,
Mar
yleb
one
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Te
sco
Met
ro,H
olla
ndPa
rkA
venu
e,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Loca
lsho
ps,V
ince
ntSt
reet
,W
estm
inst
er0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Selfr
idge
s,O
xfor
dSt
reet
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1(D
on’t
know
/va
ries)
14.6
%96
15.4
%39
14.1
%57
9.7%
37.
0%5
17.2
%44
18.8
%21
23.5
%4
15.0
%69
14.2
%22
15.9
%60
(Don
'tdo
top-
upsh
oppi
ng)
10.2
%67
11.4
%29
9.4%
3816
.1%
58.
5%6
5.1%
1313
.4%
1511
.8%
28.
7%40
11.6
%18
7.7%
29
Bas
e:65
725
440
331
7125
611
217
459
155
377
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
13
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Q05
Hav
eyo
ush
oppe
d or
used
serv
ices
atC
hurc
hSt
reet
-Edg
war
eR
oad
/Har
row
Roa
d / M
aryl
ebon
eH
igh
Stre
et /
Prae
dSt
reet
/Q
ueen
sway
-Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve /
StJo
hn's
Woo
d/W
arw
ick
Way
-Tac
hbro
okSt
reet
dur
ing
the
last
thre
em
onth
s ?
Yes
70.5
%46
373
.2%
186
68.7
%27
777
.4%
2470
.4%
5075
.4%
193
70.5
%79
58.8
%10
70.2
%32
269
.0%
107
70.3
%26
5N
o29
.5%
194
26.8
%68
31.3
%12
622
.6%
729
.6%
2124
.6%
6329
.5%
3341
.2%
729
.8%
137
31.0
%48
29.7
%11
2
Bas
e:65
725
440
331
7125
611
217
459
155
377
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
14
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Q06
Wha
tare
the
mai
nre
ason
sw
hyyo
uha
veno
trec
ently
shop
ped
inC
hurc
hSt
reet
-Edg
war
eR
oad
/Har
row
Roa
d/M
aryl
ebon
eH
igh
Stre
et/P
raed
Stre
et/Q
ueen
sway
-Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve /
StJ
ohn'
sW
ood
/War
wic
kW
ay-T
achb
rook
Str
eet ?
Th
ose
who
have
nots
hopp
edat
the
loca
tions
men
tione
dat
Q05
Too
fara
way
16.0
%31
17.6
%12
15.1
%19
14.3
%1
4.8%
120
.6%
139.
1%3
0.0%
019
.0%
2610
.4%
515
.2%
17Po
orra
nge
ofsh
ops/
serv
ices
11.3
%22
11.8
%8
11.1
%14
14.3
%1
14.3
%3
11.1
%7
15.2
%5
14.3
%1
13.9
%19
6.3%
314
.3%
16
Poor
carp
arki
ng9.
3 %18
7.4%
510
.3%
130.
0%0
9.5%
29.
5%6
12.1
%4
14.3
%1
11.7
%16
4.2%
216
.1%
18Po
oren
viro
nmen
t/ru
ndow
n9.
3 %18
7.4%
510
.3%
130.
0%0
4.8%
111
.1%
715
.2%
528
.6%
210
.9%
154.
2%2
12.5
%14
Ihav
eno
need
togo
ther
e8.
8 %17
7.4%
59.
5%12
14.3
%1
9.5%
26.
3%4
3.0%
114
.3%
17.
3%10
12.5
%6
7.1%
8G
ener
ally
inco
nven
ient
5.2 %
102.
9%2
6.3%
80.
0%0
0.0%
06.
3%4
12.1
%4
0.0%
02.
9%4
10.4
%5
5.4%
6Po
orqu
ality
shop
s/se
rvic
es5.
2 %10
4.4%
35.
6%7
14.3
%1
4.8%
13.
2%2
12.1
%4
14.3
%1
5.8%
84.
2%2
5.4%
6Pr
efer
tosh
opat
larg
erce
ntre
s4.
6 %9
5.9%
44.
0%5
0.0%
09.
5%2
4.8%
36.
1%2
0.0%
05.
1%7
2.1%
15.
4%6
No
loca
lcen
trene
arto
hom
eor
wor
k4.
6 %9
7.4%
53.
2%4
0.0%
09.
5%2
7.9%
50.
0%0
0.0%
04.
4%6
6.3%
36.
3%7
Poor
publ
ic tr
ansp
ort /
hard
totra
velt
here
4.1 %
82.
9%2
4.8%
60.
0%0
4.8%
11.
6%1
9.1%
30.
0%0
3.7%
56.
3%3
2.7%
3
Ano
ther
larg
erce
ntre
isea
sier
toge
tto
4.1 %
82.
9%2
4.8%
60.
0%0
9.5%
24.
8%3
3.0%
10.
0%0
3.7%
54.
2%2
3.6%
4
Ther
ear
ea
bette
rcho
ice
ofsh
opsl
ocal
ly2.
6 %5
2.9%
22.
4%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
3.2%
26.
1%2
0.0%
03.
7%5
0.0%
02.
7%3
Pref
erto
shop
at la
rge
food
stor
e2.
6 %5
0.0%
04.
0%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.6%
16.
1%2
0.0%
02.
2%3
2.1%
12.
7%3
Idon
'tkn
oww
here
itis
2.1 %
41.
5%1
2.4%
30.
0%0
14.3
%3
1.6%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
5%2
4.2%
21.
8%2
Too
expe
nsiv
e2.
1 %4
4.4%
30.
8%1
0.0%
04.
8%1
0.0%
03.
0%1
0.0%
02.
2%3
2.1%
11.
8%2
Uns
afe
1.0 %
21.
5%1
0.8%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
6.1%
20.
0%0
0.7%
12.
1%1
0.0%
0O
nly
shop
inW
estE
nd/
larg
ece
ntre
city
cent
re1.
0 %2
1.5%
10.
8%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03.
0%1
0.0%
01.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Iam
nota
ble
to le
ave
the
hous
e1.
0 %2
0.0%
01.
6%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%1
2.1%
10.
0%0
Idon
'tkn
owth
ear
eave
ryw
ell
1.0 %
22.
9%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03.
2%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
0
Too
busy
1.0 %
20.
0%0
1.6%
20.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.5%
20.
0%0
1.8%
2Th
ere
isno
thin
gap
peal
ing
ther
e1.
0 %2
1.5%
10.
8%1
0.0%
04.
8%1
1.6%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
5%2
0.0%
01.
8%2
Bec
ause
ofth
e la
ngua
geba
rrie
r0.
5 %1
0.0%
00.
8%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.1%
10.
0%0
Itde
pend
swhe
reIa
mat
the
time
0.5 %
10.
0%0
0.8%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02.
1%1
0.9%
1
I jus
tdon
'tgo
toth
atar
ea0.
5 %1
0.0%
00.
8%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03.
0%1
0.0%
00.
7%1
0.0%
00.
9%1
Idon
't tru
stso
me
ofth
em
arke
t tra
ders
0.5 %
10.
0%0
0.8%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.7%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
They
don'
thav
een
ough
hous
ehol
dsh
ops
0.5 %
10.
0%0
0.8%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.7%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Ionl
ygo
fore
lect
rical
good
s0.
5 %1
1.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.1%
10.
9%1
Whe
nth
ew
eath
eris
good
I0.
5 %1
0.0%
00.
8%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%1
0.0%
00.
9%1
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
15
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
pref
erto
goel
sew
here
Iwor
kdu
ring
shop
open
ing
times
0.5 %
10.
0%0
0.8%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02.
1%1
0.9%
1
Idon
'tha
veth
etim
e0.
5 %1
1.5%
10.
0%0
14.3
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.7%
10.
0%0
0.9%
1(D
on’t
know
/no
reas
onin
parti
cula
r)17
.5%
3417
.6%
1217
.5%
2242
.9%
314
.3%
317
.5%
119.
1%3
42.9
%3
15.3
%21
20.8
%10
17.0
%19
Bas
e:19
468
126
721
6333
713
748
112
Mea
nSc
ore:
[Ver
ygo
od=2
,Qui
tego
od=1
,Nei
ther
good
norp
oor=
0,Q
uite
Poor
=-1,
Very
poor
=-2]
Q07
How
wou
ldyo
ura
teC
hurc
hSt
reet
-Edg
war
eR
oad
/Har
row
Roa
d / M
aryl
ebon
eH
igh
Stre
et/P
raed
Stre
et/Q
ueen
sway
-Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve/S
tJoh
n's
Woo
d /W
arw
ick
Way
-Tac
hbro
okSt
reet
out
of1
to5
whe
re5
isve
ry g
ood
and
1is
very
poor
fort
hefo
llow
ing
? Th
ose
who
have
shop
ped
at th
e lo
catio
nsm
entio
ned
atQ
05
Ava
ilabi
lity
and
pric
e of
park
ing
Ver
ygo
od3.
7 %17
3.8%
73.
6%10
4.2%
12.
0%1
4.1%
81.
3%1
10.0
%1
3.4%
113.
7%4
3.8%
10Q
uite
good
5.8 %
274.
3%8
6.9%
1925
.0%
64.
0%2
4.7%
92.
5%2
10.0
%1
3.1%
1011
.2%
125.
3%14
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
9.7 %
459.
7%18
9.7%
2716
.7%
412
.0%
610
.4%
2011
.4%
90.
0%0
10.2
%33
8.4%
911
.3%
30Q
uite
Poor
13.0
%60
11.8
%22
13.7
%38
20.8
%5
18.0
%9
13.0
%25
11.4
%9
0.0%
014
.6%
4710
.3%
1117
.0%
45V
ery
poor
25.7
%11
928
.0%
5224
.2%
678.
3%2
22.0
%11
26.4
%51
29.1
%23
10.0
%1
24.8
%80
29.9
%32
32.1
%85
Don
’tkn
ow42
.1%
195
42.5
%79
41.9
%11
625
.0%
642
.0%
2141
.5%
8044
.3%
3570
.0%
743
.8%
141
36.4
%39
30.6
%81
Mea
n:-0
.88
-0.9
7-0
.83
-0.0
6-0
.93
-0.9
0-1
.16
0.33
-0.9
7-0
.81
-0.9
8
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Ran
geof
shop
san
dse
rvic
es
Ver
ygo
od15
.3%
7111
.8%
2217
.7%
4916
.7%
410
.0%
511
.9%
2317
.7%
1430
.0%
315
.2%
4913
.1%
1414
.7%
39Q
uite
good
21.4
%99
22.6
%42
20.6
%57
25.0
%6
18.0
%9
22.8
%44
17.7
%14
30.0
%3
18.9
%61
30.8
%33
16.6
%44
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
31.5
%14
637
.6%
7027
.4%
7637
.5%
950
.0%
2534
.7%
6722
.8%
1820
.0%
234
.5%
111
22.4
%24
34.0
%90
Qui
tePo
or19
.7%
9118
.3%
3420
.6%
5720
.8%
518
.0%
920
.2%
3926
.6%
2120
.0%
221
.1%
6817
.8%
1921
.9%
58V
ery
poor
8.0 %
377.
0%13
8.7%
240.
0%0
2.0%
18.
8%17
11.4
%9
0.0%
06.
8%22
12.2
%13
9.4%
25D
on’t
know
4.1 %
192.
7%5
5.1%
140.
0%0
2.0%
11.
6%3
3.8%
30.
0%0
3.4%
113.
7%4
3.4%
9M
ean:
0.17
0.14
0.19
0.38
0.16
0.09
0.04
0.70
0.15
0.16
0.05
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
16
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Qua
lity
ofsh
ops
and
serv
ices
Ver
ygo
od16
.0%
7414
.0%
2617
.3%
4820
.8%
56.
0%3
14.5
%28
12.7
%10
30.0
%3
14.9
%48
15.9
%17
17.0
%45
Qui
tego
od26
.6%
123
25.3
%47
27.4
%76
29.2
%7
28.0
%14
29.0
%56
24.1
%19
50.0
%5
28.0
%90
24.3
%26
23.8
%63
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
31.1
%14
437
.1%
6927
.1%
7541
.7%
1040
.0%
2030
.6%
5930
.4%
2410
.0%
131
.4%
101
29.9
%32
30.6
%81
Qui
tePo
or13
.8%
6412
.9%
2414
.4%
404.
2%1
20.0
%10
15.0
%29
15.2
%12
10.0
%1
13.7
%44
16.8
%18
16.2
%43
Ver
ypo
or8.
0 %37
5.4%
109.
7%27
4.2%
14.
0%2
10.4
%20
7.6%
60.
0%0
7.5%
249.
3%10
8.7%
23D
on’t
know
4.5 %
215.
4%10
4.0%
110.
0%0
2.0%
10.
5%1
10.1
%8
0.0%
04.
7%15
3.7%
43.
8%10
Mea
n:0.
300.
310.
290.
580.
120.
220.
211.
000.
310.
210.
25
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Pric
es
Ver
ygo
od7.
3 %34
8.1%
156.
9%19
4.2%
14.
0%2
7.3%
146.
3%5
10.0
%1
8.1%
266.
5%7
7.2%
19Q
uite
good
24.4
%11
323
.1%
4325
.3%
7054
.2%
1324
.0%
1221
.8%
4222
.8%
1820
.0%
223
.0%
7426
.2%
2821
.9%
58N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r36
.1%
167
41.4
%77
32.5
%90
29.2
%7
48.0
%24
38.3
%74
31.6
%25
40.0
%4
36.0
%11
639
.3%
4232
.1%
85Q
uite
Poor
17.3
%80
13.4
%25
19.9
%55
12.5
%3
18.0
%9
19.7
%38
20.3
%16
10.0
%1
19.9
%64
12.2
%13
23.8
%63
Ver
ypo
or9.
7 %45
8.6%
1610
.5%
290.
0%0
4.0%
210
.9%
2111
.4%
90.
0%0
8.7%
289.
3%10
10.6
%28
Don
’tkn
ow5.
2 %24
5.4%
105.
1%14
0.0%
02.
0%1
2.1%
47.
6%6
20.0
%2
4.3%
146.
5%7
4.5%
12
Mea
n:0.
030.
09-0
.02
0.50
0.06
-0.0
5-0
.08
0.38
0.02
0.09
-0.0
9
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Qua
lity
/and
rang
eof
plac
esto
eat/
dri
nk
Ver
ygo
od18
.8%
8718
.8%
3518
.8%
5212
.5%
318
.0%
918
.1%
3522
.8%
1830
.0%
318
.0%
5821
.5%
2319
.6%
52Q
uite
good
24.8
%11
525
.8%
4824
.2%
6720
.8%
532
.0%
1629
.0%
5617
.7%
1410
.0%
128
.9%
9316
.8%
1826
.8%
71N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r19
.4%
9023
.7%
4416
.6%
468.
3%2
20.0
%10
23.3
%45
17.7
%14
30.0
%3
19.3
%62
18.7
%20
19.2
%51
Qui
tePo
or13
.4%
6211
.8%
2214
.4%
4041
.7%
1018
.0%
912
.4%
2412
.7%
1010
.0%
114
.6%
4711
.2%
1215
.1%
40V
ery
poor
7.3 %
348.
1%15
6.9%
1912
.5%
36.
0%3
7.8%
156.
3%5
0.0%
07.
5%24
6.5%
78.
3%22
Don
’tkn
ow16
.2%
7511
.8%
2219
.1%
534.
2%1
6.0%
39.
3%18
22.8
%18
20.0
%2
11.8
%38
25.2
%27
10.9
%29
Mea
n:0.
410.
400.
42-0
.22
0.40
0.41
0.49
0.75
0.40
0.48
0.39
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Gen
eral
shop
ping
envi
ronm
ent
Ver
ygo
od17
.5%
8114
.5%
2719
.5%
5416
.7%
48.
0%4
18.1
%35
19.0
%15
10.0
%1
18.0
%58
15.9
%17
17.0
%45
Qui
tego
od26
.6%
123
25.3
%47
27.4
%76
29.2
%7
46.0
%23
23.3
%45
16.5
%13
20.0
%2
26.4
%85
27.1
%29
24.5
%65
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
25.1
%11
624
.7%
4625
.3%
7033
.3%
818
.0%
929
.0%
5627
.8%
2220
.0%
224
.8%
8026
.2%
2827
.5%
73Q
uite
Poor
16.0
%74
21.0
%39
12.6
%35
20.8
%5
18.0
%9
17.1
%33
19.0
%15
30.0
%3
16.1
%52
15.9
%17
15.5
%41
Ver
ypo
or11
.4%
5310
.8%
2011
.9%
330.
0%0
6.0%
311
.9%
2315
.2%
1210
.0%
111
.8%
3810
.3%
1112
.5%
33D
on’t
know
3.5 %
163.
8%7
3.2%
90.
0%0
4.0%
20.
5%1
2.5%
210
.0%
12.
8%9
4.7%
53.
0%8
Mea
n:0.
230.
120.
310.
420.
330.
190.
05-0
.11
0.23
0.24
0.19
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
17
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Safe
ty/s
ecur
ity
Ver
ygo
od22
.9%
106
19.4
%36
25.3
%70
45.8
%11
16.0
%8
20.2
%39
31.6
%25
10.0
%1
25.5
%82
15.0
%16
23.8
%63
Qui
tego
od31
.5%
146
32.8
%61
30.7
%85
12.5
%3
36.0
%18
33.7
%65
22.8
%18
10.0
%1
32.9
%10
632
.7%
3530
.9%
82N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r23
.5%
109
21.5
%40
24.9
%69
20.8
%5
34.0
%17
24.4
%47
16.5
%13
30.0
%3
21.7
%70
28.0
%30
23.4
%62
Qui
tePo
or10
.2%
4715
.1%
286.
9%19
12.5
%3
6.0%
311
.4%
2219
.0%
1510
.0%
19.
9%32
10.3
%11
9.8%
26V
ery
poor
7.3 %
347.
0%13
7.6%
214.
2%1
6.0%
38.
8%17
6.3%
520
.0%
26.
8%22
6.5%
78.
3%22
Don
’tkn
ow4.
5 %21
4.3%
84.
7%13
4.2%
12.
0%1
1.6%
33.
8%3
20.0
%2
3.1%
107.
5%8
3.8%
10
Mea
n:0.
550.
440.
620.
870.
510.
460.
57-0
.25
0.62
0.42
0.54
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Acc
ess
bypu
blic
tran
spor
t
Ver
ygo
od33
.0%
153
29.6
%55
35.4
%98
33.3
%8
24.0
%12
37.3
%72
34.2
%27
10.0
%1
31.7
%10
239
.3%
4231
.3%
83Q
uite
good
32.0
%14
833
.3%
6231
.0%
8654
.2%
1346
.0%
2330
.6%
5927
.8%
2240
.0%
432
.0%
103
30.8
%33
30.2
%80
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
10.6
%49
14.5
%27
7.9%
220.
0%0
12.0
%6
12.4
%24
6.3%
520
.0%
29.
6%31
13.1
%14
11.3
%30
Qui
tePo
or3.
5 %16
4.3%
82.
9%8
4.2%
14.
0%2
1.6%
35.
1%4
20.0
%2
2.8%
92.
8%3
4.5%
12V
ery
poor
4.1 %
192.
2%4
5.4%
154.
2%1
4.0%
23.
1%6
2.5%
20.
0%0
4.3%
141.
9%2
3.4%
9D
on’t
know
16.8
%78
16.1
%30
17.3
%48
4.2%
110
.0%
515
.0%
2924
.1%
1910
.0%
119
.6%
6312
.2%
1319
.2%
51
Mea
n:1.
041.
001.
071.
130.
911.
151.
130.
441.
041.
171.
01
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Leve
lofs
tree
tcle
anin
g
Ver
ygo
od25
.5%
118
24.2
%45
26.4
%73
29.2
%7
18.0
%9
23.8
%46
22.8
%18
10.0
%1
25.8
%83
27.1
%29
25.7
%68
Qui
tego
od39
.1%
181
39.2
%73
39.0
%10
837
.5%
940
.0%
2039
.9%
7746
.8%
3760
.0%
641
.6%
134
33.6
%36
40.8
%10
8N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r20
.1%
9320
.4%
3819
.9%
5516
.7%
424
.0%
1222
.8%
4419
.0%
1510
.0%
118
.6%
6021
.5%
2318
.9%
50Q
uite
Poor
7.1 %
3310
.2%
195.
1%14
8.3%
212
.0%
67.
3%14
3.8%
30.
0%0
7.1%
236.
5%7
7.9%
21V
ery
poor
4.1 %
192.
2%4
5.4%
158.
3%2
4.0%
23.
1%6
3.8%
320
.0%
23.
1%10
5.6%
62.
6%7
Don
’tkn
ow4.
1 %19
3.8%
74.
3%12
0.0%
02.
0%1
3.1%
63.
8%3
0.0%
03.
7%12
5.6%
64.
2%11
Mea
n:0.
780.
760.
790.
710.
570.
760.
840.
400.
830.
740.
82
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Live
lines
s/s
tree
tcha
ract
er
Ver
ygo
od19
.9%
9215
.6%
2922
.7%
6333
.3%
812
.0%
619
.7%
3820
.3%
1610
.0%
122
.4%
7212
.2%
1320
.8%
55Q
uite
good
31.5
%14
638
.2%
7127
.1%
7516
.7%
438
.0%
1931
.6%
6130
.4%
2440
.0%
432
.0%
103
32.7
%35
27.9
%74
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
26.4
%12
224
.7%
4627
.4%
7625
.0%
638
.0%
1928
.5%
5520
.3%
1630
.0%
326
.4%
8523
.4%
2527
.2%
72Q
uite
Poor
10.6
%49
9.1%
1711
.6%
3225
.0%
610
.0%
58.
8%17
17.7
%14
0.0%
010
.2%
3313
.1%
1414
.0%
37V
ery
poor
5.8 %
274.
8%9
6.5%
180.
0%0
0.0%
06.
7%13
6.3%
50.
0%0
4.3%
149.
3%10
6.0%
16D
on’t
know
5.8 %
277.
5%14
4.7%
130.
0%0
2.0%
14.
7%9
5.1%
420
.0%
24.
7%15
9.3%
104.
2%11
Mea
n:0.
520.
550.
500.
580.
530.
510.
430.
750.
610.
280.
45
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
18
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Am
ount
oftr
affic
Ver
ygo
od5.
0 %23
5.9%
114.
3%12
8.3%
22.
0%1
6.2%
122.
5%2
0.0%
04.
0%13
6.5%
74.
2%11
Qui
tego
od15
.1%
7017
.2%
3213
.7%
3825
.0%
622
.0%
1111
.9%
2315
.2%
1220
.0%
213
.4%
4319
.6%
2114
.0%
37N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r28
.3%
131
28.5
%53
28.2
%78
37.5
%9
36.0
%18
32.1
%62
21.5
%17
10.0
%1
29.5
%95
26.2
%28
29.8
%79
Qui
tePo
or21
.6%
100
23.7
%44
20.2
%56
12.5
%3
24.0
%12
20.7
%40
27.8
%22
30.0
%3
26.1
%84
7.5%
824
.2%
64V
ery
poor
26.8
%12
421
.5%
4030
.3%
8416
.7%
414
.0%
727
.5%
5329
.1%
2340
.0%
424
.2%
7835
.5%
3824
.9%
66D
on’t
know
3.2 %
153.
2%6
3.2%
90.
0%0
2.0%
11.
6%3
3.8%
30.
0%0
2.8%
94.
7%5
3.0%
8
Mea
n:-0
.52
-0.3
9-0
.60
-0.0
4-0
.27
-0.5
2-0
.68
-0.9
0-0
.55
-0.4
8-0
.53
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Even
ing
/nig
ht-ti
me
faci
litie
s/a
ctiv
ities
Ver
ygo
od6.
7 %31
6.5%
126.
9%19
8.3%
22.
0%1
8.3%
168.
9%7
0.0%
05.
3%17
10.3
%11
7.5%
20Q
uite
good
19.4
%90
24.7
%46
15.9
%44
12.5
%3
26.0
%13
21.2
%41
19.0
%15
20.0
%2
22.1
%71
14.0
%15
19.6
%52
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
21.8
%10
122
.0%
4121
.7%
6025
.0%
630
.0%
1526
.9%
528.
9%7
20.0
%2
23.0
%74
18.7
%20
24.5
%65
Qui
tePo
or14
.0%
6514
.0%
2614
.1%
3929
.2%
720
.0%
1017
.1%
3313
.9%
1110
.0%
115
.8%
5110
.3%
1116
.2%
43V
ery
poor
11.0
%51
9.7%
1811
.9%
3325
.0%
614
.0%
711
.9%
2310
.1%
80.
0%0
11.5
%37
9.3%
1011
.7%
31D
on’t
know
27.0
%12
523
.1%
4329
.6%
820.
0%0
8.0%
414
.5%
2839
.2%
3150
.0%
522
.4%
7237
.4%
4020
.4%
54
Mea
n:-0
.04
0.06
-0.1
2-0
.50
-0.2
0-0
.04
0.04
0.20
-0.0
80.
09-0
.06
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Size
/qu
ality
ofsu
perm
arke
ts
Ver
ygo
od14
.0%
6511
.8%
2215
.5%
4316
.7%
46.
0%3
11.4
%22
17.7
%14
0.0%
013
.7%
4415
.0%
1612
.1%
32Q
uite
good
20.7
%96
24.7
%46
18.1
%50
25.0
%6
16.0
%8
22.3
%43
12.7
%10
40.0
%4
18.0
%58
27.1
%29
19.2
%51
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
22.7
%10
522
.6%
4222
.7%
6329
.2%
728
.0%
1424
.4%
4719
.0%
1530
.0%
324
.2%
7815
.9%
1722
.6%
60Q
uite
Poor
25.1
%11
628
.0%
5223
.1%
6425
.0%
636
.0%
1825
.9%
5027
.8%
220.
0%0
27.6
%89
22.4
%24
27.5
%73
Ver
ypo
or11
.7%
547.
0%13
14.8
%41
4.2%
112
.0%
613
.0%
2513
.9%
1110
.0%
111
.8%
3813
.1%
1412
.5%
33D
on’t
know
5.8 %
275.
9%11
5.8%
160.
0%0
2.0%
13.
1%6
8.9%
720
.0%
24.
7%15
6.5%
76.
0%16
Mea
n:0.
000.
07-0
.04
0.25
-0.3
3-0
.07
-0.0
80.
25-0
.06
0.09
-0.1
0
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
19
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Q08
Wha
tmod
e of
tran
spor
tdo
you
norm
ally
use
toge
tto
Chu
rch
Stre
et-E
dgw
are
Roa
d/H
arro
wR
oad
/Mar
yleb
one
Hig
hSt
reet
/Pra
edSt
reet
/Q
ueen
sway
-Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve/S
tJoh
n's
Woo
d/W
arw
ick
Way
-Tac
hbro
okS
tree
t ?
Thos
ewh
oha
vesh
oppe
dat
the
loca
tions
men
tione
dat
Q05
Car
-driv
er7.
8 %36
4.8%
99.
7%27
8.3%
28.
0%4
7.3%
145.
1%4
0.0%
09.
0%29
1.9%
213
.6%
36C
ar-p
asse
nger
0.9 %
40.
0%0
1.4%
40.
0%0
2.0%
10.
5%1
2.5%
20.
0%0
0.9%
30.
9%1
1.5%
4W
alk
75.2
%34
876
.3%
142
74.4
%20
675
.0%
1882
.0%
4177
.2%
149
81.0
%64
70.0
%7
76.1
%24
575
.7%
8171
.3%
189
Bus
9.7 %
4510
.8%
209.
0%25
8.3%
24.
0%2
6.2%
128.
9%7
20.0
%2
7.5%
2413
.1%
146.
0%16
Mot
orbi
ke/s
coot
er0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Taxi
0.2 %
10.
5%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.3%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0U
nder
grou
nd1.
1 %5
2.2%
40.
4%1
8.3%
20.
0%0
1.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%5
0.0%
00.
8%2
Bic
ycle
1.7 %
81.
1%2
2.2%
60.
0%0
4.0%
22.
1%4
1.3%
10.
0%0
1.9%
61.
9%2
2.6%
7O
ther
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(D
on’t
know
/va
ries)
3.5 %
164.
3%8
2.9%
80.
0%0
0.0%
05.
7%11
1.3%
110
.0%
12.
8%9
6.5%
74.
2%11
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Q09
On
aver
age,
how
oft
en d
oyo
uus
esh
ops
orse
rvic
esat
Chu
rch
Stre
et-E
dgw
are
Roa
d/H
arro
wR
oad
/ Mar
yleb
one
Hig
hSt
reet
/Pr
aed
Stre
et/Q
ueen
sway
-Wes
tbou
rne
Gro
ve /
StJo
hn's
Woo
d /W
arw
ick
Way
-Tac
hbro
okS
tree
t ?
Thos
ewh
oha
vesh
oppe
dat
the
loca
tions
men
tione
dat
Q05
2 / 3
tim
esa
wee
kor
mor
eof
ten
62.2
%28
865
.6%
122
59.9
%16
658
.3%
1458
.0%
2962
.2%
120
65.8
%52
40.0
%4
59.3
%19
172
.0%
7761
.1%
162
Wee
kly
17.1
%79
16.1
%30
17.7
%49
29.2
%7
20.0
%10
19.2
%37
12.7
%10
10.0
%1
18.3
%59
12.2
%13
16.6
%44
Fortn
ight
ly8.
0 %37
7.0%
138.
7%24
8.3%
212
.0%
67.
8%15
6.3%
520
.0%
29.
6%31
4.7%
510
.2%
27M
onth
ly6.
0 %28
4.3%
87.
2%20
0.0%
06.
0%3
5.2%
108.
9%7
20.0
%2
6.2%
205.
6%6
5.7%
15Le
ssth
anon
cea
mon
th5.
2 %24
5.4%
105.
1%14
4.2%
14.
0%2
5.2%
105.
1%4
0.0%
05.
9%19
3.7%
46.
0%16
(Var
ies/
don’
tkno
w)
1.5 %
71.
6%3
1.4%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
5%1
1.3%
110
.0%
10.
6%2
1.9%
20.
4%1
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
20
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Q10
Why
do
you
choo
seto
shop
atth
isce
ntre
?Th
ose
who
have
shop
ped
at th
e lo
catio
nsm
entio
ned
atQ
05
Con
veni
entt
oho
me
78.0
%36
183
.9%
156
74.0
%20
587
.5%
2174
.0%
3781
.9%
158
77.2
%61
60.0
%6
77.0
%24
881
.3%
8776
.2%
202
Ran
geof
shop
sand
serv
ices
15.8
%73
12.9
%24
17.7
%49
4.2%
114
.0%
714
.0%
2719
.0%
1520
.0%
218
.0%
588.
4%9
17.0
%45
Like
the
shop
/ce
ntre
5.0 %
234.
3%8
5.4%
154.
2%1
8.0%
44.
7%9
8.9%
70.
0%0
5.6%
183.
7%4
4.5%
12Pl
easa
nten
viro
nmen
t3.
5 %16
2.2%
44.
3%12
4.2%
10.
0%0
3.1%
67.
6%6
0.0%
04.
0%13
2.8%
33.
8%10
Low
pric
e/g
ood
valu
e3.
5 %16
2.7%
54.
0%11
4.2%
12.
0%1
3.6%
75.
1%4
0.0%
02.
2%7
6.5%
73.
4%9
Con
veni
entt
ow
ork
1.7 %
81.
1%2
2.2%
64.
2%1
4.0%
21.
6%3
1.3%
10.
0%0
1.6%
51.
9%2
0.8%
2Q
ualit
yof
the
shop
ping
envi
ronm
ent
1.7 %
81.
6%3
1.8%
50.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%3
3.8%
30.
0%0
2.5%
80.
0%0
2.3%
6
Frie
ndly
atm
osph
ere
1.1 %
51.
6%3
0.7%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
5%1
2.5%
20.
0%0
0.9%
31.
9%2
0.4%
1To
supp
ortl
ocal
busi
ness
es0.
9 %4
2.2%
40.
0%0
0.0%
06.
0%3
0.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%4
0.0%
01.
1%3
Bes
tcho
ice
loca
lly0.
6 %3
0.0%
01.
1%3
0.0%
02.
0%1
0.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%2
0.9%
10.
8%2
Fors
peci
fic it
ems
0.6 %
30.
5%1
0.7%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.3%
110
.0%
10.
9%3
0.0%
00.
8%2
IfIa
mpa
ssin
gth
roug
h0.
6 %3
0.5%
10.
7%2
0.0%
04.
0%2
0.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
3%1
0.9%
10.
8%2
Goo
dpu
blic
tran
spor
t0.
4 %2
0.5%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Itis
som
ewhe
redi
ffer
entt
osh
op0.
4 %2
0.0%
00.
7%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.5%
11.
3%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
0.9%
10.
4%1
Qui
et/n
otve
rybu
sy0.
4 %2
0.0%
00.
7%2
4.2%
10.
0%0
0.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%2
0.0%
00.
4%1
Late
nigh
tsho
ppin
g0.
4 %2
0.5%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.5%
11.
3%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
0.0%
00.
4%1
No
othe
rcho
ice
loca
lly0.
4 %2
0.5%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
3%1
0.9%
10.
8%2
Fore
mer
genc
ysh
oppi
ng0.
4 %2
0.5%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
3%1
0.9%
10.
4%1
Goo
dra
nge
ofpr
oduc
ts0.
4 %2
0.5%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%2
0.0%
00.
4%1
Goo
dpa
rkin
g0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
01.
3%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
4%1
IfIh
ave
anap
poin
tmen
tlo
cally
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.3%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Big
gest
cent
relo
cally
0.2 %
10.
5%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.3%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Fr
iend
s/fa
mily
live
clos
eby
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.3%
10.
0%0
0.4%
1(D
on’t
know
/no
parti
cula
rre
ason
)2.
6 %12
1.6%
33.
2%9
4.2%
12.
0%1
1.0%
21.
3%1
10.0
%1
2.2%
73.
7%4
3.4%
9
Bas
e:46
318
627
724
5019
379
1032
210
726
5
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
21
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Q11
Whi
chot
hers
hopp
ing
cent
redo
you
use
once
am
onth
orm
ore
ofte
n ?
Oxf
ord
Stre
et /
Wes
tEnd
23.0
%15
120
.1%
5124
.8%
100
22.6
%7
26.8
%19
27.0
%69
17.0
%19
35.3
%6
25.1
%11
516
.8%
2623
.9%
90M
aryl
ebon
eH
igh
Stre
et7.
2 %47
7.9%
206.
7%27
0.0%
02.
8%2
8.2%
2111
.6%
1317
.6%
38.
9%41
3.9%
69.
0%34
Ken
sing
ton
Hig
hSt
reet
6.1 %
403.
5%9
7.7%
310.
0%0
4.2%
38.
2%21
6.3%
711
.8%
27.
0%32
5.2%
86.
4%24
Bre
ntC
ross
5.6 %
373.
9%10
6.7%
276.
5%2
5.6%
46.
3%16
6.3%
711
.8%
25.
7%26
5.2%
88.
0%30
Edgw
are
Roa
d3.
2 %21
4.7%
122.
2%9
0.0%
04.
2%3
4.3%
111.
8%2
0.0%
03.
1%14
3.2%
51.
6%6
Kin
gsR
oad
2.7 %
182.
0%5
3.2%
139.
7%3
1.4%
14.
3%11
1.8%
25.
9%1
3.1%
141.
9%3
2.9%
11W
arw
ick
Way
/ Ta
chbr
ook
Stre
et2.
7 %18
3.2%
82.
5%10
0.0%
01.
4%1
2.7%
72.
7%3
0.0%
02.
4%11
2.6%
43.
2%12
Kni
ghts
brid
ge2.
6 %17
0.4%
14.
0%16
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.7%
75.
4%6
0.0%
03.
1%14
1.3%
23.
7%14
Vic
toria
Stre
et,W
estm
inst
er2.
4 %16
1.6%
43.
0%12
3.2%
15.
6%4
2.0%
52.
7%3
0.0%
02.
4%11
2.6%
42.
4%9
Kilb
urn
2.3 %
152.
4%6
2.2%
96.
5%2
1.4%
11.
2%3
1.8%
20.
0%0
2.0%
93.
2%5
1.3%
5Q
ueen
sway
/W
estb
ourn
eG
rove
2.3 %
152.
0%5
2.5%
103.
2%1
4.2%
32.
0%5
1.8%
20.
0%0
2.2%
103.
2%5
2.9%
11
Not
ting
Hill
2.1 %
141.
6%4
2.5%
100.
0%0
0.0%
02.
3%6
3.6%
40.
0%0
2.8%
130.
6%1
2.1%
8O
2C
entre
,Fin
chle
yR
oad
1.8 %
122.
0%5
1.7%
70.
0%0
4.2%
32.
7%7
0.9%
10.
0%0
2.0%
91.
3%2
2.4%
9La
dbro
keG
rove
,Lon
don
1.4 %
91.
2%3
1.5%
63.
2%1
1.4%
11.
2%3
1.8%
20.
0%0
1.3%
61.
9%3
1.1%
4Fi
nchl
eyR
oad,
Lond
on1.
4 %9
0.8%
21.
7%7
0.0%
01.
4%1
1.6%
42.
7%3
5.9%
11.
3%6
0.0%
01.
3%5
Whi
tele
y'sS
hopp
ing
Cen
tre1.
4 %9
1.6%
41.
2%5
3.2%
14.
2%3
1.2%
30.
9%1
0.0%
01.
1%5
1.3%
20.
8%3
Bay
swat
er1.
4 %9
0.4%
12.
0%8
3.2%
11.
4%1
2.3%
60.
9%1
0.0%
01.
1%5
2.6%
41.
6%6
Mar
ket,
Porto
bello
Roa
d1.
4 %9
1.6%
41.
2%5
3.2%
12.
8%2
0.8%
23.
6%4
0.0%
01.
7%8
0.6%
11.
9%7
Ham
mer
smith
1.1 %
70.
4%1
1.5%
63.
2%1
2.8%
20.
4%1
0.9%
15.
9%1
1.1%
50.
6%1
1.1%
4H
arro
wR
oad
1.1 %
71.
6%4
0.7%
33.
2%1
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.7%
31.
9%3
1.3%
5H
ollo
way
Roa
d,C
amde
nTo
wn
0.9 %
61.
2%3
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
01.
6%4
0.9%
10.
0%0
1.1%
50.
6%1
1.1%
4
Mar
ble
Arc
h0.
9 %6
0.4%
11.
2%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
01.
8%2
0.0%
00.
9%4
1.3%
20.
5%2
Cov
entG
arde
n0.
9 %6
0.8%
21.
0%4
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.8%
22.
7%3
0.0%
01.
3%6
0.0%
00.
8%3
Cam
den
Tow
n0.
8 %5
1.2%
30.
5%2
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
11.
8%2
0.0%
00.
4%2
1.9%
30.
8%3
Bro
mpt
onR
oad
0.8 %
50.
8%2
0.7%
33.
2%1
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.9%
40.
6%1
1.1%
4St
John
sWoo
d0.
6 %4
0.8%
20.
5%2
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.6%
10.
5%2
Bak
erSt
reet
0.6 %
40.
8%2
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.9%
40.
0%0
1.1%
4C
rom
wel
lRoa
d0.
6 %4
0.4%
10.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
12.
7%3
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.0%
01.
1%4
Sloa
neSq
uare
0.6 %
41.
2%3
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
21.
3%2
0.5%
2W
ater
loo
0.5 %
30.
4%1
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.5%
2Pr
aed
Stre
et0.
5 %3
0.4%
10.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
1.3%
20.
0%0
Car
dina
lPla
ce,V
icto
ria0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
02.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
5.9%
10.
2%1
0.6%
10.
5%2
Reg
entS
treet
0.5 %
30.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.3%
1C
hurc
hSt
reet
,Ken
t0.
5 %3
1.2%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
3%1
Bon
dSt
reet
,Lon
don
0.5 %
30.
4%1
0.5%
23.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.5%
2Pi
ccad
illy
0.5 %
30.
4%1
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.3%
1Sw
issC
otta
ge0.
5 %3
0.8%
20.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
5%2
Shep
herd
'sB
ush
W12
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.3%
1C
laph
amJu
nctio
n0.
3 %2
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Ash
crof
tKin
gsM
all
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.3%
1Pa
rkR
oyal
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.5%
2Ea
rlsco
urt
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
22
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Che
lsea
0.2%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1V
auxh
allB
ridge
Roa
d0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Glo
uces
ter
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Po
rtobe
lloR
oad
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0To
ttenh
amC
ourt
Roa
d0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Act
on0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
Mai
daV
ale
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1A
shfo
rd0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Elto
n0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Cro
ydon
Shop
ping
Cen
tre0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Bor
ough
Mar
ket,
Bor
ough
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1B
rom
ley
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1B
utte
rfly
Wal
k,Su
rrey
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
13.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1D
enby
Stre
et,Q
ueen
sbur
y0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Ealin
g,B
road
way
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0H
amps
tead
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1K
ewSh
oppi
ngPa
rk,M
alt
Lake
Roa
d0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Lew
isha
m0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
Milt
onK
eyne
s0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Nor
thEn
dR
oad,
Fulh
am0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
Blo
omsb
ury
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Pe
ckha
m0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Sain
sbur
y's(
unsp
ecifi
edlo
catio
n)0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
Sout
hall,
Lond
on0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
3%1
Suff
olk
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Su
rrey
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1M
arke
t,W
hite
Cha
pel
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0W
ilton
Stre
et0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Wim
bled
on0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Ber
wic
kSt
John
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0B
ethn
alG
reen
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0M
arke
t,C
hurc
hSt
reet
,Lo
ndon
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Cra
wfo
rdSt
reet
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0M
idfie
ld0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mus
wel
lHill
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1O
rchi
dSt
reet
,Ful
ham
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1So
ho0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Stra
tford
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.0%
0(N
oot
heru
sed)
27.7
%18
232
.7%
8324
.6%
9925
.8%
828
.2%
2021
.5%
5525
.9%
2923
.5%
424
.8%
114
33.5
%52
22.3
%84
(Don
'tkn
ow/v
arie
s)3.
7 %24
3.5%
93.
7%15
3.2%
12.
8%2
3.1%
82.
7%3
11.8
%2
2.6%
125.
8%9
4.2%
16B
ase:
657
254
403
3171
256
112
1745
915
537
7
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
23
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Q12
Wha
t, if
anyt
hing
wou
ldm
ake
you
mor
elik
ely
tovi
sitC
hurc
hS
tree
t-Edg
war
eR
oad
/Har
row
Roa
d/M
aryl
ebon
eH
igh
Stre
et/P
raed
Stre
et /
Que
ensw
ay-W
estb
ourn
eG
rove
/StJ
ohn'
s W
ood
/War
wic
kW
ay-T
achb
rook
Str
eet ?
Not
hing
37.7
%24
839
.4%
100
36.7
%14
829
.0%
922
.5%
1632
.0%
8233
.9%
3841
.2%
735
.7%
164
42.6
%66
32.4
%12
2B
ette
rcho
ice
ofsh
opsi
nge
nera
l20
.5%
135
13.8
%35
24.8
%10
019
.4%
631
.0%
2225
.0%
6418
.8%
215.
9%1
21.8
%10
020
.6%
3225
.2%
95
Bet
terc
hoic
eof
othe
rnon
-fo
odsh
ops
12.0
%79
9.8%
2513
.4%
5419
.4%
616
.9%
1212
.5%
3212
.5%
1411
.8%
212
.9%
5911
.6%
1813
.8%
52
Bet
terf
ood
and
conv
enie
nce
shop
s7.
8 %51
6.7%
178.
4%34
9.7%
38.
5%6
7.0%
189.
8%11
5.9%
18.
5%39
7.1%
116.
6%25
Bet
term
aint
enan
ce/
clea
nlin
ess
7.6 %
507.
5%19
7.7%
313.
2%1
11.3
%8
6.6%
1713
.4%
1511
.8%
28.
5%39
6.5%
108.
0%30
Mor
eca
rpar
king
6.2 %
415.
5%14
6.7%
279.
7%3
7.0%
56.
3%16
7.1%
85.
9%1
7.2%
333.
9%6
9.8%
37M
ore
/ im
prov
edsu
perm
arke
ts5.
2 %34
6.7%
174.
2%17
3.2%
112
.7%
95.
5%14
2.7%
35.
9%1
5.4%
255.
8%9
4.8%
18
Bet
terq
ualit
ysh
ops
4.6 %
304.
7%12
4.5%
183.
2%1
11.3
%8
5.9%
153.
6%4
5.9%
15.
9%27
1.3%
24.
8%18
Bet
ters
afet
y /s
ecur
ity4.
0 %26
3.9%
104.
0%16
0.0%
05.
6%4
4.7%
126.
3%7
0.0%
04.
1%19
3.9%
64.
5%17
Mad
eth
ear
eam
ore
pede
stria
nfr
iend
ly2.
1 %14
1.6%
42.
5%10
3.2%
10.
0%0
3.9%
100.
9%1
0.0%
02.
6%12
0.0%
02.
1%8
Bet
terp
ublic
trans
port
2.1 %
142.
0%5
2.2%
90.
0%0
1.4%
12.
7%7
2.7%
30.
0%0
1.7%
83.
9%6
1.3%
5M
ore
orbe
tterr
esta
uran
ts2.
0 %13
1.2%
32.
5%10
3.2%
17.
0%5
1.6%
40.
0%0
0.0%
02.
8%13
0.0%
01.
9%7
Bet
ter /
chea
perc
arpa
rkin
g2.
0 %13
2.0%
52.
0%8
3.2%
11.
4%1
1.6%
44.
5%5
0.0%
01.
3%6
3.9%
63.
2%12
Mor
e la
rge
shop
s2.
0 %13
1.6%
42.
2%9
0.0%
04.
2%3
3.1%
80.
9%1
0.0%
01.
7%8
2.6%
41.
6%6
Cho
ice
ofch
eape
rsho
ps1.
8 %12
1.6%
42.
0%8
3.2%
12.
8%2
1.2%
31.
8%2
0.0%
01.
3%6
1.9%
31.
6%6
Less
traffi
cco
nges
tion
1.7 %
112.
0%5
1.5%
60.
0%0
1.4%
12.
3%6
1.8%
20.
0%0
2.2%
100.
6%1
2.4%
9N
ewde
partm
ents
tore
1.1 %
70.
0%0
1.7%
70.
0%0
2.8%
21.
2%3
0.9%
10.
0%0
1.1%
51.
3%2
1.1%
4M
ore
orbe
tterp
ublic
serv
ices
/co
mm
unity
uses
0.8 %
50.
8%2
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%3
1.8%
20.
0%0
1.1%
50.
0%0
1.3%
5
Bet
tera
tmos
pher
e0.
8 %5
0.4%
11.
0%4
3.2%
11.
4%1
0.8%
20.
9%1
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.6%
10.
8%3
Less
non-
food
shop
s0.
8 %5
0.4%
11.
0%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.0%
50.
0%0
0.0%
01.
1%5
0.0%
01.
3%5
Bet
tere
nter
tain
men
tfa
cilit
ies
0.8 %
50.
4%1
1.0%
43.
2%1
0.0%
01.
6%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.1%
50.
0%0
0.8%
3
Mor
eor
bette
r tak
eaw
ays
0.6 %
40.
4%1
0.7%
30.
0%0
4.2%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.7%
30.
6%1
0.5%
2If
Iwer
egi
ven
mor
ein
form
atio
nab
outt
hear
ea0.
6 %4
0.4%
10.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.6%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.6%
10.
8%3
Supp
ortg
iven
to in
depe
nden
tbu
sine
sses
0.6 %
41.
2%3
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.9%
40.
0%0
0.8%
3
Ifm
oney
wer
ein
vest
edin
the
area
0.6 %
40.
8%2
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
1.8%
20.
0%0
0.7%
30.
6%1
0.8%
3
Impr
oved
cine
ma
0.5 %
30.
0%0
0.7%
33.
2%1
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
6%1
0.5%
2La
rger
/im
prov
edm
arke
t0.
5 %3
0.4%
10.
5%2
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
10.
9%1
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
8%3
Mor
eor
bette
rpha
rmac
y0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
1.3%
20.
3%1
Mor
eor
bette
rpub
licho
uses
0.5 %
30.
4%1
0.5%
20.
0%0
1.4%
10.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
6%1
0.5%
2Fr
iend
liers
taff
insto
res /
re
staur
ants
0.5 %
30.
4%1
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.5%
2
Less
food
shop
s0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.6%
10.
3%1
Less
fore
ign
peop
lein
the
0.5 %
30.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
1.8%
20.
0%0
0.2%
11.
3%2
0.5%
2
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
24
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
area
Mor
eho
uses
built
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
23.
2%1
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1B
ette
racc
essf
orcy
clis
ts0.
3 %2
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.6%
10.
0%0
If it
wer
em
ore
conv
enie
ntto
my
hom
e0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
Occ
upyi
ng th
eva
cant
stor
es0.
3 %2
0.4%
10.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
3%1
Red
uced
open
ing
hour
s0.
3 %2
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
9%1
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Mor
eor
bette
rhea
lth /
dent
alfa
cilit
ies
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
13.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1
Long
erop
enin
gho
urs
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1N
oco
nges
tion
char
ges
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1B
ette
racc
essf
ordi
sabl
edpe
ople
0.2 %
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05.
9%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Less
chan
geto
the
area
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1If
itw
ere
mor
esp
read
out
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uiet
er0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Impr
oved
road
s0.
2 %1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
(Don
'tkn
ow)
5.0 %
335.
5%14
4.7%
196.
5%2
8.5%
63.
9%10
1.8%
223
.5%
43.
9%18
5.2%
83.
7%14
Bas
e:65
725
440
331
7125
611
217
459
155
377
GEN
Gen
der o
fres
pond
ent:
Mal
e38
.7%
254
100.
0%25
40.
0%0
25.8
%8
33.8
%24
40.2
%10
338
.4%
4329
.4%
538
.6%
177
40.6
%63
36.1
%13
6Fe
mal
e61
.3%
403
0.0%
010
0.0%
403
74.2
%23
66.2
%47
59.8
%15
361
.6%
6970
.6%
1261
.4%
282
59.4
%92
63.9
%24
1B
ase:
657
254
403
3171
256
112
1745
915
537
7
AG
EC
ould
Ias
k,w
hich
oft
hefo
llow
ing
age
band
s do
you
fall
into
?
16-2
44.
7 %31
3.2%
85.
7%23
100.
0%31
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
4.4%
203.
2%5
4.2%
1625
-34
10.8
%71
9.4%
2411
.7%
470.
0%0
100.
0%71
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
011
.3%
528.
4%13
11.4
%43
35-5
939
.0%
256
40.6
%10
338
.0%
153
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%25
60.
0%0
0.0%
040
.1%
184
41.9
%65
43.2
%16
360
-64
17.0
%11
216
.9%
4317
.1%
690.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%11
20.
0%0
18.5
%85
14.2
%22
18.6
%70
65+
25.9
%17
028
.0%
7124
.6%
990.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
24.4
%11
230
.3%
4721
.0%
79(R
efus
ed)
2.6 %
172.
0%5
3.0%
120.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
171.
3%6
1.9%
31.
6%6
Bas
e:65
725
440
331
7125
611
217
459
155
377
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
25
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
ETH
Fort
hepu
rpos
esof
this
surv
ey,c
ould
Ias
kyo
uw
hich
ethn
ic g
roup
you
belo
ngto
?
Whi
te-B
ritis
h(I
nter
view
er,
this
incl
udes
Engl
ish,
Scot
tish,
Wel
sh)
65.6
%43
172
.8%
185
61.0
%24
635
.5%
1154
.9%
3963
.3%
162
71.4
%80
52.9
%9
71.5
%32
856
.1%
8769
.0%
260
Whi
teEu
rope
an4.
0 %26
3.5%
94.
2%17
9.7%
311
.3%
84.
3%11
1.8%
20.
0%0
4.4%
203.
2%5
4.0%
15In
dian
2.7 %
183.
5%9
2.2%
96.
5%2
2.8%
23.
1%8
2.7%
30.
0%0
3.1%
142.
6%4
3.4%
13W
hite
-Iri
sh2.
3 %15
2.4%
62.
2%9
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.8%
23.
6%4
0.0%
01.
5%7
4.5%
71.
1%4
Car
ibbe
an1.
8 %12
1.6%
42.
0%8
3.2%
10.
0%0
1.6%
40.
9%1
0.0%
00.
7%3
5.2%
80.
8%3
Whi
tean
dA
sian
1.5 %
102.
0%5
1.2%
59.
7%3
4.2%
31.
2%3
0.9%
10.
0%0
1.3%
61.
9%3
1.1%
4W
hite
Am
eric
an1.
4 %9
1.2%
31.
5%6
0.0%
01.
4%1
2.3%
60.
9%1
0.0%
01.
7%8
0.6%
11.
9%7
Whi
tean
dbl
ack
Car
ibbe
an1.
2 %8
0.4%
11.
7%7
3.2%
12.
8%2
1.6%
40.
0%0
0.0%
01.
1%5
1.9%
30.
8%3
Whi
te(o
ther
)0.
9 %6
0.4%
11.
2%5
3.2%
10.
0%0
1.2%
31.
8%2
0.0%
01.
1%5
0.6%
10.
5%2
Whi
tean
dbl
ack
Afri
can
0.9 %
61.
2%3
0.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%3
1.8%
20.
0%0
0.7%
31.
3%2
1.3%
5M
ixed
Rac
e0.
9 %6
0.8%
21.
0%4
0.0%
04.
2%3
1.2%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
7%3
1.9%
30.
3%1
Gre
ek0.
8 %5
0.0%
01.
2%5
0.0%
01.
4%1
1.2%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
1.9%
30.
8%3
Afr
ican
0.8 %
51.
2%3
0.5%
23.
2%1
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.7%
31.
3%2
1.3%
5Pa
kista
ni0.
8 %5
0.8%
20.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.6%
11.
1%4
Whi
teA
ustra
lian
0.6 %
40.
8%2
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.9%
40.
0%0
0.8%
3Ir
ania
n0.
6 %4
0.0%
01.
0%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
9%4
0.0%
00.
5%2
Wes
tInd
ian
0.6 %
40.
8%2
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
01.
3%2
0.0%
0Sp
anis
h0.
6 %4
0.4%
10.
7%3
3.2%
10.
0%0
1.2%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
2.6%
41.
1%4
Jam
aica
n0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.8%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.6%
10.
5%2
Ger
man
0.5 %
30.
8%2
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
01.
3%2
0.5%
2C
hine
se0.
5 %3
0.8%
20.
2%1
3.2%
12.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
5%2
Ara
bic
0.5 %
30.
8%2
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
2%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
11.
3%2
0.5%
2A
lban
ian
0.5 %
30.
0%0
0.7%
30.
0%0
1.4%
10.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
11.
3%2
0.3%
1M
iddl
eEa
ster
n0.
5 %3
0.0%
00.
7%3
3.2%
12.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.6%
10.
5%2
Latin
Am
eric
an0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.6%
10.
3%1
Polis
h0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.6%
10.
3%1
Euro
pean
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
23.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.3%
1C
auca
sian
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
20.
0%0
0.3%
1B
lack
Brit
ish
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
13.
2%1
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1M
alia
n0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.6%
10.
3%1
Pilip
ino
Brit
ish
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.0%
01.
3%2
0.0%
0W
hite
Cro
atia
n0.
3 %2
0.0%
00.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%2
0.0%
00.
3%1
Ban
glad
eshi
0.3 %
20.
4%1
0.2%
13.
2%1
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1Po
rtugu
ese
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
6%1
0.3%
1Eu
rope
anM
ixed
Rac
e0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Am
eric
anIn
dian
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0C
hine
seA
mer
ican
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.3%
1Eg
yptia
n0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.6%
10.
0%0
New
Zeal
ande
r0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Bla
ck(o
ther
)0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Swis
sPor
tugu
ese
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0D
anis
h0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
01.
4%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Mew
ari
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
1.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
6%1
0.3%
1
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
26
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
Dut
ch0.
2%1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
3%1
Chi
nese
Wes
tInd
ian
0.2 %
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.9%
10.
0%0
0.2%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0W
hite
Sout
hA
frica
n0.
2 %1
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.4%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
2%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Ref
used
)4.
4 %29
2.8%
75.
5%22
0.0%
02.
8%2
2.7%
75.
4%6
47.1
%8
2.6%
121.
3%2
3.2%
12B
ase:
657
254
403
3171
256
112
1745
915
537
7
SAL
Whi
chof
the
follo
win
gca
tego
ries
doe
syo
urco
mbi
ned
inco
me
fall
into
?
£0-2
5,00
031
.4%
206
31.1
%79
31.5
%12
729
.0%
918
.3%
1327
.0%
6934
.8%
395.
9%1
26.1
%12
051
.0%
7919
.6%
74£2
5,00
0-5
0,00
019
.5%
128
22.4
%57
17.6
%71
22.6
%7
26.8
%19
21.1
%54
15.2
%17
11.8
%2
21.8
%10
016
.8%
2621
.8%
82£5
0,00
0-1
00,0
0012
.6%
8314
.6%
3711
.4%
469.
7%3
21.1
%15
18.0
%46
8.9%
105.
9%1
16.6
%76
3.9%
616
.7%
63£1
00,0
00or
mor
e13
.2%
8712
.6%
3213
.6%
559.
7%3
14.1
%10
18.8
%48
16.1
%18
0.0%
017
.2%
794.
5%7
19.9
%75
(Don
'tkn
ow/c
an't
rem
embe
r)7.
2 %47
4.7%
128.
7%35
29.0
%9
5.6%
43.
9%10
8.0%
911
.8%
23.
9%18
13.5
%21
6.6%
25
(Ref
used
)16
.1%
106
14.6
%37
17.1
%69
0.0%
014
.1%
1011
.3%
2917
.0%
1964
.7%
1114
.4%
6610
.3%
1615
.4%
58M
ean:
2268
625
118
2115
420
806
3028
227
568
1915
295
5926
438
1624
226
127
Bas
e:65
725
440
331
7125
611
217
459
155
377
CA
RFi
nally
,how
man
yca
rsar
eth
ere
norm
ally
avai
labl
efo
ruse
inth
eho
useh
old
?
Non
e39
.6%
260
44.5
%11
336
.5%
147
41.9
%13
32.4
%23
35.5
%91
36.6
%41
35.3
%6
35.7
%16
453
.5%
830.
0%0
142
.0%
276
43.3
%11
041
.2%
166
32.3
%10
46.5
%33
42.6
%10
942
.9%
4829
.4%
546
.4%
213
32.9
%51
73.2
%27
62
12.9
%85
8.7%
2215
.6%
6312
.9%
412
.7%
918
.4%
4716
.1%
185.
9%1
14.4
%66
11.0
%17
22.5
%85
3or
mor
e2.
4 %16
1.6%
43.
0%12
6.5%
21.
4%1
2.7%
73.
6%4
0.0%
02.
8%13
0.6%
14.
2%16
(Don
'tkn
ow)
0.3 %
20.
0%0
0.5%
26.
5%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(R
efus
ed)
2.7 %
182.
0%5
3.2%
130.
0%0
7.0%
50.
8%2
0.9%
129
.4%
50.
7%3
1.9%
30.
0%0
Bas
e:65
725
440
331
7125
611
217
459
155
377
SEG
Soci
oeco
nmic
Gro
upin
g:
A2.
0 %13
1.2%
32.
5%10
3.2%
10.
0%0
0.8%
23.
6%4
0.0%
02.
8%13
0.0%
02.
7%10
B35
.0%
230
37.0
%94
33.7
%13
625
.8%
835
.2%
2538
.7%
9943
.8%
4917
.6%
350
.1%
230
0.0%
042
.2%
159
C1
32.9
%21
631
.5%
8033
.7%
136
35.5
%11
38.0
%27
32.4
%83
28.6
%32
17.6
%3
47.1
%21
60.
0%0
32.6
%12
3C
29.
1 %60
11.4
%29
7.7%
316.
5%2
8.5%
612
.9%
334.
5%5
11.8
%2
0.0%
038
.7%
609.
5%36
D8.
8 %58
8.7%
228.
9%36
6.5%
25.
6%4
5.9%
1513
.4%
155.
9%1
0.0%
037
.4%
586.
1%23
E5.
6 %37
4.7%
126.
2%25
3.2%
14.
2%3
6.6%
171.
8%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
23.9
%37
2.7%
10(R
efus
ed)
6.5 %
435.
5%14
7.2%
2919
.4%
68.
5%6
2.7%
74.
5%5
47.1
%8
0.0%
00.
0%0
4.2%
16B
ase:
657
254
403
3171
256
112
1745
915
537
7
Dem
ogra
phic
sW
estm
inst
erT
elep
hone
Hou
seho
ldSu
rvey
Page
27
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Oct
ober
2006
Tot
alM
ale
Fem
ale
16to
2425
to34
35to
5960
to64
65+
AB
C1
C2D
EC
arin
hhol
d
0510
06NEMSmarketresearch
ZON
EZo
ne
Har
row
Roa
d15
.2%
100
12.2
%31
17.1
%69
22.6
%7
16.9
%12
15.6
%40
15.2
%17
5.9%
112
.0%
5525
.2%
3912
.5%
47St
John
sWoo
d15
.2%
100
13.8
%35
16.1
%65
19.4
%6
15.5
%11
15.6
%40
17.0
%19
11.8
%2
17.0
%78
9.0%
1420
.2%
76W
arw
ick
Way
/ Ta
chbr
ook
Stre
et15
.2%
100
16.1
%41
14.6
%59
12.9
%4
15.5
%11
15.6
%40
17.0
%19
17.6
%3
14.4
%66
16.1
%25
15.9
%60
Chu
rch
Stre
et /
Edge
war
eR
oad
15.2
%10
017
.7%
4513
.6%
5519
.4%
615
.5%
1115
.6%
4010
.7%
1217
.6%
313
.3%
6120
.0%
3110
.3%
39
Mar
yleb
one
Hig
hSt
reet
9.0 %
598.
3%21
9.4%
383.
2%1
5.6%
410
.2%
264.
5%5
0.0%
010
.9%
505.
8%9
9.5%
36Q
ueen
sway
/W
estb
ourn
eG
rove
15.4
%10
116
.5%
4214
.6%
593.
2%1
15.5
%11
15.6
%40
17.9
%20
23.5
%4
16.3
%75
12.3
%19
15.7
%59
Prae
dSt
reet
14.8
%97
15.4
%39
14.4
%58
19.4
%6
15.5
%11
11.7
%30
17.9
%20
23.5
%4
16.1
%74
11.6
%18
15.9
%60
Bas
e:65
725
440
331
7125
611
217
459
155
377
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 28
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Q01 Where do you normally shop for non-food (comparison) goods i.e. clothes, footwear, books etc ?
Oxford Street / West End 45.8% 301 29.0% 29 62.0% 62 25.0% 25 65.0% 65 61.0% 36 16.8% 17 69.1% 67Kensington High Street 7.6% 50 16.0% 16 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 29.7% 30 2.1% 2Victoria Street, Westminster 3.0% 20 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 20 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Queensway / Westbourne
Grove2.4% 16 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 8.9% 9 0.0% 0
Edgware Road 2.4% 16 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.1% 4Kings Road 2.1% 14 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.0% 12 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1Marylebone High Street 1.5% 10 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 6.8% 4 1.0% 1 1.0% 1Brent Cross 1.5% 10 3.0% 3 7.0% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Mail order / delivered /
internet1.5% 10 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 1.7% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0
Abroad (unspecifiedlocation)
1.1% 7 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Kilburn 1.1% 7 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marble Arch 0.9% 6 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2Whiteley's Shopping Centre 0.9% 6 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0Harrow Road 0.9% 6 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Market, Portobello Road 0.9% 6 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0Market, Church Street 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0St Johns Wood 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Regent Street 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Notting Hill 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0Portobello Road 0.6% 4 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0Bond Street, London 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 1.0% 1Tesco, Church Street, St
Johns Wood0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Warwick Way / TachbrookStreet
0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Bayswater 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0Hammersmith 0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0German Street, Westminster 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Knightsbridge 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1Central London 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2Baker Street 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Covent Garden 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1O2 Centre, Finchley Road 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Praed Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Ladbroke Grove 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Camden Town 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Primark (unspecified
location)0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Sainsbury's, Crommel Road,Barnet
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Wembley 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Westminster 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Park Road, London 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Bromley 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Cardinal Junction 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Shepherd's Bush W12 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Church Street, Kent 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Clapham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Cricklewood 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Finchley Road, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Goldbourne Road,
Kensington0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Hampstead 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Harrow 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Hyde Park 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Keble Road, London 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Market, Litchfield 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Market (unspecified
location)0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Mayfair 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer, Marble
Arch0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Market, Brixton 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Osterley Lane, Ealing 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Oxbridge 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Coburn Mews 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury's, O2 Centre,
Finchley Road0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sloanes Court 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 29
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Waitrose, Twyford 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Stanmore 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don't know / varies) 13.2% 87 13.0% 13 11.0% 11 18.0% 18 9.0% 9 22.0% 13 12.9% 13 10.3% 10Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 30
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Q02 At which store do you normally do most of your food and grocery (convenience) shopping ?
Waitrose, High Street,Marylebone
8.2% 54 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 14.0% 14 45.8% 27 1.0% 1 11.3% 11
Tesco, Church Street, StJohns Wood
7.2% 47 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 38.0% 38 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 3.1% 3
Sainsbury's, Wilton Road,Victoria
5.9% 39 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 39.0% 39 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury’s, LadbrokeGrove, Chelsea
5.0% 33 21.0% 21 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 4.1% 4
Somerfield, Edgware Road,London
3.8% 25 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 19.6% 19
Sainsbury’s, O2 Centre,Finchley Road, London
3.5% 23 0.0% 0 21.0% 21 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Mail order / internet / delivered
3.3% 22 2.0% 2 8.0% 8 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 1.7% 1 5.9% 6 1.0% 1
Somerfield, Harrow Road 3.0% 20 19.0% 19 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Waitrose, Finchley Road,
London2.7% 18 3.0% 3 12.0% 12 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Tesco, Portobello Road,London
2.4% 16 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.7% 1 8.9% 9 0.0% 0
Tesco, Warwick Way,Victoria
2.0% 13 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.0% 12 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Waitrose, Swiss Cottage,London
2.0% 13 0.0% 0 13.0% 13 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer, EdgwareRoad, London
1.7% 11 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 4.1% 4
Tesco, Brent Cross 1.5% 10 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer, Oxford
Street1.4% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 5.2% 5
Ladbroke Grove 1.4% 9 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 2.1% 2Iceland, Harrow Road,
London1.1% 7 7.0% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Tesco, Cromwell Road,Kensington
1.1% 7 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.1% 3
Market, Portobello Road,London
1.1% 7 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 6 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer, MarbleArch
1.1% 7 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 2.1% 2
Sainsbury’s, Edgware Road,London
1.1% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.1% 3 0.0% 0 4.1% 4
Waitrose, High Street,Kensington
0.9% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 6 0.0% 0
Sainsbury’s, Kilburn HighRoad
0.9% 6 3.0% 3 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer, Whiteleysof Bayswater, Queensway
0.8% 5 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer SimplyFood, Marylebone Station
0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3
Tesco, Notting Hill Gate 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 0.0% 0Sainsbury Local, Allington
Street, Victoria0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0
Sainsbury’s, Swiss Cottage,London
0.6% 4 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Asda, Park Royal 0.6% 4 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, Wilton Road,
Victoria0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury's, KingsgateParade, Victoria Street
0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer,Queensway
0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Tesco, Meadville 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, Westbourne
Grove, London0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0
Sainsbury Local,Westbourne Grove
0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0
Sainsbury's, Vauxhall 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Asda, Clapham Junction 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco, Baker Street, London 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Fresh & Wild, Westbourne
Grove, London0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0
Sainsbury Local, PaddingtonStation
0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3
Sainsbury’s, Cromwell Road, 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 2.1% 2
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 31
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
KensingtonTesco, Edgware Road 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco Express, Praed Street 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2Marks & Spencer Simply
Food, Paddington Station0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2
Tesco, Hammersmith 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, Camden Town 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury's, Kingsmall,
Hammersmith0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Sainsbury’s, Harrow Road,London
0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Tesco, High Street,Marylebone
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Waitrose, Kings Road 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Market, Warwick Way,
Westminster0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Morrisons, Camden Town 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer, Camden
Town0.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer, HighStreet, Kensington
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0
Co-Op, Heathfield 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco, Circus Road 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, Pimlico 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Whiteley's Shopping Centre 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0Tesco, Bayswater 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0Sainsbury's, Oxford Street 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Waitrose, Motcomb Street 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Budgens, Queensway 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer, Victoria
Cardinal Place0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Kilburn High Road, London 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Safeway, Edgware Road,
London0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Planet Organic, WestbourneGrove
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Portobello Whole Foods,Portobello Green
0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, Vincent Street,London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Oxford Street, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Asda, Colindale 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury Local, Waterloo 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, High Gate 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury Local,
Southampton Street,Covent Garden
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Fresh & Wild, Camden 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury Local, Brompton
Road0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Budgens, Tottenham CourtRoad
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Sainsbury’s, QueenstownRoad, Lambeth
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Market, Borough Road,London Bridge
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Supersave, Praed Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Sainsbury’s, Westminster 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, Alperton 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer, Victoria
Station0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Tesco Metro, Regent Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Green Valley, Barclay Road,
London0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Sainsbury’s, GloucesterRoad, London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Tesco, Camden Town 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer, Kings
Road, Chelsea0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury's, Hammersmith 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer, Notting
Hill Gate0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Tesco, Englands Lane,Belsize Park
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 32
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Local shops, Victoria,London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Tesco, Kings Cross 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Asda, Connaught Hall
Approach, Westminster0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Tesco, Monk Street, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Budgens, Porchester Road,
London0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Tesco, Perivale 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Crispen’s, Oxford Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Tesco, Praed Street, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Tesco, Queensway, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Tesco, Shepherds Bush 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Tesco, Tottenham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Iceland, Meadville 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Waitrose, Gloucester Road,
London0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Local shops, Edgware Road,London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Local shops, Notting Hill 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Waitrose, Temple Fortune
Parade0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Waitrose, Twyford 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Westbourne Grove, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Farmers market (unspecified
location)0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Market, Strutton Ground,Westminster
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Market, Tebworth 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco Express, Charing
Cross0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Somerfield, Camden Town 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco (unspecified location) 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury's, Islington 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Marks & Spencer, Finchley
Road, Golders Green0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Tesco, Gold Street, Kent 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco, Clifton Road, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Local shops, Kings Cross 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know / varies) 12.6% 83 14.0% 14 17.0% 17 6.0% 6 3.0% 3 20.3% 12 20.8% 21 10.3% 10Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 33
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Q03 What is the main reason why you choose do your main food and grocery shopping at (STORE MENTIONED AT Q02) ?
Convenience to home 45.2% 297 56.0% 56 32.0% 32 37.0% 37 46.0% 46 57.6% 34 49.5% 50 43.3% 42Quality of shops and services 9.3% 61 3.0% 3 12.0% 12 6.0% 6 9.0% 9 15.3% 9 9.9% 10 12.4% 12Value for money 7.6% 50 11.0% 11 6.0% 6 9.0% 9 7.0% 7 6.8% 4 5.9% 6 7.2% 7Preference for retailer 5.3% 35 3.0% 3 1.0% 1 12.0% 12 5.0% 5 6.8% 4 3.0% 3 7.2% 7Good or cheap car parking 4.1% 27 2.0% 2 12.0% 12 3.0% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 6.2% 6Range of shops and services
available4.0% 26 2.0% 2 4.0% 4 3.0% 3 6.0% 6 6.8% 4 4.0% 4 3.1% 3
Good quality produce 2.6% 17 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 6.9% 7 2.1% 2Easy to get to 2.3% 15 3.0% 3 6.0% 6 1.0% 1 4.0% 4 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Large store 2.1% 14 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 7.0% 7 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Good service / friendly 2.0% 13 4.0% 4 3.0% 3 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1Range of goods 2.0% 13 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 1.0% 1No other shops locally 1.5% 10 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Provide a delivery service 1.5% 10 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 1.0% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1Habit / always uses it 1.5% 10 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 2.1% 2Convenience to work 1.1% 7 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2They sell organic produce 0.9% 6 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 1.0% 1I prefer their goods 0.8% 5 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Generally convenient 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Good customer service 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 2.1% 2Other shops and services
nearby0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
It is a small / quiet store 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1I dislike supermarkets 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Reward scheme / discounts 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Congestion charges are in
place near to other stores0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
I have young children 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0To support local businesses 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0If I am passing through 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Longer opening hours 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0I go with a family member /
friend0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
(Don’t know / no reason inparticular)
2.1% 14 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 1.7% 1 3.0% 3 2.1% 2
Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 34
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Q04 At which store or local centre do you do most of your top-up food and grocery shopping such as bread and milk ?
Tesco, Church Street, StJohns Wood
8.7% 57 0.0% 0 26.0% 26 0.0% 0 29.0% 29 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2
Waitrose, Marylebone HighStreet
4.0% 26 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 5.0% 5 28.8% 17 0.0% 0 3.1% 3
Sainsbury, Wilton Road,Victoria
4.0% 26 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 24.0% 24 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Somerfield, Edgware Road,London
3.3% 22 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 18.6% 18
Somerfield, Harrow Road 2.9% 19 19.0% 19 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco Metro, Portobello
Road, London2.6% 17 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.9% 13 0.0% 0
Tesco, Circus Road 2.0% 13 0.0% 0 11.0% 11 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco, Warwick Way,
Victoria1.7% 11 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 10.0% 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Local shops, St Johns Wood 1.5% 10 0.0% 0 10.0% 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer, Edgware
Road1.5% 10 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3
Marks & Spencer SimplyFood, Notting Hill
1.4% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 7.9% 8 0.0% 0
Iceland, Harrow Road,London
1.2% 8 8.0% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer SimplyFood, Marylebone Station
1.2% 8 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 6.0% 6 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer, OxfordStreet
1.2% 8 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.1% 3 1.0% 1 3.1% 3
Local shops (unspecifiedlocation)
1.2% 8 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Tesco, Edgware Road 0.9% 6 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Local shops, Abbey Road,
London0.9% 6 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Tesco Express, Praed Street 0.9% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 4.1% 4Tesco, Notting Hill Gate 0.9% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 6 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, Kilburn High
Road, Brent0.9% 6 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, Lupus Street,Westminster
0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury’s, LadbrokeGrove, London
0.8% 5 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Sainsbury, Oxford Street 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 2.1% 2Bestbuy, Ladbroke Grove 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 1.0% 1Costcutter, Golborne Road,
Kensington0.6% 4 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, Kendal Street,High Park
0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.1% 4
Waitrose, Swiss Cottage 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer, High
Street, Kensington0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0
Tesco Express, Meadville 0.6% 4 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer, Whiteleys
of Bayswater, Queensway0.6% 4 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0
Local shops, Edgware Road,Westminster
0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2
Local shops, Harrow Road,London
0.6% 4 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Market, Portobello 0.6% 4 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0Waitrose, Finchley Road 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Tesco, Baker Street, London 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Whiteley's Shopping Centre 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0Fresh & Wild, Westbourne
Grove0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0
Mail order / internet / delivered
0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury, Kingsgate Parade,Victoria Street
0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury Local, PaddingtonStation
0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3
Marks & Spencer, MarbleArch
0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2
Tesco (unspecified location) 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Local shops, Lisson Grove,
Marylebone0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Market, Church Street, 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 35
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
LondonLadbroke Grove 0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Tesco, Great Peter Street,
London0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Tesco, Malcom Court 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco, High Street,
Marylebone0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, BoundaryRoad, London
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Tesco Express, Praed Street,Paddington
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Sainsbury Local,Westbourne Grove
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0
Tesco, Bayswater 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0Portland Stores, Marylebone 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Local shops, Victoria 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Costcutters (unspecified
location)0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0
Sainsbury Local, AllingtonStreet, Victoria
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer SimplyFood, Finchley Road,London
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer, VictoriaCardinal Place
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer, SwissCottage
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, Church Street,London
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Costcutter, Lupus Street,Westminster
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Crispen’s, Oxford Street 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2Tesco, Shurland Avenue,
London0.3% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Iceland, Meadville 0.3% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco, Meadville 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Local shops, Warwick Way,
Westminster0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, PortobelloRoad, London
0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Tesco Express, Monk Street,London
0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Notting Hill Gate 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0Marks & Spencer Simply
Food, Paddington Station0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2
Tesco, Brent Cross 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, Marble Arch 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2Sainsbury’s, Wilton Road,
Barnet0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Tesco Metro, Regent Street 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Waitrose, Motcomb Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Local shops, Pimlico 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Local shops, Newgate Close,
London0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury, Vauxhall 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco Express, Charing
Cross0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer, VictoriaStation
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Dart Street, London 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, Finchley Road,
Hampstead0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury’s, GloucesterRoad, London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Local shops, Great PortlandStreet
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, Mozart Street,Paddington
0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, ClaremontClose, London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury’s, O2 Centre,Finchley Road, London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer, Kilburn 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, Victoria Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 36
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
LondonSainsbury’s, Westbourne
Road, Notting Hill Gate0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Local shops, ChepstowRoad, London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Marks & Spencer SimplyFood, Notting Hill Gate
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Local shops, Praed Street,Paddington
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Chipstow Stores, ChipstowRoad, London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Morrisons, Camden Town 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Planet Organic, Westbourne
Grove0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Portobello Whole Foods,Portobello Green
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Local shops, SutherlandAvenue, London
0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Tesco Metro, MarshamStreet, Westminster
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Embassy News, EmbassyRoad, Notting Hill Gate
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Tesco Metro, St Johns Wood 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Somerfield, Harrow Road,
London0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Somerfield, High Street,Camden Town
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
John Lewis, Oxford Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury’s, Queenstown
Road, Lambeth0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Local shops, Barlby Gardens 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Local shops, Blenheim
Terrace, Paddington0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury’s, Westminster 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco, Melcombe Street,
London0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, Cherrett Close,London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury Local, Waterloo 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco, Whiteleys of
Bayswater, Queensway0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
The Ginger Pig, High Street,Marylebone
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Crispin’s, Kendal Street,London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Local shops, Great WesternRoad, Paddington
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Safeway, Edgware Road,London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Local shops, High Street,Marylebone
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Paddington Street,Marylebone
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Fruit Garden, Malcolm Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Local shops, Alguin Court,
Stanmore0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, MackennalStreet, London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, Moscow Road,London
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Market (unspecifiedlocation)
0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Fairhazel Gardens, CamdenTown
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury's (unspecifiedlocation)
0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Sainsbury's, Keble Road,London
0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Suffolk 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Local shops, Regency Street,
Westminster0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, Regents ParkRoad
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Local shops, Shirland Mews, 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 37
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
PaddingtonThe Lisboa Deli, Golborne
Road, West Ham0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Market, Marylebone 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tesco Metro, Holland Park
Avenue, London0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Local shops, Vincent Street,Westminster
0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Selfridges, Oxford Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know / varies) 14.6% 96 14.0% 14 11.0% 11 13.0% 13 8.0% 8 20.3% 12 20.8% 21 17.5% 17(Don't do top-up shopping) 10.2% 67 8.0% 8 4.0% 4 14.0% 14 4.0% 4 16.9% 10 8.9% 9 18.6% 18
Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
Q05 Have you shopped or used services at Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John's Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street during the last three months ?
Yes 70.5% 463 79.0% 79 92.0% 92 73.0% 73 70.0% 70 79.7% 47 57.4% 58 45.4% 44No 29.5% 194 21.0% 21 8.0% 8 27.0% 27 30.0% 30 20.3% 12 42.6% 43 54.6% 53
Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 38
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Q06 What are the main reasons why you have not recently shopped in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street/ Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John's Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street ?Those who have not shopped at the locations mentioned at Q05
Too far away 16.0% 31 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 7.4% 2 26.7% 8 25.0% 3 25.6% 11 11.3% 6Poor range of shops /
services11.3% 22 23.8% 5 25.0% 2 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 8.3% 1 2.3% 1 22.6% 12
Poor car parking 9.3% 18 28.6% 6 12.5% 1 3.7% 1 6.7% 2 8.3% 1 14.0% 6 1.9% 1Poor environment / rundown 9.3% 18 9.5% 2 0.0% 0 11.1% 3 6.7% 2 0.0% 0 7.0% 3 15.1% 8I have no need to go there 8.8% 17 9.5% 2 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 10.0% 3 0.0% 0 16.3% 7 5.7% 3Generally inconvenient 5.2% 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 6.7% 2 0.0% 0 7.0% 3 5.7% 3Poor quality shops / services 5.2% 10 14.3% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 11.3% 6Prefer to shop at larger
centres4.6% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 3.3% 1 8.3% 1 7.0% 3 3.8% 2
No local centre near to homeor work
4.6% 9 14.3% 3 0.0% 0 11.1% 3 3.3% 1 8.3% 1 2.3% 1 0.0% 0
Poor public transport / hardto travel there
4.1% 8 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 10.0% 3 8.3% 1 2.3% 1 0.0% 0
Another larger centre iseasier to get to
4.1% 8 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 6.7% 2 8.3% 1 4.7% 2 3.8% 2
There are a better choice ofshops locally
2.6% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.3% 1 0.0% 0 7.0% 3 1.9% 1
Prefer to shop at large foodstore
2.6% 5 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 11.1% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1
I don't know where it is 2.1% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 11.1% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1Too expensive 2.1% 4 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 1.9% 1Unsafe 1.0% 2 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0Only shop in West End /
large centre city centre1.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.3% 1 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0
I am not able to leave thehouse
1.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 8.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
I don't know the area verywell
1.0% 2 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1
Too busy 1.0% 2 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1There is nothing appealing
there1.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.8% 2
Because of the languagebarrier
0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
It depends where I am at thetime
0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0
I just don't go to that area 0.5% 1 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0I don't trust some of the
market traders0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
They don't have enoughhousehold shops
0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0
I only go for electrical goods 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0When the weather is good I
prefer to go elsewhere0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0
I work during shop openingtimes
0.5% 1 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
I don't have the time 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1(Don’t know / no reason in
particular)17.5% 34 23.8% 5 0.0% 0 14.8% 4 16.7% 5 16.7% 2 14.0% 6 22.6% 12
Base: 194 21 8 27 30 12 43 53
Mean Score: [Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good nor poor=0, Quite Poor=-1, Very poor=-2]
Q07 How would you rate Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-WestbourneGrove / St John's Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street out of 1 to 5 where 5 is very good and 1 is very poor for the following ? Those who have shopped at the locations mentioned at Q05
Availability and price of parking
Very good 3.7% 17 7.6% 6 0.0% 0 4.1% 3 4.3% 3 6.4% 3 1.7% 1 2.3% 1Quite good 5.8% 27 11.4% 9 2.2% 2 5.5% 4 5.7% 4 2.1% 1 6.9% 4 6.8% 3Neither good nor poor 9.7% 45 11.4% 9 15.2% 14 2.7% 2 7.1% 5 12.8% 6 13.8% 8 2.3% 1Quite Poor 13.0% 60 8.9% 7 21.7% 20 12.3% 9 11.4% 8 19.1% 9 6.9% 4 6.8% 3Very poor 25.7% 119 32.9% 26 20.7% 19 21.9% 16 27.1% 19 17.0% 8 22.4% 13 40.9% 18Don’t know 42.1% 195 27.8% 22 40.2% 37 53.4% 39 44.3% 31 42.6% 20 48.3% 28 40.9% 18Mean: -0.88 -0.67 -1.02 -0.91 -0.92 -0.67 -0.80 -1.31
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 39
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Range of shops and services
Very good 15.3% 71 13.9% 11 14.1% 13 9.6% 7 8.6% 6 42.6% 20 19.0% 11 6.8% 3Quite good 21.4% 99 13.9% 11 15.2% 14 19.2% 14 30.0% 21 25.5% 12 36.2% 21 13.6% 6Neither good nor poor 31.5% 146 30.4% 24 38.0% 35 37.0% 27 31.4% 22 19.1% 9 27.6% 16 29.5% 13Quite Poor 19.7% 91 22.8% 18 26.1% 24 20.5% 15 21.4% 15 6.4% 3 6.9% 4 27.3% 12Very poor 8.0% 37 13.9% 11 5.4% 5 9.6% 7 5.7% 4 0.0% 0 5.2% 3 15.9% 7Don’t know 4.1% 19 5.1% 4 1.1% 1 4.1% 3 2.9% 2 6.4% 3 5.2% 3 6.8% 3
Mean: 0.17 -0.09 0.07 -0.01 0.15 1.11 0.60 -0.34
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Quality of shops and services
Very good 16.0% 74 12.7% 10 20.7% 19 9.6% 7 7.1% 5 44.7% 21 13.8% 8 9.1% 4Quite good 26.6% 123 20.3% 16 35.9% 33 16.4% 12 21.4% 15 42.6% 20 37.9% 22 11.4% 5Neither good nor poor 31.1% 144 27.8% 22 32.6% 30 47.9% 35 38.6% 27 4.3% 2 25.9% 15 29.5% 13Quite Poor 13.8% 64 16.5% 13 6.5% 6 17.8% 13 21.4% 15 2.1% 1 12.1% 7 20.5% 9Very poor 8.0% 37 19.0% 15 2.2% 2 4.1% 3 8.6% 6 0.0% 0 5.2% 3 18.2% 8Don’t know 4.5% 21 3.8% 3 2.2% 2 4.1% 3 2.9% 2 6.4% 3 5.2% 3 11.4% 5Mean: 0.30 -0.09 0.68 0.10 -0.03 1.39 0.45 -0.31
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Prices
Very good 7.3% 34 7.6% 6 3.3% 3 9.6% 7 12.9% 9 8.5% 4 3.4% 2 6.8% 3Quite good 24.4% 113 26.6% 21 10.9% 10 26.0% 19 34.3% 24 21.3% 10 32.8% 19 22.7% 10Neither good nor poor 36.1% 167 40.5% 32 27.2% 25 39.7% 29 41.4% 29 34.0% 16 32.8% 19 38.6% 17Quite Poor 17.3% 80 7.6% 6 38.0% 35 13.7% 10 2.9% 2 23.4% 11 20.7% 12 9.1% 4Very poor 9.7% 45 11.4% 9 19.6% 18 4.1% 3 2.9% 2 8.5% 4 6.9% 4 11.4% 5Don’t know 5.2% 24 6.3% 5 1.1% 1 6.8% 5 5.7% 4 4.3% 2 3.4% 2 11.4% 5Mean: 0.03 0.12 -0.60 0.25 0.55 -0.02 0.05 0.05
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Quality / and range of places to eat / drink
Very good 18.8% 87 7.6% 6 19.6% 18 15.1% 11 12.9% 9 46.8% 22 29.3% 17 9.1% 4Quite good 24.8% 115 7.6% 6 41.3% 38 28.8% 21 15.7% 11 34.0% 16 24.1% 14 20.5% 9Neither good nor poor 19.4% 90 13.9% 11 22.8% 21 20.5% 15 21.4% 15 12.8% 6 24.1% 14 18.2% 8Quite Poor 13.4% 62 20.3% 16 10.9% 10 15.1% 11 15.7% 11 0.0% 0 10.3% 6 18.2% 8Very poor 7.3% 34 20.3% 16 2.2% 2 1.4% 1 11.4% 8 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 11.4% 5Don’t know 16.2% 75 30.4% 24 3.3% 3 19.2% 14 22.9% 16 6.4% 3 8.6% 5 22.7% 10Mean: 0.41 -0.55 0.67 0.51 0.04 1.36 0.72 -0.03
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
General shopping environment
Very good 17.5% 81 8.9% 7 18.5% 17 13.7% 10 11.4% 8 59.6% 28 15.5% 9 4.5% 2Quite good 26.6% 123 17.7% 14 34.8% 32 27.4% 20 24.3% 17 29.8% 14 32.8% 19 15.9% 7Neither good nor poor 25.1% 116 31.6% 25 32.6% 30 26.0% 19 20.0% 14 4.3% 2 29.3% 17 20.5% 9Quite Poor 16.0% 74 16.5% 13 6.5% 6 24.7% 18 24.3% 17 6.4% 3 10.3% 6 25.0% 11Very poor 11.4% 53 21.5% 17 5.4% 5 6.8% 5 14.3% 10 0.0% 0 8.6% 5 25.0% 11Don’t know 3.5% 16 3.8% 3 2.2% 2 1.4% 1 5.7% 4 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 9.1% 4Mean: 0.23 -0.25 0.56 0.17 -0.06 1.43 0.38 -0.55
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Safety / security
Very good 22.9% 106 16.5% 13 31.5% 29 23.3% 17 11.4% 8 48.9% 23 17.2% 10 13.6% 6Quite good 31.5% 146 19.0% 15 38.0% 35 32.9% 24 37.1% 26 27.7% 13 31.0% 18 34.1% 15Neither good nor poor 23.5% 109 26.6% 21 20.7% 19 31.5% 23 15.7% 11 14.9% 7 31.0% 18 22.7% 10Quite Poor 10.2% 47 13.9% 11 4.3% 4 6.8% 5 21.4% 15 4.3% 2 8.6% 5 11.4% 5Very poor 7.3% 34 19.0% 15 3.3% 3 4.1% 3 10.0% 7 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 9.1% 4Don’t know 4.5% 21 5.1% 4 2.2% 2 1.4% 1 4.3% 3 4.3% 2 8.6% 5 9.1% 4
Mean: 0.55 0.00 0.92 0.65 0.19 1.27 0.55 0.35
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 40
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Access by public transport
Very good 33.0% 153 27.8% 22 48.9% 45 24.7% 18 34.3% 24 17.0% 8 32.8% 19 38.6% 17Quite good 32.0% 148 39.2% 31 27.2% 25 31.5% 23 31.4% 22 19.1% 9 36.2% 21 38.6% 17Neither good nor poor 10.6% 49 15.2% 12 6.5% 6 9.6% 7 12.9% 9 12.8% 6 12.1% 7 4.5% 2Quite Poor 3.5% 16 1.3% 1 2.2% 2 8.2% 6 4.3% 3 4.3% 2 3.4% 2 0.0% 0Very poor 4.1% 19 5.1% 4 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.9% 2 17.0% 8 3.4% 2 4.5% 2Don’t know 16.8% 78 11.4% 9 15.2% 14 24.7% 18 14.3% 10 29.8% 14 12.1% 7 13.6% 6
Mean: 1.04 0.94 1.45 0.93 1.05 0.21 1.04 1.24
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Level of street cleaning
Very good 25.5% 118 25.3% 20 39.1% 36 26.0% 19 18.6% 13 36.2% 17 8.6% 5 18.2% 8Quite good 39.1% 181 22.8% 18 51.1% 47 38.4% 28 28.6% 20 53.2% 25 48.3% 28 34.1% 15Neither good nor poor 20.1% 93 26.6% 21 8.7% 8 23.3% 17 28.6% 20 8.5% 4 24.1% 14 20.5% 9Quite Poor 7.1% 33 8.9% 7 1.1% 1 9.6% 7 12.9% 9 0.0% 0 6.9% 4 11.4% 5Very poor 4.1% 19 11.4% 9 0.0% 0 2.7% 2 8.6% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.5% 2Don’t know 4.1% 19 5.1% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 2 2.1% 1 12.1% 7 11.4% 5Mean: 0.78 0.44 1.28 0.75 0.37 1.28 0.67 0.56
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Liveliness / street character
Very good 19.9% 92 16.5% 13 20.7% 19 8.2% 6 17.1% 12 57.4% 27 20.7% 12 6.8% 3Quite good 31.5% 146 21.5% 17 32.6% 30 30.1% 22 42.9% 30 34.0% 16 36.2% 21 22.7% 10Neither good nor poor 26.4% 122 25.3% 20 35.9% 33 38.4% 28 21.4% 15 6.4% 3 19.0% 11 27.3% 12Quite Poor 10.6% 49 16.5% 13 8.7% 8 12.3% 9 5.7% 4 0.0% 0 10.3% 6 20.5% 9Very poor 5.8% 27 10.1% 8 1.1% 1 8.2% 6 5.7% 4 0.0% 0 5.2% 3 11.4% 5Don’t know 5.8% 27 10.1% 8 1.1% 1 2.7% 2 7.1% 5 2.1% 1 8.6% 5 11.4% 5Mean: 0.52 0.20 0.64 0.18 0.65 1.52 0.62 -0.08
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Amount of traffic
Very good 5.0% 23 5.1% 4 4.3% 4 9.6% 7 8.6% 6 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 2.3% 1Quite good 15.1% 70 17.7% 14 13.0% 12 13.7% 10 18.6% 13 12.8% 6 12.1% 7 18.2% 8Neither good nor poor 28.3% 131 19.0% 15 38.0% 35 30.1% 22 20.0% 14 40.4% 19 22.4% 13 29.5% 13Quite Poor 21.6% 100 16.5% 13 23.9% 22 23.3% 17 21.4% 15 21.3% 10 29.3% 17 13.6% 6Very poor 26.8% 124 38.0% 30 20.7% 19 23.3% 17 28.6% 20 21.3% 10 27.6% 16 27.3% 12Don’t know 3.2% 15 3.8% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 2 4.3% 2 6.9% 4 9.1% 4Mean: -0.52 -0.67 -0.43 -0.37 -0.44 -0.53 -0.74 -0.50
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Evening / night-time facilities / activities
Very good 6.7% 31 3.8% 3 3.3% 3 6.8% 5 5.7% 4 17.0% 8 10.3% 6 4.5% 2Quite good 19.4% 90 5.1% 4 23.9% 22 13.7% 10 15.7% 11 36.2% 17 31.0% 18 18.2% 8Neither good nor poor 21.8% 101 15.2% 12 28.3% 26 23.3% 17 21.4% 15 23.4% 11 17.2% 10 22.7% 10Quite Poor 14.0% 65 15.2% 12 14.1% 13 20.5% 15 11.4% 8 2.1% 1 17.2% 10 13.6% 6Very poor 11.0% 51 22.8% 18 14.1% 13 8.2% 6 12.9% 9 2.1% 1 0.0% 0 9.1% 4Don’t know 27.0% 125 38.0% 30 16.3% 15 27.4% 20 32.9% 23 19.1% 9 24.1% 14 31.8% 14Mean: -0.04 -0.78 -0.14 -0.13 -0.15 0.79 0.45 -0.07
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Size / quality of supermarkets
Very good 14.0% 65 13.9% 11 6.5% 6 17.8% 13 7.1% 5 42.6% 20 8.6% 5 11.4% 5Quite good 20.7% 96 20.3% 16 13.0% 12 30.1% 22 15.7% 11 36.2% 17 17.2% 10 18.2% 8Neither good nor poor 22.7% 105 24.1% 19 33.7% 31 17.8% 13 15.7% 11 14.9% 7 34.5% 20 9.1% 4Quite Poor 25.1% 116 24.1% 19 34.8% 32 17.8% 13 35.7% 25 6.4% 3 19.0% 11 29.5% 13Very poor 11.7% 54 12.7% 10 9.8% 9 11.0% 8 20.0% 14 0.0% 0 6.9% 4 20.5% 9Don’t know 5.8% 27 5.1% 4 2.2% 2 5.5% 4 5.7% 4 0.0% 0 13.8% 8 11.4% 5
Mean: 0.00 -0.01 -0.29 0.28 -0.48 1.15 0.02 -0.33
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 41
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Q08 What mode of transport do you normally use to get to Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / PraedStreet / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John's Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street ?Those who have shopped at the locations mentioned at Q05
Car - driver 7.8% 36 3.8% 3 19.6% 18 4.1% 3 4.3% 3 6.4% 3 6.9% 4 4.5% 2Car - passenger 0.9% 4 1.3% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 2.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Walk 75.2% 348 77.2% 61 57.6% 53 87.7% 64 78.6% 55 80.9% 38 69.0% 40 84.1% 37Bus 9.7% 45 12.7% 10 9.8% 9 4.1% 3 11.4% 8 2.1% 1 19.0% 11 6.8% 3Motorbike / scooter 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Taxi 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1Underground 1.1% 5 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0 2.9% 2 2.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Bicycle 1.7% 8 2.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 6.4% 3 1.7% 1 0.0% 0Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know / varies) 3.5% 16 2.5% 2 10.9% 10 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 2.3% 1
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Q09 On average, how often do you use shops or services at Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / PraedStreet / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John's Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street ?Those who have shopped at the locations mentioned at Q05
2 / 3 times a week or moreoften
62.2% 288 67.1% 53 69.6% 64 58.9% 43 67.1% 47 66.0% 31 53.4% 31 43.2% 19
Weekly 17.1% 79 11.4% 9 18.5% 17 23.3% 17 10.0% 7 19.1% 9 15.5% 9 25.0% 11Fortnightly 8.0% 37 5.1% 4 9.8% 9 8.2% 6 5.7% 4 6.4% 3 8.6% 5 13.6% 6Monthly 6.0% 28 6.3% 5 2.2% 2 6.8% 5 8.6% 6 2.1% 1 10.3% 6 6.8% 3Less than once a month 5.2% 24 7.6% 6 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 7.1% 5 6.4% 3 8.6% 5 9.1% 4(Varies / don’t know) 1.5% 7 2.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 2.3% 1Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Q10 Why do you choose to shop at this centre ?Those who have shopped at the locations mentioned at Q05
Convenient to home 78.0% 361 83.5% 66 89.1% 82 76.7% 56 68.6% 48 76.6% 36 74.1% 43 68.2% 30Range of shops and services 15.8% 73 8.9% 7 13.0% 12 16.4% 12 20.0% 14 25.5% 12 13.8% 8 18.2% 8Like the shop / centre 5.0% 23 2.5% 2 2.2% 2 4.1% 3 2.9% 2 4.3% 2 19.0% 11 2.3% 1Pleasant environment 3.5% 16 2.5% 2 3.3% 3 0.0% 0 4.3% 3 10.6% 5 5.2% 3 0.0% 0Low price / good value 3.5% 16 3.8% 3 1.1% 1 2.7% 2 11.4% 8 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 2.3% 1Convenient to work 1.7% 8 3.8% 3 2.2% 2 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0Quality of the shopping
environment1.7% 8 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 2.7% 2 1.4% 1 6.4% 3 1.7% 1 0.0% 0
Friendly atmosphere 1.1% 5 1.3% 1 1.1% 1 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0To support local businesses 0.9% 4 2.5% 2 0.0% 0 2.7% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Best choice locally 0.6% 3 1.3% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0For specific items 0.6% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 2.3% 1If I am passing through 0.6% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 2.3% 1Good public transport 0.4% 2 1.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0It is somewhere different to
shop0.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0
Quiet / not very busy 0.4% 2 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Late night shopping 0.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0No other choice locally 0.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1For emergency shopping 0.4% 2 1.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0Good range of products 0.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0Good parking 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1If I have an appointment
locally0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0
Biggest centre locally 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Friends / family live close by 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don’t know / no particular
reason)2.6% 12 5.1% 4 0.0% 0 4.1% 3 0.0% 0 2.1% 1 1.7% 1 6.8% 3
Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 42
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Q11 Which other shopping centre do you use once a month or more often ?
Oxford Street / West End 23.0% 151 9.0% 9 36.0% 36 17.0% 17 26.0% 26 27.1% 16 16.8% 17 30.9% 30Marylebone High Street 7.2% 47 1.0% 1 8.0% 8 1.0% 1 12.0% 12 3.4% 2 2.0% 2 21.6% 21Kensington High Street 6.1% 40 8.0% 8 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 21.8% 22 5.2% 5Brent Cross 5.6% 37 6.0% 6 21.0% 21 0.0% 0 9.0% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Edgware Road 3.2% 21 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 8.0% 8 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 8.2% 8Kings Road 2.7% 18 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 13.0% 13 1.0% 1 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Warwick Way / Tachbrook
Street2.7% 18 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 15.0% 15 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0
Knightsbridge 2.6% 17 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 11.9% 7 2.0% 2 3.1% 3Victoria Street, Westminster 2.4% 16 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 16.0% 16 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Kilburn 2.3% 15 6.0% 6 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 2.1% 2Queensway / Westbourne
Grove2.3% 15 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 4.0% 4 2.1% 2
Notting Hill 2.1% 14 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 10.9% 11 0.0% 0O2 Centre, Finchley Road 1.8% 12 0.0% 0 10.0% 10 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Ladbroke Grove, London 1.4% 9 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2Finchley Road, London 1.4% 9 1.0% 1 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Whiteley's Shopping Centre 1.4% 9 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 1.0% 1Bayswater 1.4% 9 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.7% 1 2.0% 2 1.0% 1Market, Portobello Road 1.4% 9 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 2.1% 2Hammersmith 1.1% 7 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1Harrow Road 1.1% 7 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0Holloway Road, Camden
Town0.9% 6 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Marble Arch 0.9% 6 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Covent Garden 0.9% 6 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Camden Town 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Brompton Road 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0St Johns Wood 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Baker Street 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Cromwell Road 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1Sloane Square 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 3.0% 3 0.0% 0Waterloo 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Praed Street 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3Cardinal Place, Victoria 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Regent Street 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Church Street, Kent 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Bond Street, London 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Piccadilly 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Swiss Cottage 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Shepherd's Bush W12 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Clapham Junction 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Ashcroft Kings Mall 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Park Royal 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Earlscourt 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Chelsea 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Vauxhall Bridge Road 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Gloucester 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Portobello Road 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tottenham Court Road 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Acton 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Maida Vale 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Ashford 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Elton 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Croydon Shopping Centre 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Borough Market, Borough 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Bromley 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Butterfly Walk, Surrey 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Denby Street, Queensbury 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Ealing, Broadway 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Hampstead 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Kew Shopping Park, Malt
Lake Road0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Lewisham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Milton Keynes 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0North End Road, Fulham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Bloomsbury 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Peckham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sainsbury's (unspecified
location)0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Southall, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Suffolk 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 43
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Surrey 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Market, White Chapel 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Wilton Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Wimbledon 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Berwick St John 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Bethnal Green 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Market, Church Street,
London0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Crawford Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Midfield 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Muswell Hill 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Orchid Street, Fulham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Soho 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Stratford 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(No other used) 27.7% 182 34.0% 34 14.0% 14 20.0% 20 39.0% 39 25.4% 15 32.7% 33 27.8% 27(Don't know / varies) 3.7% 24 6.0% 6 4.0% 4 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 1.7% 1 5.9% 6 2.1% 2Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 44
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
Q12 What, if anything would make you more likely to visit Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / PraedStreet / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John's Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street ?
Nothing 37.7% 248 34.0% 34 23.0% 23 32.0% 32 49.0% 49 57.6% 34 48.5% 49 27.8% 27Better choice of shops in
general20.5% 135 29.0% 29 38.0% 38 23.0% 23 8.0% 8 6.8% 4 6.9% 7 26.8% 26
Better choice of other non-food shops
12.0% 79 25.0% 25 20.0% 20 12.0% 12 4.0% 4 3.4% 2 4.0% 4 12.4% 12
Better food and convenienceshops
7.8% 51 3.0% 3 11.0% 11 11.0% 11 8.0% 8 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 13.4% 13
Better maintenance /cleanliness
7.6% 50 16.0% 16 1.0% 1 7.0% 7 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 5.9% 6 14.4% 14
More car parking 6.2% 41 7.0% 7 13.0% 13 8.0% 8 3.0% 3 5.1% 3 2.0% 2 5.2% 5More / improved
supermarkets5.2% 34 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 5.0% 5 17.0% 17 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 6.2% 6
Better quality shops 4.6% 30 4.0% 4 6.0% 6 4.0% 4 3.0% 3 1.7% 1 7.9% 8 4.1% 4Better safety / security 4.0% 26 12.0% 12 4.0% 4 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 1.0% 1Made the area more
pedestrian friendly2.1% 14 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 8.5% 5 2.0% 2 5.2% 5
Better public transport 2.1% 14 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 2.0% 2 5.1% 3 1.0% 1 1.0% 1More or better restaurants 2.0% 13 4.0% 4 1.0% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 4.1% 4Better / cheaper car parking 2.0% 13 1.0% 1 5.0% 5 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 3.4% 2 2.0% 2 1.0% 1More large shops 2.0% 13 4.0% 4 2.0% 2 4.0% 4 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Choice of cheaper shops 1.8% 12 0.0% 0 6.0% 6 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3Less traffic congestion 1.7% 11 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 1.0% 1 5.1% 3 1.0% 1 2.1% 2New department store 1.1% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 2.1% 2More or better public
services / community uses0.8% 5 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Better atmosphere 0.8% 5 1.0% 1 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Less non-food shops 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Better entertainment
facilities0.8% 5 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1
More or better takeaways 0.6% 4 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1If I were given more
information about the area0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2
Support given to independentbusinesses
0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0
If money were invested inthe area
0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.1% 4
Improved cinema 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Larger / improved market 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0More or better pharmacy 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0More or better public houses 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Friendlier staff in stores /
restaurants0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Less food shops 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Less foreign people in the
area0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
More houses built 0.3% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Better access for cyclists 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0If it were more convenient to
my home0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1
Occupying the vacant stores 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Reduced opening hours 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0More or better health / dental
facilities0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Longer opening hours 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0No congestion charges 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Better access for disabled
people0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0
Less change to the area 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0If it were more spread out 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Quieter 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Improved roads 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Don't know) 5.0% 33 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 8.0% 8 8.0% 8 0.0% 0 8.9% 9 3.1% 3
Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
GEN Gender of respondent:
Male 38.7% 254 31.0% 31 35.0% 35 41.0% 41 45.0% 45 35.6% 21 41.6% 42 40.2% 39Female 61.3% 403 69.0% 69 65.0% 65 59.0% 59 55.0% 55 64.4% 38 58.4% 59 59.8% 58Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 45
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
AGE Could I ask, which of the following age bands do you fall into ?
16-24 4.7% 31 7.0% 7 6.0% 6 4.0% 4 6.0% 6 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 6.2% 625-34 10.8% 71 12.0% 12 11.0% 11 11.0% 11 11.0% 11 6.8% 4 10.9% 11 11.3% 1135-59 39.0% 256 40.0% 40 40.0% 40 40.0% 40 40.0% 40 44.1% 26 39.6% 40 30.9% 3060-64 17.0% 112 17.0% 17 19.0% 19 19.0% 19 12.0% 12 8.5% 5 19.8% 20 20.6% 2065+ 25.9% 170 23.0% 23 22.0% 22 23.0% 23 28.0% 28 39.0% 23 24.8% 25 26.8% 26(Refused) 2.6% 17 1.0% 1 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 4.1% 4
Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
ETH For the purposes of this survey, could I ask you which ethnic group you belong to ?
White - British (Interviewer,this includes English,Scottish, Welsh)
65.6% 431 41.0% 41 69.0% 69 72.0% 72 65.0% 65 74.6% 44 66.3% 67 75.3% 73
White European 4.0% 26 3.0% 3 3.0% 3 3.0% 3 9.0% 9 3.4% 2 4.0% 4 2.1% 2Indian 2.7% 18 1.0% 1 4.0% 4 1.0% 1 4.0% 4 5.1% 3 1.0% 1 4.1% 4White - Irish 2.3% 15 6.0% 6 3.0% 3 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0Caribbean 1.8% 12 8.0% 8 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0White and Asian 1.5% 10 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 2.1% 2White American 1.4% 9 1.0% 1 5.0% 5 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0White and black Caribbean 1.2% 8 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0White (other) 0.9% 6 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1White and black African 0.9% 6 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Mixed Race 0.9% 6 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Greek 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1African 0.8% 5 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1Pakistani 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0White Australian 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0Iranian 0.6% 4 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0West Indian 0.6% 4 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Spanish 0.6% 4 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0Jamaican 0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0German 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Chinese 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Arabic 0.5% 3 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Albanian 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Middle Eastern 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Latin American 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Polish 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0European 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2Caucasian 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Black British 0.3% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Malian 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Pilipino British 0.3% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0White Croatian 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Bangladeshi 0.3% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Portuguese 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0European Mixed Race 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0American Indian 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0Chinese American 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Egyptian 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0New Zealander 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Black (other) 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Swiss Portuguese 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Danish 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Mewari 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Dutch 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1Chinese West Indian 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0White South African 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1(Refused) 4.4% 29 3.0% 3 4.0% 4 7.0% 7 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 6.9% 7 4.1% 4Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 46
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Harrow Road St John'sWood
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
Street
Church Street/ Edgware
Road
MaryleboneHigh Street
Queensway /Westbourne
Grove
Praed Street
Column %ges.051006 NEMS market research
SAL Which of the following categories does your combined income fall into?
£0-25,000 31.4% 206 50.0% 50 16.0% 16 31.0% 31 48.0% 48 25.4% 15 19.8% 20 26.8% 26£25,000 - 50,000 19.5% 128 15.0% 15 18.0% 18 22.0% 22 19.0% 19 23.7% 14 18.8% 19 21.6% 21£50,000 - 100,000 12.6% 83 8.0% 8 13.0% 13 16.0% 16 7.0% 7 13.6% 8 13.9% 14 17.5% 17£100,000 or more 13.2% 87 6.0% 6 25.0% 25 7.0% 7 6.0% 6 20.3% 12 17.8% 18 13.4% 13(Don't know / can't
remember)7.2% 47 15.0% 15 6.0% 6 4.0% 4 7.0% 7 5.1% 3 5.0% 5 7.2% 7
(Refused) 16.1% 106 6.0% 6 22.0% 22 20.0% 20 13.0% 13 11.9% 7 24.8% 25 13.4% 13Mean: 22686 18775 22250 25175 19275 25297 22599 26624
Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
CAR Finally, how many cars are there normally available for use in the household ?
None 39.6% 260 49.0% 49 22.0% 22 38.0% 38 57.0% 57 39.0% 23 37.6% 38 34.0% 331 42.0% 276 37.0% 37 50.0% 50 49.0% 49 29.0% 29 35.6% 21 40.6% 41 50.5% 492 12.9% 85 10.0% 10 16.0% 16 11.0% 11 9.0% 9 22.0% 13 15.8% 16 10.3% 103 or more 2.4% 16 0.0% 0 10.0% 10 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.4% 2 2.0% 2 1.0% 1(Don't know) 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Refused) 2.7% 18 3.0% 3 1.0% 1 2.0% 2 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 4.1% 4Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
SEG Socioeconmic Grouping:
A 2.0% 13 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 5.2% 5B 35.0% 230 28.0% 28 47.0% 47 38.0% 38 30.0% 30 52.5% 31 25.7% 26 30.9% 30C1 32.9% 216 26.0% 26 30.0% 30 27.0% 27 28.0% 28 30.5% 18 47.5% 48 40.2% 39C2 9.1% 60 12.0% 12 7.0% 7 7.0% 7 13.0% 13 6.8% 4 10.9% 11 6.2% 6D 8.8% 58 14.0% 14 7.0% 7 10.0% 10 10.0% 10 6.8% 4 5.9% 6 7.2% 7E 5.6% 37 13.0% 13 0.0% 0 8.0% 8 8.0% 8 1.7% 1 2.0% 2 5.2% 5(Refused) 6.5% 43 6.0% 6 8.0% 8 9.0% 9 8.0% 8 0.0% 0 6.9% 7 5.2% 5
Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
ZONE Zone
Harrow Road 15.2% 100 100.0% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0St Johns Wood 15.2% 100 0.0% 0 100.0% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Warwick Way / Tachbrook
Street15.2% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Church Street / EdgewareRoad
15.2% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Marylebone High Street 9.0% 59 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 59 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Queensway / Westbourne
Grove15.4% 101 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 101 0.0% 0
Praed Street 14.8% 97 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 97Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97
Appendix I
Business Occupier Survey Results
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge19
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Q0A
Plea
seen
ter
the
nam
eof
your
busi
ness
belo
w:
Oth
er81
.8%
90.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
110
0.0%
510
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%1
100.
0%3
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0B
ase:
110
02
15
20
13
0
Q01
How
long
has
your
busi
ness
been
loca
ted
inH
arro
wR
oad
dist
rict
cent
re?
Less
than
aye
ar0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
1–
2ye
ars
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03
–5
year
s18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
6–
10ye
ars
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
010
–25
year
s45
.5%
50.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
50.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
133
.3%
10.
0%0
Mor
e th
an25
year
s18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
/not
sure
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0B
ase:
110
02
15
20
13
0
Q02
Are
your
prem
ises
leas
ed o
row
nero
ccup
ied
(i.e.
leas
ehol
dof
free
hold
) ?
Leas
ed9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ow
nero
ccup
ied
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
120
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
30.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow/n
otsu
re0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Land
owne
r-H
owar
dde
Wal
den
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Land
owne
r-W
estm
inst
erC
ounc
il0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)63
.6%
70.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
60.0
%3
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge20
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Q03
Do
you
have
any
curr
entp
lans
toch
ange
your
bus
ines
spr
emis
es?
No
plan
s63
.6%
70.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
60.0
%3
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
66.7
%2
0.0%
0M
inor
wor
ks/i
mpr
ovem
ents
such
assi
gnag
e/sh
opfro
ntal
tera
tions
36.4
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
140
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%1
33.3
%1
0.0%
0
Maj
orch
ange
ssuc
has
exte
nsio
nof
chan
gest
oin
tern
al la
yout
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Rel
ocat
ew
ithin
new
prem
ises
outs
ide
the
cent
rebu
twith
inW
estm
inst
er
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Clo
seor
relo
cate
tone
wpr
emis
esou
tsid
eW
estm
inst
er
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Oth
er0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q04
Whi
chst
atem
entb
estd
escr
ibes
your
busi
ness
’scu
rren
ttra
ding
per
form
ance
?
Ver
ygo
od18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0G
ood
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Sa
tisfa
ctor
y45
.5%
50.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
120
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%1
66.7
%2
0.0%
0Po
or9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow/n
oop
inio
n0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0B
ase:
110
02
15
20
13
0
Q05
Ove
rthe
last
12m
onth
sha
syo
urtr
adin
gpe
rfor
man
ce…
Impr
oved
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0St
ayed
the
sam
e27
.3%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0D
eclin
ed36
.4%
40.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
40.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
010
0.0%
166
.7%
20.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow/n
otsu
re0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q06
Ove
rthe
next
12m
onth
sdo
you
expe
ctyo
urbu
sine
sspe
rfor
man
ceto
…
Impr
ove
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0St
ayth
esa
me
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0D
eclin
e9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow/n
otsu
re18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge21
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Q07
Wha
tare
the
mai
nis
sues
cons
trai
ning
your
busi
ness
?
Hig
hov
erhe
ads/
rent
s63
.6%
70.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
60.0
%3
50.0
%1
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0G
ener
alec
onom
y27
.3%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Qua
lity
orsi
zeof
prem
ises
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Staf
frec
ruitm
ent/
rete
ntio
n9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ava
ilabi
lity
and
loca
tion
ofca
rpar
king
63.6
%7
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
40.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
010
0.0%
166
.7%
20.
0%0
Pric
eof
carp
arki
ng27
.3%
30.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Acc
essi
bilit
yvi
apu
blic
trans
port
and
cycl
e0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Com
petit
ion
from
othe
rbu
sine
sses
inth
edi
stric
tce
ntre
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0
Com
petit
ion
from
othe
rbu
sine
sses
inth
ere
stof
the
Wes
tmin
ster
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Com
petit
ion
from
othe
rtow
nce
ntre
sIf‘
Yes
’whi
chce
ntre
/s
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Secu
rity
issu
es27
.3%
30.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
20.0
%1
50.0
%1
0.0%
010
0.0%
133
.3%
10.
0%0
Lack
offo
otfa
ll/c
usto
mer
s0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Poor
loca
tion
ofpr
emis
es0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Poor
qual
ityof
tow
nce
ntre
envi
ronm
entI
f‘Y
es’w
hat
aspe
ct(li
tter,
shop
front
s,et
c)
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Poor
qual
itysh
ops
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
66.7
%2
0.0%
0Po
orqu
ality
resta
uran
ts /
cafe
s /ba
rs9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Lack
ofse
rvic
es(e
gba
nks,
dent
ists
,est
ate
agen
ts,e
tc)
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
140
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
66.7
%2
0.0%
0
Inte
rnet
com
petit
ion
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Pl
anni
ngre
stric
tions
If‘Y
es’
wha
tasp
ect
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Oth
er0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Litte
r9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Con
gest
ion
char
ges
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0B
ase:
110
02
15
20
13
0
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge22
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Q08
Wha
tis
your
opin
ion
ofH
arro
wR
oads
mar
ketp
ositi
onin
shop
ping
term
s?
Too
upm
arke
t9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Fi
neas
itis
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0To
odo
wn
mar
ket
72.7
%8
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
010
0.0%
550
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%1
66.7
%2
0.0%
0O
ther
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q09
How
wou
ldyo
ude
scrib
eH
arro
wR
oad’
scu
rren
tsho
ppin
gan
dse
rvic
em
ix?
Too
man
yla
rge
chai
nsh
ops/
note
noug
hsm
all
(inde
pend
ent)
stor
es
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Abo
utth
erig
htm
ix36
.4%
40.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
140
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0N
oten
ough
larg
e(c
hain
)sh
ops
45.5
%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
060
.0%
350
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%1
66.7
%2
0.0%
0
Too
man
yno
n-re
tail
uses
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eed
mor
ere
tail
serv
ices
(e.g
.hai
rdre
sser
s)0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Too
man
yre
tail
serv
ices
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0O
ther
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Mea
nsc
ore
-Ver
y go
od=5
,Qui
tego
od=4
,Nei
ther
good
nor
poo
r=3,
Qui
tepo
or=2
,Ver
ypo
or=1
Q10
How
do
you
rate
the
cent
rein
term
s of
the
follo
win
g?
Ren
ts
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
63.6
%7
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
40.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
66.7
%2
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0
Mea
n:2.
750.
000.
003.
003.
002.
333.
000.
001.
003.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge23
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Rat
es
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r36
.4%
40.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
120
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
2.44
0.00
0.00
2.50
3.00
1.67
3.00
0.00
1.00
2.50
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Ava
ilabi
lity
ofpa
rkin
g
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or72
.7%
80.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
160
.0%
350
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%1
66.7
%2
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
1.36
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.60
1.50
0.00
1.00
1.33
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Park
ing
char
ges
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
45.5
%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
66.7
%2
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or45
.5%
50.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
140
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
133
.3%
10.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
000.
000.
001.
001.
002.
003.
000.
001.
002.
330.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge24
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Traf
ficco
nges
tion
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od36
.4%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
2.78
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Bus
serv
ice
Ver
ygo
od18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
3.57
0.00
0.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
3.50
0.00
0.00
2.50
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Trai
n / U
nder
grou
ndse
rvic
e
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r36
.4%
40.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
20.0
%1
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
36.4
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
040
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
33.3
%1
0.0%
0M
ean:
3.20
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
3.50
3.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge25
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Pers
onal
safe
ty
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
66.7
%2
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
45.5
%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
060
.0%
30.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
133
.3%
10.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:1.
910.
000.
002.
002.
002.
002.
000.
001.
001.
670.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Bus
ines
sse
curi
ty
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
54.5
%6
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
066
.7%
20.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
2.10
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.25
2.00
0.00
0.00
1.67
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Ran
geof
shop
s&
serv
ices
avai
labl
e
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r27
.3%
30.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
120
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
36.4
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
33.3
%1
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
2.18
0.00
0.00
3.50
3.00
1.80
2.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge26
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Qua
lity
ofsh
ops
&se
rvic
esav
aila
ble
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
54.5
%6
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
20.0
%1
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
66.7
%2
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
33.3
%1
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
2.27
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
1.80
3.00
0.00
1.00
2.33
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Ente
rtai
nmen
tand
leis
ure
faci
litie
s
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or45
.5%
50.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
60.0
%3
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
45.5
%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
040
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%1
66.7
%2
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
1.64
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
1.60
1.50
0.00
1.00
1.33
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Mar
ketin
g /p
rom
otio
n/e
vent
s
Ver
ygo
od9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or54
.5%
60.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
140
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%1
33.3
%1
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
2.20
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
0.00
1.00
1.50
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge27
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Live
lines
s/s
tree
tlife
/cha
ract
er
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or54
.5%
60.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
40.0
%2
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
166
.7%
20.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:1.
820.
000.
002.
003.
002.
001.
000.
001.
001.
670.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
The
mar
ket
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or27
.3%
30.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
33.3
%1
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
110.
000.
003.
003.
001.
800.
000.
001.
002.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Qua
lity
/ num
ber
ofpl
aces
toea
t/ d
rink
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r36
.4%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
20.0
%1
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
020
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
133
.3%
10.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
550.
000.
003.
003.
002.
202.
500.
001.
002.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge28
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Gen
eral
shop
ping
envi
ronm
ent
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r54
.5%
60.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
140
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
133
.3%
10.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
550.
000.
003.
503.
002.
002.
500.
001.
002.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Con
veni
ence
for
shop
pers
Ver
ygo
od0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r63
.6%
70.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
160
.0%
350
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
133
.3%
10.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
640.
000.
003.
503.
002.
202.
500.
001.
002.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
AIn
crea
sera
nge
ofna
tiona
lmul
tiple
/cha
inst
ores
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
3rd
mos
tim
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
4th
mos
tim
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
5th
mos
tim
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Impo
rtanc
eno
trat
ed18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)63
.6%
70.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
160
.0%
350
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%1
33.3
%1
0.0%
0
Mea
n:1.
500.
000.
000.
000.
002.
001.
000.
000.
001.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge29
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
BIn
crea
sera
nge
oflo
cal/
spec
ialit
yre
taile
rs
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
4th
mos
tim
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
5th
mos
tim
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Impo
rtanc
eno
trat
ed18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
63.6
%7
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
100.
0%1
80.0
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
66.7
%2
0.0%
0
Mea
n:2.
500.
000.
003.
000.
000.
002.
000.
000.
002.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
CIm
prov
equ
ality
ofs
hops
and
serv
ices
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)54
.5%
60.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
140
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Mea
n:3.
500.
000.
000.
000.
004.
003.
000.
004.
003.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
DIm
prov
eap
pear
ance
ofth
edi
stric
tcen
tre
If ‘Y
es’W
hati
npa
rtic
ular
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
2nd
mos
t im
porta
nt9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
27.3
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
100.
0%1
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)45
.5%
50.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
210
0.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
066
.7%
20.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
670.
000.
002.
000.
003.
000.
000.
005.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge30
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
EIm
prov
eth
em
arke
t
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)81
.8%
90.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%5
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
166
.7%
20.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
FM
ake
cent
resa
fer(
CC
TV,p
olic
ing,
bett
erlig
htin
get
c..)
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
4th
mos
tim
porta
nt18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
5th
mos
tim
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Impo
rtanc
eno
trat
ed45
.5%
50.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
140
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)18
.2%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0
Mea
n:3.
250.
000.
004.
000.
002.
504.
000.
002.
004.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
GR
emov
e / r
educ
etr
affic
cong
estio
n
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
100.
0 %11
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
100.
0%5
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
110
0.0%
30.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge31
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
HPr
ovid
em
ore
hous
ing
inth
edi
stri
ctce
ntre
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
100.
0 %11
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
100.
0%5
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
110
0.0%
30.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
IIm
prov
efr
eque
ncy
ofbu
sse
rvic
esto
the
dist
rictc
entr
e
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)90
.9%
100.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
110
0.0%
550
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%1
100.
0%3
0.0%
0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
JIm
prov
efr
eque
ncy
oftr
ain
serv
ices
toth
edi
stric
tcen
tre
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
100.
0 %11
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
100.
0%5
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
110
0.0%
30.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge32
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
KIm
prov
epu
blic
car
park
ing
avai
labi
lity
and
redu
ceca
rpa
rkin
gch
arge
s
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Impo
rtanc
eno
trat
ed45
.5%
50.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
120
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
066
.7%
20.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)36
.4%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
060
.0%
350
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Mea
n:3.
000.
000.
005.
000.
001.
000.
000.
001.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
LPr
ovid
e be
tter
ente
rtai
nmen
tand
leis
ure
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)72
.7%
80.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
160
.0%
350
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
066
.7%
20.
0%0
Mea
n:4.
000.
000.
000.
000.
003.
005.
000.
003.
005.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
MIm
prov
equ
ality
and
rang
eof
cafe
san
dre
stau
rant
s
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)81
.8%
90.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
160
.0%
310
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%1
66.7
%2
0.0%
0M
ean:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge33
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
NIm
prov
epe
dest
rian
link
san
dfa
cilit
ies
inth
edi
stri
ctce
ntre
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
90.9
%10
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
510
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%1
66.7
%2
0.0%
0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
OIm
prov
equ
ality
ofs
hop
units
/ret
aila
ccom
mod
atio
n
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
5th
mos
tim
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Impo
rtanc
eno
trat
ed27
.3%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
63.6
%7
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
40.0
%2
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
166
.7%
20.
0%0
Mea
n:4.
000.
000.
000.
000.
004.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
PEn
cour
age
/ pro
mot
eSu
nday
trad
ing
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
90.9
%10
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
100.
0%5
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
110
0.0%
30.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge34
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
QPr
omot
e/p
ublic
ise
the
attr
actio
ns o
fthe
dis
tric
tcen
tre
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Impo
rtanc
eno
trat
ed9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
81.8
%9
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
80.0
%4
50.0
%1
0.0%
010
0.0%
110
0.0%
30.
0%0
Mea
n:5.
000.
000.
000.
000.
005.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
RIm
prov
eth
equ
ality
of p
ublic
tran
spor
tfac
ilitie
sin
the
dist
rict
cent
re
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)90
.9%
100.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
110
0.0%
510
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%1
100.
0%3
0.0%
0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
SM
ore
com
mer
cial
uses
/of
fice
acco
mm
odat
ion
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
100.
0 %11
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
100.
0%5
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
110
0.0%
30.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge35
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
TO
ppor
tuni
ties
from
mor
epe
ople
livin
gan
dw
orki
ngin
the
area
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
100.
0 %11
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
100.
0%5
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
110
0.0%
30.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
UO
ppor
tuni
ties
toem
ploy
mor
elo
calp
eopl
e
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
9.1 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
2nd
mos
t im
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
3rd
mos
tim
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
4th
mos
tim
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
5th
mos
tim
porta
nt0.
0 %0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Impo
rtanc
eno
trat
ed9.
1 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
81.8
%9
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
100.
0%1
80.0
%4
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
110
0.0%
30.
0%0
Mea
n:1.
000.
000.
001.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
In p
lann
ing
for
the
futu
re o
fthe
tow
nce
ntre
,wha
tdo
you
thin
kar
eth
eFI
VEm
osti
mpo
rtan
tthi
ngs
liste
dbe
low
?
Q11
VO
ther
s no
t lis
ted
1stm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
04t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
05t
hm
osti
mpo
rtant
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Im
porta
nce
notr
ated
0.0 %
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
100.
0 %11
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
100.
0%5
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
110
0.0%
30.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Q01
and
Q02
Har
row
Roa
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge36
for
Nat
hani
elL
ichf
ield
& P
artn
ers
Nov
embe
r20
06
Tot
alL
esst
han
aye
ar1
–2
year
s3
–5
year
s6
–10
year
s10
–25
year
sM
ore
than
25ye
ars
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
Lea
sed
Ow
ner
occu
pied
Don
’tkn
ow/
nots
ure
0710
06E
NEMSmarketresearch
Q12
Plea
sem
ake
any
addi
tiona
lcom
men
ts in
the
spac
e pr
ovid
ed b
elow
:
Oth
er27
.3%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
033
.3%
10.
0%0
Not
enou
ghpa
rkin
gsp
aces
18.2
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%1
33.3
%1
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
54.5
%6
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%1
40.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
33.3
%1
0.0%
0
Bas
e:11
00
21
52
01
30
Appendix J
Land Use Map – November 2006
THIRDAVENUE
SECONDAVENUE
ALPERTON
STREET
WEDLAKESTR
EET
HAZLEWOODCRESCENT
ADAIR ROAD
ROAD
SOUTHAM
STREET
GOLBOR
NEGAR
DENS
TOLLBRIDGE
CLOSE
ALPERTONSTREET
FIRSTAVENUE
COOMASSIEROAD
BRAVINGTONROAD
LAPFORDCLOSE
LYDFORDROAD
WARLOCKROAD
BARNSDALE
ROAD
FERNHEADROAD
PORTGATECLOSE
ASHMOREROAD
PORTNALLROAD
BRAVINGTONPLACE
HARROWROAD
KENNETROAD
ERRINGTONROAD
WALTERTONR
OAD
ELGINAVENUE
FERMOYROAD
KENSAL
ROAD
HAZLEW
OOD C
RESCE
NT
GOLBORNEGARDENS
GOLBORNEROAD
HORMEADROAD
GREATWESTERNRO
AD
WESTERNMEWS
WOODFIELDPLACE
BARFETTSTREET
DRAYFORD
CLOSE
TOLLBRIDGE
CL
JAMESCOLLINS CL
OSE
CHANTR
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
510
0
0
0
0
363
0
6
0
8
419
4
566
1
0
0
518
8 6
351
544
385
588
618
389
598
375
486
373
590
361
602
383
606
395
592
586
570
614
582
558
608
580
604
12
610
1614
612
474
616
500
584
339
536
409
10
568
574
560
562
572
520
490
470
0
484
381
377
379
391
369
387
401
403
359
393
397
357
405
407
399
371
367
355
415 41
3
502
496
554
550
498
492
494
349
526
530
411
528
343
532
522
552
488
556
524
548
341
576
546
472
534
341
0
Har
row
Roa
d-G
roun
dFl
oorR
etai
lLa
ndU
se
Key
DistrictCentreBoundary
-Core
DistrictCentreBoundary
-NonCore(Secondary)
GroundFloorUse(2006)
Vacant
SGLeisure
Health
D1
B1A5A4A3Restaurant/Café
A3A2A1Specialist
A1National
A1Independent
A1Convenience
C3
05.12.06
1:1,700
MAr
CL10820-002
CL10820-LBWest-DistrictCentres
GroundFloorUse(2006)-HarrowRoad
GISReference:S:\CL10820-LBWest-DistrictCentres\CL10820
LBWestDistrictCentres-HarrowRoad-GroundFloorUse.mxd
Appendix K
National and Local Policy - Centre Boundaries and Frontages
PPS6 – Planning for Town Centres
PPS6 indicates that local authorities should define the boundary of town anddistrict centres. It states that for purposes of this policy statement, the “centre” for a retail development constitutes the primary shopping area. For all other maintown centre uses the “centre” should be regarded as the area embraced by thetown centre boundary. The extent of the town centre should be defined on theproposals map.
PPS6 states that the Primary Shopping Area should be the defined area whereretail development is concentrated (generally comprising the primary frontagesand those secondary frontages which are contiguous and closely related to theprimary shopping frontage). The extent of the primary shopping area should bedefined on the proposals map. Smaller centres may not have areas ofpredominantly leisure, business and other main town centre uses adjacent to theprimary shopping area, and therefore the town centre may not extend beyond theprimary shopping area. Primary frontages are likely to include a high proportion of retail uses. Secondary frontages provide greater opportunities for a diversity ofuses. In Westminster these designations have been defined as ‘Core’ and‘Secondary’ Frontages in relation to the District Centres.
The Westminster UDP
The Westminster UDP Adopted January 2007 seeks to control the amount of non-retail use (outside Class A1) within the 7 designated District Centres. Policy SS7sets out the criteria for determining changes of use within these centres.
Criterion A seeks to control A3 uses where their impact (in terms of smells, noise,increased late–night activity/disturbance or parking and traffic. The new useClass order will require this policy criterion to be changed to include Class A3, A4and A5.
Criteria B seeks to control the loss of Class A1 use at ground floor level in theCore Frontages, by preventing inappropriate changes of use to non-Class A1uses.
Criteria C relates to Secondary Frontages and basement and first floor levelswithin the District Centres, and provides more flexibility for changes of use to non-Class A1 use subject to a number of criteria.
Consistent with guidance in PPS6 these policies adopt a more flexible approachwithin the Secondary Frontages compared with the Core Frontages. Serviceuses (A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses) are generally more acceptable in the SecondaryFrontages.
Appendix L
Retail Capacity Assessment Methodology
Retail Capacity Assessment Methodology
i. The retail capacity assessment in this report provides a quantitative capacity analysisin terms of levels of spending for convenience and comparison shopping. Allmonetary values expressed in this analysis are at 2005 prices, consistent withExperian’s base year expenditure figures for 2005. Expenditure data for 2006/7 is not currently available.
ii. The quantitative analysis is based on catchment areas for each of the 7 DistrictCentres in Westminster (see section 10.2). The catchment/study area is based onpostcode sectors and the proximity of other competing town centres. It representsthe areas where the District Centre is expected to derive most of its trade.
iii. Shopping facilities within the District Centre are expected to attract trade fromresidents within the local catchment areas, although there will be an element of tradedrawn from beyond the study area (i.e. from commuters, tourists and other visitors).The level of available expenditure to support retailers is based on first establishingper capita levels of spending for the local catchment area population. Experian’s‘local consumer expenditure estimates for comparison and convenience goods’ foreach of the study area zones for the year 2005 have been obtained.
iv. Experian’s latest national expenditure projections between 2005 and 2015 have beenused to forecast expenditure within the catchment area. Unlike previous expendituregrowth rates provided by The Data Consultancy (formerly URPI), which were basedon past trends, Experian’s projections are based on an econometric model ofdisaggregated consumer spending. This model takes a number of macro-economicforecasts (chiefly consumer spending, incomes and inflation) and uses them toproduce forecasts of disaggregated consumer spending volumes, prices and values.The model incorporates assumptions about income and price elasticities.
v. Experian provides recommended growth rates for the period 2005 to 2010, and 2005to 2015. The recommended growth rates for the period 2005 and 2010 are 0.5% perannum for convenience goods and 4.3% per annum for comparison goods. Thesegrowth rates have been used in this study to forecast expenditure per capita up to2009. Adjusted growth rates (0.9% and 3.3% per annum for convenience andcomparison goods respectively) have been adopted to project expenditure between2010 and 2015, consistent with Experian’s overall growth forecasts for 2004 to 2014.Growth in expenditure beyond 2015 is based on 0.7% and 3.8% per annum forconvenience and comparison goods respectively, in line with Experian’s growthforecast for 2005 to 2015. These have been factored up to provide figures for 2006,2011 and 2016.
vi. To assess the capacity for new retail floorspace, penetration rates are estimated forshopping facilities within the local catchment area. The assessment of penetrationrates are based on a range of factors including:
information from household and in-street surveys;
the level and quality of retail facilities; and
the relative distance between shopping centres and catchment areas.
vii. The total turnover of shops within the centre is estimated based on expectedpenetration rates and the expected level of expenditure inflow. These turnoverestimates are converted into average turnover to sales floorspace densities.
viii. The local catchment area population and expenditure projections for 2006 to 2016are based on the 2001 Census and Westminster’s ward based projections.
ix. For both comparison and convenience spending, a reduction has been made forspecial forms of trading such as mail order, e-tail (non-retail businesses carried outonline and using vending machines). Special Forms of Trading (SFT) and non-storeactivity is included within Experian’s goods based expenditure estimates. “Specialforms of trading” includes other forms of retail expenditure not spent in shops e.g.mail order sales, some internet sales, vending machines, party plan selling, marketstalls and door to door selling. SFT needs to be excluded from retail assessmentsbecause it relates to expenditure not spent in shops and does not have a directrelationship to the demand for retail floorspace.
x. The growth in home computing, Internet connections and interactive TV may lead to a growth in home shopping and may have effects on retailing in the high street.Experian has attempted to provide projections for special forms of trading and e-tailing (Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 2.3D – December 2005).
xi. This latest Experian information suggests that non-store retail sales accounts for:
2.5% of convenience goods expenditure; and
5.7% of comparison goods expenditure.
xii. For convenience expenditure 1.6% of the 2.5% is estimated to be e-tailing, and theremaining 0.9% is other forms of SFT e.g. mail order. E-tailing can be broken downinto e-tailing through retail businesses (e.g. Tesco and Sainsbury’s) at 1.1% and non-retail store businesses (i.e. those that only operate online) (0.5%). Therefore the e-tailing split for retail and non-retail businesses is approximately 70:30.
xiii. For comparison expenditure in 2004, 3.1% of the 5.7% is estimated to be e-tailing,and the rest 2.6% is other forms of SFT e.g. mail order. E-tailing through retailbusinesses (e.g. Next and Argos) is 1.3%, and for non-retail businesses is 1.8% (e.g.Amazon). Therefore the e-tailing split for retail and non-retail businesses isapproximately 40:60.
xiv. Experian provide projections for e-tailing and other SFT. These projections havebeen used to exclude expenditure attributed to e-tailing through non-retailbusinesses, which will not directly impact on the demand for retail floorspace. In2004 Experian estimate that SFT (including non-retail e-tailing) was 1.4% and 4.4%of total convenience and comparison goods expenditure respectively. The mid-pointof the range of projections provided by Experian suggests that these percentagescould increase to 2% and 6.8% by 2011 respectively. Therefore the amount of e-tailexpenditure through non-retail businesses is expected to increase significantly inproportional terms (+43% for convenience expenditure and +55% for comparisonexpenditure), but as a proportion of total expenditure this sector is expected to remain relatively insignificant for the foreseeable future.
xv. The levels of available spending are derived by combining the population and percapita spending figures. For both comparison and convenience spending, a
reduction has been made for special forms of trading such as mail order and vendingmachines.
xvi. The analysis of existing shopping patterns in 2006 for convenience and comparisonshopping are shown in Tables 1 and 4 below. The turnover density of existingfloorspace is shown in Tables 2 and 5 and the summary of available expenditurewithin each centre between 2006 and 2016 is shown in Tables 3 and 6.
xvii. Available convenience expenditure in the future is based on adjusted market sharesfollowing the implementation of existing food store commitments i.e. a proposed foodstore in Church Street/Edgware Road and the build up of trade following the openingof Tesco Express in Praed Street. These new food stores are expected to reduce the market share of the other five District Centres. For comparison shopping constantmarket shares have been adopted.
TABLE 1: EXISTING CONVENIENCE SHOPPING PATTERNS 2006
Catchment Area Harrow Rd. St John's Wood Warwick Way Church St Marylebone Queensway Praed St TOTALTachbrook St Edgware Road High Street Westbourne Gr
Population 31,039 21,104 33,252 17,007 12,403 47,591 9,943 172,339
Convenience expendiutre per capita £1,455 £2,150 £1,926 £1,637 £2,314 £1,967 £1,968
Total Convenience expenditure £M £45.16 £45.37 £64.04 £27.84 £28.70 £93.61 £19.57 £324.30
Market Share of Expenditure OverallMarket Share
Harrow Road DC 34% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4.8%
St. John's Wood DC 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.6%
Warwick Way/Tachbrook St Dc 0% 0% 55% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11.0%
Church St/Edgware Rd DC 1% 0% 0% 43% 2% 0% 5% 4.3%
Marylebone High St DC 0% 0% 1% 12% 59% 1% 11% 7.4%
Queensway/Westbourne Grove DC 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 22% 1% 7.2%
Praed St DC 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0.4%
Other 62% 81% 42% 44% 38% 76% 78% 62.2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100.0%Turnover £ Millions
Harrow Road DC £15.34 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.17 £15.51
St. John's Wood DC £0.16 £8.25 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £8.41
Warwick Way/Tachbrook St DC £0.00 £0.16 £35.20 £0.09 £0.00 £0.37 £0.00 £35.82
Church St/Edgware Rd DC £0.54 £0.00 £0.00 £11.90 £0.54 £0.00 £0.88 £13.86
Marylebone High St DC £0.00 £0.00 £0.73 £3.34 £17.01 £0.86 £2.21 £24.15
Queensway/Westbourne Grove DC £1.30 £0.00 £1.02 £0.00 £0.00 £20.98 £0.17 £23.47
Praed St DC £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.18 £0.23 £0.00 £0.93 £1.34
Other £27.82 £36.96 £27.09 £12.34 £10.92 £71.40 £15.21 £201.75
Total £45.16 £45.37 £64.04 £27.84 £28.70 £93.61 £19.57 £324.30
TABLE 2: CONVENIENCE TURNOVER DENSITIES 2006
Tunrover from % Turnover Total Net Sales AverageCentres catchment from outside Turnover Floorspace Turnover Density
areas £M catchment areas £M Sq M Net £ Per Sq M
Harrow Road DC £15.51 30% £22.16 2,700 £8,206
St. John's Wood DC £8.41 30% £12.02 1,300 £9,244
Warwick Way/Tachbrook St DC £35.82 30% £51.17 5,100 £10,033
Church St/Edgware Rd DC £13.86 20% £17.32 2,200 £7,872
Marylebone High St DC £24.15 40% £40.25 2,300 £17,502
Queensway/Westbourne Grove DC £23.47 40% £39.11 3,900 £10,028
Praed St DC £1.34 70% £4.45 1,400 £3,180
Other £201.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total £324.30 n/a £186.47 18,900 £9,866
TABLE 3: AVAILABLE CONVENIENCE EXPENDITURE 2006 TO 2016
Expenditure Expenditure ExpenditureCentres 2006 2011 2016
£M £M £M
Harrow Road DC £22.16 £21.20 £22.08
St. John's Wood DC £12.02 £11.26 £11.71
Warwick Way/Tachbrook St DC £51.17 £52.07 £55.20
Church St/Edgware Rd DC £17.32 £44.82 £47.04
Marylebone High St DC £40.25 £36.93 £39.78
Queensway/Westbourne Grove. DC £39.11 £39.92 £42.01
Praed St DC £4.45 £9.83 £10.59
Total £186.47 £216.02 £228.42
TABLE 4: EXISTING COMPARISON SHOPPING PATTERNS 2006
Catchment Area Harrow Rd. St John's Wood Warwick Way Church St Marylebone Queensway Praed St TOTALTachbrook St Edgware Road High Street Westbourne Gr
Population 31,039 21,104 33,252 17,007 12,403 47,591 9,943 172,339
Comparison expendiutre per capita £2,818 £4,223 £3,771 £3,179 £4,604 £3,888 £3,901
Total Comparison expenditure £M £87.47 £89.12 £125.39 £54.07 £57.10 £185.03 £38.79 £636.97
Market Share of Expenditure OverallMarket Share
Harrow Road DC 5% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1.1%
St. John's Wood DC 1% 6% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1.5%
Warwick Way/Tachbrook St Dc 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.4%
Church St/Edgware Rd DC 6% 1% 1% 15% 1% 1% 8% 3.3%
Marylebone High St DC 1% 6% 1% 9% 7% 2% 13% 3.9%
Queensway/Westbourne Grove DC 12% 0% 2% 2% 4% 18% 2% 7.9%
Praed St DC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0.2%
Other 75% 87% 88% 72% 88% 77% 74% 80.7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Turnover £ Millions
Harrow Road DC £4.37 £0.00 £0.00 £0.54 £0.00 £1.85 £0.00 £6.76
St. John's Wood DC £0.87 £5.35 £1.25 £0.54 £0.00 £1.85 £0.00 £9.87
Warwick Way/Tachbrook St DC £0.00 £0.00 £8.78 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £8.78
Church St/Edgware Rd DC £5.25 £0.89 £1.25 £8.11 £0.57 £1.85 £3.10 £21.03
Marylebone High St DC £0.87 £5.35 £1.25 £4.87 £4.00 £3.70 £5.04 £25.08
Queensway/Westbourne Grove DC £10.50 £0.00 £2.51 £1.08 £2.28 £33.31 £0.78 £50.45
Praed St DC £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £1.16 £1.16
Other £65.60 £77.54 £110.35 £38.93 £50.25 £142.48 £28.70 £513.84
Total £87.47 £89.12 £125.39 £54.07 £57.10 £185.03 £38.79 £636.97
TABLE 5: COMPARISON TURNOVER DENSITIES 2006
Tunrover from % Turnover Total Net Sales AverageCentres catchment from outside Turnover Floorspace Turnover Density
areas £M catchment areas £M Sq M Net £ Per Sq M
Harrow Road DC £6.76 30% £9.66 2,000 £4,832
St. John's Wood DC £9.87 30% £14.10 3,300 £4,271
Warwick Way/Tachbrook St DC £8.78 30% £12.54 2,700 £4,644
Church St/Edgware Rd DC £21.03 20% £26.28 5,300 £4,959
Marylebone High St DC £25.08 40% £41.80 7,200 £5,806
Queensway/Westbourne Grove DC £50.45 40% £84.09 14,200 £5,922
Praed St DC £1.16 70% £3.88 1,400 £2,771
Other £513.84 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total £636.97 n/a £192.35 36,100 £5,328
TABLE 6: AVAILABLE COMPARISON EXPENDITURE 2006 TO 2016
Expenditure Expenditure ExpenditureCentres 2006 2011 2016
£M £M £M
Harrow Road DC £9.66 £11.50 £13.59
St. John's Wood DC £14.10 £16.64 £19.67
Warwick Way/Tachbrook St DC £12.54 £14.94 £17.92
Church St/Edgware Rd DC £26.28 £31.62 £37.47
Marylebone High St DC £41.80 £50.57 £58.84
Queensway/Westbourne Grove DC £84.09 £100.54 £118.66
Praed St DC £3.88 £4.98 £6.12
Total £192.35 £230.78 £272.26
Appendix M
Operator Requirements
OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS
Over 300 companies were sent a questionnaire asking about their requirements inWestminster. 33 companies responded to the questionnaire, which equates to an11% response rate. Of those who did respond, 13 (39%) indicated that they do havea requirement in the near future in Westminster, while 20 (61%) indicated that they do not have any requirements. Below is a summary of the responses.
The vast majority of respondents were looking for a new unit, rather than expandingan existing unit. Only London Clubs International was looking to expand an existingunit which was their ‘Sportsman’ on Quebec Street, in the Church Street/EdgwareRoad District Centre. Four respondents were not looking for a specific location fortheir new development(s), but were looking for a new unit within the general area.
The most popular location in which respondents wished to open a new unit wasMarylebone High Street with four identifying it specifically. Queensway/WestbourneGrove and St John’s Wood District Centres were the next most popular locations withthree respondents identifying each as a location for a prospective new unit. ChurchStreet and Praed Street were 3rd most popular with 2 respondents identifying them inparticular as a location for a new unit. Warwick Way/Tachbrook Street and HarrowRoad were the least popular locations identified by respondents for a new unit, withonly one specifically identifying each.
When asked what additional information may be of use in deciding whether to choose to locate in Westminster in the future, the most common responses were informationregarding the demographic profile, and the availability/price of car parking. Otherpieces of information which respondents thought would help make such decisionswere those relating to future developments/future availability of sites and footfallnumbers.
Respondents who answered positively about their requirements in Westminster werealso asked why they had not yet secured their requirements. The overwhelmingmajority gave availability of sites as a reason, the cost of renting was also a fairlycommon response.
Respondents who answered negatively about their requirements in Westminster were then asked why they weren’t looking in the area. The most common response wasthat they were fully represented in nearby/other central locations, the next mostpopular reason was that the rents are too high.
When asked for any additional comments, only Nandos, who required a new unit inMarylebone and/or Praed Street, indicated that Westminster’s planning policyregarding A3 uses discouraged investment in the area.
Glossary of Terms
A1 Shops, retail warehouses, hairdressers, undertakers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, dry cleaners, pet shops, sandwich bars, retail showrooms, and domestic hire shops.
A1 café type uses Shops such as sandwich bars or coffee shops selling food and drinks to be consumed mainly off the premises, but not hot food takeaways. Examples include certain Pret a Manger shops, Costa Coffee and the Seattle Coffee Co. shops.
A2 Banks, building societies, bureau de change, estate and employment agencies, professional and financial services, telephone bureaux, betting offices and beauty salons (excluding hair salons).
A3 Restaurants, snack bars and cafés selling food and drinks to be consumed mainly on the premises
A4 Pubs and bars.A5 Shops for the sale of hot food to be consumed mainly off the premises (hot food take-aways).B1 Business uses such as offices, research and development and industrial uses.CAZ Central Activities Zone (CAZ). The CAZ is an area of mixed uses, many of which contribute
directly to the national, regional and local economy. It is this mix of activities and their supporting resources which underpins the success of London’s economy.
CAZ Frontages Frontages outside CAZ shown on the UDP Proposals Map where the City Council envisages the maintenance or growth of Central London Activities.
Comparison A1 floorspace selling predominantly durable items and not in convenience use.Convenience Includes shops selling food, alcoholic drink, tobacco and other goods (newspapers and
magazines, cleaning materials and matches). For the purposes of this assessment, convenience includes shops selling food or drink (excluding A1 café-type uses), and newsagents (including specialist tobacco stores).
Core Frontages Shopping frontages identified in the District Centres within which UDP policies aim to maintain a high concentration of shops.
District Centre District Centres provide a range and level of services below GLA defined Major Centres, but above that of Local Centres, and are a focus for shopping and other town centre activities.
Experian GOAD An independent retail data consultancy who provide maps of ground floor uses in shopping centres.
Greater London Authority (GLA)
A new form of strategic government for London established in July 2000, run by the Mayor of London.
Gross Floorspace Floorspace of buildings on all floors including external walls, half the thickness of parting walls and circulation areas.
Independent store This includes non-convenience stores (see definition above) irrespective of size, that are not considered to be specialist retailers (see definition below), that are operated by retailers that are not included within national retail chains or groups.
International stores This includes national multiple retailers with stores all over the world such as Ghost and The Conran Shop.
National retailers This includes all retailers (Class A1 only) that operate within the context of a national retail chain or group, such as Sears. A schedule of all national retail multiples can be found in the Retail Directory of the UK 2002 (Hemming Information). Specialist shops that are part of a retail chain or group, such as Whittards and Thorntons, are classified as national retailers. Although there are national chains of betting shops, such as Ladbrokes, these are classified as A2 uses and not national retailers.
PPS6 Planning Policy Statement 6 – Planning for Town Centres published by the ODPMPrestige international retailers
Prestigious retailers that operate in more than one country, e.g. Gucci, Gianni Versace, and Giorgio Armani. Also includes flagship stores only found in select town centres in Britain.
Secondary Frontages Shopping frontages identified in District Centres, where an element of non-A1 uses may be allowed.
Retail floorspace This is all A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and sui generis floorspace, and vacant floorspace of any of the aforementioned categories.
Specialistindependent
Similar to an independent store, but this category reflects the quality and specialisation of the retailer so that a shopper may make a specific shopping trip to that shop.
Sui Generis Sui Generis is a term that refers to a use on its own. Any planning use not falling within a specific class within the Use Class Order falls within this category. Examples of sui generis uses in shopping centres are launderettes, mini cab offices, amusement centres and car showrooms.
Town centre Town centre is defined in Annex A of PPS6 to cover city, town, and traditional suburban centres, which provide a broad range of facilities and services which fulfil a function as a focus for both the community and for public transport. It excludes parades of purely local significance.
Town Centre Health Required under PPS6, these contain information on the mix of uses, environmental quality and
Check general economic health of shopping centres/areas. UDP Unitary Development Plan produced by Westminster City Council as the statutory development
plan for Westminster, see www.westminster.gov.uk/udpVacancy This category includes vacant street level units, as well as units that are under alteration.
However, if at any time the survey was completed it was evident who the unit would be occupied by, the unit was treated as being occupied by that occupant.
Zone A Rent The rental level per square metre achieved on the first six metres of a shop unit measured from the main shop frontage.