st john’s wood district centre - westminster.gov.uks_wood_district... · john’s wood attracts...
TRANSCRIPT
St John’s Wood 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 ST. JOHN’S WOOD’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 St John’s Wood.................................................... 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...................................................................................................... 38Accessibility 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 St John’s Wood’s District Centre’s Boundary and Frontages ...................... 47Shopping Frontages................................................................................................... 47
10.0 RETAIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS................................................................................ 49
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 49Local Catchment Area ............................................................................................... 49Population and Spending........................................................................................... 49Existing Retail Floorspace ......................................................................................... 50Existing Spending Patterns 2006............................................................................... 50Operator Demand for Space...................................................................................... 53Development Opportunities........................................................................................ 53
11.0 SUMMARY OF THE DISTRICT CENTRE’S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ... 56
Strengths.................................................................................................................... 56Weaknesses .............................................................................................................. 56Opportunities.............................................................................................................. 57Threats....................................................................................................................... 57
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 MethodologyAppendix 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 St
John’s Wood. 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.
St John’s Wood’s Current Role and Structure
St John’s Wood District Centre primarily serves local residents within its catchment area, and
further visitors from across west London. It also has an important role serving commuters,
as well as visitors from across London and beyond. The centre is made up of four primary
shopping streets (St John’s Wood High Street which becomes St Ann’s Terrace, and Circus
Road which becomes St John’s Wood Terrace), and the centre forms an ‘T’ shape. The
main concentration of A1 retail uses is located on St John’s Wood High Street. The centre is
ii
in close proximity to St. John’s Wood Underground tube station, and is approximately one
mile from Warwick Avenue, Marylebone and Edgware Underground tube stations.
St John’s Wood is the smallest of the 7 District Centres in Westminster, and has a
reasonable range of shops and services of good quality. The District Centre has a mix of
national multiples and a range of specialist and independent retailers. There is a poor
selection of food supermarket stores (although it does have a Tesco Metro) within the centre,
and as such St John’s Wood attracts a relatively low proportion of food and grocery shopping
trips.
The range of shops and services received mixed ratings by all respondents, while their
quality was rated relatively highly by visitors, residents and businesses. In addition to retail
facilities St John’s Wood has a good number of places to eat and drink, which were rated
highly. However, the centre lacks good entertainment and leisure facilities when compared
with the other 6 District Centres in Westminster.
St John’s Wood District Centre has an important local shopping role, and is deemed one of
the most important of the 7 District Centres in terms of its local shopping role, as it had the
highest proportion of local residents who had shopped there recently.
St John’s Wood attracts a narrow mix of customers, and this mix is broadly consistent with
the socio-economic characteristics of the local catchment area. The centre appears to
attract a higher proportion of AB and C2 and DE customers and a lower proportion of C1
customers when compared with the local catchment characteristics, which implies that St
John’s Wood attracts more affluent customers from elsewhere as well as its own catchment
area.
St John’s Wood’s catchment area has a higher proportion of high earning households
compared with the average for all of the centres surveyed, and a lower proportion of low
income households (under £25,000). The centre’s local catchment area appears to be the
most affluent of all the centres’ catchment areas.
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 St John’s Wood. Factors highlighted as grey are negative
iii
attributes, while green represents neutral factors where views were mixed. St John’s
Wood’s rank amongst Westminster’s 7 District Shopping Centres is also shown.
Table 1 suggests that St John’s Wood rates relatively highly for most factors, with the
exception of the range of shop/services and food supermarkets and entertainment/leisure
facilities. Generally satisfaction levels are higher amongst visitors and residents than
business occupiers.
Table 1: Health Check Summary
Visitors’Views/Rank
Residents’Views/Rank
BusinessOccupiers’Views/Rank
NLP Analysis
Current Business Occupier Performance
n/a n/a Positive4th
n/a
Past Business OccupierPerformance
n/a n/a Neutral4th
n/a
Future Business OccupierPerformance
n/a n/a Neutral5th
n/a
Range of Shops/Services Positive5th
Neutral4th
Negative5th
Neutral
Quality of Shops/Services Very Positive2nd
Positive2nd
Positive2nd
Positive
Food supermarkets Neutral7th
Negative5th
n/a Positive
Places to Eat/Drink Very Positive2nd
Positive3rd
Positive4th
Positive
Entertainment/Leisure/Night-time facilities
Positive3rd/4th
Neutral5th
Negative4th
Neutral
Layout of centre Positive3rd
n/a n/a n/a
Bus services Very Positive1st
Neutral6th
n/a
Train/Underground services n/aVery Positive
1st Very Positive1st
n/a
Car parking availability Negative2nd
Very Negative5th
n/a
Car parking charges Very Negative3rd
Very Negative6th Very Negative
2ndn/a
Traffic congestion Neutral3rd
Negative2nd
Neutral3rd
n/a
Personal Safety Very Positive2nd
Neutral5th
n/a
Security n/aPositive
2nd Negative5th
n/a
Shopping Environment Positive3rd
Positive2nd
Positive2nd
n/a
Street cleaning n/a Very Positive1st
n/a Positive
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 “healthy”, and this has not changed since the 2002 health check.
iv
Retail Capacity
Based on the survey results we estimate that St. John’s Wood District Centre’s market
penetration (or market share) within the local catchment area is as follows:
Comparison expenditure - 6%; i.e. 94% of the catchment area’s comparisonexpenditure is spent elsewhere – outside of St. John’s WoodDistrict Centre, and potentially outside the local catchmentarea, and
Convenience expenditure - 18%.
These figures indicate that the majority of expenditure (both comparison and convenience)
within the local catchment area is not spent within St. John’s Wood District Centre. 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 and Waitrose at Finchley Road.
The quantitative floorspace capacity based on population and expenditure projections is 893
sqm gross by 2011, or 1,487 sqm gross by 2016. There are limited opportunities for major
development within or adjacent to the centre. There are no identified vacant or underused
sites near this centre. The additional retail floorspace may only be achieved by the
redevelopment of existing commercial floorspace to provide higher density development and
the change of use of non-retail uses to retail floorspace. The level of vacant units is very low.
The absence of development sites and the projected need for retail floorspace suggests that
the Council should continue to control and prevent the loss of existing Class A1 floorspace in
this centre.
Defining St. John’s Wood’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 and vacancy levels are low. Therefore, we believe there is no reason to
exclude any of the Secondary Frontages from the centre boundary.
The Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) states that no more than 20% of St.
John’s Wood’s Core Frontage will be permitted to be used for non-A1 use and that 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 24% and the current proportion of
v
Secondary Frontage in non-A1 usage is 68%. The policy criteria for both Core and
Secondary Frontages have been breached and exceed. The 20% and 45% threshold limits
need to be reviewed.
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 (20% and 45%).
Change the non-A1 limit – keep the Core and Secondary Frontages as they are
but increase the current limits on non-A1 use, so they become more meaningful
perhaps 25% in the Core Frontage and 65% in the Secondary Frontage.
These options should be discussed by policy and development control officers at
Westminster.
PART 2 – MAIN REPORT
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 St John’s Wood. 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 the 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 service in town centres
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 and community 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’. St John’s Wood is categorised 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
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.
St John’s Wood and the Surrounding Area
1.9 St John’s Wood District Centre is located in the north of Westminster and is located
near the London Borough of Camden boundary. The centre serves residents in St
John’s Wood, Primrose Hill, Lisson Grove and other parts of west London, as well as
commuters and visitors from across London and beyond. The nearest competing
centre is Church Street/Edgware Road District Centre, Kilburn Major Centre to the
north west and Swiss Cottage to the north.
1.10 St John’s Wood centre is made up of four primary shopping streets (St John’s Wood
High Street which becomes St Ann’s Terrace, and Circus Road which becomes St
John’s Wood Terrace), and the centre forms an ‘T’ shape. St John’s Wood High
Street/St Ann’s Terrace extends approximately 22 metres from north-west to south-
east and Circus Road/St John’s Wood Terrace extends approximately 18 metres
south-west to north-east. The main concentration of A1 retail uses is located along St
John’s Wood High Street. The centre is in close proximity to St John’s Wood
Underground tube station, and Marylebone, Edgware Road and Warwick Avenue
Underground tube stations are all approximately a mile away.
4
5
2.0 DIVERSITY OF USE AND REPRESENTATION
Introduction
2.1 This section examines the mix of town centre uses within St John’s Wood 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 St John’s Wood is broken down in Table 2.1. In total, St
John’s Wood has 11,783 sqm of retail floorspace, which is unchanged since the 2002
survey. The total retail floorspace (11,783 sqm) is slightly above half the average
(22,492 sq. m) for the 7 District Centres combined, making it the smallest of all
Westminster’s District Centres. St John’s Wood has a higher proportion of A1
comparison retail and Class A2 use floorspace than the District Centre average.
Conversely, the centre has a lower than average proportion of Class A4 floorspace. It
also has no floorspace being used for Sui Generis or Class A5 uses. St John’s Wood
has the lowest vacancy rate (1.6%) of all 7 District Centres, suggesting that there are
high levels of demand for premises in the centre.
Table 2.1: Total Retail Floorspace
Use A1 - Conv A1- Comp A2 A3 A4 A5 SG Vacant TOTAL
Floorspace Sqm 1,791 6,482 1,658 1,543 122 0 0 187 11,783
Percentage 15.2% 55.0% 14.1% 13.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 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
Figure 2.1: Retail Floorspace in St John’s Wood
Retail Floorspace in St. John's Wood
A1- Conv15.2%
A1- Comp55.0%
A214.1%
A313.1%
A41.0%
A50.0%
SG0.0%
Vacant1.6%
Diversity of Use
2.3 St John’s Wood is a mixed-use centre, dominated by A1 Comparison shops, serving
local residents, comparison shoppers, workers and tourist visitors. This centre is the
smallest of Westminster’s District Centres. Similarly to the other District Centres, St
John’s Wood has a good selection of restaurants, cafés and services. The diversity
of uses represented in the centre is summarised in Table 2.2.
2.4 The overall number of units in St John’s Wood has decreased from 101 to 100 since
2002. Whilst the number of A1 units has remained the same, the diversity within the
class has changed significantly since 2002. The number of specialist independent
retailers has fallen to less than half its 2002 number (-18 units), while the number of
independent retailers has increased four-fold in the same time period (+27 units).
The number of national retailers has fallen (-4 units), as has the number of
convenience retailers (-5 units). The number of Class A2 uses has decreased from
15 to 12 and the number of Class A3 uses has also fallen (-3 units). In the A4 Class
(pubs/bars) the number of units has fallen by two-thirds (-2 units). Since 2002 the
number of vacant units has increased from 2 to 3 and the number of arts/culture units
has remained at 1. There are no hotels, health units, sui generis units or takeaways
in the defined District Centre.
7
Table 2.2: Diversity of Uses
Use Class Number Number % %of Units of Units of Units of Units
2002 2006 2002 2006Class A1 Retail 71 71 70.3% 71.0%
Department/principlestores 0 0 0.0% 0.0%International retailers 0 0 0.0% 0.0%National retailers 14 10 13.9% 10.0%Specialist Independent 30 12 29.7% 12.0%Independent 9 36 8.9% 36.0%Convenience 18 13 17.8% 13.0%
Class A2 15 12 14.9% 12.0%Class A3 Restaurant/Café 8 12 7.9% 12.0% Class A3 Takeaway/Restaurant 1 0 1.0% 0.0% Class A4 Pubs/Bars 3 1 3.0% 1.0%Class A5 Takeaway 0 0 0.0% 0.0%Sui Generis 0 0 0.0% 0.0%VacantUnits 2 3 2.0% 3.0%Arts/Culture 1 1 1.0% 1.0%Healthuses 0 0 0.0% 0.0%Hotels 0 0 0.0% 0.0%TOTAL 101 100 100.0% 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 the centre is
summarised in Appendix C. St John’s Wood’s overall attractions score has remained
unchanged since 2002 at 57.7% which is higher than the average across all 7 District
Centres of 42.3%. St John’s Wood is ranked 3rd out of Westminster’s 7 District
Centres in this respect. None of the District Centre’s ratings have changed since
2002, and this centre’s strengths remain as the quality of the retail environment,
including the prominence of food and specialist shops, and the quality of its
restaurants, and local services. Its weaknesses are still its poor range of
cultural/community events and the lack of sporting/leisure facilities.
Range of Shops and Services
2.6 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on the range of shops and
services in St John’s Wood (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)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 18 28 12 12 61 4 10Quite Good 42 51 55 59 35 55 49Neither Good/Poor 16 11 28 19 2 31 20Quite Poor 12 1 6 8 2 4 13Very Poor 4 1 0 9 0 3 4Don’t Know 9 8 0 2 0 3 4Average Score 0.63 1.13 0.73 0.74 1.55 0.56 0.48Average 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 the centre for its range of shops and services as good
significantly outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score was
+0.63, below the quite good mark (a score of zero is neutral i.e. neither good nor
poor). All centres achieved above neutral scores (above 0). St John’s Wood attained
the 5th best average score (+0.63), ahead of Warwick Way/Tachbrook Street and
Praed Street District Centres.
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 Services (% of residents)
St John’sWood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 14 19 9 14 43 10 7Quite Good 15 36 30 14 26 19 14Neither Good/Poor 38 28 31 30 19 37 29Quite Poor 26 7 21 23 6 20 27Very Poor 5 5 6 14 0 10 16Don’t Know 1 5 3 5 6 4 7Average Score 0.07 0.60 0.15 -0.09 1.11 -0.01 -0.34Average 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 St John’s Wood was around the neutral mark (+0.07).
Residents’ views were less positive than visitors’ views but this was a trend mirrored
across all of the District Centres. St John’s Wood was ranked 4th behind Marylebone
High Street, Queensway/Westbourne Grove and Church Street/Edgware Road in
terms of its range of shops and services. Within Westminster’s other District
Shopping Centres views on this subject amongst residents were mixed (i.e. scores
around neutral – zero).
2.10 Businesses in the centre were also asked about the range of shops and services
(Question 10 Appendix I), and the results are summarised in Table 2.5 below. The
9
views amongst businesses in relation to the range of shops and services in St John’s
Wood were largely negative, with an overall score below neutral (-0.35). 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 centre to
achieve a positive rating based on its business responses.
Table 2.5: Businesses’ Views on the Range of Shops and Services (% of businesses)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 6 4 4 0 31 0 0Quite Good 17 22 29 9 41 35 15Neither Good/Poor 28 39 25 27 21 24 19Quite Poor 28 17 21 36 2 31 31Very Poor 17 9 14 27 2 3 27Don’t Know 5 9 7 0 2 7 8Average Score -0.35 -0.05 -0.15 -0.82 0.98 -0.04 -0.75Average 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 St John’s Wood (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are
summarised in Table 2.6 below.
2.12 The number of visitors rating St John’s Wood for its quality of shops and services as
good significantly outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score
was +1.00 around the quite good mark. All centres achieved above neutral scores
(above zero). St John’s Wood achieved the 2nd best average score of all 7 District
Centres (0.99), behind only Marylebone High Street.
Table 2.6: Visitors’ Views on the Quality of Shops and Services (% of visitors)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 26 16 11 7 67 6 7Quite Good 44 59 55 55 31 61 48Neither Good/Poor 10 15 27 21 2 22 20Quite Poor 3 1 6 13 0 8 16Very Poor 4 0 0 2 0 0 3Don’t Know 13 9 2 2 0 3 6Average Score 1.00 0.99 0.73 0.53 1.65 0.68 0.43Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
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. Again
the average score for St John’s Wood was positive (+0.68), although residents’ views
10
were less positive than visitors’ views. Generally residents’ views were less positive
than visitors’ comments in all of the District Centres. St John’s Wood was again
ranked 2nd behind Marylebone High Street. 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 on the Quality of Shops and Services (% of residents)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 21 14 7 13 45 10 7Quite Good 36 38 21 20 43 16 23Neither Good/Poor 33 26 39 28 4 48 39Quite Poor 6 12 21 16 2 18 9Very Poor 2 5 9 19 0 4 11Don’t Know 2 5 3 4 6 4 11Average Score 0.68 0.45 -0.03 -0.09 1.39 0.10 0.05Average 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 the centre 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)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 6 0 4 0 31 0 0Quite Good 39 44 29 0 48 31 15Neither Good/Poor 22 30 29 55 12 31 19Quite Poor 22 0 18 18 2 24 35Very Poor 0 13 0 27 5 7 19Don’t Know 11 13 0 0 2 7 12Average Score 0.31 0.20 -0.21 -0.73 1.00 -0.07 -0.65Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.15 There were mixed views amongst businesses in relation to the quality of shops and
services in St John’s Wood District Centre, with an overall score being recorded as
just above neutral (0.31). Marylebone High Street was the only centre to achieve a
significant positive rating in this respect. Harrow Road and Praed Street achieved the
lowest scores in relation to businesses’ views on the quality of shops and services in
those centres.
Food Supermarkets
2.16 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on the size quality of
supermarkets in St John’s Wood (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are
summarised in Table 2.9 below. All of the District Centres surveyed achieved a
positive score (above zero). St John’s Wood received the lowest average score
(0.17) of all 7 District Centres.
11
Table 2.9: Visitors’ Views on Food Supermarkets (% of visitors)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 9 18 0 3 29 4 4Quite Good 29 50 34 63 48 72 41Neither Good/Poor 19 15 57 21 5 11 15Quite Poor 11 0 6 7 2 7 17Very Poor 11 3 1 3 1 7 4Don’t Know 21 14 2 3 15 8 19Average Score 0.17 0.93 0.26 0.55 1.20 0.79 0.27Average 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 scores for each centre were 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
District Centre customers. In St John’s Wood residents had mainly negative views on
supermarket provision with an average score below the neutral mark (-0.29). St
John’s Wood was ranked 5th ahead of Praed Street and Church Street/Edgware
Road 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)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 6 9 7 14 43 18 11Quite Good 13 17 16 20 36 30 18Neither Good/Poor 34 34 16 24 15 18 9Quite Poor 35 19 36 24 6 18 30Very Poor 10 7 20 13 0 11 21Don’t Know 2 14 6 5 0 5 11Average Score -0.29 0.02 -0.48 -0.01 1.15 0.28 -0.33Average 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 the centre (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)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 40 28 5 5 61 11 11Quite Good 40 50 51 60 31 60 57Neither Good/Poor 7 11 38 18 1 15 16Quite Poor 4 2 24 8 3 3 6Very Poor 1 1 0 5 0 3 2Don’t Know 8 8 3 3 4 8 8Average Score 1.24 1.11 0.58 0.54 1.56 0.79 0.76Average 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 St John’s Wood for the quality/number of places to eat and drink
as good significantly outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score
was +1.24 there, well above the quite good mark. All of the District Centres achieved
above neutral scores (above 0). St John’s Wood achieved the 2nd best average
score (+1.24), behind only Marylebone High Street (+1.56).
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.
Again the average score for the centre was positive (+0.67). St John’s Wood was
ranked 3rd behind Marylebone High Street and Queensway/Westbourne Grove.
Table 2.12: Residents’ Views on Places to Eat and Drink (% of residents)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 20 29 13 8 47 15 9Quite Good 41 24 16 8 34 29 21Neither Good/Poor 23 24 21 14 13 21 18Quite Poor 11 10 16 20 0 15 18Very Poor 2 3 11 20 0 1 11Don’t Know 3 9 23 30 6 19 23Average Score 0.67 0.72 0.04 -0.55 1.36 0.51 -0.03Average 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 St John’s Wood 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 (Table 2.12), with an average
score of 0.60 being achieved.
13
Table 2.13: Businesses’ Views on Places to Eat and Drink (% of businesses)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 22 17 0 0 38 17 8Quite Good 22 44 36 18 50 45 42Neither Good/Poor 28 13 7 36 5 17 15Quite Poor 6 0 29 27 5 14 8Very Poor 6 4 25 18 2 3 8Don’t Know 17 22 4 0 0 3 19Average Score 0.60 0.89 -0.44 -0.45 1.17 0.61 0.43Average 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 St John’s Wood (Question 14
Appendix G). The results are summarised in Table 2.14 below.
2.23 Day-time entertainment/leisure facilities were rated more positively than night-time
entertainment/leisure facilities in this centre, however, both were rated positively. St
John’s Wood achieved the 3rd highest score for day-time facilities and the 4th highest
score for night-time facilities of all 7 of Westminster’s District Shopping Centres.
Table 2.14: Visitors’ Views on Entertainment and Leisure Facilities (% of visitors)
Day Time St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 13 7 9 1 13 4 4Quite Good 40 54 46 43 20 23 29Neither Good/Poor 12 13 26 14 13 13 18Quite Poor 3 3 10 10 8 15 12Very Poor 12 0 1 14 7 11 4Don’t Know 20 23 8 19 39 34 33Average Score 0.48 0.85 0.57 0.08 0.39 -0.08 0.22Night Time St John’s
WoodQueensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 9 8 6 1 11 2 5Quite Good 28 43 46 44 26 23 24Neither Good/Poor 6 17 29 12 9 17 11Quite Poor 4 3 9 10 5 10 14Very Poor 14 0 2 14 7 15 6Don’t Know 39 30 7 19 42 33 40Average Score 0.21 0.79 0.50 0.10 0.50 -0.21 0.13Average 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. The results are
summarised in Table 2.15 below. St John’s Wood attained a negative score of -0.14,
which was the 5th best score in terms of its perceived quality of night-time facilities,
ahead of Church Street/Edgware Road and Harrow Road.
14
Table 2.15: Residents’ Views on Night-Time Facilities (% of residents)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 3 10 6 4 17 7 4Quite Good 24 31 16 5 36 14 18Neither Good/Poor 28 17 21 15 23 23 23Quite Poor 14 17 11 15 2 20 14Very Poor 14 0 13 23 2 8 9Don’t Know 16 24 33 38 19 27 32
Average Score -0.14 0.45 -0.15 -0.78 0.79 -0.13 -0.07Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
2.25 Businesses in St John’s Wood were also asked about the entertainment and leisure
facilities (Question 10 Appendix I), and the results are summarised in Table 2.16
below. St John’s Wood received a negative score of -0.50 and was ranked 4th out of
all 7 District Centres; only Queensway/Westbourne Grove achieved a positive score
from businesses in response to this question.
Table 2.16: Businesses’ Views on Entertainment and Leisure Facilities (% of businesses)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 11 4 0 0 9 0 0Quite Good 0 30 4 0 24 31 4Neither Good/Poor 22 39 18 9 24 14 27Quite Poor 28 9 18 46 19 24 15Very Poor 17 0 46 45 17 21 46Don’t Know 22 17 14 0 7 10 8Average Score -0.50 0.37 -1.25 -1.36 -0.10 -0.38 -1.12Average 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 gold
are rated as positive attributes in St John’s Wood, those in grey are rated as negative
attributes, while green represents neutral factors where views were mixed. St John’s
Wood’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 Positive5th
Neutral4th
Negative5th
Neutral
Quality of Shops/Services Very Positive2nd
Positive2nd
Positive2nd
Positive
Food supermarkets Neutral7th
Negative5th
n/a Positive
Places to Eat/Drink Very Positive2nd
Positive3rd
Positive4th
Positive
Entertainment/Leisure/Night-time facilities
Positive3rd/4th
Neutral5th
Negative4th
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.
16
3.0 ST. JOHN’S WOOD’S ROLE AND CATCHMENT AREA
Introduction
3.1 St John’s Wood 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 the
centre 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 87% of the in-street visitors in St John’s Wood indicated where they live by
postcode. Of those who gave their postcode, 50% were found to live within the local
postcode area, NW8. A further 22% lived within other West London postcodes and
17% lived in the rest of London. These results are consistent with the proportion
(44%) of visitors who walked to the centre. Around 9% of visitors to St John’s Wood
lived outside London. These results indicate that St John’s Wood’s primary role is
serving local residents (of postcode areas NW8, and other West London postcodes),
but also has an important role serving commuters as well as occasional visitors from
across London and beyond.
3.3 The household survey results indicated that over 90% of local residents in the St
John’s Wood catchment area had shopped at St John’s Wood during the last three
months. This was the highest figure out of the 7 District Centres. Of the residents
who regularly use this District Centre, nearly 90% indicated that they choose to shop
there because the centre is convenient to get to from home. These results suggest
that the centre has a very important local shopping role, perhaps one of the most
important of the 7 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 36%;
Brent Cross 21%; and
O2 Centre, Finchley Road 10%.
17
Socio-Economic Characteristics
3.4 The SEG socio-economic characteristics of visitors interviewed within St John’s Wood
District Centre 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: Scio-Economic Characteristics of Visitors and Residents (% of visitors and residents)
SEG of Visitors(%)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
TachbrookSt
PraedStreet
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
HarrowRd
AllCentres
ABProfessional/Managerial
54 25 37 22 25 5 12 26
C1Skilled Non-Manual
25 35 45 39 31 37 34 35
C2Skilled Manual
11 17 6 17 12 16 17 14
DESemi-Skilled/Unskilled
10 24 10 22 32 40 35 25
Refused 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 1SEG of Residents
(%)St John’s
WoodQueensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
TachbrookSt
PraedStreet
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
HarrowRd
AllCentres
ABProfessional/Managerial
48 28 54 39 36 33 29 37
C1Skilled Non-Manual
30 47 31 27 40 28 26 33
C2Skilled Manual
7 11 7 7 6 13 12 9
DESemi-Skilled/Unskilled
7 8 8 18 13 18 27 15
Refused 8 7 0 9 5 8 6 6Source: NEMS Household and in- Street Surveys 2006 NB – SEG is Socio-Economic Group
3.5 St John’s Wood attracts a fairly 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 higher proportion of AB, C2 and DE
customers and a lower proportion of C1 customers when compared with the local
catchment characteristics, which implies that the centre attracts affluent customers
from outside of its catchment area. This pattern is only experienced in St. John’s
Wood; all of the other District Centres attract a lower proportion of the most affluent
customers than live in their catchment areas.
3.6 The proportions of visitors in St John’s Wood within each SEG differed from the
average for all 7 District Centres surveyed. St John’s Wood has more than double
the average proportion of AB visitors than the average across all centres (the highest
proportion amongst all 7 District Centres), and less C1, C2 and DE visitors than the
average across all 7 District Centres.
18
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 £ St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
HarrowRd
AllCentres
Below £25,000 16 20 25 31 27 48 50 31£25,000 – 50,000 18 19 24 22 22 19 15 20£50,000 – 100,000 13 14 14 16 18 7 8 13£100,000 + 25 18 20 7 13 6 6 13Don’t Know Refused
28 30 17 24 21 20 21 23
3.8 St John’s Wood’s catchment area has a higher proportion of high-earning households
(over £100,000) compared with the average for all of Westminster’s District Centres,
and a lower proportion of low-income households (under £25,000). The centre’s local
catchment area appears to be the most affluent of all of Westminster’s District
Centres.
Ethnicity
3.9 The ethnicity characteristics of visitors interviewed within St John’s Wood 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 St John’s Wood attracts a fairly narrow mix of ethnic groups/customers, and this mix
is broadly consistent with the ethnicity characteristics of the local catchment area.
However, the centre appears to attract a higher proportion of Afro-Caribbean
customers (13% of all customers) when compared with the local catchment
characteristics (where 0% were found to be Afro-Caribbean) and a slightly lower
proportion of Asian customers (3% of all customers) and European customers (4% of
all customers) when compared with the local catchment characteristics (8% of local
residents surveyed and 10% of local residents surveyed respectively). Around two-
thirds of St John’s Wood’s customer base and residents, are of White-British origin
(64% of all customers) and (69% of local residents surveyed).
19
Table 3.3: Ethnicity of Visitors and Residents (% of visitors and residents)
Ethnic Group of Visitors
(%)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
HarrowRd
AllCentres
White British 64 60 78 71 48 32 28 54Afro-Caribbean 13 12 3 7 3 17 13 10
Asian 3 0 1 4 21 22 20 10European 4 9 9 5 9 8 17 8
Other 6 15 9 10 11 13 12 12Refused 10 4 0 3 8 8 10 6
Ethnic Group of Residents
(%)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
HarrowRd
AllCentres
White British 69 66 75 72 75 65 41 66Afro-Caribbean 0 6 0 4 1 6 22 5
Asian 8 3 9 2 6 6 5 5European 10 11 10 10 7 10 14 8
Other 9 7 6 5 7 9 6 12Refused 4 7 0 7 4 4 3 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
(%)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
HarrowRd
AllCentres
None 26 47 29 60 66 69 65 521 42 27 43 34 26 27 28 322 25 20 19 5 8 5 5 12
3+ 6 6 9 1 0 0 2 3Number of Cars
owned by Residents (%)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook St
PraedStreet
ChurchSt/
EdgwareRd
HarrowRd
AllCentres
None 22 38 39 38 34 57 49 401 50 41 36 49 51 29 37 422 16 16 22 11 10 9 10 13
3+ 10 2 3 0 1 1 0 2Refused 2 4 0 2 4 4 4 3
Source: NEMS Household and in- Street Surveys 2006
3.12 Car ownership amongst visitors interviewed in St John’s Wood was 73%,
considerably above the average for the 7 District Centres surveyed (48%). The
centre appears to attract a similar proportion of car owning in-street customers when
compared with the local catchment area’s characteristics (which suggests a higher
car ownership rate of 76%). The in-street visitor and household surveys identified
that most customers walk or use public transport to get to St John’s Wood District
Centre, but that a significant number use their car (just under 20% in both cases).
These results imply that car ownership may be an important issue affecting the vitality
and viability of the centre. However they also imply that local residents without
20
access to a car are more likely to shop in their local District 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 St John’s Wood District Centre established the main
reason for their visit there (Question 01 Appendix G). The results, as shown in Table
3.5, provide a good indication of the centre’s current role.
Table 3.5: Main Purpose of Visit (% of all visitors)
Reason for Visit (%) St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
MaryleboneHigh St
WarwickWay/
TachbrookSt
PraedStreet
Church St/Edgware
Rd
HarrowRd
Shopping for Food 27 51 27 40 14 56 40Shopping for Both Food and Non-Food
8 9 13 8 9 8 14
Shopping for Non-Food Goods 4 1 12 27 5 3 14Visit the Market 0 0 0 0 1 9 1Window Shopping 3 2 3 1 0 1 5Overall Proportion Shopping 59 75 72 84 55 76 73Services e.g. bank, PO, hairdresser
8 15 9 3 10 2 4
Work/Business Purposes 19 9 15 7 23 18 19Restaurant/Café/Public House 20 5 10 1 2 0 2Social/Leisure e.g. Meeting Friends, gym
3 3 1 7 5 4 4
To Have a Walk/Stroll Around 10 5 8 4 4 7 5Healthcare e.g. Doctor, Dentist, Optician
4 2 5 1 16 2 1
Tourism, e.g. Holiday, Day Trip 0 1 0 0 3 0 0Live here/going home 2 0 0 2 3 3 0School/College 0 8 0 3 2 0 3Other 6 3 5 7 9 1 2Source: 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 this centre was to
shop. The centre had the joint 2nd lowest proportion undertaking food shopping
(27%) out of the 7 District Centres. Only 12% of respondents suggested that non-
food shopping was a main purpose for their visit (either individually or a combined trip
with food shopping) which was the 3rd lowest proportion for all 7 District Centres.
21
Figure 3.1 – Main purpose of Visit
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
3.15 Of those who did not indicate shopping was a main reason for their visit, 34%
suggested they intended to do some shopping during their visit to St John’s Wood
(Question 02 Appendix G). Overall 59% of visitors mentioned some form of shopping
as one of their main purposes for their visit. These results suggest that a number of
trips to the centre have a multi-purpose, i.e. shopping and another activity, and that
the centre attracts a considerable number on non-shopping trips.
3.16 St John’s Wood had the highest proportion of in-street visitors visiting
restaurants/cafés/public houses (20%); this is double the next highest proportion
visiting restaurants/cafés/public houses in Marylebone High Street. St John’s Wood
also had the highest proportion of in-street visitors whose main purpose was to have
a walk or stroll around (10%). The centre had the joint lowest proportion of visitors
who were there attending school/college (0%), and the joint 2nd lowest proportion
there for social/leisure purposes (3%).
3.17 Just over a third (36%) of in-street visitors indicated that they intended to visit
leisure/entertainment facilities or to eat or drink during their visit (Question 05
Appendix G), compared with an average of 24% for all 7 of the District Centres. The
in-street surveys were undertaken during the daytime and interviews were conducted
22
in the main shopping area. Therefore, the in-street survey results will tend to
understate the social/leisure and restaurant/bar activities elsewhere in the centre, and
at other times of the day/evening.
Intended Visitor Purchases
3.18 In-street respondents were asked what they intended to buy during their visit
(Question 03 Appendix G). The majority of customers intended to buy food and
grocery items within all 7 District Centres. St John’s Wood had the 5th highest
proportion buying food and grocery goods (78%) of all of the District Centres. The
average spend on food and grocery goods there was £15.30 per customer (Question
04 Appendix G), which was the highest of the 7 District Centres surveyed and, well
above the overall average of £12.60. Most customers in St John’s Wood (61%)
stated they spent less than £20 on food and groceries.
Table 3.6: Intended Main Purchases (% of shopping visitors)
Type of Goods (%) St John’s Wood
QueenswayWestbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh St
Warwick Way/ Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Food and Groceries 78 95 89 84 68 84 57Newspapers/Magazines 9 1 6 19 3 13 3Confectionery/Tobacco 3 1 5 11 0 20 7Clothing/Footwear 6 3 1 18 13 2 24Furniture/Carpets/SoftFurnishings
0 0 0 0 3 1 0
Domestic Electrical 0 4 1 1 1 3 3Other electrical (TV/Hi-Fi)
0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Gifts/Jewellery/Chinaand Glass
3 1 0 2 1 2 3
Health/Beauty/ChemistItems
10 5 1 5 21 5 0
Books/CD’s/Videos/Toys/Hobbies
2 3 0 5 14 2 7
DIY/hardware/gardening 2 4 0 1 1 2 0Other household 2 0 1 4 4 4 0Flowers 2 0 4 0 0 1 0Other 5 1 0 1 6 7 11Don’t Know 5 0 5 2 3 3 8Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
NB – Totals add to more than 100% because more than one product was suggested by some respondents.
3.19 For non-food shopping only 38% of customers across all 7 District Centres indicated
how much they would spend on non-food goods (38% intended to spend nothing). In
St John’s Wood only 18% of customers suggested they would spend nothing on non-
food goods. However, 43% suggested they did not know how much they would
spend, which may imply that a reasonably high proportion of customers had visited
the centre to browse rather than to specifically to buy certain products. Therefore,
non-food shops in the centre may, to a certain extent, rely on high footfall, window
shopping and impulse purchases. The average expenditure (of customers who knew
23
how much they would spend) was £13.60 per customer in St John’s Wood, which is
lower than the average for all 7 District Shopping Centres of £14.90.
Figure 3.2 – Intended Main Purchases
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/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
3.20 Only 6% of in-street visitors to St John’s Wood intended to buy clothing and footwear,
which was amongst the lowest proportion of all 7 District Centres.
Duration and Frequency of Visit
3.21 Table 3.7 shows the time in-street visitors intended to spend in St John’s Wood
District Centre. The overall average length of stay there was approximately 57
minutes, which was the 2nd highest in the 7 centres surveyed, behind only
Queensway/Westbourne Grove, and above the average for all of Westminster’s
District Centres combined (50 minutes).
24
Table 3.7: Duration of Visit
Duration of Visit % of Respondent
0-15 min 1116-30 min 3031 min-1 hour 181-1½ hours 111½-2 hours 72-3 hours 4Over 3 hours 4Don’t Know 13Average Duration 57 minutesOther 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
3.22 Table 3.8 indicates that the majority of in-street respondents in St John’s Wood visit
the centre regularly with 58% visiting once a week or more, although 22% never visit
the centre (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 of the
District Centres.
Table 3.8: Frequency of Visit and Average Frequency
Frequency of Visit % of Respondents
Everyday 232-3 times a week 25Once a week 10Once a fortnight 7Once a month 9Less than once a month 4Never 22Don’t Know 2Average 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 7 District 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 St John’s Wood
4.2 Postal questionnaire responses were received from 18 businesses within this District
Centre. Most of these respondents (83%) were long established businesses who
have been located in the centre for over 5 years. Businesses were asked to describe
their current, past and expected future trading performance.
Table 4.1: Businesses’ Views on Trading Performance (% of businesses)
CurrentPerformance
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 11 4 7 18 12 14 8Good 33 22 18 18 36 28 31Satisfactory 28 48 39 46 36 38 38Poor 28 26 32 9 12 17 19Don’t Know 0 0 4 9 4 3 4Average Score 0.28 0.04 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.28Past Performance(last 12 months)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Improved 22 22 14 18 45 31 42Stayed the same 45 35 32 27 24 28 15Declined 33 39 50 36 26 38 39Don’t Know 0 4 4 18 5 3 4Average Score -0.11 -0.18 -0.37 -0.22 0.20 -0.07 0.04Future Performance(next 12 months)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Improve 22 43 18 27 55 52 31Stay the same 67 35 43 27 24 24 39Decline 6 22 21 9 7 17 15Don’t Know 5 0 18 37 14 7 14Average Score 0.18 0.22 -0.04 0.29 0.56 0.37 0.18Average Score – Very good=2, Good/improve = 1, satisfactory/stay the same r= 0, Poor/decliner= -1.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
4.3 Business occupiers’ views on current trading performance in St John’s Wood were
quite mixed with slightly higher numbers suggesting performance was ‘good/very
good’ than those suggesting it was ‘poor’. Just under a third of respondents describe
their performance as satisfactory. More businesses (33%) suggested performance
had declined during the past 12 months than those who suggested it had improved
(22%). Nevertheless businesses appear to be relatively optimistic about future
26
trading performance with 22% expecting an improvement over the next 12 months,
compared with 6% expecting a decline.
Property Indicators
4.4 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 St. John’s Wood. In 1997 Zone A rents in St. John’s Wood were £699
per sqm comparable with Westbourne Grove and Notting Hill Gate and above
Marylebone High Street. In 2002 Zone A rents were £1,184 per sqm in St. John’s
Wood, lower than in Westbourne Grove, Queensway and Notting Hill Gate.
Table 4.2: Zone A Retail Rents (£ Per Sqm)
Centre 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Oxford Street 3767 5651 5113 4844 4844 5059 5167 5221 5490 5651
Kensington High St 2153 2422 2153 2691 3229 33229 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 10760 1076 12383
Wigmore Street 484 646 753 861 1076 1076 1076 1076 1076 1184
Source: Colliers CRE In-Town Retail Rents
4.5 These figures demonstrate Oxford Street’s dominant position at the top of the
shopping hierarchy. Rental levels in St. John’s Wood are comparable with many
other central London centres and rental growth has been relatively strong.
Availability of Premises and Vacancy Levels
4.6 There were 3 vacant units in St John’s wood at the time of survey. The vacancy rate
here (3.0%) is significantly below the national average for shopping centres of over
10%. The number of vacant units in St John’s Wood has risen by just one unit since
2002, from 2 to 3 suggesting continued strong demand for premises here. This low
level of vacancy suggests that demand for premises is strong and there are limited
opportunities for new occupiers seeking representation in the centre.
27
Property Requirements
4.7 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 three specific requirements for St John’s
Wood.
Business Occupier’s Views on Rents and Rates
4.8 Businesses were asked about their views on rents and rates in St John’s Wood
(Question 10 Appendix I). The results are summarised in Table 4.3 below. The
number of businesses suggesting rents and rates were poor (i.e. too high)
significantly outnumbered those suggesting they were good. The average score in all
of the District Centres combined was below zero (i.e. below neutral). In general
dissatisfaction was slightly worse for rates rather than rents; however, in St. John’s
Wood it was the other way round with rents being perceived to be particularly high.
4.9 St John’s Wood was rated worst in terms of high rents and in terms of rates. Nearly
78% of businesses in the centre suggested that high overheads/rents were a main
issue constraining their business.
4.10 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 St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Quite Good 6 0 11 0 12 21 4Neither Good norPoor
17 44 32 64 45 21 19
Quite Poor 6 4 18 0 17 28 23Very Poor 44 30 14 9 19 17 23Don’t Know 11 9 14 27 2 10 4Not Answered 17 13 11 0 5 3 27Average Score -1.23 -0.83 -0.48 -0.46 -0.46 -0.48 -0.94Rates St John’s
WoodQueensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Quite Good 6 4 4 9 5 7 4Neither Good norPoor
22 22 21 36 41 31 15
Quite Poor 6 35 21 18 26 24 19Very Poor 50 22 32 18 19 28 39Don’t Know 6 9 7 18 5 7 4Not Answered 11 9 14 0 5 3 15Average Score -1.20 -0.89 -1.05 -0.56 -0.66 -0.81 -1.05
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 St John’s Wood District Centre has improved since
2002, having risen from 80.4% to 84.8%; its ranking has remained at 2nd out of the 7
District Centres, behind Marylebone High Street. St John’s Wood scores highly on
the majority of factors, and has particular strengths in environmental issues. Only
one category was rated as poor in St John’s Wood’s day-time amenities appraisal
which was ‘promotion/street events’. There has been a notable improvement since
2002 in the lessening of the presence of refuse bags on the street, and there have
been no obvious deteriorations in other regards.
Night-Time Amenity Appraisal
5.3 St. John’s Wood’s night-time appraisal rating has remained constant since 2002 at
86.8%, with its ranking having risen from 2nd to joint 1st out of the 7 District Centres
due to a slight fall in Marylebone High Street’s overall rating. Its strengths are again
manifold, but lie mainly in the feeling of security. Its main weakness at night is
identified as the presence of refuse bags on the street. A notable improvement
made since 2002 is in the quality of street lighting whose rating has risen from
‘average’ to ‘good’.
30
National Multiple Retailers in St John’s Wood St John’s Wood Library
Period Buildings Well maintained streetscape.
Outdoor Seating along wide pavement. Good quality Street Lighting.
31
6.0 ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT
Introduction
6.1 Accessibility to St John’s Wood 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 St John’s Wood District Centre is made up of four primary shopping streets (St John’s
Wood High Street, becoming St Ann’s Terrace and Circus Road becoming St John’s
Wood Terrace), and the centre forms a ‘T’ shape. The centre is in close proximity to
St John’s Wood Underground tube station, and is approximately one mile from
Marylebone, Edgware Road and Warwick Avenue Underground tube stations.
6.3 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on the layout of the 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)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 19 19 1 3 32 3 3Quite Good 37 56 62 73 51 52 39Neither Good/Poor 23 10 28 15 13 28 36Quite Poor 4 2 3 3 3 5 12Very Poor 0 0 0 3 0 3 2Don’t Know 17 13 6 3 1 9 8Average Score 0.87 1.06 0.65 0.72 1.13 0.53 0.31Average 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 St John’s Wood District Centre’s layout as good
significantly outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score was
+0.87, which is around 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
32
(above 0). St John’s Wood achieved the 3rd best average score (+0.87), behind
Marylebone High Street and Queensway/Westbourne Grove.
Modal Split
6.5 Respondents to the in-street visitor survey were asked (Question 07 Appendix G)
how they had travelled to St John’s Wood District Centre. The results are
summarised in Table 6.2 below. In addition, residents interviewed in the household
survey (those who have shopped in St John’s Wood during the past 3 months) were
asked how they normally travel to the centre (Question 08 Appendix H). The results
are summarised in Table 6.3 below.
Table 6.2: Visitors’ Mode of Travel (% of Visitors)
Travel Mode St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Walked 44 58 60 45 51 78 31Car (Driver) 20 0 4 4 6 2 3Car (Passenger) 1 0 0 1 2 2 2Motorbike/Scooter 0 0 0 0 2 0 0Bus/Coach 4 7 26 27 7 9 34Train/Tube 26 32 8 17 26 6 28Taxi 4 3 1 0 3 1 1Bicycle 1 0 2 6 2 3 1Other 0 0 0 0 3 0 0Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
6.6 The majority of visitors had walked to the centre (44%), and a fairly high proportion
had travelled by train/tube (26%). The proportion of visitors who had travelled by car
was just over a fifth (21%), which was by far the highest amongst all 7 centres
surveyed. Only a small proportion of visitors had travelled by bus to the centre (4%),
which is the lowest amongst all of the centres.
6.7 The household survey results indicate (unsurprisingly) that local residents are more
likely to walk to the centre (58%) or use the bus (10%), than visitors in general. The
results also suggest that local residents do not usually use the tube, but that a fifth of
local residents drive to St John’s Wood. The results suggest that visitors from outside
the local catchment area are more likely to use the tube, explaining the high numbers
of train/tube users recorded in St John’s Wood in-street surveys (Table 6.2).
33
Table 6.3: Local Residents’ Mode of Travel (% of Respondents)
Travel Mode St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Walked 58 69 79 77 81 88 84Car (Driver) 20 7 4 4 6 4 5Car (Passenger) 0 0 1 1 2 1 0Motorbike/Scooter 0 0 0 0 2 0 0Bus/Coach 10 19 11 13 2 4 7Train/Tube 2 0 3 0 0 2 0Taxi 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Bicycle 0 2 1 3 2 6 0Don’t Know 11 0 0 3 3 1 2Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Public Transport
6.8 St John’s Wood has excellent accessibility by public transport in most directions.
There is one tube station (St John’s Wood) located very close to the centre, served by
the Jubilee line. Three further tube stations (Marylebone, Warwick Avenue and
Edgware Road) are within walking distance of the centre (approximately one mile
away), and cumulatively are served by the Bakerloo line and the circle and district
lines. St John’s Wood District Centre has excellent tube access to the Finchley, West
Hampstead, Wembley, Queen’s Park and Kilburn areas to the north, the Notting Hill,
Kensington, Oxford Circus, Charing Cross, Lambeth and Westminster areas to the
south, and the London Bridge area to the south-west. These linkages help to
generate the high proportion (26%) of visitors travelling by tube to the centre.
6.9 The centre is served by seven bus routes (Nos. 82, 46, 139, 13, 113, 187 and 139).
There are three routes serving the Finchley and Golders Green areas to the north
(Nos. 82, 13 and 187). The Edgware area to the northeast is served by the No. 113
bus route. The No. 46 bus serves the Camden and Holborn areas to the east while
Oxford Circus, Trafalgar Square and Waterloo areas to the southeast are served by
the No. 13 bus, the No. 139 bus and the No. 113 bus. Bus linkages to the southwest
are also good, with bus route numbers 46 and 187 serving the Maida Vale and
Queen’s Park areas. The Brent Cross and West Hampstead areas to the northwest
are served by the No. 139 bus and the No. 189 bus. Local residents interviewed in
the household survey were asked to rate St John’s Wood in terms of public transport,
and the results are in Table 6.4 below.
34
Table 6.4: Residents’ Views on Public Transport Accessibility (% of Respondents)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 49 33 34 28 17 25 39Quite Good 27 36 31 39 19 31 39Neither Good/Poor 7 12 13 15 13 10 4Quite Poor 2 3 4 1 4 8 0Very Poor 0 3 3 5 17 1 4Don’t Know 15 12 14 11 30 25 14Average Score 1.45 1.04 1.05 0.94 0.21 0.93 1.24Average 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 St John’s Wood
significantly outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score there
was +1.45, which is between the quite good and the very 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). St John’s Wood achieved the best average
score for public transport accessibility (1.45), considerably higher than the average
score for all 7 District 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 below.
Table 6.5: Visitors’ Views on Bus Services (% of Respondents)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 35 12 10 19 4 21 29Quite Good 22 39 66 66 14 50 52Neither Good/Poor 5 27 22 3 4 3 4Quite Poor 3 5 1 4 5 3 3Very Poor 3 1 0 0 13 2 1Don’t Know 32 17 1 8 60 22 11Average Score 1.25 0.67 0.86 1.08 -0.22 1.09 1.20Average 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 as good in St John’s Wood significantly
outnumbered those suggesting it was poor, and the average score here was +1.25.
All 7 of Westminster’s District Shopping Centres achieved above neutral scores
(above 0), except Marylebone High Street which is less well served by bus services.
St John’s Wood was again ranked top of the 7 District Centres in this respect.
6.13 Businesses in St John’s Wood were also asked to rate the centre in terms of public
transport, and the results are shown below in Table 6.6.
6.14 St John’s Wood scored positively with businesses both for its bus and train/tube
services. However, the average score for bus services was +0.25, which is
35
considerably lower than the score given by visitors, and leaves the centre ranked 6th
out of the 7 District Centres, ahead only of Marylebone High Street. Conversely,
businesses ranked St John’s Wood top in terms of its train/underground services; its
average score being +1.14.
Table 6.6: Businesses’ Views on Public Transport Accessibility (% of businesses)
Bus Services St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 6 13 14 18 0 10 31Quite Good 33 35 50 18 29 59 38Neither Good/Poor 11 13 14 18 17 17 23Quite Poor 6 9 4 0 12 7 0Very Poor 11 0 4 9 26 0 0Don’t Know 33 30 14 36 17 7 8Average Score 0.25 0.75 0.79 0.57 -0.43 0.78 1.08Train/Underground
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 11 26 11 0 7 24 31Quite Good 67 30 54 9 50 62 46Neither Good/Poor 0 22 14 36 24 10 11Quite Poor 0 4 7 0 7 3 4Very Poor 0 4 7 0 7 0 0Don’t Know 22 13 7 55 5 0 8Average Score 1.14 0.80 0.58 0.20 0.45 1.07 1.13Average 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 Car parking is relatively limited within this centre with double yellow lines throughout,
although there is some metered car parking in side streets. The in-street survey
results suggest that the proportion of visitors travelling by car to this centre is
relatively high. Respondents were asked about their views on the availability and
cost of car parking here (Question 14 Appendix G). Local residents were asked a
similar question in the household survey (Question 07 Appendix H). The results are
shown in Table 6.7 below.
6.16 Although a relatively large proportion of visitors travelled by car to this centre, around
80% did not; as a result a high proportion of respondents indicated they did not know
about car parking availability and charges (25% and 36% respectively). Of those who
did express a view, the numbers rating car parking availability and charges as poor in
St John’s Wood significantly outnumbered those suggesting it was good. The
average scores were -0.70 and -1.05 respectively, which is around the quite poor
mark (a score of zero is neutral i.e. neither good nor poor). All 7 of the District
Centres achieved below neutral scores (below 0) with the exception of Church
Street/Edgware Road. St John’s Wood achieved the 2nd best average score for
parking availability (-0.70), just above the average score for all of Westminster’s
36
District Centres (-0.86), and the 3rd best score for charges (-1.05), again above 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 respondents)
Availabilityof Parking
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 2 2 6 0 2 2 0Quite Good 17 11 34 2 5 9 3Neither Good/Poor 12 6 27 3 4 3 2Quite Poor 17 10 17 7 7 5 6Very Poor 28 32 5 31 18 19 19Don’t Know 25 39 11 57 64 62 70Average Score -0.70 -0.97 0.23 -1.55 -0.94 -0.80 -1.32Parking Charges St John’s
WoodQueensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 2 2 6 0 2 1 0Quite Good 20 7 38 0 2 3 0Neither Good/Poor 11 7 22 5 6 7 0Quite Poor 5 7 16 11 4 8 9Very Poor 26 34 6 26 22 18 13Don’t Know 36 43 13 58 64 63 78Average Score -1.05 -1.12 0.24 -1.49 -1.17 -1.60 -0.53Average 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 St John’s Wood catchment area were similar to
those of its in-street visitors with an average score of -1.02 being recorded, marginally
worse than the average for the 7 District Centres (-0.90). In accordance with these
relatively negative views regarding car parking, 18% of household survey
respondents (Question 12 Appendix H) suggested they would shop more often in St
John’s Wood if there was more or cheaper car parking. Therefore improving car
parking may increase the attraction of the centre; however, it may also exacerbate
traffic congestion and result in a reduction in the use of public transport, and reduce
the environmental/aesthetic quality of the centre.
Table 6.8: Residents’ Views on Availability of Car Parking and Parking Charges (% of residents)
Availability/Price of Parking
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 0 2 4 8 6 4 2Quite Good 2 7 6 11 2 6 7Neither Good/Poor 15 14 7 11 13 3 2Quite Poor 22 7 11 9 19 12 7Very Poor 21 22 27 33 17 22 41Don’t Know 40 48 44 28 43 53 41Average Score -1.02 -0.80 -0.92 -0.67 -0.67 -0.91 -1.31Average 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 St John’s Wood District Centre were also sought in
relation to the cost and availability of car parking (Question 10 Appendix I), and the
37
results suggest a higher level of dissatisfaction, as shown in Table 6.9. The average
scores for St John’s Wood based on businesses’ responses were -1.29 for the
availability of car parking and -1.12 for parking charges. However, these low scores
are comparable with the other 6 District Centres surveyed.
Table 6.9: Businesses’ Views on Availability of Car Parking and Parking Charges (%of businesses)
Availabilityof Parking
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Quite Good 11 0 14 0 24 7 12Neither Good/Poor 0 22 11 9 14 14 12Quite Poor 33 39 14 18 43 31 4Very Poor 50 30 57 73 19 48 65Don’t Know 6 9 4 0 0 0 7Average Score -1.29 -1.10 -1.19 -1.64 -0.57 -1.21 -1.33Parking Charges St John’s
WoodQueensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 0 4 0 0 0 0 0Quite Good 11 0 4 0 0 7 4Neither Good/Poor 11 9 21 46 7 7 8Quite Poor 22 17 29 9 38 10 15Very Poor 44 61 43 46 50 76 58Don’t Know 11 9 4 0 5 0 15Average Score -1.12 -1.43 -1.15 -1.00 -1.45 -1.55 -1.50Average 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), 50% of businesses in St John’s Wood mentioned the availability/location
of car parking and 50% mentioned the price of parking. These issues were the most
mentioned factors constraining businesses, after high overheads/rents (78% of
business).
6.20 A summary of visitors’, local residents’ and businesses’ views on car parking in St
John’s Wood is shown in Table 6.10. These results confirm that car parking
(availability and price) is generally more of a concern for businesses than for both
local residents and visitors to the centre in general. Based on our experience of
similar surveys across the country, views amongst businesses are usually stronger
than customers in relation to car parking.
Table 6.10: Summary of Views on Availability of Car Parking/Parking Charges
Average Score Visitors LocalResidents
Businesses
Availability of Car Parking -0.70 ) -1.29) -1.02
Car Parking Charges -1.05 ) -1.12
Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor=0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
38
Pedestrian Flow
6.21 Pedestrian counts were recorded at 20 different locations within the 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 St John’s Wood was 733 per hour, which is the 2nd lowest average
pedestrian flow 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 (178 per hour in St John’s Wood) than the
afternoon average; it was the lowest of all 7 District Centres and was again
significantly below the overall average (626 per hour) for the 7 District Centres
combined. These figures suggest that St John’s Wood is a relatively quiet centre
during the day and the evening, which in part may be due to it being the smallest of
the seven District Centre.
6.23 The distribution of pedestrian flows around St John’s Wood is shown on thermal
maps in Appendix F. During the afternoon the highest pedestrian flows in this centre
were recorded around the intersection of Circus Road and St John’s Wood High
Street, and reached over 1,400 per hour in places (around twice the average) (see
Appendix F). The figures indicate that the north-west side of St John’s Wood
generally has much higher pedestrian flows than other areas. The lowest flow counts
(around 135-165 per hour) were recorded at either end of the centre: the southern
end of St John’s Wood High Street, and along Barrow Hill Road (the south of the
centre), and along St Ann’s Terrace and St John’s Wood Terrace (the north-east of
the centre).
6.24 During the night pedestrian flows around the centre were very similar to the day-time
flows. The highest flows were found on Circus Road outside Tesco Metro and the
Post Office, while the lowest was found on Barrow Hill Road.
Traffic Congestion
6.25 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on traffic congestion in St
John’s Wood (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are summarised in Table 6.11
below.
39
Table 6.11: Visitors’ Views on Traffic Congestion (% of visitors)
TrafficCongestion
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 5 1 5 0 1 1 3Quite Good 32 17 35 12 16 12 26Neither Good/Poor 13 13 39 6 33 26 17Quite Poor 15 13 14 5 16 9 15Very Poor 20 31 3 20 10 18 6Don’t Know 15 26 5 57 24 34 33Average Score -0.15 -0.75 0.26 -0.77 -0.24 -0.47 0.07Average 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 good in St John’s Wood slightly
outnumbered those suggesting it was poor, however, due to a larger proportion rating
the centre as very poor than very good it received a negative overall score. The
average score was -0.15, better than the average for all of Westminster’s District
Centres (-0.29). St John’s Wood achieved the 3rd best average score for traffic
congestion out of all of the centres.
6.27 The views of local residents in relation to traffic congestion in the St John’s wood
catchment area were more negative than those of the in-street visitors with an
average score recorded of -0.43, marginally better than the average for the 7 District
Centres combined (-0.52).
Table 6.12: Residents’ Views on the Amount of Traffic (% of residents)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 4 2 9 5 0 10 2Quite Good 13 12 19 18 13 14 18Neither Good/Poor 38 22 20 19 40 30 30Quite Poor 24 29 21 16 21 23 14Very Poor 21 28 29 38 21 23 27Don’t Know 0 7 3 4 4 0 9Average Score -0.43 -0.74 -0.44 -0.67 -0.53 -0.37 -0.50Average 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 St John’s Wood 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 in St John’s Wood were mixed and the
average score was slightly below neutral (-0.13). All other centres achieved a
negative score with the exception of Queensway/Westbourne Grove, which suggests
that businesses perceive traffic congestion to be a problem in most centres. St
John’s Wood is ranked 3rd for Traffic Congestion by businesses.
40
Table 6.13: Businesses’ Views on Traffic Congestion (% of businesses)
TrafficCongestion
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 6 9 4 0 0 0 3Quite Good 22 17 11 36 17 31 23Neither Good/Poor 22 44 32 9 52 17 31Quite Poor 22 17 18 18 19 10 15Very Poor 11 9 32 18 7 38 12Don’t Know 17 4 4 18 5 3 15Average Score -0.13 0.00 -0.66 -0.22 -0.17 -0.57 -0.09Average 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
St John’s Wood is shown in Table 6.14. These results confirm that traffic congestion
is more a concern for local residents than for businesses or visitors in this area.
Table 6.14: Summary of Views on Traffic Congestion
Average Score Visitors LocalResidents
Businesses
Traffic congestion/amount -0.15 -0.43 -0.13
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 Positive3rd
n/a n/a
Bus services Very Positive1st
Neutral6th
Train/Underground services n/aVery Positive
1st Very Positive1st
Car parking availability Negative2nd
Very Negative5th
Car parking charges Very Negative3rd
Very Negative6th Very Negative
2nd
Traffic congestion Neutral3rd
Negative2nd
Neutral3rd
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 St John’s Wood 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 occupiers’ views.
Personal Safety
7.2 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on personal safety in St
John’s Wood (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are summarised in Table 7.1
below.
Table 7.1: Visitors’ Views on Personal Safety (% of visitors)
St John’sWood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 33 18 14 8 36 14 12Quite Good 49 50 56 68 57 62 63Neither Good/Poor 8 19 28 13 2 13 19Quite Poor 2 2 1 7 3 2 3Very Poor 2 2 0 1 2 3 1Don’t Know 6 9 1 3 0 6 3Average Score 1.18 0.88 0.83 0.77 1.22 0.86 0.84Average 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 St John’s Wood as good for personal safety significantly
outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score here of +1.18 is just
above 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). St
John’s Wood achieved the 2nd best average score (+1.18), behind only Marylebone
High Street.
7.4 In accordance with these relatively positive results, only about 7% of visitors in St
John’s Wood District Centre 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. Again the average score for St John’s Wood was
positive (+0.92), although residents’ views were less positive than visitors’ views. St
John’s Wood was again ranked 2nd in this respect out of the 7 District Centres, behind
Marylebone High Street. Only 4% of respondents suggested they would visit the
centre more often if safety and security was improved (Question 12 Appendix H).
Table 7.2: Residents’ Views on Safety and Security (% of residents)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 32 17 11 16 49 23 14Quite Good 38 31 37 19 28 33 34Neither Good/Poor 21 31 16 27 15 32 23Quite Poor 4 9 21 14 4 7 11Very Poor 3 3 10 19 0 4 9Don’t Know 2 9 4 5 4 1 9Average Score 0.92 0.55 0.19 0.00 1.27 0.65 0.35Average 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 St John’s Wood were also asked about personal safety (Question 10
Appendix I), and the results are summarised in Table 7.3 below. There were mixed
views amongst businesses in relation to personal safety, with an average score of just
below zero (-0.12) being recorded overall. These figures suggest that businesses
may be more concerned with personal safety than residents and customers to this
centre.
Table 7.3: Businesses’ Views on Personal Safety (% of businesses)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 11 9 0 0 10 7 0Quite Good 17 17 18 9 62 38 35Neither Good/Poor 28 35 18 18 14 31 35Quite Poor 17 17 18 27 7 14 15Very Poor 17 9 43 46 5 10 4Don’t Know 11 13 4 0 2 0 12Average Score -0.12 0.00 -0.89 -1.09 0.66 0.17 0.13Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
Business Security
7.7 Businesses were asked about their views on security in St John’s Wood District
Centre (Question 10 Appendix I). The results are summarised in Table 7.4 below.
There were mixed, but predominantly negative views amongst businesses in terms of
security. The overall average score (-0.37) achieved in this District Centre was below
the neutral score (zero). St John’s Wood appears to out-perform only Harrow Road
43
and Church Street/Edgware Road in terms of the perception of business security.
Accordingly, 28% of businesses in St John’s Wood suggested that security was a
main issue constraining their business.
Table 7.4: Businesses’ Views on Security (% of businesses)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 6 0 0 0 7 10 0Quite Good 17 26 21 9 41 31 39Neither Good/Poor 22 30 36 9 21 28 35Quite Poor 28 4 4 55 21 21 8Very Poor 17 17 36 18 5 10 8Don’t Know 11 22 4 9 5 0 11Average Score -0.37 -0.17 -0.56 -0.90 0.25 0.10 0.17Average 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 Very Positive2nd
Neutral5th
Security n/aPositive
2nd Negative5th
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
The quality of the environment in St John’s Wood 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 occupiers’ views.
Shopping Environment
8.1 In-street survey respondents were asked about their views on the shopping
environment in St John’s Wood (Question 14 Appendix G). The results are
summarised in Table 8.1 below.
Table 8.1: Visitors’ Views on the Shopping Environment (% of visitors)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 24 24 9 5 45 5 3Quite Good 49 56 55 69 45 64 50Neither Good/Poor 6 9 30 18 5 18 24Quite Poor 9 1 2 4 4 4 13Very Poor 1 0 0 2 0 1 4Don’t Know 11 10 4 2 1 8 5Average Score 0.97 1.14 0.74 0.73 1.32 0.74 0.36Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
8.2 The numbers rating St John’s Wood as good for its shopping environment
significantly outnumbered those suggesting it was poor. The average score here was
+0.97 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).
St John’s Wood achieved the 3rd best average score (+0.98), behind only
Marylebone High Street and Queensway/Westbourne Grove in this respect.
8.3 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. Again the average score for St John’s Wood was
positive (+0.56), although residents’ views were less positive than visitors’ views here.
45
Generally residents’ views were less positive than visitors’ comments in most of the
District Centres with the exception of Marylebone High Street. St John’s Wood was
ranked 2nd out of the 7 centres by residents, in terms of the shopping environment of
this centre.
Table 8.2: Residents’ Views on the Shopping Environment (% of residents)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 19 16 11 9 60 14 5Quite Good 35 33 24 18 30 27 16Neither Good/Poor 33 29 20 32 4 26 20Quite Poor 7 10 24 17 6 25 25Very Poor 5 9 14 21 0 7 25Don’t Know 2 3 6 4 0 1 9Average Score 0.56 0.38 -0.06 -0.25 1.43 0.17 -0.55Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
8.4 Businesses in St John’s Wood District Centre were also asked about the general
shopping environment there (Question 10 Appendix I), and the results are
summarised in Table 8.3 below. There were generally positive views amongst
businesses in relation to the shopping environment there, with an overall score above
neutral (0.43) being recorded. These figures suggest that businesses may be slightly
more concerned with the shopping environment than customers, but have a similar
level of concern to residents in this area. St John’s Wood was ranked 2nd most
attractive in terms of shopping environment amongst its local businesses. No
businesses identified the quality of the shopping environment in St John’s Wood as a
major issue affecting their business (Question 07 Appendix I).
Table 8.3: Businesses’ Views on the Shopping Environment (% of businesses)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 6 9 0 0 36 0 4Quite Good 33 26 11 9 43 31 8Neither Good/Poor 33 35 36 55 19 31 23Quite Poor 0 17 25 18 0 21 31Very Poor 6 0 21 18 2 14 23Don’t Know 22 13 7 0 0 3 12Average Score 0.43 0.30 -0.62 -0.45 1.10 -0.18 -0.70Average 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
8.5 Residents interviewed in the household survey were asked about street cleaning in St
John’s Wood (Question 07 Appendix H). The results are summarised in Table 8.4
below. The average score for this centre was positive (+1.28). St John’s Wood was
ranked top out of all 7 District Centres in relation to street cleanliness.
46
Table 8.4: Residents’ Views on Street Cleaning (% of residents)
St John’s Wood
Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
Very Good 39 9 19 25 36 26 18Quite Good 51 48 29 23 53 38 34Neither Good/Poor 9 24 29 27 9 23 21Quite Poor 1 7 13 9 0 10 11Very Poor 0 0 9 11 0 3 5Don’t Know 0 12 3 5 2 0 11Average Score 1.28 0.67 0.37 0.44 1.28 0.75 0.56Average Score – Very good=2, Quite good=1, Neither good/poor= 0, Quite poor= -1, Very poor= -2.Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006
8.6 None of the visitors interviewed during the in-street survey of St John’s Wood
suggested the centre should be made cleaner when asked what improvements to the
centre they would like (Question 15 Appendix G).
Environmental Summary
8.7 A summary of the above analysis is shown in Table 8.5.
Table 8.5: Summary Analysis for Environmental Issues
Visitors’Views/Rank
Residents’Views/Rank
BusinessOccupiers’Views/Rank
NLP Analysis
Shopping Environment Positive3rd
Positive2nd
Positive2nd
n/a
Street cleaning n/a Very Positive1st
n/a Positive
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 St John’s
Wood District Centre. An overview of Central Government guidance (PPS6) and
current UDP policy is set out in Appendix K.
Defining St John’s Wood’s District Centre’s Boundary and Frontages
9.2 St John’s Wood District Centre consists of Core and Secondary Shopping Frontages.
Over 80% of St John’s Wood is defined as Core shopping frontages, with only
peripheral shop premises identified as Secondary Frontages.
9.3 The relevant issues that need to be considered in Queensway/Westbourne Grove
are:
Should the centre boundary by contracted to exclude parts of the Secondary Shopping Frontages?
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 and there
are no vacant units. Therefore, we believe there is no reason to exclude any of the
Secondary Frontages from the centre boundary. The centre boundary includes all
commercial properties and there are no opportunities to extend the boundary.
Shopping Frontages
9.5 The Council’s UDP states that no more than 20% of St John’s Wood’s Core Frontage
will be permitted to be used for non-A1 usage. The current proportion of Core
Frontage in non-A1 usage is 24% which is just above the Council’s threshold. The
20% threshold still appears to be relevant.
9.6 The Council’s Adopted UDP January 2007 states that no more than 45% of St John’s
Wood’s Secondary Frontage will be permitted to be used for non-A1 usage. The
current proportion of Secondary Frontage in non-A1 usage is 68%, which exceeds the
48
Council’s policy threshold. The current policy criteria for both Core and Secondary
Frontages have been breached in this District Centre.
9.7 Given that the percentage threshold limits have been breached both within the Core
and Secondary Frontages in St. John’s Wood, strict interpretation of UDP Policy SS6
would effectively represent a ban on any further changes of use from Class A1 to
non-A1 use anywhere in this centre. However, this approach may be difficult to
defend because the maximum threshold has been exceeded.
9.8 There is only a small proportion of total frontage designated as Secondary Frontage
in this centre (18%), i.e. on the north side of St. John’s Wood Terrace and Barrow Hill
Road. These frontages have a high portion of non-A1 use, in particular A2 and A3
uses, and there appears no benefit in including these areas as Core Shopping
Frontages.
9.9 The current policy criteria for the Core Frontages in St. John’s Wood has not been
significantly breach suggesting the criteria here do not need to be changed. The
current policy criteria for the Secondary Frontages no longer appear relevant. The
Council may wish to increase the non-A1 frontage limit to a more realistic level.
9.10 The adoption of maximum limits 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 use may change frequently. An alternative
approach could be considered.
9.11 We believe the Council should review its frontage policies, and the following options
should be considered:
No change – keep the Core and Secondary Frontages and non-A1 limits 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 but increase the current UDP percentage threshold limits on non-A1 use, so they become more meaningful, perhaps 25% in the Core Frontages and 65% or even no restrictions in the SecondaryFrontages.
9.12 These options should be discussed by policy and development control officers at
Westminster.
49
10.0 RETAIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Introduction
10.1 This section assesses the quantitative scope for new retail floorspace in St John’s
Wood 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 the St John’s Wood District Centre is shown below in
figure 10.1. An explanation regarding the identification of this catchment area is set
out at paragraph (ii) in Appendix L.
Figure 10.1: St John’s Wood 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 at paragraph viii in
50
Appendix L). Convenience expenditure is expected to increase by 4.0% between
2006 and 2016, and comparison expenditure is expected to increase by 37.7% (see
explanation at paragraph (v) in Appendix L).
Table 10.1: Population and Expenditure
2006 2011 2016
Local catchment population 21,104 20,618 20,530
Convenience expenditure per capita (annual) £2,150 £2,202 £2,299
Total convenience expenditure (millions) £45.37 £45.40 £47.20Comparison expenditure per capita (annual) £4,223 £5,063 £5,978
Total comparison expenditure (millions) £89.12 £104.39 £122.73
Existing Retail Floorspace
10.4 As indicated in table 2.1 the breakdown of convenience and comparison retail
floorspace is 1,791 sqm gross and 5,118 sqm gross respectively. In terms of net
sales floorspace (assuming an average net to gross ratio of about 65%-70%) the split
would be about 1,300 sqm net for convenience shops and 3,300 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 analyse existing shopping patterns. Based on these
survey results we estimate that St. John’s Wood District Centre’s market penetration
(or market share) within the local catchment area is as follows:
Comparison expenditure - 6%; and
Convenience expenditure - 18%.
10.6 These figures indicate that the majority of expenditure (both comparison and
convenience) within the local catchment area of St. John’s Wood District Centre is not
spent within St. John’s Wood District Centre. 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 residents to choose from,
including Sainsbury’s and Waitrose at Finchley Road.
51
10.7 These market share estimates have been used to estimate the amount of expenditure
attracted to St. John’s Wood 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 St. John’s
Wood District Centre is 30% for convenience and comparison shops.
Table 10.2: Convenience Floorspace Capacity 2006 to 2011 in St John’s WoodDistrict Centre
2006 2011 2016
A - Total expenditure attracted to £12.02 £11.26 £11.71 St. John's Wood Centre £M
B - Convenience floorspace sq m net 1,300 1,300 1,300
C - Turnover density £ per sq m £9,244 £7,000 £7,000
D - Expected turnover £M of existing £12.02 £9.10 £9.10 convenience floorspace
E - Surplus/deficit expenditure £M n/a £2.16 £2.61
F - Additional sales floorspace n/a 309 372 capacity sq m net
G - Additional gross floorspace n/a 441 532 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 Table 10.3 below projects available expenditure on the basis that St. John’s Wood
District Centre can maintain its existing 2006 market share of comparison
expenditure. This assumption is consistent with the implementation of major retail
development elsewhere outside Westminster, which may result in a decrease in this
District Centre’s market share, for example the White City development in Shepherd’s
Bush West London, and further development of the shopping centre at Brent Cross.
The comparison projections could be viewed as a maximum figure in view of the likely
increase in competition from such schemes.
52
Table 10.3: Comparison Floorspace Capacity 2006 to 2011 in St John’s Wood District Centre
2006 2011 2016
A - Total expenditure attracted to £14.10 £16.64 £19.67 St. John's Wood Centre £M
B - Comparison floorspace sq m net 3,300 3,300 3,300
C - Turnover density £ per sq m £4,271 £4,602 £4,957
D - Expected turnover £M of existing £14.10 £15.18 £16.36 convenience floorspace
E - Surplus/deficit expenditure £M n/a £1.46 £3.32
F - Additional sales floorspace n/a 317 669 capacity sq m net
G - Additional gross floorspace n/a 452 955 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.
10.10 The figures in Table 10.2 indicate that in 2006 the average sales density for
convenience sales floorspace in St. John’s Wood District Centre was £9,888 per sqm
net. This is a relatively high figure and indicates that convenience outlets are trading
healthily – perhaps more so than in Westminster’s other District Centres.
53
10.11 The figures in Table 10.3 indicate that in 2006 the average sales density for
comparison sales floorspace was £6,301 per sqm net in St. John’s Wood District
Centre. This figure is also relatively high and reflects the number of high quality
comparison shops in this centre. This figure is within the range one would expect for
high street comparison shops, and is higher than the other District Centres in
Westminster.
10.12 Surplus expenditure (comparison and convenience) in this centre is expected to be
£3.62 million by 2011 or £5.93 million by 2016. As indicated above these estimates
could be viewed as maximum figures bearing in mind the proposed development at
White City, Shepherd’s Bush and Brent Cross. The quantitative floorspace capacity
is 893 sqm gross by 2011, or 1,487 sqm gross by 2016 in St. John’s Wood.
Operator Demand for Space
10.13 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
10.14 In terms of available sites there are limited opportunities for major development within
or adjacent to St. John’s Wood 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.
10.15 The additional A1 retail floorspace potential shown in this section may only be
achieved by one or a combination of the following:
54
the occupation of vacant units by Class A1 use (only 187 sqm in vacant units
available);
redevelopment of existing commercial floorspace to provide higher density
development; and
the change of use of non-retail uses to retail floorspace.
10.16 The absence of development sites and the projected need for A1 retail floorspace
suggests that the Council should continue to control and prevent the loss of existing
Class A1 floorspace in this centre.
10.17 St John’s Wood is one of Westminster’s top performing District Centres, and the
vacancy level here is relatively low. This indicates the centre is attractive to retail
businesses, and is performing well. The successful mix of retail offer in this centre
should be maintained.
10.18 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. The current successful balance of retail mix
should be preserved in this centre, as the centre is currently performing well.
10.19 As the catchment area of this small District Centre is defined by a post code covering
a wide geographical area, rather than actual customer bases, it is not surprising that a
large amount of expenditure is shown to be lost to units outside of this particular
District Centre. The expenditure is still likely to be spent within Westminster, for
example in Oxford Street to the south of this centre, and to the rest of the West End.
10.20 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. Despite the wide catchment area, 92% of
residents therein indicated that they had used St. John’s Wood High Street within the
past three months. This is the highest for any of the District Centre’s catchment
areas. Based on this, the threat of an out-of-town development to St. John’s Wood
High Street is likely to be negligible, although this is difficult to determine as the scale
of the two centres is not comparable.
55
10.21 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
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 St. John’s Wood for example,
demand is shown for a relatively small amount of comparison and to a lesser extent
convenience retail. This centre is currently performing well, attracting 92% of
residents from its catchment area. This suggests they are not finding they have to go
elsewhere to meet their retail needs. The moderate demand for increased retail
floorspace shown may be a reflection of the catchment area’s spending power rather
than an indication of how much additional retail floorspace is required in this centre.
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.
56
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 “healthy”, and this has not changed since the 2002 health check.
Strengths
Although St John’s Wood is a small District Centre, its shops are of high qualityand it has a mix of national multiples and range of specialist and independent retailers.
In addition to retail facilities, St John’s Wood has a good number of quality places to eat and drink.
The average expenditure amongst visitors is higher than average for all of the District Centres combined and the duration of customers’ stays in the centre is longer than the average for all 7 of the District Centres.
St John’s Wood has the most affluent catchment area of all of Westminster’s District Centres, and attracts the most affluent mix of customers.
The vacancy rate here is significantly lower than the national average suggesting that demand for premises is reasonably strong. The vacancy rate has remained fairly constant since 2002, suggesting a strong and stable demand for premises in St John’s Wood District Centre.
St John’s Wood is a compact centre and the distance from one end to the other is relatively short, making it relatively easy for customers to visit all parts of the centre during their shopping trip.
The public transport links to St John’s Wood are extremely good with one underground station in very close proximity of the District Centre, and three further tube stations within a mile of the centre; it also has a good number of bus links.
Traffic congestion scores comparatively well here, receiving a ranking of 2nd or 3rd by visitors, residents and businesses, although overall scores are slightly negative.
The shopping environment in St John’s Wood is rated fairly highly by visitors, residents and businesses.
Weaknesses
St John’s Wood is the smallest centre when compared with the other 6 District Centres in Westminster, and has a comparatively limited choice of shops and services.
The Tesco store is the largest food store, but this caters more for top-up rather than main food shopping trips. The centre attracts a relatively low proportion of food and grocery shopping trips in the local catchment area.
57
St John’s Wood has relatively poor entertainment and leisure facilities when compared with the other 6 District Shopping Centres in Westminster.
Pedestrian flow information indicates that St John’s Wood is a relatively quiet centre during both the day and evening.
The business survey suggests that many occupiers in St John’s Wood are relatively pessimistic regarding their future trading performance. Views on past, performance were generally negative, while those of present performance were mixed. A large number of occupiers in this centre suggested that high overheads/rents were a major constraint on their business.
A large number of visitors travel to St John’s Wood by car (21%), and use of the buses is particularly low, although this may be explained by the relatively high proportion of affluent customers attracted to this centre.
The views on the availability and price of car parking in St John’s Wood District Centre are mixed, however, these were both major factors cited by businesses in the centre as constraints they face. Visitors and residents also had relatively negative views about car parking in St John’s Wood (although both issues ranked relatively well amongst visitors). Given the high levels of car use already prevalent in St John’s Wood centre, bettering car parking facilities may increase it further and exacerbate traffic congestion.
Although St John’s Wood did not score poorly on safety and security issues, a significant number of businesses considered security issues to be a major constraint to their business.
Opportunities
The high quality shops and services in St. John’s Wood serve a niche market and this exclusivity provides an opportunity for the centre to differentiate itself from other centres, which should continue to attract customers from beyond the local catchment area.
Growth in expenditure within St. John’s Wood’s local catchment area could support additional shops and services, if suitable development opportunities can be identified. Growth should also help to promote continued investment in existing properties.
Threats
As the smallest District Centre, with limited scope for expansion, the centre’s role and market share could be threatened if other centres improve or expand.
There are limited sites available to expand St. John’s Wood District Centre.However, policy changes could be made in accordance with section 9 above to help protect the existing A1 retail units.
St. John’s Wood District Centre has a vibrant evening economy and demand for restaurant/bar uses is strong. The balance of uses will need to be controlled in order to ensure that St. John’s Woods District Centre’s shopping role is maintained.
Appendix A
Methodology
Diversity of main town centre uses
i. Information relating to existing shopping facilities have been collected, based on the
Council’s District Centre land use survey 2005, updated where necessary. The total
ground floor retail floorspace has been analysed and broken down into use
classes/key categories e.g. A1, A2, A3/A4/A5 and vacant shop units. The floorspace
figures exclude uses such as B1 office uses and residential units which do not attract
visiting 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 multiple
operators. This has been used to assess the level of demand for floorspace in each
of Westminster’s District Centres, and includes details of existing retailers who may
wish 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 also
undertaken.
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 Queensway/Westbourne
Grove
ChurchStreet/
Edgware
HarrowRoad
MaryleboneHigh Street
WarwickWay/
Tachbrook
PraedStreet
St John’s Wood
Monday 2 - 23 32 - - -Tuesday - - - - 25 23 -Wednesday 24 43 44 38 23 23 23Thursday - 43 23 - 23 23 23Friday 75 0 23 30 18 21 23Saturday - 23 - - 27 23 45Total 101 109 113 100 116 113 114
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: St John’s Wood District Centre Day and Night-Time Pedestrian Flows
3pm - 5pm 9pm - 11pm Grid ReferencesSTREET & ADDRESS Note Count Index Count Index OSE OSN
10 St Annes Terrace 135 18 60 34 526911.99 183302.99105 St John’s Wood Terrace 390 53 75 42 526941.55 183283.09142 St John’s Wood High Street A 525 72 90 51 526947.68 183264.55140 St John’s Wood High Street 960 131 165 93 526955.55 183246.68120 St John’s Wood High Street 1,080 147 210 118 526985.94 183208.54128 Allitsen Road 510 70 195 110 527010 183213.9292 St John’s Wood High Street 585 80 195 110 527025.37 183161.570 St John’s Wood High Street 450 61 60 34 527063.16 183112.5339 Barrow Hill Road 180 25 30 17 527108.15 183098.9760 St John’s Wood High Street 165 23 60 34 527100.87 183065.021-3 Wellington Place 300 41 165 93 527066.33 183058.43 St John’s Wood High Street 555 76 120 68 527067.82 183079.820 St John’s Wood High Street 825 113 180 101 527034.05 183127.3545 St John’s Wood High Street 1,080 147 210 118 526992.95 183175.4657 St John’s Wood High Street 1,485 203 210 118 526964.82 183210.3275 St John’s Wood High Street 1,320 180 210 118 526938.51 183244.43Circus Road 870 119 195 110 526919.86 183246.113-19 Circus Road 915 125 210 118 526859.84 183197.6828 Circus Road 1,110 151 330 186 526847.63 183211.22Circus Road 1,215 166 585 329 526905.94 183257.84
733 100 178 100
Fig
ure
F.1
:S
t Jo
hn
’s W
oo
d G
rove
Dis
tric
t C
entr
e D
ay a
nd
Nig
ht-
Tim
e P
edes
tria
n F
low
co
mp
aris
on
ST
JO
HN
S W
OO
D -
OC
TO
BE
R 2
006
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
12
34
56
78
910
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CO
UN
T P
OIN
TS
INDEXEDPEDESTRIANFLOW
3pm
- 5
pm
9p
m -
11
pm
Appendix G
In-Street Visitor Survey Results
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 110
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 27.2% 31 26.9% 14 27.4% 17 24.4% 10 26.3% 10 31.4% 11 25.6% 23 33.3% 8Shopping for non-food goods
only7.9% 9 3.8% 2 11.3% 7 2.4% 1 10.5% 4 11.4% 4 7.8% 7 8.3% 2
Shopping for both food &non-food items
3.5% 4 0.0% 0 6.5% 4 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 3.3% 3 4.2% 1
Shopping for specialist foods/ goods / items specific tocentre
0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0
Window shopping 2.6% 3 0.0% 0 4.8% 3 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 5.7% 2 3.3% 3 0.0% 0To visit the Market 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0To visit a restaurant / café /
public house20.2% 23 23.1% 12 17.7% 11 29.3% 12 15.8% 6 14.3% 5 23.3% 21 8.3% 2
To have a walk / strollaround
10.5% 12 9.6% 5 11.3% 7 12.2% 5 10.5% 4 8.6% 3 11.1% 10 8.3% 2
To use services e.g. bank,post office, hairdresser
7.9% 9 3.8% 2 11.3% 7 7.3% 3 7.9% 3 8.6% 3 8.9% 8 4.2% 1
Work / business purposes 19.3% 22 28.8% 15 11.3% 7 24.4% 10 21.1% 8 11.4% 4 20.0% 18 16.7% 4Healthcare e.g. doctor,
dentist, optician3.5% 4 1.9% 1 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 4.2% 1
Social / leisure reason e.g.meeting friends, going togym
2.6% 3 0.0% 0 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 5.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 4.2% 1
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 4.4% 5 3.8% 2 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 2.2% 2 12.5% 3Going 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 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 0.0% 0Going to the hospital 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0Going home 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) 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 4.2% 1
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
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 33.8% 24 21.6% 8 47.1% 16 23.3% 7 45.5% 10 36.8% 7 32.8% 19 38.5% 5No 56.3% 40 73.0% 27 38.2% 13 60.0% 18 50.0% 11 57.9% 11 55.2% 32 61.5% 8(Don’t know) 9.9% 7 5.4% 2 14.7% 5 16.7% 5 4.5% 1 5.3% 1 12.1% 7 0.0% 0
Base: 71 37 34 30 22 19 58 13
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 77.6% 52 82.6% 19 75.0% 33 83.3% 15 76.9% 20 73.9% 17 76.5% 39 81.3% 13Newspapers / Magazines 9.0% 6 13.0% 3 6.8% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 26.1% 6 7.8% 4 12.5% 2Confectionery / Tobacco 3.0% 2 4.3% 1 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 3.8% 1 4.3% 1 2.0% 1 6.3% 1Clothing / Footwear 6.0% 4 0.0% 0 9.1% 4 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 13.0% 3 5.9% 3 6.3% 1Furniture / 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Other electrical goods (TV,
Hi-fi etc)0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
DIY / Hardware / Gardening 1.5% 1 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 3.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 6.3% 1Other household goods 1.5% 1 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 6.3% 1Gifts / Jewellery / China and
Glass3.0% 2 0.0% 0 4.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 8.7% 2 3.9% 2 0.0% 0
Books / CD’s / DVDs / Toys/ Hobbies
1.5% 1 4.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 0.0% 0
Health / Beauty / Chemistitems
10.4% 7 4.3% 1 13.6% 6 11.1% 2 3.8% 1 17.4% 4 11.8% 6 6.3% 1
Specialist foods / goods / items specific to thatcentre
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 4.5% 3 4.3% 1 4.5% 2 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 8.7% 2 5.9% 3 0.0% 0Flowers 1.5% 1 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 3.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 4.5% 3 4.3% 1 4.5% 2 0.0% 0 11.5% 3 0.0% 0 5.9% 3 0.0% 0Base: 67 23 44 18 26 23 51 16
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 111
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 13.4% 9 13.0% 3 13.6% 6 5.6% 1 11.5% 3 21.7% 5 15.7% 8 6.3% 1Less than £5.00 9.0% 6 13.0% 3 6.8% 3 5.6% 1 11.5% 3 8.7% 2 11.8% 6 0.0% 0£5.01-£10.00 22.4% 15 34.8% 8 15.9% 7 22.2% 4 19.2% 5 26.1% 6 17.6% 9 37.5% 6£10.01-£20.00 29.9% 20 30.4% 7 29.5% 13 22.2% 4 34.6% 9 30.4% 7 29.4% 15 31.3% 5£20.01-£30.00 4.5% 3 0.0% 0 6.8% 3 11.1% 2 3.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 12.5% 2£30.01-£40.00 7.5% 5 0.0% 0 11.4% 5 11.1% 2 7.7% 2 4.3% 1 9.8% 5 0.0% 0£40.01-£50.00 1.5% 1 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.3% 1 2.0% 1 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 1.5% 1 4.3% 1 0.0% 0 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 0.0% 0£100.01-£150.00 1.5% 1 4.3% 1 0.0% 0 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 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) 9.0% 6 0.0% 0 13.6% 6 11.1% 2 11.5% 3 4.3% 1 7.8% 4 12.5% 2Mean: 15.3 16.7 14.5 26.6 12.0 10.7 16.3 12.1
Base: 67 23 44 18 26 23 51 16
Non-food
Nothing 17.9% 12 17.4% 4 18.2% 8 16.7% 3 15.4% 4 21.7% 5 19.6% 10 12.5% 2Less than £5.00 10.4% 7 17.4% 4 6.8% 3 0.0% 0 15.4% 4 13.0% 3 9.8% 5 12.5% 2£5.01-£10.00 9.0% 6 8.7% 2 9.1% 4 0.0% 0 7.7% 2 17.4% 4 9.8% 5 6.3% 1£10.01-£20.00 3.0% 2 0.0% 0 4.5% 2 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 4.3% 1 2.0% 1 6.3% 1£20.01-£30.00 4.5% 3 0.0% 0 6.8% 3 0.0% 0 7.7% 2 4.3% 1 3.9% 2 6.3% 1£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 4.5% 3 4.3% 1 4.5% 2 11.1% 2 3.8% 1 0.0% 0 5.9% 3 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 3.0% 2 0.0% 0 4.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 8.7% 2 3.9% 2 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) 43.3% 29 39.1% 9 45.5% 20 61.1% 11 42.3% 11 30.4% 7 41.2% 21 50.0% 8(Refused) 4.5% 3 13.0% 3 0.0% 0 5.6% 1 7.7% 2 0.0% 0 3.9% 2 6.3% 1
Mean: 13.6 6.4 17.0 17.5 9.2 15.8 15.2 7.5
Base: 67 23 44 18 26 23 51 16
Eating / drinking out
Nothing 19.4% 13 21.7% 5 18.2% 8 5.6% 1 26.9% 7 21.7% 5 21.6% 11 12.5% 2Less than £5.00 7.5% 5 8.7% 2 6.8% 3 5.6% 1 7.7% 2 8.7% 2 9.8% 5 0.0% 0£5.01-£10.00 9.0% 6 8.7% 2 9.1% 4 16.7% 3 3.8% 1 8.7% 2 11.8% 6 0.0% 0£10.01-£20.00 3.0% 2 0.0% 0 4.5% 2 0.0% 0 3.8% 1 4.3% 1 2.0% 1 6.3% 1£20.01-£30.00 1.5% 1 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.3% 1 2.0% 1 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) 53.7% 36 47.8% 11 56.8% 25 66.7% 12 46.2% 12 52.2% 12 47.1% 24 75.0% 12(Refused) 6.0% 4 13.0% 3 2.3% 1 5.6% 1 11.5% 3 0.0% 0 5.9% 3 6.3% 1Mean: 4.17 2.22 5.14 5.00 2.50 5.45 4.06 5.00
Base: 67 23 44 18 26 23 51 16
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 36.0% 41 38.5% 20 33.9% 21 41.5% 17 34.2% 13 31.4% 11 37.8% 34 29.2% 7No 57.0% 65 53.8% 28 59.7% 37 48.8% 20 57.9% 22 65.7% 23 53.3% 48 70.8% 17(Don’t know) 7.0% 8 7.7% 4 6.5% 4 9.8% 4 7.9% 3 2.9% 1 8.9% 8 0.0% 0
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 112
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 4.9% 2 5.0% 1 4.8% 1 5.9% 1 7.7% 1 0.0% 0 5.9% 2 0.0% 0Pubs / bars 12.2% 5 25.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 7.7% 1 36.4% 4 8.8% 3 28.6% 2Restaurants 29.3% 12 30.0% 6 28.6% 6 23.5% 4 30.8% 4 36.4% 4 35.3% 12 0.0% 0Takeaway food 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Walk about / look around 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Cafes / Coffee Shops 48.8% 20 35.0% 7 61.9% 13 58.8% 10 53.8% 7 27.3% 3 50.0% 17 42.9% 3Theatre / 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 2.4% 1 5.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 9.1% 1 0.0% 0 14.3% 1Library 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 4.8% 1 5.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 14.3% 1(Don’t know) 2.4% 1 5.0% 1 0.0% 0 5.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 0.0% 0Base: 41 20 21 17 13 11 34 7
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 17.5% 20 17.3% 9 17.7% 11 12.2% 5 26.3% 10 14.3% 5 20.0% 18 8.3% 2Car-passenger 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0Bus / coach 4.4% 5 1.9% 1 6.5% 4 7.3% 3 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 4.4% 4 4.2% 1Train / Tube 26.3% 30 34.6% 18 19.4% 12 31.7% 13 26.3% 10 20.0% 7 25.6% 23 29.2% 7Taxi 4.4% 5 5.8% 3 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 4.4% 4 4.2% 1Walked 43.9% 50 36.5% 19 50.0% 31 46.3% 19 34.2% 13 51.4% 18 43.3% 39 45.8% 11Bicycle 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0Other 1.8% 2 3.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 8.3% 2Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
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 5.0% 1 11.1% 1 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1Work car park 10.0% 2 22.2% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 10.0% 1 20.0% 1 11.1% 2 0.0% 0Masterpark / NCP car park 5.0% 1 11.1% 1 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.6% 1 0.0% 0Off street public car park 15.0% 3 11.1% 1 18.2% 2 20.0% 1 20.0% 2 0.0% 0 16.7% 3 0.0% 0On-street / car park meter 55.0% 11 44.4% 4 63.6% 7 40.0% 2 50.0% 5 80.0% 4 55.6% 10 50.0% 1Other 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 10.0% 2 0.0% 0 18.2% 2 0.0% 0 20.0% 2 0.0% 0 11.1% 2 0.0% 0Base: 20 9 11 5 10 5 18 2
Q09 Was this your first choice place to park ? Those who said car-driver at Q07
Yes 85.0% 17 100.0% 9 72.7% 8 80.0% 4 90.0% 9 80.0% 4 83.3% 15 100.0% 2No 15.0% 3 0.0% 0 27.3% 3 20.0% 1 10.0% 1 20.0% 1 16.7% 3 0.0% 0
Base: 20 9 11 5 10 5 18 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 19.0% 4 0.0% 0 33.3% 4 0.0% 0 27.3% 3 20.0% 1 21.1% 4 0.0% 06-10 minutes 14.3% 3 22.2% 2 8.3% 1 20.0% 1 18.2% 2 0.0% 0 15.8% 3 0.0% 011-15 minutes 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 8.3% 1 0.0% 0 9.1% 1 0.0% 0 5.3% 1 0.0% 016-30 minutes 28.6% 6 22.2% 2 33.3% 4 20.0% 1 36.4% 4 20.0% 1 31.6% 6 0.0% 030 minutes or more 33.3% 7 55.6% 5 16.7% 2 60.0% 3 9.1% 1 60.0% 3 26.3% 5 100.0% 2Base: 21 9 12 5 11 5 19 2
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 113
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 9.6% 11 9.6% 5 9.7% 6 7.3% 3 10.5% 4 11.4% 4 11.1% 10 4.2% 1Ashcroft 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 5.3% 6 5.8% 3 4.8% 3 7.3% 3 2.6% 1 5.7% 2 4.4% 4 8.3% 2Bayswater 5.3% 6 5.8% 3 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 7.9% 3 5.7% 2 3.3% 3 12.5% 3Bluewater 4.4% 5 7.7% 4 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 5.3% 2 8.6% 3 4.4% 4 4.2% 1Brent Cross 24.6% 28 23.1% 12 25.8% 16 29.3% 12 28.9% 11 14.3% 5 26.7% 24 16.7% 4Broadway 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 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.2% 2 0.0% 0 5.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0Camden Town 8.8% 10 5.8% 3 11.3% 7 4.9% 2 15.8% 6 5.7% 2 8.9% 8 8.3% 2Church Street – Edgware
Road North6.1% 7 9.6% 5 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 5.3% 2 11.4% 4 5.6% 5 8.3% 2
Covent Garden 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0Edgware Road (south of
Harrow Road Flyover)1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0
Hammersmith 2.6% 3 1.9% 1 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 3.3% 3 0.0% 0Harrow Road 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Kensington High Street 9.6% 11 5.8% 3 12.9% 8 4.9% 2 10.5% 4 14.3% 5 10.0% 9 8.3% 2Kings Road 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 0.0% 0Knightsbridge 6.1% 7 3.8% 2 8.1% 5 2.4% 1 7.9% 3 8.6% 3 7.8% 7 0.0% 0Ladbroke Grove 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marylebone High Street 10.5% 12 9.6% 5 11.3% 7 7.3% 3 15.8% 6 8.6% 3 12.2% 11 4.2% 1Oxford Street / West End /
Regent Street / BondStreet
51.8% 59 38.5% 20 62.9% 39 56.1% 23 60.5% 23 37.1% 13 55.6% 50 37.5% 9
Praed 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
Grove7.0% 8 5.8% 3 8.1% 5 14.6% 6 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 5.6% 5 12.5% 3
Shepherd’s Bush W12 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0St Johns Wood 6.1% 7 9.6% 5 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 7.9% 3 5.7% 2 6.7% 6 4.2% 1Tottenham Court Road 3.5% 4 1.9% 1 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 4.4% 4 0.0% 0Vauxhall 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 17.5% 20 30.8% 16 6.5% 4 12.2% 5 26.3% 10 14.3% 5 16.7% 15 20.8% 5Ealing 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 7.3% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 4.2% 1Finchley 7.9% 9 5.8% 3 9.7% 6 7.3% 3 0.0% 0 17.1% 6 7.8% 7 8.3% 2Islington 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Kilburn 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Lakeside 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 2.2% 2 0.0% 0Primrose Hill 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0Swiss Cottage 4.4% 5 3.8% 2 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 2.2% 2 12.5% 3Victoria 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 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 0.0% 0Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
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 11.4% 13 9.6% 5 12.9% 8 9.8% 4 10.5% 4 14.3% 5 11.1% 10 12.5% 316-30 minutes 29.8% 34 28.8% 15 30.6% 19 22.0% 9 34.2% 13 34.3% 12 28.9% 26 33.3% 831 minutes – under 1 hour 18.4% 21 23.1% 12 14.5% 9 12.2% 5 28.9% 11 14.3% 5 21.1% 19 8.3% 21 – 1 ½ hours 11.4% 13 9.6% 5 12.9% 8 9.8% 4 7.9% 3 17.1% 6 14.4% 13 0.0% 0Over 1 ½ - 2 hours 7.0% 8 3.8% 2 9.7% 6 12.2% 5 2.6% 1 5.7% 2 4.4% 4 16.7% 4Over 2-3 hours 4.4% 5 3.8% 2 4.8% 3 9.8% 4 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 4.4% 4 4.2% 1Over 3 hours 4.4% 5 7.7% 4 1.6% 1 4.9% 2 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 8.3% 2(Don’t know) 13.2% 15 13.5% 7 12.9% 8 19.5% 8 10.5% 4 8.6% 3 12.2% 11 16.7% 4Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 114
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
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 22.8% 26 21.2% 11 24.2% 15 24.4% 10 21.1% 8 22.9% 8 24.4% 22 16.7% 42-3 times a week 24.6% 28 21.2% 11 27.4% 17 19.5% 8 21.1% 8 34.3% 12 22.2% 20 33.3% 8Once a week 9.6% 11 1.9% 1 16.1% 10 19.5% 8 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 11.1% 10 4.2% 1Once a fortnight 7.0% 8 11.5% 6 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 10.5% 4 8.6% 3 8.9% 8 0.0% 0Once a month 8.8% 10 3.8% 2 12.9% 8 7.3% 3 10.5% 4 8.6% 3 7.8% 7 12.5% 3Less than once a month 3.5% 4 3.8% 2 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 8.3% 2Never 21.9% 25 34.6% 18 11.3% 7 22.0% 9 23.7% 9 20.0% 7 21.1% 19 25.0% 6(Don’t know) 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 5.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
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 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 4.2% 1Quite good 16.7% 19 13.5% 7 19.4% 12 12.2% 5 28.9% 11 8.6% 3 14.4% 13 25.0% 6Neither good nor poor 12.3% 14 11.5% 6 12.9% 8 17.1% 7 7.9% 3 11.4% 4 13.3% 12 8.3% 2Quite poor 16.7% 19 15.4% 8 17.7% 11 17.1% 7 13.2% 5 20.0% 7 16.7% 15 16.7% 4Very poor 28.1% 32 21.2% 11 33.9% 21 26.8% 11 23.7% 9 34.3% 12 27.8% 25 29.2% 7(Don’t know) 24.6% 28 36.5% 19 14.5% 9 24.4% 10 23.7% 9 25.7% 9 26.7% 24 16.7% 4
Mean: 2.30 2.36 2.26 2.29 2.66 1.92 2.24 2.50
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Parking charges
Very good 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.2% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 1.1% 1 4.2% 1Quite good 20.2% 23 21.2% 11 19.4% 12 12.2% 5 34.2% 13 14.3% 5 22.2% 20 12.5% 3Neither good nor poor 10.5% 12 3.8% 2 16.1% 10 14.6% 6 10.5% 4 5.7% 2 10.0% 9 12.5% 3Quite poor 5.3% 6 5.8% 3 4.8% 3 7.3% 3 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 5.6% 5 4.2% 1Very poor 26.3% 30 21.2% 11 30.6% 19 29.3% 12 18.4% 7 31.4% 11 25.6% 23 29.2% 7(Don’t know) 36.0% 41 48.1% 25 25.8% 16 36.6% 15 31.6% 12 40.0% 14 35.6% 32 37.5% 9
Mean: 2.47 2.48 2.46 2.15 2.88 2.33 2.50 2.33
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Traffic congestion
Very good 5.3% 6 3.8% 2 6.5% 4 4.9% 2 10.5% 4 0.0% 0 4.4% 4 8.3% 2Quite good 31.6% 36 36.5% 19 27.4% 17 26.8% 11 36.8% 14 31.4% 11 30.0% 27 37.5% 9Neither good nor poor 13.2% 15 15.4% 8 11.3% 7 17.1% 7 18.4% 7 2.9% 1 14.4% 13 8.3% 2Quite poor 14.9% 17 3.8% 2 24.2% 15 19.5% 8 13.2% 5 11.4% 4 16.7% 15 8.3% 2Very poor 20.2% 23 17.3% 9 22.6% 14 14.6% 6 10.5% 4 37.1% 13 18.9% 17 25.0% 6(Don’t know) 14.9% 17 23.1% 12 8.1% 5 17.1% 7 10.5% 4 17.1% 6 15.6% 14 12.5% 3Mean: 2.85 3.08 2.68 2.85 3.26 2.34 2.82 2.95
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Bus service
Very good 35.1% 40 23.1% 12 45.2% 28 31.7% 13 36.8% 14 37.1% 13 36.7% 33 29.2% 7Quite good 21.9% 25 23.1% 12 21.0% 13 19.5% 8 18.4% 7 28.6% 10 21.1% 19 25.0% 6Neither good nor poor 5.3% 6 3.8% 2 6.5% 4 9.8% 4 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 4.4% 4 8.3% 2Quite poor 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 4.2% 1Very poor 2.6% 3 1.9% 1 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 32.5% 37 44.2% 23 22.6% 14 29.3% 12 44.7% 17 22.9% 8 32.2% 29 33.3% 8Mean: 4.25 4.10 4.33 3.97 4.67 4.22 4.26 4.19
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 115
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
Personal safety
Very good 33.3% 38 28.8% 15 37.1% 23 34.1% 14 39.5% 15 25.7% 9 34.4% 31 29.2% 7Quite good 49.1% 56 51.9% 27 46.8% 29 46.3% 19 50.0% 19 51.4% 18 48.9% 44 50.0% 12Neither good nor poor 7.9% 9 5.8% 3 9.7% 6 12.2% 5 5.3% 2 5.7% 2 6.7% 6 12.5% 3Quite poor 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.2% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 1.1% 1 4.2% 1Very poor 1.8% 2 3.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 2.2% 2 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 6.1% 7 9.6% 5 3.2% 2 7.3% 3 5.3% 2 5.7% 2 6.7% 6 4.2% 1
Mean: 4.18 4.13 4.22 4.24 4.36 3.91 4.20 4.09
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Range of shops and services available
Very good 17.5% 20 9.6% 5 24.2% 15 22.0% 9 13.2% 5 17.1% 6 16.7% 15 20.8% 5Quite good 42.1% 48 42.3% 22 41.9% 26 41.5% 17 44.7% 17 40.0% 14 42.2% 38 41.7% 10Neither good nor poor 15.8% 18 19.2% 10 12.9% 8 12.2% 5 21.1% 8 14.3% 5 15.6% 14 16.7% 4Quite poor 12.3% 14 15.4% 8 9.7% 6 9.8% 4 10.5% 4 17.1% 6 11.1% 10 16.7% 4Very poor 3.5% 4 1.9% 1 4.8% 3 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 4.4% 4 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 8.8% 10 11.5% 6 6.5% 4 9.8% 4 7.9% 3 8.6% 3 10.0% 9 4.2% 1
Mean: 3.63 3.48 3.76 3.73 3.60 3.56 3.62 3.70
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Quality of shops and services available
Very good 26.3% 30 17.3% 9 33.9% 21 26.8% 11 34.2% 13 17.1% 6 28.9% 26 16.7% 4Quite good 43.9% 50 46.2% 24 41.9% 26 39.0% 16 36.8% 14 57.1% 20 41.1% 37 54.2% 13Neither good nor poor 10.5% 12 7.7% 4 12.9% 8 17.1% 7 7.9% 3 5.7% 2 11.1% 10 8.3% 2Quite poor 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 4.2% 1Very poor 3.5% 4 3.8% 2 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 5.7% 2 2.2% 2 8.3% 2(Don’t know) 13.2% 15 21.2% 11 6.5% 4 12.2% 5 15.8% 6 11.4% 4 14.4% 13 8.3% 2Mean: 4.00 3.88 4.09 3.97 4.16 3.87 4.08 3.73
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Daytime entertainment and leisure facilities
Very good 13.2% 15 7.7% 4 17.7% 11 12.2% 5 18.4% 7 8.6% 3 15.6% 14 4.2% 1Quite good 39.5% 45 38.5% 20 40.3% 25 34.1% 14 34.2% 13 51.4% 18 34.4% 31 58.3% 14Neither good nor poor 12.3% 14 15.4% 8 9.7% 6 19.5% 8 10.5% 4 5.7% 2 12.2% 11 12.5% 3Quite poor 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 0.0% 0Very poor 12.3% 14 13.5% 7 11.3% 7 9.8% 4 15.8% 6 11.4% 4 14.4% 13 4.2% 1(Don’t know) 20.2% 23 21.2% 11 19.4% 12 22.0% 9 18.4% 7 20.0% 7 20.0% 18 20.8% 5Mean: 3.48 3.29 3.64 3.47 3.45 3.54 3.42 3.74
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Evening entertainment and leisure facilities
Very good 8.8% 10 7.7% 4 9.7% 6 7.3% 3 10.5% 4 8.6% 3 11.1% 10 0.0% 0Quite good 28.1% 32 25.0% 13 30.6% 19 29.3% 12 28.9% 11 25.7% 9 24.4% 22 41.7% 10Neither good nor poor 6.1% 7 5.8% 3 6.5% 4 4.9% 2 10.5% 4 2.9% 1 6.7% 6 4.2% 1Quite poor 4.4% 5 5.8% 3 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 7.9% 3 0.0% 0 5.6% 5 0.0% 0Very poor 14.0% 16 15.4% 8 12.9% 8 17.1% 7 7.9% 3 17.1% 6 16.7% 15 4.2% 1(Don’t know) 38.6% 44 40.4% 21 37.1% 23 36.6% 15 34.2% 13 45.7% 16 35.6% 32 50.0% 12Mean: 3.21 3.06 3.33 3.08 3.40 3.16 3.12 3.67
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Town Centre events
Very good 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 8.3% 2Quite good 10.5% 12 7.7% 4 12.9% 8 14.6% 6 13.2% 5 2.9% 1 8.9% 8 16.7% 4Neither good nor poor 21.1% 24 11.5% 6 29.0% 18 26.8% 11 18.4% 7 17.1% 6 21.1% 19 20.8% 5Quite poor 2.6% 3 1.9% 1 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 0.0% 0Very poor 21.1% 24 21.2% 11 21.0% 13 12.2% 5 23.7% 9 28.6% 10 23.3% 21 12.5% 3(Don’t know) 42.1% 48 53.8% 28 32.3% 20 36.6% 15 44.7% 17 45.7% 16 42.2% 38 41.7% 10Mean: 2.50 2.38 2.57 2.92 2.38 2.05 2.33 3.14
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 116
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
Liveliness / street life / character
Very good 32.5% 37 34.6% 18 30.6% 19 29.3% 12 39.5% 15 28.6% 10 33.3% 30 29.2% 7Quite good 42.1% 48 40.4% 21 43.5% 27 46.3% 19 34.2% 13 45.7% 16 38.9% 35 54.2% 13Neither good nor poor 8.8% 10 9.6% 5 8.1% 5 12.2% 5 7.9% 3 5.7% 2 11.1% 10 0.0% 0Quite poor 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0Very poor 4.4% 5 1.9% 1 6.5% 4 0.0% 0 7.9% 3 5.7% 2 3.3% 3 8.3% 2(Don’t know) 10.5% 12 11.5% 6 9.7% 6 7.3% 3 10.5% 4 14.3% 5 11.1% 10 8.3% 2
Mean: 4.08 4.17 4.00 4.08 4.09 4.07 4.09 4.05
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
The market
Very good 7.9% 9 3.8% 2 11.3% 7 7.3% 3 7.9% 3 8.6% 3 7.8% 7 8.3% 2Quite good 11.4% 13 11.5% 6 11.3% 7 17.1% 7 13.2% 5 2.9% 1 7.8% 7 25.0% 6Neither good nor poor 5.3% 6 3.8% 2 6.5% 4 7.3% 3 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 5.6% 5 4.2% 1Quite poor 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0Very poor 25.4% 29 23.1% 12 27.4% 17 22.0% 9 34.2% 13 20.0% 7 32.2% 29 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 49.1% 56 55.8% 29 43.5% 27 43.9% 18 39.5% 15 65.7% 23 45.6% 41 62.5% 15
Mean: 2.52 2.35 2.63 2.74 2.35 2.42 2.22 4.11
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Quality / number of places to eat-drink
Very good 40.4% 46 30.8% 16 48.4% 30 43.9% 18 34.2% 13 42.9% 15 42.2% 38 33.3% 8Quite good 39.5% 45 44.2% 23 35.5% 22 29.3% 12 47.4% 18 42.9% 15 34.4% 31 58.3% 14Neither good nor poor 7.0% 8 7.7% 4 6.5% 4 9.8% 4 7.9% 3 2.9% 1 7.8% 7 4.2% 1Quite poor 4.4% 5 7.7% 4 1.6% 1 7.3% 3 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 5.6% 5 0.0% 0Very poor 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 7.9% 9 9.6% 5 6.5% 4 9.8% 4 7.9% 3 5.7% 2 8.9% 8 4.2% 1Mean: 4.24 4.09 4.36 4.22 4.20 4.30 4.22 4.30
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
General shopping environment
Very good 23.7% 27 11.5% 6 33.9% 21 26.8% 11 23.7% 9 20.0% 7 26.7% 24 12.5% 3Quite good 49.1% 56 55.8% 29 43.5% 27 41.5% 17 57.9% 22 48.6% 17 45.6% 41 62.5% 15Neither good nor poor 6.1% 7 11.5% 6 1.6% 1 4.9% 2 7.9% 3 5.7% 2 7.8% 7 0.0% 0Quite poor 8.8% 10 5.8% 3 11.3% 7 12.2% 5 2.6% 1 11.4% 4 7.8% 7 12.5% 3Very poor 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 11.4% 13 13.5% 7 9.7% 6 12.2% 5 7.9% 3 14.3% 5 11.1% 10 12.5% 3Mean: 3.97 3.80 4.11 3.89 4.11 3.90 4.00 3.86
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Layout of centre
Very good 19.3% 22 5.8% 3 30.6% 19 24.4% 10 21.1% 8 11.4% 4 21.1% 19 12.5% 3Quite good 36.8% 42 42.3% 22 32.3% 20 31.7% 13 31.6% 12 48.6% 17 32.2% 29 54.2% 13Neither good nor poor 22.8% 26 25.0% 13 21.0% 13 26.8% 11 26.3% 10 14.3% 5 22.2% 20 25.0% 6Quite poor 3.5% 4 3.8% 2 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 5.7% 2 4.4% 4 0.0% 0Very 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) 17.5% 20 23.1% 12 12.9% 8 14.6% 6 18.4% 7 20.0% 7 20.0% 18 8.3% 2Mean: 3.87 3.65 4.04 3.91 3.87 3.82 3.88 3.86
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
Size / quality of supermarket(s)
Very good 8.8% 10 5.8% 3 11.3% 7 14.6% 6 10.5% 4 0.0% 0 10.0% 9 4.2% 1Quite good 28.9% 33 28.8% 15 29.0% 18 26.8% 11 18.4% 7 42.9% 15 24.4% 22 45.8% 11Neither good nor poor 19.3% 22 23.1% 12 16.1% 10 22.0% 9 13.2% 5 22.9% 8 18.9% 17 20.8% 5Quite poor 10.5% 12 9.6% 5 11.3% 7 9.8% 4 13.2% 5 8.6% 3 13.3% 12 0.0% 0Very poor 11.4% 13 5.8% 3 16.1% 10 12.2% 5 15.8% 6 5.7% 2 12.2% 11 8.3% 2(Don’t know) 21.1% 24 26.9% 14 16.1% 10 14.6% 6 28.9% 11 20.0% 7 21.1% 19 20.8% 5Mean: 3.17 3.26 3.10 3.26 2.93 3.29 3.08 3.47
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 117
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 35.1% 40 44.2% 23 27.4% 17 34.1% 14 42.1% 16 28.6% 10 33.3% 30 41.7% 10Increase the range of national
/ multiple chain stores15.8% 18 1.9% 1 27.4% 17 22.0% 9 13.2% 5 11.4% 4 16.7% 15 12.5% 3
Increase the range of local /speciality retailers
36.0% 41 30.8% 16 40.3% 25 36.6% 15 34.2% 13 37.1% 13 37.8% 34 29.2% 7
Improve quality of shops andservices
10.5% 12 9.6% 5 11.3% 7 12.2% 5 7.9% 3 11.4% 4 11.1% 10 8.3% 2
Improve the appearance ofthe town centre
0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Improve the market 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Make the centre safer (more
CCTV, policing, betterlighting etc)
7.0% 8 1.9% 1 11.3% 7 9.8% 4 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 5.6% 5 12.5% 3
Remove / reduce trafficcongestion
4.4% 5 5.8% 3 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 4.4% 4 4.2% 1
Provide more housing in thetown-centre
0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Improve frequency of publictransport
0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Improve car parkingavailability / reduceparking charges
14.0% 16 13.5% 7 14.5% 9 14.6% 6 10.5% 4 17.1% 6 14.4% 13 12.5% 3
Provide better entertainment/ leisure
0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Improve quality and range ofcafes and restaurants
5.3% 6 7.7% 4 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 5.3% 2 5.7% 2 6.7% 6 0.0% 0
Improve pedestrian links andfacilities in the town centre
0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0
Improve food store 3.5% 4 1.9% 1 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 4.4% 4 0.0% 0Other 8.8% 10 3.8% 2 12.9% 8 4.9% 2 7.9% 3 14.3% 5 8.9% 8 8.3% 2A 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0A Marks and Spencers 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.2% 2 0.0% 0 5.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0A supermarket 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0More food outlets 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 0.0% 0 4.2% 1More 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0More independent shops 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 2.6% 3 5.8% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 5.7% 2 2.2% 2 4.2% 1
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
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 41.2% 47 46.2% 24 37.1% 23 39.0% 16 47.4% 18 37.1% 13 41.1% 37 41.7% 10No 58.8% 67 53.8% 28 62.9% 39 61.0% 25 52.6% 20 62.9% 22 58.9% 53 58.3% 14Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
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 4.3% 2 4.2% 1 4.3% 1 6.3% 1 0.0% 0 7.7% 1 2.7% 1 10.0% 1Pubs / bars 21.3% 10 33.3% 8 8.7% 2 25.0% 4 16.7% 3 23.1% 3 21.6% 8 20.0% 2Restaurants 70.2% 33 58.3% 14 82.6% 19 56.3% 9 83.3% 15 69.2% 9 75.7% 28 50.0% 5Cafes / coffee shops 25.5% 12 33.3% 8 17.4% 4 31.3% 5 22.2% 4 23.1% 3 27.0% 10 20.0% 2Services (eg. cash tills) 2.1% 1 4.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 7.7% 1 2.7% 1 0.0% 0Takeaway food 4.3% 2 8.3% 2 0.0% 0 12.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.4% 2 0.0% 0Walk about / look around 12.8% 6 12.5% 3 13.0% 3 12.5% 2 5.6% 1 23.1% 3 10.8% 4 20.0% 2Cinema 8.5% 4 0.0% 0 17.4% 4 25.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 4Theatre 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Nightclubs 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% 0Shopping 4.3% 2 4.2% 1 4.3% 1 6.3% 1 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 5.4% 2 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 4.3% 2 8.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.6% 1 7.7% 1 2.7% 1 10.0% 1Base: 47 24 23 16 18 13 37 10
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 118
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 21.9% 25 30.8% 16 14.5% 9 19.5% 8 23.7% 9 22.9% 8 22.2% 20 20.8% 5Close to home / easy to get
to30.7% 35 19.2% 10 40.3% 25 29.3% 12 31.6% 12 31.4% 11 30.0% 27 33.3% 8
Good theatre 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Good choice of restaurants 45.6% 52 34.6% 18 54.8% 34 51.2% 21 42.1% 16 42.9% 15 48.9% 44 33.3% 8Good quality of restaurants 22.8% 26 17.3% 9 27.4% 17 24.4% 10 21.1% 8 22.9% 8 25.6% 23 12.5% 3Good quality of pubs / bars 13.2% 15 13.5% 7 12.9% 8 12.2% 5 18.4% 7 8.6% 3 13.3% 12 12.5% 3Good choice of pubs / bars 11.4% 13 17.3% 9 6.5% 4 12.2% 5 5.3% 2 17.1% 6 7.8% 7 25.0% 6Good health / fitness
facilities1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 4.2% 1
Other 5.3% 6 7.7% 4 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 6.7% 6 0.0% 0Atmosphere 2.6% 3 1.9% 1 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 3.3% 3 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 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 5.7% 2 3.3% 3 0.0% 0(Don’t know) 3.5% 4 5.8% 3 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 8.3% 2
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
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 64.0% 73 63.5% 33 64.5% 40 61.0% 25 68.4% 26 62.9% 22 64.4% 58 62.5% 15Poor choice of facilities 8.8% 10 7.7% 4 9.7% 6 12.2% 5 13.2% 5 0.0% 0 11.1% 10 0.0% 0Too expensive 11.4% 13 13.5% 7 9.7% 6 12.2% 5 10.5% 4 11.4% 4 11.1% 10 12.5% 3Unsafe / poor security /
dangerous0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 0.0% 0 4.2% 1
Lack of car parking 4.4% 5 5.8% 3 3.2% 2 7.3% 3 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 4.4% 4 4.2% 1Car parking charges 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1Lack 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 5.3% 6 1.9% 1 8.1% 5 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 5.6% 5 4.2% 1It needs cleaning 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Poor quality facilities 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Too smokey 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 0.0% 0Too busy 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 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) 5.3% 6 3.8% 2 6.5% 4 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 11.4% 4 3.3% 3 12.5% 3Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
SEX Sex:
Male 45.6% 52 100.0% 52 0.0% 0 39.0% 16 44.7% 17 54.3% 19 45.6% 41 45.8% 11Female 54.4% 62 0.0% 0 100.0% 62 61.0% 25 55.3% 21 45.7% 16 54.4% 49 54.2% 13Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
AGE Age Group:
18 - 24 years 14.0% 16 13.5% 7 14.5% 9 39.0% 16 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 10.0% 9 29.2% 725 - 34 years 21.9% 25 17.3% 9 25.8% 16 61.0% 25 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 23.3% 21 16.7% 435 - 44 years 18.4% 21 19.2% 10 17.7% 11 0.0% 0 55.3% 21 0.0% 0 20.0% 18 12.5% 345 - 54 years 14.9% 17 13.5% 7 16.1% 10 0.0% 0 44.7% 17 0.0% 0 17.8% 16 4.2% 155 - 64 years 20.2% 23 25.0% 13 16.1% 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 65.7% 23 21.1% 19 16.7% 465+ years 10.5% 12 11.5% 6 9.7% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 34.3% 12 7.8% 7 20.8% 5Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
SEG Socio-economic group
AB 53.5% 61 48.1% 25 58.1% 36 41.5% 17 63.2% 24 57.1% 20 67.8% 61 0.0% 0C1 25.4% 29 30.8% 16 21.0% 13 31.7% 13 26.3% 10 17.1% 6 32.2% 29 0.0% 0C2 10.5% 12 11.5% 6 9.7% 6 12.2% 5 5.3% 2 14.3% 5 0.0% 0 50.0% 12DE 10.5% 12 9.6% 5 11.3% 7 14.6% 6 5.3% 2 11.4% 4 0.0% 0 50.0% 12Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 119
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 9.6% 11 9.6% 5 9.7% 6 14.6% 6 2.6% 1 11.4% 4 2.2% 2 37.5% 9£16,000-£25,000 9.6% 11 11.5% 6 8.1% 5 14.6% 6 2.6% 1 11.4% 4 7.8% 7 16.7% 4£26,000-£35,000 12.3% 14 15.4% 8 9.7% 6 9.8% 4 13.2% 5 14.3% 5 14.4% 13 4.2% 1£36,000-£50,000 6.1% 7 7.7% 4 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 7.9% 3 8.6% 3 7.8% 7 0.0% 0£50,000 + 17.5% 20 21.2% 11 14.5% 9 9.8% 4 26.3% 10 17.1% 6 22.2% 20 0.0% 0(Refused) 44.7% 51 34.6% 18 53.2% 33 48.8% 20 47.4% 18 37.1% 13 45.6% 41 41.7% 10
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
ETH Ethnicity:
White - British 64.0% 73 67.3% 35 61.3% 38 63.4% 26 60.5% 23 68.6% 24 58.9% 53 83.3% 20White - Irish 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0Any other White background 3.5% 4 5.8% 3 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 7.9% 3 0.0% 0 4.4% 4 0.0% 0White and Black Caribbean 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 0.0% 0White and black African 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 Asian 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Any other mixed background 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Indian 2.6% 3 1.9% 1 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 4.2% 1Pakistani 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Bangladeshi 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Any other Asian background 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Caribbean 3.5% 4 3.8% 2 3.2% 2 0.0% 0 7.9% 3 2.9% 1 4.4% 4 0.0% 0African 7.9% 9 7.7% 4 8.1% 5 4.9% 2 5.3% 2 14.3% 5 8.9% 8 4.2% 1Any 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 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 4.2% 1Canadian 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Danish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0French 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Greek 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 0.0% 0Italian 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Polish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Spanish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Swedish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Turkish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0USA 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0Iranian 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Iraq 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Lebanon 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0(Refused) 9.6% 11 3.8% 2 14.5% 9 14.6% 6 10.5% 4 2.9% 1 11.1% 10 4.2% 1Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
ADU Number of adults (incl. respondent):
One 31.6% 36 32.7% 17 30.6% 19 22.0% 9 28.9% 11 45.7% 16 31.1% 28 33.3% 8Two 51.8% 59 48.1% 25 54.8% 34 48.8% 20 63.2% 24 42.9% 15 54.4% 49 41.7% 10Three 11.4% 13 13.5% 7 9.7% 6 14.6% 6 7.9% 3 11.4% 4 8.9% 8 20.8% 5Four or more 5.3% 6 5.8% 3 4.8% 3 14.6% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.6% 5 4.2% 1
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
CHI No. of children 15 years and under:
None 71.1% 81 75.0% 39 67.7% 42 70.7% 29 50.0% 19 94.3% 33 72.2% 65 66.7% 16One 9.6% 11 9.6% 5 9.7% 6 14.6% 6 10.5% 4 2.9% 1 7.8% 7 16.7% 4Two 15.8% 18 13.5% 7 17.7% 11 12.2% 5 31.6% 12 2.9% 1 16.7% 15 12.5% 3Three 3.5% 4 1.9% 1 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 7.9% 3 0.0% 0 3.3% 3 4.2% 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: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
CAR Number of cars in household:
None 26.3% 30 28.8% 15 24.2% 15 26.8% 11 13.2% 5 40.0% 14 21.1% 19 45.8% 11One 42.1% 48 44.2% 23 40.3% 25 39.0% 16 47.4% 18 40.0% 14 48.9% 44 16.7% 4Two 25.4% 29 21.2% 11 29.0% 18 29.3% 12 28.9% 11 17.1% 6 22.2% 20 37.5% 9Three 4.4% 5 3.8% 2 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 7.9% 3 2.9% 1 5.6% 5 0.0% 0Four or more 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 120
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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Tuesday 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Wednesday 20.2% 23 25.0% 13 16.1% 10 14.6% 6 15.8% 6 31.4% 11 21.1% 19 16.7% 4Thursday 20.2% 23 13.5% 7 25.8% 16 24.4% 10 21.1% 8 14.3% 5 21.1% 19 16.7% 4Friday 20.2% 23 19.2% 10 21.0% 13 17.1% 7 26.3% 10 17.1% 6 16.7% 15 33.3% 8Saturday 39.5% 45 42.3% 22 37.1% 23 43.9% 18 36.8% 14 37.1% 13 41.1% 37 33.3% 8
Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Marylebone 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 100.0% 114 100.0% 52 100.0% 62 100.0% 41 100.0% 38 100.0% 35 100.0% 90 100.0% 24Warwick 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: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 121
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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0BD18 8 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0BH6 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0BN2 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 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 13.2% 15 17.3% 9 9.7% 6 17.1% 7 7.9% 3 14.3% 5 11.1% 10 20.8% 5CB3 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1DA14 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 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E15 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0E2 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1E2 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0EN7 6 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0GU2 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0GU26 5 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0HA3 0 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1HA3 9 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0HA4 2 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0IG11 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 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 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0M13 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0M25 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 0.0% 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% 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N15 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0N17 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0N20 9 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 122
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 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0NN8 9 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW1 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW1 8 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0NW1 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW10 0 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1NW10 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW11 7 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0NW11 9 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0NW4 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0NW5 1 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0NW6 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 4 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 4.2% 1NW6 5 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW6 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW8 3.5% 4 1.9% 1 4.8% 3 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 4.4% 4 0.0% 0NW8 0 8.8% 10 5.8% 3 11.3% 7 9.8% 4 13.2% 5 2.9% 1 10.0% 9 4.2% 1NW8 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0NW8 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0NW8 6 15.8% 18 13.5% 7 17.7% 11 7.3% 3 10.5% 4 31.4% 11 13.3% 12 25.0% 6NW8 7 7.0% 8 9.6% 5 4.8% 3 9.8% 4 7.9% 3 2.9% 1 7.8% 7 4.2% 1NW8 8 2.6% 3 1.9% 1 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 3.3% 3 0.0% 0NW8 9 6.1% 7 3.8% 2 8.1% 5 7.3% 3 5.3% 2 5.7% 2 7.8% 7 0.0% 0NW9 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1OX2 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1RH10 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 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 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SE1 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
St John’s Wood Westminster In Street Survey Page 123
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
SE2 9 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1SP11 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW1 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SW10 4 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 0.0% 0 4.2% 1SW1P 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0TI5 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0TN2 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 0.0% 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 Westminster In Street Survey Page 124
for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006
Total Male Female 18 - 34 35 - 54 55 + ABC1 C2DE
Column %ges.061006 NEMS market research
UB6 9 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W10 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W10 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W10 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W10 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1W14 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 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W2 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W2 2 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W2 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W2 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W21 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W3 6 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0W4 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W5 5 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% 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 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0W7 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W7 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 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 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W9 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0W9 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 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 0.0% 0 4.2% 1WD2H 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: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24
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
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge93
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
06G
NEMSmarketresearch
Q0A
Plea
seen
ter
the
nam
eof
your
busi
ness
belo
w:
Oth
er94
.4%
170.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
587
.5%
710
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0B
ase:
180
02
58
20
20
0
Q01
How
long
has
your
busi
ness
been
loca
ted
inSt
John
’sW
ood
dist
rictc
entr
e ?
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
s11
.1%
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
27.8
%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
50.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
10–
25ye
ars
44.4
%8
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%8
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ore
than
25ye
ars
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
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
)5.
6 %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
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q02
Are
your
prem
ises
leas
ed o
row
nero
ccup
ied
(i.e.
leas
ehol
dof
free
hold
) ?
Leas
ed11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ow
nero
ccup
ied
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
/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%
0La
ndow
ner-
How
ard
deW
alde
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
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
)88
.9%
160.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
280
.0%
410
0.0%
850
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0B
ase:
180
02
58
20
20
0
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge94
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
06G
NEMSmarketresearch
Q03
Do
you
have
any
curr
entp
lans
toch
ange
your
bus
ines
spr
emis
es?
No
plan
s77
.8%
140.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
110
0.0%
575
.0%
650
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Min
orw
orks
/im
prov
emen
tssu
chas
sign
age/
shop
front
alte
ratio
ns
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
012
.5%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
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
(Not
answ
ered
)5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0B
ase:
180
02
58
20
20
0
Q04
Whi
chst
atem
entb
estd
escr
ibes
your
busi
ness
’scu
rren
ttra
ding
per
form
ance
?
Ver
ygo
od11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0G
ood
33.3
%6
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
080
.0%
425
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Sa
tisfa
ctor
y27
.8%
50.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
120
.0%
137
.5%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Poor
27.8
%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
25.0
%2
100.
0%2
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
/no
opin
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%
0B
ase:
180
02
58
20
20
0
Q05
Ove
rthe
last
12m
onth
sha
syo
urtr
adin
gpe
rfor
man
ce…
Impr
oved
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
40.0
%2
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Stay
edth
esa
me
44.4
%8
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
40.0
%2
50.0
%4
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Dec
lined
33.3
%6
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
137
.5%
350
.0%
10.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
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
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q06
Ove
rthe
next
12m
onth
sdo
you
expe
ctyo
urbu
sine
sspe
rfor
man
ceto
…
Impr
ove
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
20.0
%1
25.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0St
ayth
esa
me
66.7
%12
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
80.0
%4
62.5
%5
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
0D
eclin
e5.
6 %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
Don
’tkn
ow/n
otsu
re5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0B
ase:
180
02
58
20
20
0
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge95
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
06G
NEMSmarketresearch
Q07
Wha
tare
the
mai
nis
sues
cons
trai
ning
your
busi
ness
?
Hig
hov
erhe
ads/
rent
s77
.8%
140.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
180
.0%
475
.0%
610
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Gen
eral
econ
omy
44.4
%8
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
40.0
%2
50.0
%4
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
ualit
yor
size
ofpr
emis
es5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0St
affr
ecru
itmen
t/re
tent
ion
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ava
ilabi
lity
and
loca
tion
ofca
rpar
king
50.0
%9
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
20.0
%1
62.5
%5
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Pric
eof
carp
arki
ng50
.0%
90.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
62.5
%5
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
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
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
100.
0%2
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Com
petit
ion
from
othe
rbu
sine
sses
inth
ere
stof
the
Wes
tmin
ster
5.6 %
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
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
.8%
50.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
37.5
%3
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Lack
offo
otfa
ll/c
usto
mer
s33
.3%
60.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
37.5
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Po
orlo
catio
nof
prem
ises
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%
0Po
orqu
ality
ofto
wn
cent
reen
viro
nmen
tIf‘
Yes
’wha
tas
pect
(litte
r,sh
opfro
nts,
etc)
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
5.6%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Poor
qual
ityre
staur
ants
/ ca
fes /
bars
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
Lack
ofse
rvic
es(e
gba
nks,
dent
ists
,est
ate
agen
ts,e
tc)
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
Inte
rnet
com
petit
ion
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Plan
ning
restr
ictio
nsIf
‘Yes
’w
hata
spec
t0.
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
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
r0.
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
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%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
5.6 %
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:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge96
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
06G
NEMSmarketresearch
Q08
Wha
tis
your
opin
ion
ofSt
John
’sW
oods
mar
ket p
ositi
on in
shop
ping
term
s?
Too
upm
arke
t22
.2%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
25.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Fi
neas
itis
66.7
%12
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
60.0
%3
62.5
%5
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0To
odo
wn
mar
ket
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
112
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
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:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q09
How
wou
ldyo
ude
scrib
eSt
John
’sW
ood’
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
38.9
%7
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
237
.5%
310
0.0%
20.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Abo
utth
erig
htm
ix22
.2%
40.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
120
.0%
125
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Not
enou
gh la
rge
(cha
in)
shop
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
Too
man
yno
n-re
tail
uses
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nee
dm
ore
reta
ilse
rvic
es(e
.g.h
aird
ress
ers)
5.6 %
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
Too
man
yre
tail
serv
ices
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
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(N
otan
swer
ed)
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
037
.5%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
od5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r16
.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or5.
6 %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%
0V
ery
poor
44.4
%8
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
262
.5%
50.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
25.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
012
.5%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
1.77
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.40
1.00
3.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge97
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
06G
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
od5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r22
.2%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
12.5
%1
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
5.6 %
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
Ver
ypo
or50
.0%
90.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
62.5
%5
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0D
on’t
know
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
1.80
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.40
1.33
2.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
od11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r0.
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
tepo
or33
.3%
60.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
60.0
%3
37.5
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or50
.0%
90.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
120
.0%
150
.0%
410
0.0%
20.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
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
)5.
6 %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%
0M
ean:
1.71
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.20
1.75
1.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
od11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
025
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
25.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
40.0
%2
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or44
.4%
80.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
60.0
%3
25.0
%2
100.
0%2
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
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)
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:1.
880.
000.
002.
001.
402.
571.
000.
001.
500.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge98
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
06G
NEMSmarketresearch
Traf
ficco
nges
tion
Ver
ygo
od5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od22
.2%
40.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
120
.0%
125
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
125
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
225
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
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)
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
025
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
870.
000.
004.
003.
203.
002.
000.
003.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Bus
serv
ice
Ver
ygo
od5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
good
33.3
%6
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
137
.5%
310
0.0%
20.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
11.1
%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%
0D
on’t
know
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
125
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)16
.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
25.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
3.25
0.00
0.00
1.00
3.00
4.25
4.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Trai
n / U
nder
grou
ndse
rvic
e
Ver
ygo
od11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
025
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od66
.7%
120.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
180
.0%
450
.0%
410
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
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%
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
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
112
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
4.14
0.00
0.00
4.00
4.00
4.33
4.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge99
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
06G
NEMSmarketresearch
Pers
onal
safe
ty
Ver
ygo
od11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
120
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od16
.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r27
.8%
50.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
25.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or16
.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
025
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or16
.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
25.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
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)
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
880.
000.
005.
003.
402.
292.
500.
003.
500.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Bus
ines
sse
curi
ty
Ver
ygo
od5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tego
od16
.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
120
.0%
112
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
112
.5%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or27
.8%
50.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
50.0
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
112
.5%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
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)
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
630.
000.
004.
003.
002.
292.
000.
004.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Ran
geof
shop
s&
serv
ices
avai
labl
e
Ver
ygo
od5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
good
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
025
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
27.8
%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
060
.0%
312
.5%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
27.8
%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
225
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
25.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
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)
5.6 %
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
Mea
n:2.
650.
000.
004.
002.
602.
752.
000.
001.
500.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge10
0
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
06G
NEMSmarketresearch
Qua
lity
ofsh
ops
&se
rvic
esav
aila
ble
Ver
ygo
od5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
good
38.9
%7
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
40.0
%2
50.0
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r22
.2%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
25.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or22
.2%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or0.
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
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
)11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
3.31
0.00
0.00
4.00
3.00
3.86
2.50
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Ente
rtai
nmen
tand
leis
ure
faci
litie
s
Ver
ygo
od11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
025
.0%
20.
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
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
125
.0%
250
.0%
10.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or27
.8%
50.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
160
.0%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or16
.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
12.5
%1
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
025
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
500.
000.
002.
002.
003.
402.
000.
002.
500.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Mar
ketin
g /p
rom
otio
n/e
vent
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
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
212
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or27
.8%
50.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
140
.0%
212
.5%
150
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Ver
ypo
or38
.9%
70.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
50.0
%4
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:1.
730.
000.
002.
002.
201.
501.
500.
002.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge10
1
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
06G
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
od38
.9%
70.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
120
.0%
162
.5%
50.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
212
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
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
)11
.1%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
2.94
0.00
0.00
4.00
2.80
3.43
1.50
0.00
2.50
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
od5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0N
eith
ergo
odno
rpoo
r27
.8%
50.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
160
.0%
312
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
poor
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Don
’tkn
ow16
.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
25.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
27.8
%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
20.0
%1
37.5
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
2.50
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Qua
lity
/ num
ber
ofpl
aces
toea
t/ d
rink
Ver
ygo
od22
.2%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
25.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
good
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
37.5
%3
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
27.8
%5
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
225
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or5.
6 %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%
0V
ery
poor
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
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
)16
.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
120
.0%
112
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:3.
600.
000.
002.
003.
004.
004.
500.
005.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge10
2
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
06G
NEMSmarketresearch
Gen
eral
shop
ping
envi
ronm
ent
Ver
ygo
od5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
good
33.3
%6
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
40.0
%2
37.5
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
33.3
%6
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
125
.0%
210
0.0%
20.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or0.
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
Ver
ypo
or5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
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)
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
20.0
%1
25.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
3.43
0.00
0.00
4.00
3.00
3.83
3.00
0.00
3.50
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Con
veni
ence
for
shop
pers
Ver
ygo
od5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
12.5
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0Q
uite
good
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
20.0
%1
25.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Nei
ther
good
norp
oor
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
125
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Qui
tepo
or27
.8%
50.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
25.0
%2
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0V
ery
poor
5.6 %
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
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
)16
.7%
30.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
120
.0%
112
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
930.
000.
004.
002.
753.
291.
500.
003.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)94
.4%
170.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
587
.5%
710
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge10
3
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
06G
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
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.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
44.4
%8
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
162
.5%
510
0.0%
20.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)50
.0%
90.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
260
.0%
337
.5%
30.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:4.
000.
000.
000.
004.
000.
000.
000.
004.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
5.6 %
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%
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
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
83.3
%15
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
60.0
%3
100.
0%8
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
0
Mea
n:3.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.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
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
22.2
%4
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
37.5
%3
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)72
.2%
130.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
280
.0%
462
.5%
550
.0%
10.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:3.
000.
000.
000.
003.
000.
000.
000.
003.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge10
4
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
06G
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
5.6 %
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
)94
.4%
170.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
510
0.0%
850
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
5th
mos
tim
porta
nt5.
6 %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
Impo
rtanc
eno
trat
ed44
.4%
80.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
60.0
%3
50.0
%4
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
44.4
%8
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
40.0
%2
37.5
%3
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Mea
n:4.
500.
000.
000.
000.
004.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
5.6 %
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%
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
88.9
%16
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%5
100.
0%8
50.0
%1
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge10
5
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
06G
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 %18
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%5
100.
0%8
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)94
.4%
170.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
587
.5%
710
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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 %18
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%5
100.
0%8
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
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:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge10
6
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
06G
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
5.6 %
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%
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Impo
rtanc
eno
trat
ed55
.6%
100.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
140
.0%
262
.5%
510
0.0%
20.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)33
.3%
60.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
160
.0%
325
.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Mea
n:3.
000.
000.
000.
000.
005.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
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
16.7
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
040
.0%
212
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)83
.3%
150.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
260
.0%
387
.5%
710
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)94
.4%
170.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
280
.0%
410
0.0%
810
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge10
7
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
06G
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
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)
94.4
%17
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
80.0
%4
100.
0%8
100.
0%2
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Mea
n:5.
000.
000.
000.
005.
000.
000.
000.
005.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
5.6 %
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%
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)88
.9%
160.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
587
.5%
710
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:2.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
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
ed5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
88.9
%16
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
80.0
%4
87.5
%7
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge10
8
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
06G
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
02n
dm
ost i
mpo
rtant
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
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
ed22
.2%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
40.0
%2
25.0
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
66.7
%12
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
40.0
%2
62.5
%5
100.
0%2
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0
Mea
n:1.
500.
000.
000.
001.
002.
000.
000.
001.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
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 %18
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
100.
0%5
100.
0%8
100.
0%2
0.0%
010
0.0%
20.
0%0
0.0%
0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
03r
dm
osti
mpo
rtant
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
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
ed5.
6 %1
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
020
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0(N
otan
swer
ed)
83.3
%15
0.0%
00.
0%0
100.
0%2
60.0
%3
87.5
%7
100.
0%2
0.0%
050
.0%
10.
0%0
0.0%
0M
ean:
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge10
9
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
06G
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
5.6 %
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
)94
.4%
170.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
510
0.0%
850
.0%
10.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)94
.4%
170.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
587
.5%
710
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
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
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)94
.4%
170.
0%0
0.0%
010
0.0%
210
0.0%
587
.5%
710
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Mea
n:0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Q01
and
Q02
StJo
hn’s
Woo
dB
usin
essO
ccup
iers
Surv
eyPa
ge11
0
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
06G
NEMSmarketresearch
Q12
Plea
sem
ake
any
addi
tiona
lcom
men
ts in
the
spac
e pr
ovid
ed b
elow
:
The
rent
isto
ohi
gh22
.2%
40.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
20.0
%1
37.5
%3
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
0O
ther
11.1
%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
50.0
%1
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
Not
enou
ghpa
rkin
gsp
aces
5.6 %
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
012
.5%
10.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
0.0%
00.
0%0
(Not
answ
ered
)61
.1%
110.
0%0
0.0%
050
.0%
180
.0%
437
.5%
310
0.0%
20.
0%0
100.
0%2
0.0%
00.
0%0
Bas
e:18
00
25
82
02
00
Appendix J
Land Use Map – November 2006
CHARLESLANE
BRIDGEMANSTREET
BARROWHIL
LROAD
COCHRANESTREET
STJOHN'S
WOODHIGHSTREET
GREENBERRYSTREET
WELLINGTONROAD
CIRCUSROAD
COCHRANESTREET
STJOHN'SWOODHIGHSTREET
CHARLES
LANE
COCHRANEMEWS
KINGSMILLTERRACE
STJOHN'SWOODTERRACE
ORDNANCEMEWS
AQUILASTREET
STANN'S
TERRACE
0
0
0
0
16
19
0
607
24
3
2
0
5
3
9
21
40
24
28
0
94
90
88
98
96
84
92
71
86
5
18
7
0
11
82
9
13
41
35
27
15
25
23
17
8
64
45
43
37
31
68
33
66
74
2976
78
72
70
39
80
1
57
46
55
59
11
130
53
98
62
122
65
67
61
132
99
73
128
120
51
26
23
63
0
2
102
10
105
142
130
98
138
134
75
136
39
140
77
47
StJo
hns
Woo
d-G
roun
dFl
oorR
etai
lLa
ndU
se
Key
11.12.06
1:1,100
MAr
CL10820-006
CL10820-LBWest-DistrictCentres
GroundFloorUse(2006)-StJohnsWood
GISReference:S:\CL10820-LBWest-DistrictCentres\CL10820
LBWestDistrictCentres-StJohnsWood-GroundFloorUse.mxd
DistrictCentreBoundary
-NonCore(Secondary)
DistrictCentreBoundary
-Core
GroundFloorUse(2006)
Vacant
Arts
A4A3A2A1Specialist
A1National
A1International
A1Independent
A1Convenience
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 internationalretailers
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 HealthCheck
Required under PPS6, these contain information on the mix of uses, environmental quality and 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/udp
Vacancy 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.