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...... 1 National and Policy ...... 1 The London Hierarchy ...... 2 2.0 DIVERSITY OF USE AND REPRESENTATION...... 5 Introduction ...... 5 Total Retail Floorspace ...... 5 Diversity of Use...... 6 NLP’s Attitudinal Assessment ...... 7 Range of Shops and Services ...... 7 Quality of Shops and Services...... 9 Food Supermarkets ...... 10 Places to Eat and Drink...... 11 Entertainment and Leisure Facilities...... 13 Mix of Use Summary...... 14 3.0 ST. JOHN’S WOOD’S ROLE AND CATCHMENT AREA ...... 16 Introduction ...... 16 Catchment Area and Customer Profile ...... 16 Main Purpose of Visit to the Centre ...... 20 Duration and Frequency of Visit...... 23 4.0 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE...... 25 Introduction ...... 25 Business Trading Performance in St John’s Wood...... 25 Property Indicators...... 26 Availability of Premises and Vacancy Levels...... 26 Property Requirements ...... 27 Business Occupier’s Views on Rents and Rates ...... 27 5.0 NLP’S AMENITY APPRAISAL...... 29 Introduction ...... 29 Day-Time Amenity Appraisal...... 29 Night-Time Amenity Appraisal...... 29 6.0 ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT ...... 31 Introduction ...... 31 Layout of the Centre ...... 31 Modal Split ...... 32 Public Transport...... 33 Car Parking ...... 35 Pedestrian Flow ...... 38 Traffic Congestion...... 38 Accessibility Summary ...... 40 7.0 SAFETY AND CRIME...... 41 Introduction ...... 41 Personal Safety...... 41 Business Security ...... 42 Safety and Crime Summary...... 43 8.0 THE CENTRE’S ENVIRONMENT ...... 44 Introduction ...... 44 Shopping Environment...... 44 Litter and Cleanliness ...... 45 Environmental Summary...... 46 9.0 CENTRE BOUNDARY AND FRONTAGE DESIGNATIONS ...... 47 Introduction ...... 47 Defining St John’s Wood’s District Centre’s Boundary and Frontages ...... 47 Shopping Frontages...... 47 10.0 RETAIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS...... 49 Introduction ...... 49 Local Catchment Area ...... 49 Population and Spending...... 49 Existing Retail Floorspace ...... 50 Existing Spending Patterns 2006...... 50 Operator Demand for Space...... 53 Development Opportunities...... 53 11.0 SUMMARY OF THE DISTRICT CENTRE’S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ... 56 Strengths...... 56 Weaknesses ...... 56 Opportunities...... 57 Threats...... 57

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Methodology Appendix B - PPS6 Measures of Vitality and Viability Appendix C - NLP’s Attractions Appraisal Appendix D - NLP’s Day-Time Amenity Appraisal Appendix E - NLP’s Night-Time Amenity Appraisal Appendix F - PMRS Pedestrian Flowcounts and thermal maps Appendix G - In-street Visitor Survey Results Appendix H - Household Residents Survey Results Appendix I - Business Occupier Survey Results Appendix J - Land Use Map Appendix K - National and Local Policy - Centre Boundaries and Frontage Appendix L - Retail Capacity Assessment Methodology Appendix M - Operator Requirements

Glossary PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Study

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners has undertaken a vitality and viability study of the 7 designated District Shopping Centres in . 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

i in close proximity to St. John’s Wood Underground tube station, and is approximately one mile from Warwick Avenue, and 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

ii 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’ Residents’ Business NLP Analysis Views/Rank Views/Rank Occupiers’ Views/Rank Current Business Occupier n/a n/a Positive n/a Performance 4th Past Business Occupier n/a n/a Neutral n/a Performance 4th Future Business Occupier n/a n/a Neutral n/a Performance 5th Range of Shops/Services Positive Neutral Negative Neutral 5th 4th 5th Quality of Shops/Services Very Positive Positive Positive Positive 2nd 2nd 2nd Food supermarkets Neutral Negative n/a Positive 7th 5th Places to Eat/Drink Very Positive Positive Positive Positive 2nd 3rd 4th Entertainment/Leisure/ Positive Neutral Negative Neutral Night-time facilities 3rd/4th 5th 4th Layout of centre Positive n/a n/a n/a 3rd Bus services Very Positive Neutral n/a 1st Very Positive 6th Train/Underground services n/a 1st Very Positive n/a 1st Car parking availability Negative Very Negative n/a 2nd Very Negative 5th Car parking charges Very Negative 6th Very Negative n/a 3rd 2nd Traffic congestion Neutral Negative Neutral n/a 3rd 2nd 3rd Personal Safety Very Positive Neutral n/a 2nd Positive 5th Security n/a 2nd Negative n/a 5th Shopping Environment Positive Positive Positive n/a 3rd 2nd 2nd Street cleaning n/a Very Positive n/a Positive 1st

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.

iii 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 comparison expenditure is spent elsewhere – outside of St. John’s Wood District Centre, and potentially outside the local catchment area, 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 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

iv 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.

v PART 2 – MAIN REPORT 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 : 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

1 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 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. , , Kingston and Harrow). Major and District Centres are spread across London. The 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

2 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 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.

3 4 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 16.3% 41.8% 9.1% 14.8% 3.9% 1.5% 1.7% 10.9% 100.0% Percentage. Source: City of Westminster GIS System and Site Survey October 2006

5 Figure 2.1: Retail Floorspace in St John’s Wood

Retail Floorspace in St. John's Wood

Vacant 1.6% SG 0.0% A5 0.0% A4 1.0% A1- Conv A3 15.2% 13.1%

A2 14.1%

A1- Comp 55.0%

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.

6 Table 2.2: Diversity of Uses

Use Class Number Number % % of Units of Units of Units of Units 2002 2006 2002 2006 Class A1 Retail 71 71 70.3% 71.0% Department/principle stores 000.0% 0.0% International retailers 000.0% 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 101.0% 0.0% Class A4 Pubs/Bars 313.0% 1.0% Class A5 Takeaway 000.0% 0.0% Sui Generis 000.0% 0.0% Vacant Units 232.0% 3.0% Arts/Culture 1 1 1.0% 1.0% Health uses 000.0% 0.0% Hotels 000.0% 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.

7 Table 2.3: Visitors’ Views on the Range of Shops and Services (% of visitors)

St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 18 28 12 12 61 4 10 Quite Good 42 51 55 59 35 55 49 Neither Good/Poor 16 11 28 19 2 31 20 Quite Poor 12 1682413 Very Poor 4 109034 Don’t Know 9 802034 Average Score 0.63 1.13 0.73 0.74 1.55 0.56 0.48 Average 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’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 14 19 9 14 43 10 7 Quite Good 15 36 30 14 26 19 14 Neither Good/Poor 38 28 31 30 19 37 29 Quite Poor 26 7 21 23 6 20 27 Very Poor 5 5614 0 10 16 Don’t Know 1 535647 Average Score 0.07 0.60 0.15 -0.09 1.11 -0.01 -0.34 Average 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

8 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 6 44031 00 Quite Good 17 22 29 9 41 35 15 Neither Good/Poor 28 39 25 27 21 24 19 Quite Poor 28 17 21 36 2 31 31 Very Poor 17 9 14 27 2327 Don’t Know 5 970278 Average Score -0.35 -0.05 -0.15 -0.82 0.98 -0.04 -0.75 Average 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 26 16 11 7 67 67 Quite Good 44 59 55 55 31 61 48 Neither Good/Poor 10 15 27 21 2 22 20 Quite Poor 3 1613 0816 Very Poor 4 002003 Don’t Know 13 922036 Average Score 1.00 0.99 0.73 0.53 1.65 0.68 0.43 Average 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

9 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 21 14 7 13 45 10 7 Quite Good 36 38 21 20 43 16 23 Neither Good/Poor 33 26 39 28 4 48 39 Quite Poor 6 12 21 16 2 18 9 Very Poor 2 5919 0411 Don’t Know 25346411 Average Score 0.68 0.45 -0.03 -0.09 1.39 0.10 0.05 Average 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 6 04031 00 Quite Good 39 44 29 0 48 31 15 Neither Good/Poor 22 30 29 55 12 31 19 Quite Poor 22 0 18 18 2 24 35 Very Poor 0 13 0 27 5719 Don’t Know 11 13 002712 Average Score 0.31 0.20 -0.21 -0.73 1.00 -0.07 -0.65 Average 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.

10 Table 2.9: Visitors’ Views on Food Supermarkets (% of visitors)

St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 9 18 03 29 44 Quite Good 29 50 34 63 48 72 41 Neither Good/Poor 19 15 57 21 5 11 15 Quite Poor 11 0672717 Very Poor 11 313174 Don’t Know 21 14 23 15 8 19 Average Score 0.17 0.93 0.26 0.55 1.20 0.79 0.27 Average 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 6 9714 43 18 11 Quite Good 13 17 16 20 36 30 18 Neither Good/Poor 34 34 16 24 15 18 9 Quite Poor 35 19 36 24 6 18 30 Very Poor 10 7 20 13 0 11 21 Don’t Know 2 14 650511 Average Score -0.29 0.02 -0.48 -0.01 1.15 0.28 -0.33 Average 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.

11 Table 2.11: Visitors’ Views on Places to Eat and Drink (% of visitors)

St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 40 28 55 61 11 11 Quite Good 40 50 51 60 31 60 57 Neither Good/Poor 7 11 38 18 1 15 16 Quite Poor 4 2 24 8336 Very Poor 1 105032 Don’t Know 8 833488 Average Score 1.24 1.11 0.58 0.54 1.56 0.79 0.76 Average 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 20 29 13 8 47 15 9 Quite Good 41 24 16 8 34 29 21 Neither Good/Poor 23 24 21 14 13 21 18 Quite Poor 11 10 16 20 0 15 18 Very Poor 2 3 11 20 0111 Don’t Know 3 9 23 30 6 19 23 Average Score 0.67 0.72 0.04 -0.55 1.36 0.51 -0.03 Average 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.

12 Table 2.13: Businesses’ Views on Places to Eat and Drink (% of businesses)

St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 22 17 00 38 17 8 Quite Good 22 44 36 18 50 45 42 Neither Good/Poor 28 13 7 36 5 17 15 Quite Poor 6 0 29 27 5 14 8 Very Poor 6 4 25 18 238 Don’t Know 17 22 400319 Average Score 0.60 0.89 -0.44 -0.45 1.17 0.61 0.43 Average 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 13 79113 44 Quite Good 40 54 46 43 20 23 29 Neither Good/Poor 12 13 26 14 13 13 18 Quite Poor 3 3 10 10 8 15 12 Very Poor 12 0114 7 11 4 Don’t Know 20 23 8 19 39 34 33 Average Score 0.48 0.85 0.57 0.08 0.39 -0.08 0.22 Night Time St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 9 86111 25 Quite Good 28 43 46 44 26 23 24 Neither Good/Poor 6 17 29 12 9 17 11 Quite Poor 4 3910 5 10 14 Very Poor 14 0214 7 15 6 Don’t Know 39 30 7 19 42 33 40 Average Score 0.21 0.79 0.50 0.10 0.50 -0.21 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

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.

13 Table 2.15: Residents’ Views on Night-Time Facilities (% of residents)

St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 3 10 64 17 74 Quite Good 24 31 16 5 36 14 18 Neither Good/Poor 28 17 21 15 23 23 23 Quite Poor 14 17 11 15 2 20 14 Very Poor 14 0 13 23 289 Don’t Know 16 24 33 38 19 27 32 Average Score -0.14 0.45 -0.15 -0.78 0.79 -0.13 -0.07 Average 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 11 400900 Quite Good 0 30 40 24 31 4 Neither Good/Poor 22 39 18 9 24 14 27 Quite Poor 28 9 18 46 19 24 15 Very Poor 17 0 46 45 17 21 46 Don’t Know 22 17 14 0710 8 Average Score -0.50 0.37 -1.25 -1.36 -0.10 -0.38 -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

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.

14 Table 2.17: Summary Analysis for Range/Quality of Facilities

Visitors’ Residents’ Business NLP Analysis Views/Rank Views/Rank Occupiers’ Views/Rank Range of Shops/Services Positive Neutral Negative Neutral 5th 4th 5th Quality of Shops/Services Very Positive Positive Positive Positive 2nd 2nd 2nd Food supermarkets Neutral Negative n/a Positive 7th 5th Places to Eat/Drink Very Positive Positive Positive Positive 2nd 3rd 4th Entertainment/Leisure/ Positive Neutral Negative Neutral Night-time facilities 3rd/4th 5th 4th 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.

15 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%.

16 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 Queensway/ Marylebone Warwick Praed Church Harrow All (%) Wood Westbourne High St Way/ Street St/ Rd Centres Grove Tachbrook Edgware St Rd AB 54 25 37 22 25 5 12 26 Professional/Managerial C1 25 35 45 39 31 37 34 35 Skilled Non-Manual C2 11 17 6 17 12 16 17 14 Skilled Manual DE 10 24 10 22 32 40 35 25 Semi-Skilled/Unskilled Refused 0 0200321 SEG of Residents St John’s Queensway/ Marylebone Warwick Praed Church Harrow All (%) Wood Westbourne High St Way/ Street St/ Rd Centres Grove Tachbrook Edgware St Rd AB 48 28 54 39 36 33 29 37 Professional/Managerial C1 30 47 31 27 40 28 26 33 Skilled Non-Manual C2 7 11 77613 12 9 Skilled Manual DE 7 8818 13 18 27 15 Semi-Skilled/Unskilled Refused 8 7095866 Source: 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.

17 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 Queensway/ Marylebone Warwick Praed Church Harrow All Wood Westbourne High St Way/ Street St/ Rd Centres Grove Tachbrook St Edgware Rd 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 7813 £100,000 + 25 18 20 7 13 6613 Don’t Know 28 30 17 24 21 20 21 23 Refused

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).

18 Table 3.3: Ethnicity of Visitors and Residents (% of visitors and residents)

Ethnic Group St John’s Queensway/ Marylebone Warwick Praed Church Harrow All of Visitors Wood Westbourne High St Way/ Street St/ Rd Centres (%) Grove Tachbrook St Edgware Rd White British 64 60 78 71 48 32 28 54 Afro-Caribbean 13 12 37317 13 10 Asian 3 01421 22 20 10 European 4 9959817 8 Other 6 15 9 10 11 13 12 12 Refused 10 4038810 6 Ethnic Group St John’s Queensway/ Marylebone Warwick Praed Church Harrow All of Residents Wood Westbourne High St Way/ Street St/ Rd Centres (%) Grove Tachbrook St Edgware Rd White British 69 66 75 72 75 65 41 66 Afro-Caribbean 0 6041622 5 Asian 8 3926655 European 10 11 10 10 7 10 14 8 Other 9 76579612 Refused 4 7074434 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 St John’s Queensway/ Marylebone Warwick Praed Church Harrow All owned by Wood Westbourne High St Way/ Street St/ Rd Centres Visitors Grove Tachbrook St Edgware (%) Rd None 26 47 29 60 66 69 65 52 1 42 27 43 34 26 27 28 32 2 25 20 19 585512 3+ 6 6910023 Number of Cars St John’s Queensway/ Marylebone Warwick Praed Church Harrow All owned by Wood Westbourne High St Way/ Street St/ Rd Centres Residents (%) Grove Tachbrook St Edgware Rd None 22 38 39 38 34 57 49 40 1 50 41 36 49 51 29 37 42 2 16 16 22 11 10 9 10 13 3+ 10 2301102 Refused 2 4024443 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

19 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 Queensway/ Marylebone Warwick Praed Church St/ Harrow Wood Westbourne High St Way/ Street Edgware Rd Grove Tachbrook Rd St Shopping for Food 27 51 27 40 14 56 40 Shopping for Both Food and 8 9 13 89814 Non-Food Shopping for Non-Food Goods 4 1 12 27 5314 Visit the Market 0 000191 Window Shopping 3 231015 Overall Proportion Shopping 59 75 72 84 55 76 73 Services e.g. bank, PO, 8 15 9310 24 hairdresser Work/Business Purposes 19 9 15 7 23 18 19 Restaurant/Café/Public House 20 5 10 1202 Social/Leisure e.g. Meeting 3 317544 Friends, gym To Have a Walk/Stroll Around 10 584475 Healthcare e.g. Doctor, Dentist, 4 25116 21 Optician Tourism, e.g. Holiday, Day Trip 0 100300 Live here/going home 2 002330 School/College 0 803203 Other 6 357912 Source: 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.

20 Figure 3.1 – Main purpose of Visit

100%

90% Other 80% Live Here/going home Healthcare 70% To Have a Walk/Stroll Around Social/Leisure/Tourism 60% Restaurant/Café/Public House Work/Business/Education 50% Services e.g. bank, PO, hairdresser 40% Window Shopping Visit the Market 30% Shopping for Non-Food Goods Shopping for Both Food and Non-Food 20% Shopping for Food

10%

0%

t e ad ad o o Street Stre h dStreet wR k e Hig roo rro e b Pra Ha stbourne Grove ch e a St John's Wood /T St/ Edgware R y h ay/W w Marylebon hurc ck Wa C rwi a Queens W

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

21 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 Queensway Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Way/ Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High St Tachbrook Street Grove Edgware Food and Groceries 78 95 89 84 68 84 57 Newspapers/Magazines 9 1619 3 13 3 Confectionery/Tobacco 3 1511 0 20 7 Clothing/Footwear 6 3118 13 2 24 Furniture/Carpets/Soft 0 0003 1 0 Furnishings Domestic Electrical 0 4111 3 3 Other electrical 0 1011 0 0 (TV/Hi-Fi) Gifts/Jewellery/China 3 1021 2 3 and Glass Health/Beauty/Chemist 10 51521 50 Items Books/CD’s/Videos/Toys 2 30514 27 /Hobbies DIY/hardware/gardening 2 4011 2 0 Other household 2 0144 4 0 Flowers 2 0400 1 0 Other 5 1016 7 11 Don’t Know 5 0523 3 8 Source: 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

22 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

100%

90%

80% Other/Don'tknow Other household 70% DIY/hardware/gardening Books/CD's/Videos/Toys/ Hobbies 60% Health/Beauty/Chemist Items Gifts/Jewellery/China and Glass 50% Other Electrical (TV/Hi-Fi) Domestic Electrical 40% Furniture/Carpets/Soft Furnishings Clothing/Footwear 30% Confectionery/Tobacco Newspapers/Magazines 20% Food and Groceries

10%

0%

t t t d d ve e d o re ree ree oo oa oa Gr St St W R e h 's w g ok ed St n ro a ware R ourn b Pr b h Harro c Edg one Hi a St Joh b T West / y/ y a aryle w M urch St/ s Ch een rwick Wa u a Q W

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).

23 Table 3.7: Duration of Visit

Duration of Visit % of Respondent

0-15 min 11 16-30 min 30 31 min-1 hour 18 1-1½ hours 11 1½-2 hours 7 2-3 hours 4 Over 3 hours 4 Don’t Know 13 Average Duration 57 minutes Other Centres Average Duration of Visit Queensway/Westbourne Grove 73 minutes St John’s Wood 57 minutes Marylebone High Street 49 minutes Harrow Road 48 minutes Praed Street 48 minutes Church St./Edgware Rd 43 minutes Warwick Way / Tachbrook Street 43 minutes Average 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 23 2-3 times a week 25 Once a week 10 Once a fortnight 7 Once a month 9 Less than once a month 4 Never 22 Don’t Know 2 Average visits per week 1.9 per week Other Centres Average Frequency Warwick Way / Tachbrook Street 2.7 per week Church St./Edgware Rd 2.5 per week Queensway/Westbourne Grove 2.3 per week Marylebone High Street 2.2 per week Harrow Road 1.9 per week St John’s Wood 1.9 per week Praed Street 1.5 per week Average for All Centres 2.1 per week Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006

24 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)

Current St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Performance Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 11 4718 12 14 8 Good 33 22 18 18 36 28 31 Satisfactory 28 48 39 46 36 38 38 Poor 28 26 32 9 12 17 19 Don’t Know 0 049434 Average Score 0.28 0.04 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.28 Past Performance St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed (last 12 months) Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Improved 22 22 14 18 45 31 42 Stayed the same 45 35 32 27 24 28 15 Declined 33 39 50 36 26 38 39 Don’t Know 0 4418 534 Average Score -0.11 -0.18 -0.37 -0.22 0.20 -0.07 0.04 Future Performance St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed (next 12 months) Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Improve 22 43 18 27 55 52 31 Stay the same 67 35 43 27 24 24 39 Decline 6 22 21 9717 15 Don’t Know 5 0 18 37 14 7 14 Average Score 0.18 0.22 -0.04 0.29 0.56 0.37 0.18 Average 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

25 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 , 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 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 -----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.

26 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 amain 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.

27 Table 4.3: Businesses’ views on Rents and Rates

Rents St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 0 000000 Quite Good 6 0 11 0 12 21 4 Neither Good nor 17 44 32 64 45 21 19 Poor Quite Poor 6 4 18 0 17 28 23 Very Poor 44 30 14 9 19 17 23 Don’t Know 11 9 14 27 2 10 4 Not Answered 17 13 11 05327 Average Score -1.23 -0.83 -0.48 -0.46 -0.46 -0.48 -0.94 Rates St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 0 000004 Quite Good 6 449574 Neither Good nor 22 22 21 36 41 31 15 Poor Quite Poor 6 35 21 18 26 24 19 Very Poor 50 22 32 18 19 28 39 Don’t Know 6 9718 574 Not Answered 11 9 14 05315 Average Score -1.20 -0.89 -1.05 -0.56 -0.66 -0.81 -1.05 Average Score – Very Good=5, Quite Good=4, Neither Good nor Poor=3, Quite Poor=2, Very Poor=1 Source: NEMS Street Survey 2006

28 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’.

29 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.

30 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 19 19 13 32 33 Quite Good 37 56 62 73 51 52 39 Neither Good/Poor 23 10 28 15 13 28 36 Quite Poor 4 2333512 Very Poor 0 003032 Don’t Know 17 13 63198 Average Score 0.87 1.06 0.65 0.72 1.13 0.53 0.31 Average 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

31 (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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Walked 44 58 60 45 51 78 31 Car (Driver) 20 044623 Car (Passenger) 1 001222 Motorbike/Scooter 0 000200 Bus/Coach 4 7 26 27 7934 Train/Tube 26 32 8 17 26 6 28 Taxi 4 310311 Bicycle 1 026231 Other 0 000300 Source: 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).

32 Table 6.3: Local Residents’ Mode of Travel (% of Respondents)

Travel Mode St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Walked 58 69 79 77 81 88 84 Car (Driver) 20 744645 Car (Passenger) 0 011210 Motorbike/Scooter 0 000200 Bus/Coach 10 19 11 13 247 Train/Tube 2 030020 Taxi 0 000002 Bicycle 0 213260 Don’t Know 11 003312 Source: 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 , , Queen’s Park and Kilburn areas to the north, the Notting Hill, Kensington, Oxford Circus, Charing Cross, 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 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 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 and Queen’s Park areas. The and 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.

33 Table 6.4: Residents’ Views on Public Transport Accessibility (% of Respondents)

St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 49 33 34 28 17 25 39 Quite Good 27 36 31 39 19 31 39 Neither Good/Poor 7 12 13 15 13 10 4 Quite Poor 2 341480 Very Poor 0 33517 14 Don’t Know 15 12 14 11 30 25 14 Average Score 1.45 1.04 1.05 0.94 0.21 0.93 1.24 Average 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 35 12 10 19 4 21 29 Quite Good 22 39 66 66 14 50 52 Neither Good/Poor 5 27 22 3434 Quite Poor 3 514533 Very Poor 3 10013 21 Don’t Know 32 17 18 60 22 11 Average Score 1.25 0.67 0.86 1.08 -0.22 1.09 1.20 Average 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

34 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 6 13 14 18 0 10 31 Quite Good 33 35 50 18 29 59 38 Neither Good/Poor 11 13 14 18 17 17 23 Quite Poor 6 94012 70 Very Poor 11 04926 00 Don’t Know 33 30 14 36 17 78 Average Score 0.25 0.75 0.79 0.57 -0.43 0.78 1.08 Train/ St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Underground Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 11 26 11 0724 31 Quite Good 67 30 54 9 50 62 46 Neither Good/Poor 0 22 14 36 24 10 11 Quite Poor 0 470734 Very Poor 0 470700 Don’t Know 22 13 7 55 508 Average Score 1.14 0.80 0.58 0.20 0.45 1.07 1.13 Average 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

35 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)

Availability St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed of Parking Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 2 260220 Quite Good 17 11 34 2593 Neither Good/Poor 12 6 27 3432 Quite Poor 17 10 17 7756 Very Poor 28 32 5 31 18 19 19 Don’t Know 25 39 11 57 64 62 70 Average Score -0.70 -0.97 0.23 -1.55 -0.94 -0.80 -1.32 Parking Charges St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 2 260210 Quite Good 20 7 38 0230 Neither Good/Poor 11 7 22 5670 Quite Poor 5 7 16 11 489 Very Poor 26 34 6 26 22 18 13 Don’t Know 36 43 13 58 64 63 78 Average Score -1.05 -1.12 0.24 -1.49 -1.17 -1.60 -0.53 Average 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/ St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Price of Parking Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 0 248642 Quite Good 2 7611 267 Neither Good/Poor 15 14 7 11 13 32 Quite Poor 22 7 11 9 19 12 7 Very Poor 21 22 27 33 17 22 41 Don’t Know 40 48 44 28 43 53 41 Average Score -1.02 -0.80 -0.92 -0.67 -0.67 -0.91 -1.31 Average 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

36 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)

Availability St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed of Parking Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 0 000000 Quite Good 11 0 14 0 24 7 12 Neither Good/Poor 0 22 11 9 14 14 12 Quite Poor 33 39 14 18 43 31 4 Very Poor 50 30 57 73 19 48 65 Don’t Know 6 940007 Average Score -1.29 -1.10 -1.19 -1.64 -0.57 -1.21 -1.33 Parking Charges St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 0 400000 Quite Good 11 040074 Neither Good/Poor 11 9 21 46 778 Quite Poor 22 17 29 9 38 10 15 Very Poor 44 61 43 46 50 76 58 Don’t Know 11 9405015 Average Score -1.12 -1.43 -1.15 -1.00 -1.45 -1.55 -1.50 Average 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 Local Businesses Residents

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

37 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.

38 Table 6.11: Visitors’ Views on Traffic Congestion (% of visitors)

Traffic St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Congestion Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 5 150113 Quite Good 32 17 35 12 16 12 26 Neither Good/Poor 13 13 39 6 33 26 17 Quite Poor 15 13 14 5 16 9 15 Very Poor 20 31 3 20 10 18 6 Don’t Know 15 26 5 57 24 34 33 Average Score -0.15 -0.75 0.26 -0.77 -0.24 -0.47 0.07 Average 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 4 295010 2 Quite Good 13 12 19 18 13 14 18 Neither Good/Poor 38 22 20 19 40 30 30 Quite Poor 24 29 21 16 21 23 14 Very Poor 21 28 29 38 21 23 27 Don’t Know 0 734409 Average Score -0.43 -0.74 -0.44 -0.67 -0.53 -0.37 -0.50 Average 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.

39 Table 6.13: Businesses’ Views on Traffic Congestion (% of businesses)

Traffic St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Congestion Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 6 940003 Quite Good 22 17 11 36 17 31 23 Neither Good/Poor 22 44 32 9 52 17 31 Quite Poor 22 17 18 18 19 10 15 Very Poor 11 9 32 18 7 38 12 Don’t Know 17 4418 5315 Average Score -0.13 0.00 -0.66 -0.22 -0.17 -0.57 -0.09 Average 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 Local Businesses Residents

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’ Residents’ Views/Rank Business Views/Rank Occupiers’ Views/Rank Layout of centre Positive n/a n/a 3rd Bus services Very Positive Neutral 1st Very Positive 6th Train/Underground services n/a 1st Very Positive 1st Car parking availability Negative Very Negative 2nd Very Negative 5th Car parking charges Very Negative 6th Very Negative 3rd 2nd Traffic congestion Neutral Negative Neutral 3rd 2nd 3rd 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.

40 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’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 33 18 14 8 36 14 12 Quite Good 49 50 56 68 57 62 63 Neither Good/Poor 8 19 28 13 2 13 19 Quite Poor 2 217323 Very Poor 2 201231 Don’t Know 6 913063 Average Score 1.18 0.88 0.83 0.77 1.22 0.86 0.84 Average 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).

41 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 32 17 11 16 49 23 14 Quite Good 38 31 37 19 28 33 34 Neither Good/Poor 21 31 16 27 15 32 23 Quite Poor 4 9 21 14 4711 Very Poor 3 3 10 19 049 Don’t Know 2 945419 Average Score 0.92 0.55 0.19 0.00 1.27 0.65 0.35 Average 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 11 90010 70 Quite Good 17 17 18 9 62 38 35 Neither Good/Poor 28 35 18 18 14 31 35 Quite Poor 17 17 18 27 7 14 15 Very Poor 17 9 43 46 5 10 4 Don’t Know 11 13 402012 Average Score -0.12 0.00 -0.89 -1.09 0.66 0.17 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

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

42 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 6 000710 0 Quite Good 17 26 21 9 41 31 39 Neither Good/Poor 22 30 36 9 21 28 35 Quite Poor 28 4455 21 21 8 Very Poor 17 17 36 18 5 10 8 Don’t Know 11 22 495011 Average Score -0.37 -0.17 -0.56 -0.90 0.25 0.10 0.17 Average 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’ Residents’ Views/Rank Business Occupiers’ Views/Rank Views/Rank

Personal Safety Very Positive Neutral 2nd Positive 5th Security n/a 2nd Negative 5th 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.

43 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 24 24 95 45 53 Quite Good 49 56 55 69 45 64 50 Neither Good/Poor 6 9 30 18 5 18 24 Quite Poor 9 1244413 Very Poor 1 002014 Don’t Know 11 10 42185 Average Score 0.97 1.14 0.74 0.73 1.32 0.74 0.36 Average 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.

44 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 19 16 11 9 60 14 5 Quite Good 35 33 24 18 30 27 16 Neither Good/Poor 33 29 20 32 4 26 20 Quite Poor 7 10 24 17 6 25 25 Very Poor 5 9 14 21 0725 Don’t Know 2 364019 Average Score 0.56 0.38 -0.06 -0.25 1.43 0.17 -0.55 Average 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 Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 6 90036 04 Quite Good 33 26 11 9 43 31 8 Neither Good/Poor 33 35 36 55 19 31 23 Quite Poor 0 17 25 18 0 21 31 Very Poor 6 0 21 18 2 14 23 Don’t Know 22 13 700312 Average Score 0.43 0.30 -0.62 -0.45 1.10 -0.18 -0.70 Average 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.

45 Table 8.4: Residents’ Views on Street Cleaning (% of residents)

St John’s Queensway/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed Wood Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Grove Edgware Tachbrook Very Good 39 9 19 25 36 26 18 Quite Good 51 48 29 23 53 38 34 Neither Good/Poor 9 24 29 27 9 23 21 Quite Poor 1 7 13 9010 11 Very Poor 0 0911 035 Don’t Know 0 12 352011 Average Score 1.28 0.67 0.37 0.44 1.28 0.75 0.56 Average 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’ Residents’ Business NLP Analysis Views/Rank Views/Rank Occupiers’ Views/Rank Shopping Environment Positive Positive Positive n/a 3rd 2nd 2nd Street cleaning n/a Very Positive n/a Positive 1st 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.

46 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

47 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 Secondary Frontages.

9.12 These options should be discussed by policy and development control officers at Westminster.

48 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

49 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 £47.20 Comparison 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.

50 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 Wood District 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 L B - 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 net D - 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.

51 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 L B - 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 annum D - 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.

52 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:

53 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.

54 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 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.

55 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 quality and 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. 56 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.

57 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/ Church Harrow Marylebone Warwick Praed St John’s Westbourne Street/ Road High Street Way/ Street Wood Grove Edgware Tachbrook Monday 2-23 32 -- - Tuesday ----25 23 - Wednesday 24 43 44 38 23 23 23 Thursday - 43 23 - 23 23 23 Friday 75 0 23 30 18 21 23 Saturday - 23 --27 23 45 Total 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 of floorspace): the amount of space in use for different functions – such as offices; shopping; leisure, cultural and entertainment activities; pubs, cafes and restaurants; 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 the amount of land available for new or more intensive forms of town centre development; retailer representation and intentions to change representation: existence and changes in representation of types of retailer, including street markets, and the demand of retailers wanting to come into the centre, or to change their representation in the centre, or to reduce or close their representation; shopping rents: pattern of movement in Zone A rents within primary shopping areas (i.e. the rental value for the first 6 metres depth of floorspace in retail units from the shop window); proportion of vacant street level property: vacancies can arise even in the strongest town centres, and this indicator must be used with care. Vacancies in Secondary Frontages and changes to other uses will also be useful indicators; commercial yields on non-domestic property (i.e. the capital value in relation to the expected market rental): demonstrates the confidence of investors in the long-term profitability of the centre for retail, office and other commercial 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 different parts of the centre at different times of the day and evening, who are available for businesses 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 quality of public transport services and the range of customer origins served; and, the quality of provision for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people and the ease of access from main arrival points to the main attractions; customer and residents’ views and behaviour: regular surveys will help authorities in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of town centre improvements and in setting further priorities. Interviews in the town centre and at home 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 information could also establish the degree of linked trips; perception of safety and occurrence of crime: should include views and information on safety and security, and where appropriate, information for monitoring the evening and night-time economy; and state of the town centre environmental quality: should include information on problems (such as air pollution, noise, clutter, litter and graffiti) and positive factors (such as trees, landscaping and open spaces). Appendix C

NLP’s Attractions Appraisal NLP's Attractions Appraisal

Queensway/Westbourne Marylebone High St. St John's Wood Edgware R/Church St Warwick Way/Tachbrook Praed Street Harrow Road Attractions 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 Retail Provision

Prominence of multiple retailers 2 2 1 2 11 0 0 0 1 0000

Prominence of independent shops 2 2 2 2 11 2 2 2 2 2222

Availability of food shopping 1 2 1 2 22 2 1 2 1 2022

Prominence of specialist shops 1 1 1 2 22 2 1 1 1 0122

Quality of market (frequency, variety etc) ------2 2 1 1 ----

Quality of retail environment 1 1 2 2 22 0 1 1 1 1200

Art/Culture

Quality of restaurants (availability/number etc) 2 2 2 2 22 1 1 2 1 2200 Quality of pub/club/bars 1 1 2 2 11 1 1 1 1 1100 Range of cultural/community events (theatres, concerts) 1 1 0 0 00 1 0 0 0 0000 Availability of sports and leisure facilities 2 2 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0011 Service Provision

Local services (information, library etc) 2 1 1 0 22 1 1 1 1 0000

Employment/office space 1 2 1 1 11 0 0 1 1 1110

Bank/building society provision 1 1 2 2 11 0 0 0 0 1100

Total 17 18 15 17 15 15 12 10 12 11 10 10 87

Percentage 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 Rank 1 .=2 .=2 .=4 .=4 67 Appendix D

NLP’s Day-Time Amenity Appraisal NLP's Day Time Amenity Appraisal Marylebone High St. St John's Wood Warwick/Tachbrook Queensway/Westbourne Praed Street Harrow Road Edgware/Church St. 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 Environment Issues

Presence of litter 2 2 220 2 1 1 22010 1 Presence of refuse bags on the street 2 2 121 2 2 1 22000 1 Evidence of street fouling 1 2 222 2 1 2 22010 2 Presence of glass/glasses/other debris incl. food and food containers 2 2 221 2 1 1 11010 2 Condition 2 2 220 1 1 1 11110 1 Quality of buildings 2 2 221 1 1 1 11110 0 Special features (pedestrianisation, street furniture etc) 1 1 111 1 1 1 00101 1 Impact of vacant sites 1 2 220 2 1 1 01110 1 Safety and Security Issues Evidence of vandalism and graffiti (incl. on street furniture) 2 2 221 2 1 2 11010 1 Security during shopping hours (availability, access, security etc( 2 2 111 1 2 2 01111 1 Ease of passage for pedestrians (inc. presence of obstacles e.g. illegally parked vehicles 0 2 111 1 1 1 01112 1 Evidence of drunkenness, anti-social, behaviour, rowdiness 2 2 221 2 2 2 12221 0 Presence of rough sleepers 2 2 222 2 2 2 21222 0 Presence of beggars 2 2 222 2 1 1 02220 1 Presence of street drinkers 2 2 222 2 2 2 22120 1 Evidence of touting (e.g. mini cabs, rickshaws, prostitution, drug dealing etc) 2 2 222 2 2 1 22222 2 Presence of illegal street traders, e.g. counterfeit goods, hot dogs, peanuts etc 2 2 222 2 2 2 22121 1 Effectiveness of any deterrent measure (CCTV, police patrols, door security etc) 1 1 111 1 2 2 11112 1 Quality of street lighting 2 1 121 1 1 1 11111 1 Safety perception in shopping hours 2 2 221 1 1 1 12010 0 Identity of town centre

Features which identify the centre (e.g. flagship stores, buildings etc) 2 1 111 0 2 2 11002 0 Promotion/street events 0 0 000 1 0 0 00001 1 Feel good factor of town centre' 2 2 221 1 1 1 11000 0 Total 38 40 37 39 25 34 31 31 24 30 18 24 16 20

Percentage 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 Rank 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 Appendix E

NLP’s Night-Time Amenity Appraisal NLP's Night Time Appraisal Marylebone High St. St John's Wood Warwick/Tachbrook Queensway/Westbourne Praed Street Edgware/Church St. Harrow Road 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 Environmental Issues Presence of litter 1 1 22 0 1 1 1 110111 Presence of refuse bags on the street 1 1 10 1 0 2 0 100111 Evidence of street fouling 2 2 22 2 2 1 2 111112

Presence of glass/glasses/other debris incl. 2 2 22 1 1 1 1 111111 food and food containers/wrapping Security and Crime Issues Feeling of security 2 2 22 1 1 1 2 110100 Evidence of Vandalism and Graffiti 2 2 22 1 2 1 2 110100 (incl. on street furniture) Ease of passage for pedestrians (incl. presence 2 2 22 2 2 1 1 222222 of obstacles eg illegally parked vehicles) Evidence of drunkenness, anti-social 2 2 22 1 2 1 2 220112 Behaviour, rowdiness Presence of rough sleepers 2 2 22 2 2 1 2 121222 Presence of beggars 2 2 22 2 2 1 2 222222 Presence of street drinkers 2 2 22 1 2 1 2 120112 Presence of illegal street traders 2 2 22 2 2 1 2 222212 e.g counterfeit goods, hot dogs, peanuts etc. Evidence of touting (e.g. mini cabs, rickshaws, 2 2 22 2 2 1 2 222222 Prostitution, drug dealing etc.) Effectiveness of any deterrent measures 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 111111 (CCTV, police patrols, door security etc) Quality of street lighting 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 111111 Safety perception out of shopping hours 2 2 22 1 1 1 1 110000

Identity of town centre Features which identify the centre 2 2 11 1 1 2 2 111100 (e.g. quality of food and drink premises, building etc) Promotion/ Street events 1 0 11 1 1 1 0 100000 ‘Feel good’ factor of centre at night 2 2 22 1 1 1 1 110100 Total 34 33 33 33 24 27 21 27 24 24 14 22 17 21

Percentage 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%

Rank 1 (=)1 2 (=)1 (=)3 (=)3 5 (=)3 (=)3 5 7 6 6 7 Appendix F

PMRS Pedestrian Flowcounts October 2006 Table F.1: PMRS Day-time Pedestrian Flow Counts

Average Pedestrian Flow Location Index 3pm - 5pm 1 Queensway 2033 253% 2 Edgware Road 1821 226% 3 Marylebone High Street 1478 184% 4 Praed Street 1150 143% 5 Warwick Way 876 109% 6 St Johns Wood 733 91% 7 Harrow Road 710 88% Average 805 100

Average Average number of pedestrians passing each count point in both directions Pedestrian Flow

Index Percentage of average flow all centres

Table F.2: PMRS Night-time Pedestrian Flow Counts

Average Pedestrian Flow Location Index 9pm - 11pm 1 Edgware Road 1237 350% 2 Praed Street 810 229% 3 Queensway 645 183% 4 Marylebone High Street 633 179% 5 Warwick Way 537 152% 6 Harrow Road 344 97% 7 St Johns Wood 178 50% Average 353 100

Average Average number of pedestrians passing each count point in both directions Pedestrian Flow

Index Percentage of average flow all centres Table F.3: St John’s Wood District Centre Day and Night-Time Pedestrian Flows

3pm - 5pm 9pm - 11pm Grid References STREET & ADDRESS Note Count Index Count Index OSE OSN 10 St Annes Terrace 135 18 60 34 526911.99 183302.99 105 St John’s Wood Terrace 390 53 75 42 526941.55 183283.09 142 St John’s Wood High Street A 525 72 90 51 526947.68 183264.55 140 St John’s Wood High Street 960 131 165 93 526955.55 183246.68 120 St John’s Wood High Street 1,080 147 210 118 526985.94 183208.54 128 Allitsen Road 510 70 195 110 527010 183213.92 92 St John’s Wood High Street 585 80 195 110 527025.37 183161.5 70 St John’s Wood High Street 450 61 60 34 527063.16 183112.53 39 Barrow Hill Road 180 25 30 17 527108.15 183098.97 60 St John’s Wood High Street 165 23 60 34 527100.87 183065.02 1-3 Wellington Place 300 41 165 93 527066.33 183058.4 3 St John’s Wood High Street 555 76 120 68 527067.82 183079.8 20 St John’s Wood High Street 825 113 180 101 527034.05 183127.35 45 St John’s Wood High Street 1,080 147 210 118 526992.95 183175.46 57 St John’s Wood High Street 1,485 203 210 118 526964.82 183210.32 75 St John’s Wood High Street 1,320 180 210 118 526938.51 183244.43 Circus Road 870 119 195 110 526919.86 183246.1 13-19 Circus Road 915 125 210 118 526859.84 183197.68 28 Circus Road 1,110 151 330 186 526847.63 183211.22 Circus Road 1,215 166 585 329 526905.94 183257.84 733 100 178 100 Figure F.1: St John’s Wood Grove District Centre Day and Night-Time Pedestrian Flow comparison

ST JOHNS WOOD - OCTOBER 2006

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600 INDEXED PEDESTRIAN FLOW 400

200

0 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

COUNT POINTS

3pm - 5pm 9pm - 11pm

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

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% 8 Shopping for non-food goods 7.9% 9 3.8% 2 11.3% 7 2.4% 1 10.5% 4 11.4% 4 7.8% 7 8.3% 2 only Shopping for both food & 3.5% 4 0.0% 0 6.5% 4 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 3.3% 3 4.2% 1 non-food items Shopping for specialist foods 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 / goods / items specific to centre 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% 0 To 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% 0 To visit a restaurant / café / 20.2% 23 23.1% 12 17.7% 11 29.3% 12 15.8% 6 14.3% 5 23.3% 21 8.3% 2 public house To have a walk / stroll 10.5% 12 9.6% 5 11.3% 7 12.2% 5 10.5% 4 8.6% 3 11.1% 10 8.3% 2 around To use services e.g. bank, 7.9% 9 3.8% 2 11.3% 7 7.3% 3 7.9% 3 8.6% 3 8.9% 8 4.2% 1 post office, hairdresser 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% 4 Healthcare e.g. doctor, 3.5% 4 1.9% 1 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 4.2% 1 dentist, optician Social / leisure reason e.g. 2.6% 3 0.0% 0 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 5.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 4.2% 1 meeting friends, going to gym Tourism, e.g. holiday, day 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 trip Other 4.4% 5 3.8% 2 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 2.2% 2 12.5% 3 Going 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% 0 Live here 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 0.0% 0 Going 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% 0 Going 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% 5 No 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: 7137343022195813

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% 13 Newspapers / Magazines 9.0% 6 13.0% 3 6.8% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 26.1% 6 7.8% 4 12.5% 2 Confectionery / Tobacco 3.0% 2 4.3% 1 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 3.8% 1 4.3% 1 2.0% 1 6.3% 1 Clothing / Footwear 6.0% 4 0.0% 0 9.1% 4 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 13.0% 3 5.9% 3 6.3% 1 Furniture / Carpets / Soft 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 furnishings 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% 0 Other electrical goods (TV, 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Hi-fi etc) 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% 1 Other 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% 1 Gifts / Jewellery / China and 3.0% 2 0.0% 0 4.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 8.7% 2 3.9% 2 0.0% 0 Glass Books / CD’s / DVDs / Toys 1.5% 1 4.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.8% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 0.0% 0 /Hobbies Health / Beauty / Chemist 10.4% 7 4.3% 1 13.6% 6 11.1% 2 3.8% 1 17.4% 4 11.8% 6 6.3% 1 items Specialist foods / goods / 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 items specific to that centre Other 4.5% 3 4.3% 1 4.5% 2 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 8.7% 2 5.9% 3 0.0% 0 Flowers 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% 0 Base: 6723441826235116

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

Q04 Approximately how much will you spend in total on each of the following during 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? 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% 1 Less 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% 0 More 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% 2 Mean: 15.3 16.7 14.5 26.6 12.0 10.7 16.3 12.1 Base: 6723441826235116

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% 2 Less 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% 0 More 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: 6723441826235116

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% 2 Less 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% 0 More 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% 1 Mean: 4.17 2.22 5.14 5.00 2.50 5.45 4.06 5.00 Base: 6723441826235116

Q05 Do you intend to visit any leisure / entertainment facilities or eat / drink in Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High 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% 7 No 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

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 0 Pubs / bars 12.2% 5 25.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 7.7% 1 36.4% 4 8.8% 3 28.6% 2 Restaurants 29.3% 12 30.0% 6 28.6% 6 23.5% 4 30.8% 4 36.4% 4 35.3% 12 0.0% 0 Takeaway food 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Walk 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% 0 Cafes / 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% 3 Theatre / cinema 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 2.4% 1 5.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 9.1% 1 0.0% 0 14.3% 1 Library 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% 0 Base: 412021171311347

Q07 How did you travel to Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / 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% 2 Car-passenger 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 Bus / coach 4.4% 5 1.9% 1 6.5% 4 7.3% 3 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 4.4% 4 4.2% 1 Train / Tube 26.3% 30 34.6% 18 19.4% 12 31.7% 13 26.3% 10 20.0% 7 25.6% 23 29.2% 7 Taxi 4.4% 5 5.8% 3 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 4.4% 4 4.2% 1 Walked 43.9% 50 36.5% 19 50.0% 31 46.3% 19 34.2% 13 51.4% 18 43.3% 39 45.8% 11 Bicycle 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 Other 1.8% 2 3.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 8.3% 2 Base: 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% 1 Work 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% 0 Masterpark / 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% 0 Off 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% 0 On-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% 1 Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Residential parking 10.0% 2 0.0% 0 18.2% 2 0.0% 0 20.0% 2 0.0% 0 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 Base: 209115105182

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% 2 No 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: 209115105182

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% 0 6-10 minutes 14.3% 3 22.2% 2 8.3% 1 20.0% 1 18.2% 2 0.0% 0 15.8% 3 0.0% 0 11-15 minutes 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 8.3% 1 0.0% 0 9.1% 1 0.0% 0 5.3% 1 0.0% 0 16-30 minutes 28.6% 6 22.2% 2 33.3% 4 20.0% 1 36.4% 4 20.0% 1 31.6% 6 0.0% 0 30 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% 2 Base: 219125115192

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 1 Ashcroft 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% 0 Baker Street 5.3% 6 5.8% 3 4.8% 3 7.3% 3 2.6% 1 5.7% 2 4.4% 4 8.3% 2 5.3% 6 5.8% 3 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 7.9% 3 5.7% 2 3.3% 3 12.5% 3 Bluewater 4.4% 5 7.7% 4 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 5.3% 2 8.6% 3 4.4% 4 4.2% 1 Brent Cross 24.6% 28 23.1% 12 25.8% 16 29.3% 12 28.9% 11 14.3% 5 26.7% 24 16.7% 4 Broadway 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% 0 Brompton Road 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.2% 2 0.0% 0 5.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0 8.8% 10 5.8% 3 11.3% 7 4.9% 2 15.8% 6 5.7% 2 8.9% 8 8.3% 2 Church Street – Edgware 6.1% 7 9.6% 5 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 5.3% 2 11.4% 4 5.6% 5 8.3% 2 Road North 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% 0 Edgware Road (south of 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0 Harrow Road Flyover) 2.6% 3 1.9% 1 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 3.3% 3 0.0% 0 Harrow Road 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 9.6% 11 5.8% 3 12.9% 8 4.9% 2 10.5% 4 14.3% 5 10.0% 9 8.3% 2 Kings Road 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 0.0% 0 Knightsbridge 6.1% 7 3.8% 2 8.1% 5 2.4% 1 7.9% 3 8.6% 3 7.8% 7 0.0% 0 Ladbroke Grove 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Marylebone 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% 1 Oxford Street / West End / 51.8% 59 38.5% 20 62.9% 39 56.1% 23 60.5% 23 37.1% 13 55.6% 50 37.5% 9 Regent Street / Bond Street 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% 0 Queensway / Westbourne 7.0% 8 5.8% 3 8.1% 5 14.6% 6 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 5.6% 5 12.5% 3 Grove 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% 0 St 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% 1 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% 0 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% 0 Warwick Way / Tachbrook 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Street Waterloo 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 17.5% 20 30.8% 16 6.5% 4 12.2% 5 26.3% 10 14.3% 5 16.7% 15 20.8% 5 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 7.3% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 4.2% 1 Finchley 7.9% 9 5.8% 3 9.7% 6 7.3% 3 0.0% 0 17.1% 6 7.8% 7 8.3% 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 Kilburn 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Lakeside 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 2.2% 2 0.0% 0 Primrose Hill 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 Swiss Cottage 4.4% 5 3.8% 2 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 2.2% 2 12.5% 3 Victoria Street 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Watford 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 0.0% 0 Base: 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 High Street / 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% 3 16-30 minutes 29.8% 34 28.8% 15 30.6% 19 22.0% 9 34.2% 13 34.3% 12 28.9% 26 33.3% 8 31 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% 2 1–1½hours 11.4% 13 9.6% 5 12.9% 8 9.8% 4 7.9% 3 17.1% 6 14.4% 13 0.0% 0 Over 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% 4 Over 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% 1 Over 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% 4 Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 4 2-3 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% 8 Once 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% 1 Once 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% 0 Once 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% 3 Less 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% 2 Never 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 / St John’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% 1 Quite good 16.7% 19 13.5% 7 19.4% 12 12.2% 5 28.9% 11 8.6% 3 14.4% 13 25.0% 6 Neither 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% 2 Quite poor 16.7% 19 15.4% 8 17.7% 11 17.1% 7 13.2% 5 20.0% 7 16.7% 15 16.7% 4 Very 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% 1 Quite good 20.2% 23 21.2% 11 19.4% 12 12.2% 5 34.2% 13 14.3% 5 22.2% 20 12.5% 3 Neither 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% 3 Quite poor 5.3% 6 5.8% 3 4.8% 3 7.3% 3 5.3% 2 2.9% 1 5.6% 5 4.2% 1 Very 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% 2 Quite good 31.6% 36 36.5% 19 27.4% 17 26.8% 11 36.8% 14 31.4% 11 30.0% 27 37.5% 9 Neither 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% 2 Quite poor 14.9% 17 3.8% 2 24.2% 15 19.5% 8 13.2% 5 11.4% 4 16.7% 15 8.3% 2 Very 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% 3 Mean: 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% 7 Quite good 21.9% 25 23.1% 12 21.0% 13 19.5% 8 18.4% 7 28.6% 10 21.1% 19 25.0% 6 Neither 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% 2 Quite poor 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 4.2% 1 Very 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% 8 Mean: 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

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 7 Quite good 49.1% 56 51.9% 27 46.8% 29 46.3% 19 50.0% 19 51.4% 18 48.9% 44 50.0% 12 Neither 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% 3 Quite poor 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.2% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 1.1% 1 4.2% 1 Very 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% 5 Quite good 42.1% 48 42.3% 22 41.9% 26 41.5% 17 44.7% 17 40.0% 14 42.2% 38 41.7% 10 Neither 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% 4 Quite poor 12.3% 14 15.4% 8 9.7% 6 9.8% 4 10.5% 4 17.1% 6 11.1% 10 16.7% 4 Very 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% 4 Quite good 43.9% 50 46.2% 24 41.9% 26 39.0% 16 36.8% 14 57.1% 20 41.1% 37 54.2% 13 Neither 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% 2 Quite poor 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 4.2% 1 Very 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% 2 Mean: 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% 1 Quite good 39.5% 45 38.5% 20 40.3% 25 34.1% 14 34.2% 13 51.4% 18 34.4% 31 58.3% 14 Neither 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% 3 Quite poor 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 0.0% 0 Very 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% 5 Mean: 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% 0 Quite good 28.1% 32 25.0% 13 30.6% 19 29.3% 12 28.9% 11 25.7% 9 24.4% 22 41.7% 10 Neither 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% 1 Quite poor 4.4% 5 5.8% 3 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 7.9% 3 0.0% 0 5.6% 5 0.0% 0 Very 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% 12 Mean: 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% 2 Quite good 10.5% 12 7.7% 4 12.9% 8 14.6% 6 13.2% 5 2.9% 1 8.9% 8 16.7% 4 Neither 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% 5 Quite 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 Very 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% 10 Mean: 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

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 7 Quite good 42.1% 48 40.4% 21 43.5% 27 46.3% 19 34.2% 13 45.7% 16 38.9% 35 54.2% 13 Neither 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% 0 Quite poor 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0 Very 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% 2 Quite good 11.4% 13 11.5% 6 11.3% 7 17.1% 7 13.2% 5 2.9% 1 7.8% 7 25.0% 6 Neither 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% 1 Quite 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 Very 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% 8 Quite good 39.5% 45 44.2% 23 35.5% 22 29.3% 12 47.4% 18 42.9% 15 34.4% 31 58.3% 14 Neither 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% 1 Quite poor 4.4% 5 7.7% 4 1.6% 1 7.3% 3 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 5.6% 5 0.0% 0 Very 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% 1 Mean: 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% 3 Quite good 49.1% 56 55.8% 29 43.5% 27 41.5% 17 57.9% 22 48.6% 17 45.6% 41 62.5% 15 Neither 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% 0 Quite poor 8.8% 10 5.8% 3 11.3% 7 12.2% 5 2.6% 1 11.4% 4 7.8% 7 12.5% 3 Very 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% 3 Mean: 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% 3 Quite good 36.8% 42 42.3% 22 32.3% 20 31.7% 13 31.6% 12 48.6% 17 32.2% 29 54.2% 13 Neither 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% 6 Quite poor 3.5% 4 3.8% 2 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 5.7% 2 4.4% 4 0.0% 0 Very 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% 2 Mean: 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% 1 Quite good 28.9% 33 28.8% 15 29.0% 18 26.8% 11 18.4% 7 42.9% 15 24.4% 22 45.8% 11 Neither 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% 5 Quite poor 10.5% 12 9.6% 5 11.3% 7 9.8% 4 13.2% 5 8.6% 3 13.3% 12 0.0% 0 Very 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% 5 Mean: 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

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 10 Increase the range of national 15.8% 18 1.9% 1 27.4% 17 22.0% 9 13.2% 5 11.4% 4 16.7% 15 12.5% 3 / multiple chain stores Increase the range of local / 36.0% 41 30.8% 16 40.3% 25 36.6% 15 34.2% 13 37.1% 13 37.8% 34 29.2% 7 speciality retailers Improve quality of shops and 10.5% 12 9.6% 5 11.3% 7 12.2% 5 7.9% 3 11.4% 4 11.1% 10 8.3% 2 services Improve the appearance of 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 the town centre 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% 0 Make the centre safer (more 7.0% 8 1.9% 1 11.3% 7 9.8% 4 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 5.6% 5 12.5% 3 CCTV, policing, better lighting etc) Remove / reduce traffic 4.4% 5 5.8% 3 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 4.4% 4 4.2% 1 congestion Provide more housing in the 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 town-centre Improve frequency of public 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 transport Improve car parking 14.0% 16 13.5% 7 14.5% 9 14.6% 6 10.5% 4 17.1% 6 14.4% 13 12.5% 3 availability / reduce parking charges Provide better entertainment 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 /leisure Improve quality and range of 5.3% 6 7.7% 4 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 5.3% 2 5.7% 2 6.7% 6 0.0% 0 cafes and restaurants Improve pedestrian links and 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 facilities in the town centre 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% 0 Other 8.8% 10 3.8% 2 12.9% 8 4.9% 2 7.9% 3 14.3% 5 8.9% 8 8.3% 2 Acinema 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Make 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% 0 A 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% 0 A supermarket 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 More 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% 1 More 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% 0 Lower 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% 0 More 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 / Praed Street / 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% 10 No 58.8% 67 53.8% 28 62.9% 39 61.0% 25 52.6% 20 62.9% 22 58.9% 53 58.3% 14 Base: 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 / Praed Street / 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% 1 Pubs / bars 21.3% 10 33.3% 8 8.7% 2 25.0% 4 16.7% 3 23.1% 3 21.6% 8 20.0% 2 Restaurants 70.2% 33 58.3% 14 82.6% 19 56.3% 9 83.3% 15 69.2% 9 75.7% 28 50.0% 5 Cafes / 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% 2 Services (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% 0 Takeaway food 4.3% 2 8.3% 2 0.0% 0 12.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.4% 2 0.0% 0 Walk 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% 2 Cinema 8.5% 4 0.0% 0 17.4% 4 25.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 4 Theatre 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Nightclubs 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Shopping 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% 1 Base: 4724231618133710

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 5 Closetohome /easytoget 30.7% 35 19.2% 10 40.3% 25 29.3% 12 31.6% 12 31.4% 11 30.0% 27 33.3% 8 to 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% 0 Good 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% 8 Good 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% 3 Good 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% 3 Good 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% 6 Good health / fitness 1.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 4.2% 1 facilities Other 5.3% 6 7.7% 4 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 6.7% 6 0.0% 0 Atmosphere 2.6% 3 1.9% 1 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 3.3% 3 0.0% 0 Convenient 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Friendly 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% 15 Poor 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% 0 Too expensive 11.4% 13 13.5% 7 9.7% 6 12.2% 5 10.5% 4 11.4% 4 11.1% 10 12.5% 3 Unsafe / poor security / 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 dangerous 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% 1 Car 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% 1 Lack 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% 0 Other 5.3% 6 1.9% 1 8.1% 5 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 8.6% 3 5.6% 5 4.2% 1 It 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% 0 Poor 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% 0 Too smokey 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 2.2% 2 0.0% 0 Too busy 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 Close 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% 3 Base: 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% 11 Female 54.4% 62 0.0% 0 100.0% 62 61.0% 25 55.3% 21 45.7% 16 54.4% 49 54.2% 13 Base: 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% 7 25 - 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% 4 35 - 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% 3 45 - 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% 1 55 - 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% 4 65+ years 10.5% 12 11.5% 6 9.7% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 34.3% 12 7.8% 7 20.8% 5 Base: 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% 0 C1 25.4% 29 30.8% 16 21.0% 13 31.7% 13 26.3% 10 17.1% 6 32.2% 29 0.0% 0 C2 10.5% 12 11.5% 6 9.7% 6 12.2% 5 5.3% 2 14.3% 5 0.0% 0 50.0% 12 DE 10.5% 12 9.6% 5 11.3% 7 14.6% 6 5.3% 2 11.4% 4 0.0% 0 50.0% 12 Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 20 White - Irish 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 Any 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% 0 White 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% 0 White 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% 0 White 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% 0 Any 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% 0 Indian 2.6% 3 1.9% 1 3.2% 2 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 4.2% 1 Pakistani 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Bangladeshi 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Any 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% 0 Caribbean 3.5% 4 3.8% 2 3.2% 2 0.0% 0 7.9% 3 2.9% 1 4.4% 4 0.0% 0 African 7.9% 9 7.7% 4 8.1% 5 4.9% 2 5.3% 2 14.3% 5 8.9% 8 4.2% 1 Any 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% 0 Chinese 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Chinese other 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 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% 0 Australian 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 4.2% 1 Canadian 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Danish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 French 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Greek 2.6% 3 3.8% 2 1.6% 1 4.9% 2 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 3.3% 3 0.0% 0 Italian 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Polish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Spanish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Swedish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Turkish 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 USA 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0 Iranian 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Iraq 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Lebanon 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% 1 Base: 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% 8 Two 51.8% 59 48.1% 25 54.8% 34 48.8% 20 63.2% 24 42.9% 15 54.4% 49 41.7% 10 Three 11.4% 13 13.5% 7 9.7% 6 14.6% 6 7.9% 3 11.4% 4 8.9% 8 20.8% 5 Four 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% 16 One 9.6% 11 9.6% 5 9.7% 6 14.6% 6 10.5% 4 2.9% 1 7.8% 7 16.7% 4 Two 15.8% 18 13.5% 7 17.7% 11 12.2% 5 31.6% 12 2.9% 1 16.7% 15 12.5% 3 Three 3.5% 4 1.9% 1 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 7.9% 3 0.0% 0 3.3% 3 4.2% 1 Four 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% 11 One 42.1% 48 44.2% 23 40.3% 25 39.0% 16 47.4% 18 40.0% 14 48.9% 44 16.7% 4 Two 25.4% 29 21.2% 11 29.0% 18 29.3% 12 28.9% 11 17.1% 6 22.2% 20 37.5% 9 Three 4.4% 5 3.8% 2 4.8% 3 2.4% 1 7.9% 3 2.9% 1 5.6% 5 0.0% 0 Four 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% 0 Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 0 Tuesday 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Wednesday 20.2% 23 25.0% 13 16.1% 10 14.6% 6 15.8% 6 31.4% 11 21.1% 19 16.7% 4 Thursday 20.2% 23 13.5% 7 25.8% 16 24.4% 10 21.1% 8 14.3% 5 21.1% 19 16.7% 4 Friday 20.2% 23 19.2% 10 21.0% 13 17.1% 7 26.3% 10 17.1% 6 16.7% 15 33.3% 8 Saturday 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% 0 Harrow Road 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Marylebone 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% 0 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% 0 Queensway-Westbourne 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Grove 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% 24 Warwick Way-Tachbrook 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Street Base: 114 52 62 41 38 35 90 24

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 0 BD18 8 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 BH6 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 BN2 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 BR2 0 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 BS32 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Blank 13.2% 15 17.3% 9 9.7% 6 17.1% 7 7.9% 3 14.3% 5 11.1% 10 20.8% 5 CB3 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 CO16 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 CR0 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 CR3 5 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 DA14 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 DB6 0 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 E1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E10 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E10 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E12 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E13 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E13 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E14 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E15 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E15 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 E17 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E17 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E18 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 E2 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 E2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E5 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E5 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E7 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 E8 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 E9 7 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 EN7 6 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 EN9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 EX4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 GU16 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 GU2 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 GU26 5 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 GU35 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 HA0 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 HA0 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 HA3 0 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 HA3 9 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 HA4 2 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 HA4 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 HA7 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 HU17 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 HU8 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 IG1 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 IG11 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 JI46 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 LU2 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 LU5 1 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 M13 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 M25 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 ME17 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 MW8 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N1 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 N10 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N11 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N12 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N13 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N15 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 N15 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N16 6 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 N17 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 N20 9 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 N29 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 0 N7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N7 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N8 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 ND3 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NN8 7 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NN8 9 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NP14 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW1 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW1 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW1 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW1 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW1 8 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NW1 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW10 0 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 NW10 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW10 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW10 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW10 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW11 7 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NW11 9 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NW2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW2 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 NW2 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NW2 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW3 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW4 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NW4 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NW5 1 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NW5 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 NW6 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NW6 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 NW6 4 1.8% 2 1.9% 1 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 4.2% 1 NW6 5 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NW6 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW6 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW6 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW8 3.5% 4 1.9% 1 4.8% 3 4.9% 2 2.6% 1 2.9% 1 4.4% 4 0.0% 0 NW8 0 8.8% 10 5.8% 3 11.3% 7 9.8% 4 13.2% 5 2.9% 1 10.0% 9 4.2% 1 NW8 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 NW8 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 NW8 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 NW8 6 15.8% 18 13.5% 7 17.7% 11 7.3% 3 10.5% 4 31.4% 11 13.3% 12 25.0% 6 NW8 7 7.0% 8 9.6% 5 4.8% 3 9.8% 4 7.9% 3 2.9% 1 7.8% 7 4.2% 1 NW8 8 2.6% 3 1.9% 1 3.2% 2 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 5.7% 2 3.3% 3 0.0% 0 NW8 9 6.1% 7 3.8% 2 8.1% 5 7.3% 3 5.3% 2 5.7% 2 7.8% 7 0.0% 0 NW9 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 OX2 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 OX4 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 PR2 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 RH10 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 RH19 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 RM1 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 RM10 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 RM13 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 RM18 8 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 RM6 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 RM6 5 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 RM6 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 RM8 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 RM8 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 RM9 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 RU19 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 S23 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 SE1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE11 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE11 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE15 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 SE15 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 SE16 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE19 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

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 0 SE28 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE3 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE5 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE5 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE5 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE5 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SE6 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 SG8 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SL2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SL3 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SM4 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SN11 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 SO31 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 SP11 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SS15 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SS4 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 SW1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW1 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 SW1 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW1 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW10 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 SW10 4 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 SW11 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 SW11 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW11 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW12 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW13 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW14 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 SW15 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 SW15 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 SW15 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW16 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW17 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW18 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 SW19 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 SW19 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW19 6 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 SW1P 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW1P 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 SW1P 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 SW1P 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW1S 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 SW1U 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW1U 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 SW1U 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW1V 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW1V 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 SW1V 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 SW1V 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW1V 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW1X 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW3 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW3 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW4 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW6 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 SW6 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW6 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW6 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW7 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 SW8 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 SW8 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 SW8 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 SW9 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 TI5 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 TN2 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 TW11 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 TW11 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 TW4 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 TW9 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 UB6 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

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research 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

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% 0 W0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W1 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W1 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W10 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 W10 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W10 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W10 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W10 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W10 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W11 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W12 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W12 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W12 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W12 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W13 9 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 2.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 W14 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W1A 2 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 W1G 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W1G 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W1K 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 W1N 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W1P 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W1U 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W1U 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W1V 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W2 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 W2 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 W2 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W2 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W2 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W2 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W21 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W3 6 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 W4 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 W4 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W5 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 W5 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W5 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W6 9 0.9% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 2.6% 1 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 0.0% 0 W7 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 W7 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 W8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W8 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 W9 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 W9 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 W9 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WD23 1 0.9% 1 1.9% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.9% 1 0.0% 0 4.2% 1 WD2H 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WD6 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 WD6 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WIG 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WIG 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WIG 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WIU 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WW1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WW1 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WW10 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 WW2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WW2 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 WW8 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 YO24 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

Column %ges. 061006 NEMS market research Appendix H

Household Residents Survey Results Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 1 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Q01 Where do you normally shop for non-food (comparison) goods i.e. clothes, footwear, books etc ?

Oxford Street / West End 45.8% 301 42.1% 107 48.1% 194 67.7% 21 53.5% 38 43.4% 111 42.0% 47 35.3% 6 47.5% 218 41.3% 64 44.0% 166 Kensington High Street 7.6% 50 8.3% 21 7.2% 29 9.7% 3 11.3% 88.6%225.4%60.0% 08.7% 40 5.8% 9 8.0% 30 Victoria Street, Westminster 3.0% 20 3.2% 8 3.0% 12 0.0% 0 1.4% 14.3%110.9%10.0% 02.8% 13 2.6% 4 3.4% 13 Queensway / Westbourne 2.4% 16 2.8% 7 2.2% 9 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 2.7% 7 1.8% 2 5.9% 11.7% 83.2%52.4%9 Grove Edgware Road 2.4% 16 3.2% 8 2.0% 8 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.2% 3 1.8% 2 0.0% 01.3% 65.8%90.8%3 Kings Road 2.1% 14 1.6% 4 2.5% 10 3.2% 1 4.2% 3 2.3% 6 2.7% 3 5.9% 12.6% 12 0.6% 1 3.4% 13 Marylebone High Street 1.5% 10 2.0% 5 1.2% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.7% 7 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.7% 81.3%22.4%9 Brent Cross 1.5% 10 2.0% 5 1.2% 5 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.0% 5 3.6% 4 0.0% 01.7% 81.3%22.4%9 Mail order / delivered / 1.5% 10 1.6% 4 1.5% 6 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.0% 5 0.0% 0 5.9% 11.5% 71.9%31.6%6 internet Abroad (unspecified 1.1% 7 1.2% 3 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 4.2% 3 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.3% 60.0%01.1%4 location) Kilburn 1.1% 7 0.0% 0 1.7% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.1% 50.6%11.1%4 Marble Arch 0.9% 6 0.8% 2 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 5.9% 10.9% 40.6%10.5%2 Whiteley's Shopping Centre 0.9% 6 1.2% 3 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 1.8% 2 0.0% 01.1% 50.6%11.1%4 Harrow Road 0.9% 6 0.8% 2 1.0% 4 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 22.6%40.5%2 Market, Portobello Road 0.9% 6 2.0% 5 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 11.8% 20.9% 40.6%10.3%1 Market, Church Street 0.8% 5 0.4% 1 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 21.9%30.5%2 St Johns Wood 0.8% 5 0.4% 1 1.0% 4 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%00.8%3 Regent Street 0.6% 4 1.2% 3 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%01.1%4 Notting Hill 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%00.8%3 Portobello Road 0.6% 4 1.2% 3 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Bond Street, London 0.6% 4 0.4% 1 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.6%10.5%2 Tesco, Church Street, St 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 01.3%20.5%2 Johns Wood Warwick Way / Tachbrook 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.4% 20.6%10.5%2 Street Bayswater 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.3%1 Hammersmith 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 11.3%20.5%2 German Street, Westminster 0.5% 3 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.3%1 Knightsbridge 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.8%3 Central London 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 5.9% 10.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Baker Street 0.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.0%0 Covent Garden 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 O2 Centre, Finchley Road 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Praed Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Ladbroke Grove 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Camden Town 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Primark (unspecified 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 location) Sainsbury's, Crommel Road, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Barnet Wembley 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Westminster 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 2 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Park Road, London 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Bromley 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Cardinal Junction 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Shepherd's Bush W12 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Church Street, Kent 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Finchley Road, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Goldbourne Road, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Kensington Hampstead 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Harrow 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Hyde Park 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Keble Road, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Market, Litchfield 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Market (unspecified 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 location) 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Marks & Spencer, Marble 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Arch Market, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Osterley Lane, Ealing 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Oxbridge 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Coburn Mews 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Sainsbury's, O2 Centre, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Finchley Road Sloanes Court 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Waitrose, Twyford 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 (Don't know / varies) 13.2% 87 13.8% 35 12.9% 52 0.0% 0 5.6% 4 11.7% 30 19.6% 22 5.9% 1 12.6% 58 15.5% 24 13.5% 51 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 3 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Q02 At which store do you normally do most of your food and grocery (convenience) shopping ?

Waitrose, High Street, 8.2% 54 6.3% 16 9.4% 38 6.5% 2 1.4% 1 10.5% 27 8.0% 9 5.9% 1 10.2% 47 2.6% 4 9.8% 37 Marylebone Tesco, Church Street, St 7.2% 47 7.9% 20 6.7% 27 19.4% 6 11.3% 85.9%156.3%75.9% 14.1% 19 14.2% 22 3.4% 13 Johns Wood Sainsbury's, Wilton Road, 5.9% 39 7.1% 18 5.2% 21 6.5% 2 5.6% 47.4%193.6%45.9% 16.1% 28 5.8% 9 5.8% 22 Victoria Sainsbury’s, Ladbroke 5.0% 33 3.5% 9 6.0% 24 3.2% 1 4.2% 34.3%118.0%95.9% 14.4% 20 7.7% 12 5.6% 21 Grove, Chelsea Somerfield, Edgware Road, 3.8% 25 5.9% 15 2.5% 10 3.2% 1 5.6% 4 3.1% 8 5.4% 6 5.9% 13.9% 18 3.9% 6 2.4% 9 London Sainsbury’s, O2 Centre, 3.5% 23 2.0% 5 4.5% 18 6.5% 2 4.2% 34.3%111.8%20.0% 04.1% 19 1.9% 3 5.6% 21 Finchley Road, London Mail order / internet / 3.3% 22 0.8% 2 5.0% 20 0.0% 0 9.9% 75.1%130.0%00.0% 03.9% 18 2.6% 4 4.2% 16 delivered Somerfield, Harrow Road 3.0% 20 3.2% 8 3.0% 12 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 2.7% 7 1.8% 2 0.0% 02.4% 11 5.2% 8 2.1% 8 Waitrose, Finchley Road, 2.7% 18 2.8% 7 2.7% 11 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.7% 7 2.7% 3 0.0% 02.8% 13 2.6% 4 2.7% 10 London Tesco, Portobello Road, 2.4% 16 3.9% 10 1.5% 6 0.0% 0 8.5% 6 2.3% 6 0.9% 1 0.0% 02.2% 10 2.6% 4 1.9% 7 London Tesco, Warwick Way, 2.0% 13 3.2% 8 1.2% 5 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.6% 4 1.8% 2 0.0% 01.3% 62.6%41.3%5 Victoria Waitrose, Swiss Cottage, 2.0% 13 1.2% 3 2.5% 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 5 2.7% 3 0.0% 02.0% 9 1.3% 2 3.2% 12 London Marks & Spencer, Edgware 1.7% 11 1.2% 3 2.0% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 5 2.7% 3 0.0% 02.0% 91.3%20.5%2 Road, London Tesco, Brent Cross 1.5% 10 1.6% 4 1.5% 6 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 3.6% 4 0.0% 01.5% 71.3%21.6%6 Marks & Spencer, Oxford 1.4% 9 1.6% 4 1.2% 5 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 5 0.0% 0 5.9% 11.5% 70.6%11.6%6 Street Ladbroke Grove 1.4% 9 0.8% 2 1.7% 7 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.2% 3 1.8% 2 5.9% 11.3% 61.9%31.1%4 Iceland, Harrow Road, 1.1% 7 0.0% 0 1.7% 7 9.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 13.2%50.3%1 London Tesco, Cromwell Road, 1.1% 7 1.6% 4 0.7% 3 3.2% 1 2.8% 2 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.9% 41.3%21.1%4 Kensington Market, Portobello Road, 1.1% 7 1.6% 4 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 0.8% 2 1.8% 2 0.0% 01.5% 70.0%01.1%4 London Marks & Spencer, Marble 1.1% 7 0.8% 2 1.2% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.1% 51.3%21.1%4 Arch Sainsbury’s, Edgware Road, 1.1% 7 2.4% 6 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 1.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.1% 50.6%10.8%3 London Waitrose, High Street, 0.9% 6 0.8% 2 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.7% 31.3%21.1%4 Kensington Sainsbury’s, Kilburn High 0.9% 6 0.8% 2 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 31.9%31.1%4 Road Marks & Spencer, 0.8% 5 0.4% 1 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 2.7% 3 0.0% 00.9% 40.6%11.1%4 of Bayswater, Queensway

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 4 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Marks & Spencer Simply 0.8% 5 0.8% 2 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 5.9% 11.1% 50.0%00.8%3 Food, Marylebone Station Tesco, Notting Hill Gate 0.8% 5 0.4% 1 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.1% 50.0%00.8%3 Sainsbury Local, Allington 0.8% 5 0.4% 1 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 40.6%10.8%3 Street, Victoria Sainsbury’s, Swiss Cottage, 0.6% 4 1.2% 3 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%01.1%4 London Asda, 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.6%10.8%3 Sainsbury’s, Wilton Road, 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 1.0% 4 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%01.1%4 Victoria Sainsbury's, Kingsgate 0.6% 4 0.4% 1 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.8% 2 5.9% 10.4% 20.0%00.0%0 Parade, Victoria Street Marks & Spencer, 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.8%3 Queensway Tesco, Meadville 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.3%1 Sainsbury’s, Westbourne 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Grove, London Sainsbury Local, 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Westbourne Grove Sainsbury's, Vauxhall 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Asda, Clapham Junction 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 11.3%20.5%2 Tesco, Baker Street, London 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Fresh & Wild, Westbourne 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.3%1 Grove, London Sainsbury Local, 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.8%3 Station Sainsbury’s, Cromwell Road, 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.8%3 Kensington Tesco, Edgware Road 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 11.3%20.3%1 Tesco Express, Praed Street 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Marks & Spencer Simply 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.0%0 Food, Paddington Station Tesco, Hammersmith 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.5%2 Sainsbury’s, Camden Town 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.0%0 Sainsbury's, Kingsmall, 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.5%2 Hammersmith Sainsbury’s, Harrow Road, 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 London Tesco, High Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Marylebone Waitrose, Kings Road 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.2% 10.0%00.5%2 Market, Warwick Way, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Westminster Morrisons, Camden Town 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Marks & Spencer, Camden 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Town Marks & Spencer, High 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 5 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Street, Kensington Co-Op, Heathfield 0.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Tesco, Circus Road 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Sainsbury’s, 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.5%2 Whiteley's Shopping Centre 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.5%2 Tesco, Bayswater 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.0%0 Sainsbury's, Oxford Street 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.5%2 Waitrose, Motcomb Street 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Budgens, Queensway 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Marks & Spencer, Victoria 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Cardinal Place Kilburn High Road, London 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Safeway, Edgware Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 London Planet Organic, Westbourne 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Grove Portobello Whole Foods, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Portobello Green Local shops, Vincent Street, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 London Oxford Street, London 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Asda, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Sainsbury Local, Waterloo 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.3%1 Sainsbury’s, High Gate 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Sainsbury Local, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Southampton Street, Covent Garden Fresh & Wild, Camden 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Sainsbury Local, Brompton 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Road Budgens, Tottenham Court 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Road Sainsbury’s, Queenstown 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Road, Lambeth Market, Borough Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 London Bridge Supersave, Praed Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Sainsbury’s, Westminster 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Sainsbury’s, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Marks & Spencer, Victoria 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Station Tesco Metro, Regent Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Green Valley, Barclay Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 London Sainsbury’s, Gloucester 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Road, London Tesco, Camden Town 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 6 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Marks & Spencer, Kings 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Road, Chelsea Sainsbury's, Hammersmith 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Marks & Spencer, Notting 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Hill Gate Tesco, Englands Lane, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Local shops, Victoria, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 London Tesco, Kings Cross 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Asda, Connaught Hall 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Approach, Westminster Tesco, Monk Street, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Budgens, Porchester Road, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 London Tesco, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.3%1 Crispen’s, Oxford Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Tesco, Praed Street, London 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Tesco, Queensway, London 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Tesco, Shepherds Bush 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Tesco, Tottenham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Iceland, Meadville 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Waitrose, Gloucester Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 London Local shops, Edgware Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.0% 00.6%10.0%0 London Local shops, Notting Hill 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Waitrose, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Parade Waitrose, Twyford 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Westbourne Grove, London 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Farmers market (unspecified 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 location) Market, Strutton Ground, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Westminster Market, Tebworth 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Tesco Express, Charing 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Cross Somerfield, Camden Town 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Tesco (unspecified location) 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Sainsbury's, Islington 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Marks & Spencer, Finchley 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Road, Golders Green Tesco, Gold Street, Kent 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Tesco, Clifton Road, London 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Local shops, Kings Cross 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 (Don’t know / varies) 12.6% 83 15.0% 38 11.2% 45 6.5% 2 5.6% 4 12.5% 32 18.8% 21 23.5% 4 11.8% 54 14.8% 23 12.7% 48

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 7 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

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 49.2% 125 42.7% 172 67.7% 21 56.3% 40 48.4% 124 30.4% 34 58.8% 10 45.1% 207 46.5% 72 41.9% 158 Quality of shops and services 9.3% 61 10.2% 26 8.7% 35 6.5% 2 4.2% 3 10.2% 26 10.7% 12 11.8% 2 10.5% 48 6.5% 10 10.6% 40 Value for money 7.6% 50 7.9% 20 7.4% 30 12.9% 4 4.2% 3 7.0% 18 11.6% 13 0.0% 07.0% 32 9.7% 15 8.0% 30 Preference for retailer 5.3% 35 3.5% 9 6.5% 26 0.0% 0 4.2% 3 4.3% 11 11.6% 13 11.8% 25.7% 26 4.5% 7 4.5% 17 Good or cheap car parking 4.1% 27 3.9% 10 4.2% 17 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 3.5% 9 8.0% 9 0.0% 05.0% 23 2.6% 4 7.2% 27 Range of shops and services 4.0% 26 5.5% 14 3.0% 12 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.7% 7 5.4% 6 5.9% 14.1% 19 2.6% 4 4.5% 17 available Good quality produce 2.6% 17 2.0% 5 3.0% 12 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.3% 6 3.6% 4 0.0% 02.6% 12 1.9% 3 3.2% 12 Easy to get to 2.3% 15 2.4% 6 2.2% 9 3.2% 1 2.8% 2 0.8% 2 3.6% 4 5.9% 12.6% 12 1.3% 2 2.9% 11 Large store 2.1% 14 2.0% 5 2.2% 9 6.5% 2 4.2% 3 2.7% 7 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.7% 82.6%42.4%9 Good service / friendly 2.0% 13 2.0% 5 2.0% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.9% 1 5.9% 11.5% 73.9%61.6%6 Range of goods 2.0% 13 1.2% 3 2.5% 10 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.7% 7 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.7% 82.6%41.9%7 No other shops locally 1.5% 10 0.8% 2 2.0% 8 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.6% 4 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.9% 42.6%41.1%4 Provide a delivery service 1.5% 10 0.0% 0 2.5% 10 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.3% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.5% 71.9%32.1%8 Habit / always uses it 1.5% 10 2.8% 7 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.3% 61.3%21.1%4 Convenience to work 1.1% 7 1.2% 3 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 1.2% 3 1.8% 2 0.0% 01.3% 60.0%00.5%2 They sell organic produce 0.9% 6 1.2% 3 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.9% 41.3%20.8%3 I prefer their goods 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 1.2% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.7% 3 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%00.3%1 Generally convenient 0.6% 4 0.4% 1 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%00.8%3 Good customer service 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.8%3 Other shops and services 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.0%0 nearby It is a small / quiet store 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.8%3 I dislike supermarkets 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.3%1 Reward scheme / discounts 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Congestion charges are in 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 place near to other stores I have young children 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.5%2 To support local businesses 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.0%0 If I am passing through 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Longer opening hours 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Igowithafamilymember / 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 friend (Don’t know / no reason in 2.1% 14 2.4% 6 2.0% 8 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.3% 6 1.8% 2 0.0% 01.1% 54.5%71.3%5 particular) Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 8 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

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, St 8.7% 57 10.2% 26 7.7% 31 6.5% 2 11.3% 87.8%209.8%115.9% 16.1% 28 16.1% 25 6.6% 25 Johns Wood Waitrose, Marylebone High 4.0% 26 3.2% 8 4.5% 18 6.5% 2 2.8% 24.3%113.6%45.9% 15.2% 24 0.6% 1 5.0% 19 Street Sainsbury, Wilton Road, 4.0% 26 4.3% 11 3.7% 15 0.0% 0 7.0% 56.6%171.8%20.0% 04.1% 19 3.2% 5 4.5% 17 Victoria Somerfield, Edgware Road, 3.3% 22 4.3% 11 2.7% 11 0.0% 0 4.2% 3 3.5% 9 5.4% 6 5.9% 13.1% 14 4.5% 7 2.4% 9 London Somerfield, Harrow Road 2.9% 19 2.8% 7 3.0% 12 3.2% 1 5.6% 4 2.7% 7 1.8% 2 0.0% 02.2% 10 5.2% 8 2.7% 10 Tesco Metro, Portobello 2.6% 17 3.5% 9 2.0% 8 0.0% 0 7.0% 5 0.4% 1 3.6% 4 11.8% 22.2% 10 3.2% 5 2.4% 9 Road, London Tesco, Circus Road 2.0% 13 1.2% 3 2.5% 10 9.7% 3 2.8% 2 2.0% 5 1.8% 2 0.0% 02.4% 11 0.6% 1 2.4% 9 Tesco, Warwick Way, 1.7% 11 2.0% 5 1.5% 6 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 1.6% 4 2.7% 3 0.0% 01.1% 52.6%41.3%5 Victoria Local shops, St Johns Wood 1.5% 10 2.0% 5 1.2% 5 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 3.6% 4 0.0% 02.0% 90.6%12.4%9 Marks & Spencer, Edgware 1.5% 10 1.6% 4 1.5% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 5 0.0% 0 5.9% 11.7% 81.3%20.5%2 Road Marks & Spencer Simply 1.4% 9 0.0% 0 2.2% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.5% 71.3%21.6%6 Food, Notting Hill Iceland, Harrow Road, 1.2% 8 0.8% 2 1.5% 6 6.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 14.5%70.5%2 London Marks & Spencer Simply 1.2% 8 2.0% 5 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.3% 60.6%10.8%3 Food, Marylebone Station Marks & Spencer, Oxford 1.2% 8 2.0% 5 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.5% 70.6%11.6%6 Street Local shops (unspecified 1.2% 8 1.2% 3 1.2% 5 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.3% 61.3%21.3%5 location) Tesco, Edgware Road 0.9% 6 0.4% 1 1.2% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 31.9%30.3%1 Local shops, Abbey Road, 0.9% 6 0.8% 2 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 5.9% 11.1% 50.0%01.6%6 London Tesco Express, Praed Street 0.9% 6 0.8% 2 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 41.3%20.5%2 Tesco, Notting Hill Gate 0.9% 6 0.4% 1 1.2% 5 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 40.6%10.3%1 Sainsbury’s, Kilburn High 0.9% 6 1.2% 3 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 5.9% 11.1% 50.6%11.1%4 Road, Brent Local shops, Lupus Street, 0.8% 5 1.6% 4 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 21.9%30.5%2 Westminster Sainsbury’s, Ladbroke 0.8% 5 0.4% 1 1.0% 4 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 31.3%20.8%3 Grove, London Sainsbury, Oxford Street 0.8% 5 0.4% 1 1.0% 4 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 31.3%20.5%2 Bestbuy, Ladbroke Grove 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.6%10.3%1 Costcutter, Golborne Road, 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 02.6%40.3%1 Kensington Local shops, Kendal Street, 0.6% 4 0.4% 1 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%01.1%4 High Park Waitrose, Swiss Cottage 0.6% 4 1.2% 3 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%00.8%3

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 9 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Marks & Spencer, High 0.6% 4 0.4% 1 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.6%10.8%3 Street, Kensington Tesco Express, Meadville 0.6% 4 1.2% 3 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%01.1%4 Marks & Spencer, Whiteleys 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 1.0% 4 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.7% 3 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%00.5%2 of Bayswater, Queensway Local shops, Edgware Road, 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 21.3%20.8%3 Westminster Local shops, Harrow Road, 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 21.3%20.3%1 London Market, Portobello 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.9% 40.0%00.8%3 Waitrose, Finchley Road 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%00.8%3 Tesco, Baker Street, London 0.6% 4 0.4% 1 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.6%10.5%2 Whiteley's Shopping Centre 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.3%1 Fresh & Wild, Westbourne 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Grove Mail order / internet / 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.2% 10.6%10.3%1 delivered Sainsbury, Kingsgate Parade, 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 5.9% 10.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Victoria Street Sainsbury Local, Paddington 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.8%3 Station Marks & Spencer, Marble 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.8%3 Arch Tesco (unspecified location) 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Local shops, Lisson Grove, 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Marylebone Market, Church Street, 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.3%1 London Ladbroke Grove 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.8%3 Tesco, Great Peter Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 London Tesco, Malcom Court 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.5%2 Tesco, High Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Marylebone Local shops, Boundary 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.5%2 Road, London Tesco Express, Praed Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Paddington Sainsbury Local, 0.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Westbourne Grove Tesco, Bayswater 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.0%0 Portland Stores, Marylebone 0.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Local shops, Victoria 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 01.3%20.3%1 Costcutters (unspecified 0.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.0%0 location) Sainsbury Local, Allington 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Street, Victoria

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 10 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Marks & Spencer Simply 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Food, Finchley Road, London Marks & Spencer, Victoria 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Cardinal Place Marks & Spencer, Swiss 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Cottage Local shops, Church Street, 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.3%1 London Costcutter, Lupus Street, 0.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.0%0 Westminster Crispen’s, Oxford Street 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Tesco, Shurland Avenue, 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 London Iceland, Meadville 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Tesco, Meadville 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Local shops, Warwick Way, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Westminster Local shops, Portobello 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.5%2 Road, London Tesco Express, Monk Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 London Notting Hill Gate 0.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Marks & Spencer Simply 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Food, Paddington Station Tesco, Brent Cross 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Sainsbury’s, Marble Arch 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Sainsbury’s, Wilton Road, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Barnet Tesco Metro, Regent Street 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Waitrose, Motcomb Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Local shops, Pimlico 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Local shops, Newgate Close, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.3%1 London Sainsbury, Vauxhall 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Tesco Express, Charing 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Cross Marks & Spencer, Victoria 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Station Dart Street, London 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Sainsbury’s, Finchley Road, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Hampstead Sainsbury’s, Gloucester 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Road, London Local shops, Great Portland 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Street Local shops, Mozart Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 11 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Paddington Local shops, Claremont 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Close, London Sainsbury’s, O2 Centre, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Finchley Road, London Marks & Spencer, Kilburn 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Sainsbury’s, Victoria Street, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 London Sainsbury’s, Westbourne 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Road, Notting Hill Gate Local shops, Chepstow 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Road, London Marks & Spencer Simply 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Food, Notting Hill Gate Local shops, Praed Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Paddington Chipstow Stores, Chipstow 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Road, London Morrisons, Camden Town 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Planet Organic, Westbourne 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.3%1 Grove Portobello Whole Foods, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Portobello Green Local shops, Sutherland 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Avenue, London Tesco Metro, Marsham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Street, Westminster Embassy News, Embassy 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Road, Notting Hill Gate Tesco Metro, St Johns Wood 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Somerfield, Harrow Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.3%1 London Somerfield, High Street, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Camden Town John Lewis, Oxford Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Sainsbury’s, Queenstown 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Road, Lambeth Local shops, Barlby Gardens 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Local shops, Blenheim 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Terrace, Paddington Sainsbury’s, Westminster 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Tesco, Melcombe Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 London Local shops, Cherrett Close, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 London Sainsbury Local, Waterloo 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Tesco, Whiteleys of 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 12 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Bayswater, Queensway The Ginger Pig, High Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Marylebone Crispin’s, Kendal Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 London Local shops, Great Western 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Road, Paddington Safeway, Edgware Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 London Local shops, High Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Marylebone Paddington Street, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Marylebone Fruit Garden, Malcolm Street 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Local shops, Alguin Court, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Stanmore Local shops, Mackennal 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.3%1 Street, London Local shops, Moscow Road, 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 London Market (unspecified 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 location) Fairhazel Gardens, Camden 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Town Sainsbury's (unspecified 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 location) Sainsbury's, Keble Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 London Suffolk 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Local shops, Regency Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Westminster Local shops, Regents Park 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Road Local shops, Shirland Mews, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Paddington TheLisboaDeli,Golborne 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Road, Market, Marylebone 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Tesco Metro, Holland Park 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Avenue, London Local shops, Vincent Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Westminster Selfridges, Oxford Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 (Don’t know / varies) 14.6% 96 15.4% 39 14.1% 57 9.7% 3 7.0% 5 17.2% 44 18.8% 21 23.5% 4 15.0% 69 14.2% 22 15.9% 60 (Don't do top-up shopping) 10.2% 67 11.4% 29 9.4% 38 16.1% 5 8.5% 6 5.1% 13 13.4% 15 11.8% 28.7% 40 11.6% 18 7.7% 29 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 13 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

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 73.2% 186 68.7% 277 77.4% 24 70.4% 50 75.4% 193 70.5% 79 58.8% 10 70.2% 322 69.0% 107 70.3% 265 No 29.5% 194 26.8% 68 31.3% 126 22.6% 7 29.6% 21 24.6% 63 29.5% 33 41.2% 7 29.8% 137 31.0% 48 29.7% 112 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 14 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

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 17.6% 12 15.1% 19 14.3% 1 4.8% 1 20.6% 13 9.1% 3 0.0% 0 19.0% 26 10.4% 5 15.2% 17 Poor range of shops / 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% 3 14.3% 16 services Poor car parking 9.3% 18 7.4% 5 10.3% 13 0.0% 0 9.5% 2 9.5% 6 12.1% 4 14.3% 1 11.7% 16 4.2% 2 16.1% 18 Poor environment / rundown 9.3% 18 7.4% 5 10.3% 13 0.0% 0 4.8% 1 11.1% 7 15.2% 5 28.6% 2 10.9% 15 4.2% 2 12.5% 14 Ihavenoneedtogothere 8.8% 17 7.4% 5 9.5% 12 14.3% 1 9.5% 2 6.3% 4 3.0% 1 14.3% 17.3% 10 12.5% 6 7.1% 8 Generally inconvenient 5.2% 10 2.9% 2 6.3% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 6.3% 4 12.1% 4 0.0% 02.9% 4 10.4% 5 5.4% 6 Poor quality shops / services 5.2% 10 4.4% 3 5.6% 7 14.3% 1 4.8% 1 3.2% 2 12.1% 4 14.3% 15.8% 84.2%25.4%6 Prefer to shop at larger 4.6% 9 5.9% 4 4.0% 5 0.0% 0 9.5% 2 4.8% 3 6.1% 2 0.0% 05.1% 72.1%15.4%6 centres No local centre near to home 4.6% 9 7.4% 5 3.2% 4 0.0% 0 9.5% 2 7.9% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 04.4% 66.3%36.3%7 or work Poor public transport / hard 4.1% 8 2.9% 2 4.8% 6 0.0% 0 4.8% 1 1.6% 1 9.1% 3 0.0% 03.7% 56.3%32.7%3 to travel there Another larger centre is 4.1% 8 2.9% 2 4.8% 6 0.0% 0 9.5% 2 4.8% 3 3.0% 1 0.0% 03.7% 54.2%23.6%4 easier to get to There are a better choice of 2.6% 5 2.9% 2 2.4% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.2% 2 6.1% 2 0.0% 03.7% 50.0%02.7%3 shops locally Prefer to shop at large food 2.6% 5 0.0% 0 4.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 6.1% 2 0.0% 02.2% 32.1%12.7%3 store I don't know where it is 2.1% 4 1.5% 1 2.4% 3 0.0% 0 14.3% 3 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.5% 24.2%21.8%2 Too expensive 2.1% 4 4.4% 3 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 3.0% 1 0.0% 02.2% 32.1%11.8%2 Unsafe 1.0% 2 1.5% 1 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 6.1% 2 0.0% 00.7% 12.1%10.0%0 Only shop in West End / 1.0% 2 1.5% 1 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 1 0.0% 01.5% 20.0%00.0%0 largecentrecitycentre I am not able to leave the 1.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.6% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 12.1%10.0%0 house I don't know the area very 1.0% 2 2.9% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.2% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.5% 20.0%00.0%0 well Too busy 1.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.6% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.5% 20.0%01.8%2 There is nothing appealing 1.0% 2 1.5% 1 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 4.8% 1 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.5% 20.0%01.8%2 there Because of the language 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 02.1%10.0%0 barrier It depends where I am at the 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 02.1%10.9%1 time I justdon'tgotothatarea 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 1 0.0% 00.7% 10.0%00.9%1 I don't trust some of the 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 10.0%00.0%0 market traders They don't have enough 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 10.0%00.0%0 household shops I only go for electrical goods 0.5% 1 1.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 02.1%10.9%1 When the weather is good I 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 10.0%00.9%1

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 15 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

prefer to go elsewhere I work during shop opening 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 02.1%10.9%1 times I don't have the time 0.5% 1 1.5% 1 0.0% 0 14.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 10.0%00.9%1 (Don’t know / no reason in 17.5% 34 17.6% 12 17.5% 22 42.9% 3 14.3% 3 17.5% 11 9.1% 3 42.9% 3 15.3% 21 20.8% 10 17.0% 19 particular) Base: 194 68 126 7 21 63 33 7 137 48 112

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-Westbourne Grove / 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 3.8% 7 3.6% 10 4.2% 1 2.0% 1 4.1% 8 1.3% 1 10.0% 13.4% 11 3.7% 4 3.8% 10 Quite good 5.8% 27 4.3% 8 6.9% 19 25.0% 6 4.0% 2 4.7% 9 2.5% 2 10.0% 13.1% 10 11.2% 12 5.3% 14 Neither good nor poor 9.7% 45 9.7% 18 9.7% 27 16.7% 4 12.0% 6 10.4% 20 11.4% 9 0.0% 0 10.2% 33 8.4% 9 11.3% 30 Quite Poor 13.0% 60 11.8% 22 13.7% 38 20.8% 5 18.0% 9 13.0% 25 11.4% 9 0.0% 0 14.6% 47 10.3% 11 17.0% 45 Very poor 25.7% 119 28.0% 52 24.2% 67 8.3% 2 22.0% 11 26.4% 51 29.1% 23 10.0% 1 24.8% 80 29.9% 32 32.1% 85 Don’t know 42.1% 195 42.5% 79 41.9% 116 25.0% 6 42.0% 21 41.5% 80 44.3% 35 70.0% 7 43.8% 141 36.4% 39 30.6% 81 Mean: -0.88 -0.97 -0.83 -0.06 -0.93 -0.90 -1.16 0.33 -0.97 -0.81 -0.98 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

Range of shops and services

Very good 15.3% 71 11.8% 22 17.7% 49 16.7% 4 10.0% 5 11.9% 23 17.7% 14 30.0% 3 15.2% 49 13.1% 14 14.7% 39 Quite 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 Neither good nor poor 31.5% 146 37.6% 70 27.4% 76 37.5% 9 50.0% 25 34.7% 67 22.8% 18 20.0% 2 34.5% 111 22.4% 24 34.0% 90 Quite Poor 19.7% 91 18.3% 34 20.6% 57 20.8% 5 18.0% 9 20.2% 39 26.6% 21 20.0% 2 21.1% 68 17.8% 19 21.9% 58 Very poor 8.0% 37 7.0% 13 8.7% 24 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 8.8% 17 11.4% 9 0.0% 06.8% 22 12.2% 13 9.4% 25 Don’t know 4.1% 19 2.7% 5 5.1% 14 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 1.6% 3 3.8% 3 0.0% 03.4% 11 3.7% 4 3.4% 9 Mean: 0.17 0.14 0.19 0.38 0.16 0.09 0.04 0.70 0.15 0.16 0.05 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 16 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Quality of shops and services

Very good 16.0% 74 14.0% 26 17.3% 48 20.8% 5 6.0% 3 14.5% 28 12.7% 10 30.0% 3 14.9% 48 15.9% 17 17.0% 45 Quite good 26.6% 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 Neither good nor poor 31.1% 144 37.1% 69 27.1% 75 41.7% 10 40.0% 20 30.6% 59 30.4% 24 10.0% 1 31.4% 101 29.9% 32 30.6% 81 Quite Poor 13.8% 64 12.9% 24 14.4% 40 4.2% 1 20.0% 10 15.0% 29 15.2% 12 10.0% 1 13.7% 44 16.8% 18 16.2% 43 Very poor 8.0% 37 5.4% 10 9.7% 27 4.2% 1 4.0% 2 10.4% 20 7.6% 6 0.0% 07.5% 24 9.3% 10 8.7% 23 Don’t know 4.5% 21 5.4% 10 4.0% 11 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 0.5% 1 10.1% 8 0.0% 04.7% 15 3.7% 4 3.8% 10 Mean: 0.30 0.31 0.29 0.58 0.12 0.22 0.21 1.00 0.31 0.21 0.25 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

Prices

Very good 7.3% 34 8.1% 15 6.9% 19 4.2% 1 4.0% 27.3%146.3%510.0% 18.1% 26 6.5% 7 7.2% 19 Quite good 24.4% 113 23.1% 43 25.3% 70 54.2% 13 24.0% 12 21.8% 42 22.8% 18 20.0% 2 23.0% 74 26.2% 28 21.9% 58 Neither good nor poor 36.1% 167 41.4% 77 32.5% 90 29.2% 7 48.0% 24 38.3% 74 31.6% 25 40.0% 4 36.0% 116 39.3% 42 32.1% 85 Quite 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 Very poor 9.7% 45 8.6% 16 10.5% 29 0.0% 0 4.0% 2 10.9% 21 11.4% 9 0.0% 08.7% 28 9.3% 10 10.6% 28 Don’t know 5.2% 24 5.4% 10 5.1% 14 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 2.1% 4 7.6% 6 20.0% 24.3% 14 6.5% 7 4.5% 12 Mean: 0.03 0.09 -0.02 0.50 0.06 -0.05 -0.08 0.38 0.02 0.09 -0.09 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

Quality / and range of places to eat / drink

Very good 18.8% 87 18.8% 35 18.8% 52 12.5% 3 18.0% 9 18.1% 35 22.8% 18 30.0% 3 18.0% 58 21.5% 23 19.6% 52 Quite good 24.8% 115 25.8% 48 24.2% 67 20.8% 5 32.0% 16 29.0% 56 17.7% 14 10.0% 1 28.9% 93 16.8% 18 26.8% 71 Neither good nor poor 19.4% 90 23.7% 44 16.6% 46 8.3% 2 20.0% 10 23.3% 45 17.7% 14 30.0% 3 19.3% 62 18.7% 20 19.2% 51 Quite Poor 13.4% 62 11.8% 22 14.4% 40 41.7% 10 18.0% 9 12.4% 24 12.7% 10 10.0% 1 14.6% 47 11.2% 12 15.1% 40 Very poor 7.3% 34 8.1% 15 6.9% 19 12.5% 3 6.0% 37.8%156.3%50.0% 07.5% 24 6.5% 7 8.3% 22 Don’t know 16.2% 75 11.8% 22 19.1% 53 4.2% 1 6.0% 3 9.3% 18 22.8% 18 20.0% 2 11.8% 38 25.2% 27 10.9% 29 Mean: 0.41 0.40 0.42 -0.22 0.40 0.41 0.49 0.75 0.40 0.48 0.39 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

General shopping environment

Very good 17.5% 81 14.5% 27 19.5% 54 16.7% 4 8.0% 4 18.1% 35 19.0% 15 10.0% 1 18.0% 58 15.9% 17 17.0% 45 Quite good 26.6% 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 Neither good nor poor 25.1% 116 24.7% 46 25.3% 70 33.3% 8 18.0% 9 29.0% 56 27.8% 22 20.0% 2 24.8% 80 26.2% 28 27.5% 73 Quite 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 Very poor 11.4% 53 10.8% 20 11.9% 33 0.0% 0 6.0% 3 11.9% 23 15.2% 12 10.0% 1 11.8% 38 10.3% 11 12.5% 33 Don’t know 3.5% 16 3.8% 7 3.2% 9 0.0% 0 4.0% 2 0.5% 1 2.5% 2 10.0% 12.8% 94.7%53.0%8 Mean: 0.23 0.12 0.31 0.42 0.33 0.19 0.05 -0.11 0.23 0.24 0.19 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 17 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Safety / security

Very good 22.9% 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 Quite good 31.5% 146 32.8% 61 30.7% 85 12.5% 3 36.0% 18 33.7% 65 22.8% 18 10.0% 1 32.9% 106 32.7% 35 30.9% 82 Neither good nor poor 23.5% 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 Quite Poor 10.2% 47 15.1% 28 6.9% 19 12.5% 3 6.0% 3 11.4% 22 19.0% 15 10.0% 19.9% 32 10.3% 11 9.8% 26 Very poor 7.3% 34 7.0% 13 7.6% 21 4.2% 1 6.0% 38.8%176.3%520.0% 26.8% 22 6.5% 7 8.3% 22 Don’t know 4.5% 21 4.3% 8 4.7% 13 4.2% 1 2.0% 1 1.6% 3 3.8% 3 20.0% 23.1% 10 7.5% 8 3.8% 10 Mean: 0.55 0.44 0.62 0.87 0.51 0.46 0.57 -0.25 0.62 0.42 0.54 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

Access by public transport

Very good 33.0% 153 29.6% 55 35.4% 98 33.3% 8 24.0% 12 37.3% 72 34.2% 27 10.0% 1 31.7% 102 39.3% 42 31.3% 83 Quite good 32.0% 148 33.3% 62 31.0% 86 54.2% 13 46.0% 23 30.6% 59 27.8% 22 40.0% 4 32.0% 103 30.8% 33 30.2% 80 Neither good nor poor 10.6% 49 14.5% 27 7.9% 22 0.0% 0 12.0% 6 12.4% 24 6.3% 5 20.0% 29.6% 31 13.1% 14 11.3% 30 Quite Poor 3.5% 16 4.3% 8 2.9% 8 4.2% 1 4.0% 2 1.6% 3 5.1% 4 20.0% 22.8% 9 2.8% 3 4.5% 12 Very poor 4.1% 19 2.2% 4 5.4% 15 4.2% 1 4.0% 2 3.1% 6 2.5% 2 0.0% 04.3% 14 1.9% 2 3.4% 9 Don’t know 16.8% 78 16.1% 30 17.3% 48 4.2% 1 10.0% 5 15.0% 29 24.1% 19 10.0% 1 19.6% 63 12.2% 13 19.2% 51 Mean: 1.04 1.00 1.07 1.13 0.91 1.15 1.13 0.44 1.04 1.17 1.01 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

Level of street cleaning

Very good 25.5% 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 Quite good 39.1% 181 39.2% 73 39.0% 108 37.5% 9 40.0% 20 39.9% 77 46.8% 37 60.0% 6 41.6% 134 33.6% 36 40.8% 108 Neither good nor poor 20.1% 93 20.4% 38 19.9% 55 16.7% 4 24.0% 12 22.8% 44 19.0% 15 10.0% 1 18.6% 60 21.5% 23 18.9% 50 Quite Poor 7.1% 33 10.2% 19 5.1% 14 8.3% 2 12.0% 67.3%143.8%30.0% 07.1% 23 6.5% 7 7.9% 21 Very poor 4.1% 19 2.2% 4 5.4% 15 8.3% 2 4.0% 2 3.1% 6 3.8% 3 20.0% 23.1% 10 5.6% 6 2.6% 7 Don’t know 4.1% 19 3.8% 7 4.3% 12 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 3.1% 6 3.8% 3 0.0% 03.7% 12 5.6% 6 4.2% 11 Mean: 0.78 0.76 0.79 0.71 0.57 0.76 0.84 0.40 0.83 0.74 0.82 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

Liveliness / street character

Very good 19.9% 92 15.6% 29 22.7% 63 33.3% 8 12.0% 6 19.7% 38 20.3% 16 10.0% 1 22.4% 72 12.2% 13 20.8% 55 Quite good 31.5% 146 38.2% 71 27.1% 75 16.7% 4 38.0% 19 31.6% 61 30.4% 24 40.0% 4 32.0% 103 32.7% 35 27.9% 74 Neither good nor poor 26.4% 122 24.7% 46 27.4% 76 25.0% 6 38.0% 19 28.5% 55 20.3% 16 30.0% 3 26.4% 85 23.4% 25 27.2% 72 Quite Poor 10.6% 49 9.1% 17 11.6% 32 25.0% 6 10.0% 5 8.8% 17 17.7% 14 0.0% 0 10.2% 33 13.1% 14 14.0% 37 Very poor 5.8% 27 4.8% 9 6.5% 18 0.0% 0 0.0% 06.7%136.3%50.0% 04.3% 14 9.3% 10 6.0% 16 Don’t know 5.8% 27 7.5% 14 4.7% 13 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 4.7% 9 5.1% 4 20.0% 24.7% 15 9.3% 10 4.2% 11 Mean: 0.52 0.55 0.50 0.58 0.53 0.51 0.43 0.75 0.61 0.28 0.45 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 18 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Amount of traffic

Very good 5.0% 23 5.9% 11 4.3% 12 8.3% 2 2.0% 16.2%122.5%20.0% 04.0% 13 6.5% 7 4.2% 11 Quite good 15.1% 70 17.2% 32 13.7% 38 25.0% 6 22.0% 11 11.9% 23 15.2% 12 20.0% 2 13.4% 43 19.6% 21 14.0% 37 Neither good nor poor 28.3% 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 Quite Poor 21.6% 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% 8 24.2% 64 Very poor 26.8% 124 21.5% 40 30.3% 84 16.7% 4 14.0% 7 27.5% 53 29.1% 23 40.0% 4 24.2% 78 35.5% 38 24.9% 66 Don’t know 3.2% 15 3.2% 6 3.2% 9 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 1.6% 3 3.8% 3 0.0% 02.8% 94.7%53.0%8 Mean: -0.52 -0.39 -0.60 -0.04 -0.27 -0.52 -0.68 -0.90 -0.55 -0.48 -0.53 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

Evening / night-time facilities / activities

Very good 6.7% 31 6.5% 12 6.9% 19 8.3% 2 2.0% 18.3%168.9%70.0% 05.3% 17 10.3% 11 7.5% 20 Quite 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 Neither good nor poor 21.8% 101 22.0% 41 21.7% 60 25.0% 6 30.0% 15 26.9% 52 8.9% 7 20.0% 2 23.0% 74 18.7% 20 24.5% 65 Quite Poor 14.0% 65 14.0% 26 14.1% 39 29.2% 7 20.0% 10 17.1% 33 13.9% 11 10.0% 1 15.8% 51 10.3% 11 16.2% 43 Very poor 11.0% 51 9.7% 18 11.9% 33 25.0% 6 14.0% 7 11.9% 23 10.1% 8 0.0% 0 11.5% 37 9.3% 10 11.7% 31 Don’t know 27.0% 125 23.1% 43 29.6% 82 0.0% 0 8.0% 4 14.5% 28 39.2% 31 50.0% 5 22.4% 72 37.4% 40 20.4% 54 Mean: -0.04 0.06 -0.12 -0.50 -0.20 -0.04 0.04 0.20 -0.08 0.09 -0.06 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

Size / quality of supermarkets

Very good 14.0% 65 11.8% 22 15.5% 43 16.7% 4 6.0% 3 11.4% 22 17.7% 14 0.0% 0 13.7% 44 15.0% 16 12.1% 32 Quite 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 Neither good nor poor 22.7% 105 22.6% 42 22.7% 63 29.2% 7 28.0% 14 24.4% 47 19.0% 15 30.0% 3 24.2% 78 15.9% 17 22.6% 60 Quite Poor 25.1% 116 28.0% 52 23.1% 64 25.0% 6 36.0% 18 25.9% 50 27.8% 22 0.0% 0 27.6% 89 22.4% 24 27.5% 73 Very poor 11.7% 54 7.0% 13 14.8% 41 4.2% 1 12.0% 6 13.0% 25 13.9% 11 10.0% 1 11.8% 38 13.1% 14 12.5% 33 Don’t know 5.8% 27 5.9% 11 5.8% 16 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 3.1% 6 8.9% 7 20.0% 24.7% 15 6.5% 7 6.0% 16 Mean: 0.00 0.07 -0.04 0.25 -0.33 -0.07 -0.08 0.25 -0.06 0.09 -0.10 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 19 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Q08 What mode of transport do you normally use to get to 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 shopped at the locations mentioned at Q05

Car - driver 7.8% 36 4.8% 9 9.7% 27 8.3% 2 8.0% 47.3%145.1%40.0% 09.0% 29 1.9% 2 13.6% 36 Car - passenger 0.9% 4 0.0% 0 1.4% 4 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 0.5% 1 2.5% 2 0.0% 00.9% 30.9%11.5%4 Walk 75.2% 348 76.3% 142 74.4% 206 75.0% 18 82.0% 41 77.2% 149 81.0% 64 70.0% 7 76.1% 245 75.7% 81 71.3% 189 Bus 9.7% 45 10.8% 20 9.0% 25 8.3% 2 4.0% 26.2%128.9%720.0% 27.5% 24 13.1% 14 6.0% 16 Motorbike / scooter 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Taxi 0.2% 1 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.3% 10.0%00.0%0 Underground 1.1% 5 2.2% 4 0.4% 1 8.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.6% 50.0%00.8%2 Bicycle 1.7% 8 1.1% 2 2.2% 6 0.0% 0 4.0% 2 2.1% 4 1.3% 1 0.0% 01.9% 61.9%22.6%7 Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Don’t know / varies) 3.5% 16 4.3% 8 2.9% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 05.7%111.3%110.0% 12.8% 9 6.5% 7 4.2% 11 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

Q09 On average, how often do you use shops or services at 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 shopped at the locations mentioned at Q05

2 / 3 times a week or more 62.2% 288 65.6% 122 59.9% 166 58.3% 14 58.0% 29 62.2% 120 65.8% 52 40.0% 4 59.3% 191 72.0% 77 61.1% 162 often Weekly 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 Fortnightly 8.0% 37 7.0% 13 8.7% 24 8.3% 2 12.0% 67.8%156.3%520.0% 29.6% 31 4.7% 5 10.2% 27 Monthly 6.0% 28 4.3% 8 7.2% 20 0.0% 0 6.0% 35.2%108.9%720.0% 26.2% 20 5.6% 6 5.7% 15 Less than once a month 5.2% 24 5.4% 10 5.1% 14 4.2% 1 4.0% 25.2%105.1%40.0% 05.9% 19 3.7% 4 6.0% 16 (Varies / don’t know) 1.5% 7 1.6% 3 1.4% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.5% 1 1.3% 1 10.0% 10.6% 21.9%20.4%1 Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 20 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

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 83.9% 156 74.0% 205 87.5% 21 74.0% 37 81.9% 158 77.2% 61 60.0% 6 77.0% 248 81.3% 87 76.2% 202 Range of shops and services 15.8% 73 12.9% 24 17.7% 49 4.2% 1 14.0% 7 14.0% 27 19.0% 15 20.0% 2 18.0% 58 8.4% 9 17.0% 45 Like the shop / centre 5.0% 23 4.3% 8 5.4% 15 4.2% 1 8.0% 4 4.7% 9 8.9% 7 0.0% 05.6% 18 3.7% 4 4.5% 12 Pleasant environment 3.5% 16 2.2% 4 4.3% 12 4.2% 1 0.0% 0 3.1% 6 7.6% 6 0.0% 04.0% 13 2.8% 3 3.8% 10 Low price / good value 3.5% 16 2.7% 5 4.0% 11 4.2% 1 2.0% 1 3.6% 7 5.1% 4 0.0% 02.2% 76.5%73.4%9 Convenient to work 1.7% 8 1.1% 2 2.2% 6 4.2% 1 4.0% 2 1.6% 3 1.3% 1 0.0% 01.6% 51.9%20.8%2 Quality of the shopping 1.7% 8 1.6% 3 1.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 3 3.8% 3 0.0% 02.5% 80.0%02.3%6 environment Friendly atmosphere 1.1% 5 1.6% 3 0.7% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.5% 1 2.5% 2 0.0% 00.9% 31.9%20.4%1 To support local businesses 0.9% 4 2.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 6.0% 3 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.2% 40.0%01.1%3 Best choice locally 0.6% 3 0.0% 0 1.1% 3 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.6% 20.9%10.8%2 For specific items 0.6% 3 0.5% 1 0.7% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.3% 1 10.0% 10.9% 30.0%00.8%2 If I am passing through 0.6% 3 0.5% 1 0.7% 2 0.0% 0 4.0% 2 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.3% 10.9%10.8%2 Good public transport 0.4% 2 0.5% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.6% 20.0%00.0%0 It is somewhere different to 0.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.7% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.5% 1 1.3% 1 0.0% 00.3% 10.9%10.4%1 shop Quiet / not very busy 0.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.7% 2 4.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.6% 20.0%00.4%1 Late night shopping 0.4% 2 0.5% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.5% 1 1.3% 1 0.0% 00.3% 10.0%00.4%1 No other choice locally 0.4% 2 0.5% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.3% 10.9%10.8%2 For emergency shopping 0.4% 2 0.5% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.3% 10.9%10.4%1 Good range of products 0.4% 2 0.5% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.6% 20.0%00.4%1 Good parking 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.3% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.9%10.4%1 If I have an appointment 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.3% 10.0%00.0%0 locally Biggest centre locally 0.2% 1 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.3% 10.0%00.0%0 Friends / family live close by 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.3% 10.0%00.4%1 (Don’t know / no particular 2.6% 12 1.6% 3 3.2% 9 4.2% 1 2.0% 1 1.0% 2 1.3% 1 10.0% 12.2% 73.7%43.4%9 reason) Base: 463 186 277 24 50 193 79 10 322 107 265

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 21 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Q11 Which other shopping centre do you use once a month or more often ?

Oxford Street / West End 23.0% 151 20.1% 51 24.8% 100 22.6% 7 26.8% 19 27.0% 69 17.0% 19 35.3% 6 25.1% 115 16.8% 26 23.9% 90 Marylebone High Street 7.2% 47 7.9% 20 6.7% 27 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 8.2% 21 11.6% 13 17.6% 38.9% 41 3.9% 6 9.0% 34 Kensington High Street 6.1% 40 3.5% 9 7.7% 31 0.0% 0 4.2% 38.2%216.3%711.8% 27.0% 32 5.2% 8 6.4% 24 Brent Cross 5.6% 37 3.9% 10 6.7% 27 6.5% 2 5.6% 46.3%166.3%711.8% 25.7% 26 5.2% 8 8.0% 30 Edgware Road 3.2% 21 4.7% 12 2.2% 9 0.0% 0 4.2% 34.3%111.8%20.0% 03.1% 14 3.2% 5 1.6% 6 Kings Road 2.7% 18 2.0% 5 3.2% 13 9.7% 3 1.4% 14.3%111.8%25.9% 13.1% 14 1.9% 3 2.9% 11 Warwick Way / Tachbrook 2.7% 18 3.2% 8 2.5% 10 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.7% 7 2.7% 3 0.0% 02.4% 11 2.6% 4 3.2% 12 Street Knightsbridge 2.6% 17 0.4% 1 4.0% 16 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.7% 7 5.4% 6 0.0% 03.1% 14 1.3% 2 3.7% 14 Victoria Street, Westminster 2.4% 16 1.6% 4 3.0% 12 3.2% 1 5.6% 4 2.0% 5 2.7% 3 0.0% 02.4% 11 2.6% 4 2.4% 9 Kilburn 2.3% 15 2.4% 6 2.2% 9 6.5% 2 1.4% 1 1.2% 3 1.8% 2 0.0% 02.0% 93.2%51.3%5 Queensway / Westbourne 2.3% 15 2.0% 5 2.5% 10 3.2% 1 4.2% 3 2.0% 5 1.8% 2 0.0% 02.2% 10 3.2% 5 2.9% 11 Grove Notting Hill 2.1% 14 1.6% 4 2.5% 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 6 3.6% 4 0.0% 02.8% 13 0.6% 1 2.1% 8 O2 Centre, Finchley Road 1.8% 12 2.0% 5 1.7% 7 0.0% 0 4.2% 3 2.7% 7 0.9% 1 0.0% 02.0% 91.3%22.4%9 Ladbroke Grove, London 1.4% 9 1.2% 3 1.5% 6 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 1.2% 3 1.8% 2 0.0% 01.3% 61.9%31.1%4 Finchley Road, London 1.4% 9 0.8% 2 1.7% 7 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.6% 4 2.7% 3 5.9% 11.3% 60.0%01.3%5 Whiteley's Shopping Centre 1.4% 9 1.6% 4 1.2% 5 3.2% 1 4.2% 3 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.1% 51.3%20.8%3 Bayswater 1.4% 9 0.4% 1 2.0% 8 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 2.3% 6 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.1% 52.6%41.6%6 Market, Portobello Road 1.4% 9 1.6% 4 1.2% 5 3.2% 1 2.8% 2 0.8% 2 3.6% 4 0.0% 01.7% 80.6%11.9%7 Hammersmith 1.1% 7 0.4% 1 1.5% 6 3.2% 1 2.8% 2 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 5.9% 11.1% 50.6%11.1%4 Harrow Road 1.1% 7 1.6% 4 0.7% 3 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 31.9%31.3%5 Holloway Road, Camden 0.9% 6 1.2% 3 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.1% 50.6%11.1%4 Town Marble Arch 0.9% 6 0.4% 1 1.2% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.9% 41.3%20.5%2 Covent Garden 0.9% 6 0.8% 2 1.0% 4 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 2.7% 3 0.0% 01.3% 60.0%00.8%3 Camden Town 0.8% 5 1.2% 3 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.4% 21.9%30.8%3 Brompton Road 0.8% 5 0.8% 2 0.7% 3 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.9% 40.6%11.1%4 St Johns Wood 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.5%2 Baker Street 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%01.1%4 Cromwell Road 0.6% 4 0.4% 1 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 2.7% 3 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%01.1%4 Sloane Square 0.6% 4 1.2% 3 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 21.3%20.5%2 Waterloo 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Praed Street 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 11.3%20.0%0 Cardinal Place, Victoria 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.2% 10.6%10.5%2 Regent Street 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.3%1 Church Street, Kent 0.5% 3 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.3%1 Bond Street, London 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Piccadilly 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Swiss Cottage 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.5%2 Shepherd's Bush W12 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.3%1 Clapham Junction 0.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Ashcroft Kings Mall 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Park Royal 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.5%2 Earlscourt 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 22 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Chelsea 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Vauxhall Bridge Road 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Gloucester 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Portobello Road 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Tottenham Court Road 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Acton 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Maida Vale 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Ashford 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Elton 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Croydon Shopping Centre 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Borough Market, Borough 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Bromley 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Butterfly Walk, Surrey 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Denby Street, Queensbury 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Ealing, Broadway 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Hampstead 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Shopping Park, Malt 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Lake Road 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 Milton Keynes 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 North End Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Sainsbury's (unspecified 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 location) , London 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Suffolk 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Surrey 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Market, White Chapel 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Wilton Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Wimbledon 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Berwick St John 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Market, Church Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 London Crawford Street 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Midfield 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Orchid Street, Fulham 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Stratford 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 (No other used) 27.7% 182 32.7% 83 24.6% 99 25.8% 8 28.2% 20 21.5% 55 25.9% 29 23.5% 4 24.8% 114 33.5% 52 22.3% 84 (Don't know / varies) 3.7% 24 3.5% 9 3.7% 15 3.2% 1 2.8% 2 3.1% 8 2.7% 3 11.8% 22.6% 12 5.8% 9 4.2% 16 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 23 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Q12 What, if anything would make you more likely to visit Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / Queensway-Westbourne Grove / St John's Wood / Warwick Way-Tachbrook Street ?

Nothing 37.7% 248 39.4% 100 36.7% 148 29.0% 9 22.5% 16 32.0% 82 33.9% 38 41.2% 7 35.7% 164 42.6% 66 32.4% 122 Better choice of shops in 20.5% 135 13.8% 35 24.8% 100 19.4% 6 31.0% 22 25.0% 64 18.8% 21 5.9% 1 21.8% 100 20.6% 32 25.2% 95 general Better choice of other non- 12.0% 79 9.8% 25 13.4% 54 19.4% 6 16.9% 12 12.5% 32 12.5% 14 11.8% 2 12.9% 59 11.6% 18 13.8% 52 food shops Better food and convenience 7.8% 51 6.7% 17 8.4% 34 9.7% 3 8.5% 67.0%189.8%115.9% 18.5% 39 7.1% 11 6.6% 25 shops Better maintenance / 7.6% 50 7.5% 19 7.7% 31 3.2% 1 11.3% 8 6.6% 17 13.4% 15 11.8% 28.5% 39 6.5% 10 8.0% 30 cleanliness More car parking 6.2% 41 5.5% 14 6.7% 27 9.7% 3 7.0% 56.3%167.1%85.9% 17.2% 33 3.9% 6 9.8% 37 More / improved 5.2% 34 6.7% 17 4.2% 17 3.2% 1 12.7% 95.5%142.7%35.9% 15.4% 25 5.8% 9 4.8% 18 supermarkets Better quality shops 4.6% 30 4.7% 12 4.5% 18 3.2% 1 11.3% 85.9%153.6%45.9% 15.9% 27 1.3% 2 4.8% 18 Better safety / security 4.0% 26 3.9% 10 4.0% 16 0.0% 0 5.6% 44.7%126.3%70.0% 04.1% 19 3.9% 6 4.5% 17 Made the area more 2.1% 14 1.6% 4 2.5% 10 3.2% 1 0.0% 03.9%100.9%10.0% 02.6% 12 0.0% 0 2.1% 8 pedestrian friendly Better public transport 2.1% 14 2.0% 5 2.2% 9 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.7% 7 2.7% 3 0.0% 01.7% 83.9%61.3%5 More or better restaurants 2.0% 13 1.2% 3 2.5% 10 3.2% 1 7.0% 5 1.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 02.8% 13 0.0% 0 1.9% 7 Better / cheaper car parking 2.0% 13 2.0% 5 2.0% 8 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 1.6% 4 4.5% 5 0.0% 01.3% 6 3.9% 6 3.2% 12 More large shops 2.0% 13 1.6% 4 2.2% 9 0.0% 0 4.2% 3 3.1% 8 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.7% 82.6%41.6%6 Choice of cheaper shops 1.8% 12 1.6% 4 2.0% 8 3.2% 1 2.8% 2 1.2% 3 1.8% 2 0.0% 01.3% 61.9%31.6%6 Less traffic congestion 1.7% 11 2.0% 5 1.5% 6 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.3% 6 1.8% 2 0.0% 02.2% 10 0.6% 1 2.4% 9 New department store 1.1% 7 0.0% 0 1.7% 7 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.1% 51.3%21.1%4 More or better public 0.8% 5 0.8% 2 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 1.8% 2 0.0% 01.1% 50.0%01.3%5 services / community uses Better atmosphere 0.8% 5 0.4% 1 1.0% 4 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.6%10.8%3 Less non-food shops 0.8% 5 0.4% 1 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.1% 50.0%01.3%5 Better entertainment 0.8% 5 0.4% 1 1.0% 4 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.1% 50.0%00.8%3 facilities More or better takeaways 0.6% 4 0.4% 1 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 4.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.6%10.5%2 If I were given more 0.6% 4 0.4% 1 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 30.6%10.8%3 information about the area Support given to independent 0.6% 4 1.2% 3 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%00.8%3 businesses If money were invested in 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.7% 30.6%10.8%3 the area Improved cinema 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 3.2% 1 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.5%2 Larger / improved market 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 30.0%00.8%3 More or better pharmacy 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 11.3%20.3%1 More or better public houses 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.5%2 Friendlier staff in stores / 0.5% 3 0.4% 1 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 restaurants Less food shops 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.3%1 Less foreign people in the 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.2% 11.3%20.5%2

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 24 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

area More houses built 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Better access for cyclists 0.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.0%0 If it were more convenient to 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 my home Occupying the vacant stores 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Reduced opening hours 0.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 More or better health / dental 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 facilities Longer opening hours 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 No congestion charges 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Better access for disabled 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 10.0% 00.0%00.0%0 people Less change to the area 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 If it were more spread out 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quieter 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Improved roads 0.2% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 (Don't know) 5.0% 33 5.5% 14 4.7% 19 6.5% 2 8.5% 63.9%101.8%223.5% 43.9% 18 5.2% 8 3.7% 14 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

GEN Gender of respondent:

Male 38.7% 254 100.0% 254 0.0% 0 25.8% 8 33.8% 24 40.2% 103 38.4% 43 29.4% 5 38.6% 177 40.6% 63 36.1% 136 Female 61.3% 403 0.0% 0 100.0% 403 74.2% 23 66.2% 47 59.8% 153 61.6% 69 70.6% 12 61.4% 282 59.4% 92 63.9% 241 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

AGE Could I ask, which of the following age bands do you fall into ?

16-24 4.7% 31 3.2% 8 5.7% 23 100.0% 31 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 04.4% 20 3.2% 5 4.2% 16 25-34 10.8% 71 9.4% 24 11.7% 47 0.0% 0 100.0% 71 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 11.3% 52 8.4% 13 11.4% 43 35-59 39.0% 256 40.6% 103 38.0% 153 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 256 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.1% 184 41.9% 65 43.2% 163 60-64 17.0% 112 16.9% 43 17.1% 69 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 112 0.0% 0 18.5% 85 14.2% 22 18.6% 70 65+ 25.9% 170 28.0% 71 24.6% 99 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 24.4% 112 30.3% 47 21.0% 79 (Refused) 2.6% 17 2.0% 5 3.0% 12 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 17 1.3% 61.9%31.6%6 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 25 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

ETH For the purposes of this survey, could I ask you which ethnic group you belong to ?

White - British (Interviewer, 65.6% 431 72.8% 185 61.0% 246 35.5% 11 54.9% 39 63.3% 162 71.4% 80 52.9% 9 71.5% 328 56.1% 87 69.0% 260 this includes English, Scottish, Welsh) White European 4.0% 26 3.5% 9 4.2% 17 9.7% 3 11.3% 84.3%111.8%20.0% 04.4% 20 3.2% 5 4.0% 15 Indian 2.7% 18 3.5% 9 2.2% 9 6.5% 2 2.8% 2 3.1% 8 2.7% 3 0.0% 03.1% 14 2.6% 4 3.4% 13 White - Irish 2.3% 15 2.4% 6 2.2% 9 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 3.6% 4 0.0% 01.5% 74.5%71.1%4 Caribbean 1.8% 12 1.6% 4 2.0% 8 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 35.2%80.8%3 White and Asian 1.5% 10 2.0% 5 1.2% 5 9.7% 3 4.2% 3 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.3% 61.9%31.1%4 White American 1.4% 9 1.2% 3 1.5% 6 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.3% 6 0.9% 1 0.0% 01.7% 80.6%11.9%7 White and black Caribbean 1.2% 8 0.4% 1 1.7% 7 3.2% 1 2.8% 2 1.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 01.1% 51.9%30.8%3 White (other) 0.9% 6 0.4% 1 1.2% 5 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 1.8% 2 0.0% 01.1% 50.6%10.5%2 White and black African 0.9% 6 1.2% 3 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 1.8% 2 0.0% 00.7% 31.3%21.3%5 Mixed Race 0.9% 6 0.8% 2 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 4.2% 3 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.7% 31.9%30.3%1 Greek 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 1.2% 5 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 21.9%30.8%3 African 0.8% 5 1.2% 3 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.7% 31.3%21.3%5 Pakistani 0.8% 5 0.8% 2 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 40.6%11.1%4 White Australian 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%00.8%3 Iranian 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 1.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.9% 40.0%00.5%2 West Indian 0.6% 4 0.8% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.7% 3 0.0% 00.0% 01.3%20.0%0 Spanish 0.6% 4 0.4% 1 0.7% 3 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 02.6%41.1%4 Jamaican 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.5%2 German 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 01.3%20.5%2 Chinese 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 2.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.5%2 Arabic 0.5% 3 0.8% 2 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.2% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 11.3%20.5%2 Albanian 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 11.3%20.3%1 Middle Eastern 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.7% 3 3.2% 1 2.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.6%10.5%2 Latin American 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.3%1 Polish 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.3%1 European 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Caucasian 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Black British 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Malian 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.3%1 Pilipino British 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.0% 01.3%20.0%0 White Croatian 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.4% 20.0%00.3%1 Bangladeshi 0.3% 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1 Portuguese 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.6%10.3%1 European Mixed Race 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 American Indian 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Chinese American 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Egyptian 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.0%0 New Zealander 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Black (other) 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Swiss Portuguese 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 Danish 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Mewari 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.6%10.3%1

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 26 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

Dutch 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.3%1 Chinese West Indian 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 1 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 White South African 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.4% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.2% 10.0%00.0%0 (Refused) 4.4% 29 2.8% 7 5.5% 22 0.0% 0 2.8% 2 2.7% 7 5.4% 6 47.1% 82.6% 12 1.3% 2 3.2% 12 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

SAL Which of the following categories does your combined income fall into?

£0-25,000 31.4% 206 31.1% 79 31.5% 127 29.0% 9 18.3% 13 27.0% 69 34.8% 39 5.9% 1 26.1% 120 51.0% 79 19.6% 74 £25,000 - 50,000 19.5% 128 22.4% 57 17.6% 71 22.6% 7 26.8% 19 21.1% 54 15.2% 17 11.8% 2 21.8% 100 16.8% 26 21.8% 82 £50,000 - 100,000 12.6% 83 14.6% 37 11.4% 46 9.7% 3 21.1% 15 18.0% 46 8.9% 10 5.9% 1 16.6% 76 3.9% 6 16.7% 63 £100,000 or more 13.2% 87 12.6% 32 13.6% 55 9.7% 3 14.1% 10 18.8% 48 16.1% 18 0.0% 0 17.2% 79 4.5% 7 19.9% 75 (Don't know / can't 7.2% 47 4.7% 12 8.7% 35 29.0% 9 5.6% 43.9%108.0%911.8% 23.9% 18 13.5% 21 6.6% 25 remember) (Refused) 16.1% 106 14.6% 37 17.1% 69 0.0% 0 14.1% 10 11.3% 29 17.0% 19 64.7% 11 14.4% 66 10.3% 16 15.4% 58 Mean: 22686 25118 21154 20806 30282 27568 19152 9559 26438 16242 26127 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

CAR Finally, how many cars are there normally available for use in the household ?

None 39.6% 260 44.5% 113 36.5% 147 41.9% 13 32.4% 23 35.5% 91 36.6% 41 35.3% 6 35.7% 164 53.5% 83 0.0% 0 1 42.0% 276 43.3% 110 41.2% 166 32.3% 10 46.5% 33 42.6% 109 42.9% 48 29.4% 5 46.4% 213 32.9% 51 73.2% 276 2 12.9% 85 8.7% 22 15.6% 63 12.9% 4 12.7% 9 18.4% 47 16.1% 18 5.9% 1 14.4% 66 11.0% 17 22.5% 85 3ormore 2.4% 16 1.6% 4 3.0% 12 6.5% 2 1.4% 1 2.7% 7 3.6% 4 0.0% 02.8% 13 0.6% 1 4.2% 16 (Don't know) 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.5% 2 6.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Refused) 2.7% 18 2.0% 5 3.2% 13 0.0% 0 7.0% 5 0.8% 2 0.9% 1 29.4% 50.7% 31.9%30.0%0 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

SEG Socioeconmic Grouping:

A2.0% 13 1.2% 3 2.5% 10 3.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.8% 2 3.6% 4 0.0% 02.8% 13 0.0% 0 2.7% 10 B 35.0% 230 37.0% 94 33.7% 136 25.8% 8 35.2% 25 38.7% 99 43.8% 49 17.6% 3 50.1% 230 0.0% 0 42.2% 159 C1 32.9% 216 31.5% 80 33.7% 136 35.5% 11 38.0% 27 32.4% 83 28.6% 32 17.6% 3 47.1% 216 0.0% 0 32.6% 123 C2 9.1% 60 11.4% 29 7.7% 31 6.5% 2 8.5% 6 12.9% 33 4.5% 5 11.8% 20.0% 0 38.7% 60 9.5% 36 D8.8% 58 8.7% 22 8.9% 36 6.5% 2 5.6% 4 5.9% 15 13.4% 15 5.9% 10.0% 0 37.4% 58 6.1% 23 E5.6% 37 4.7% 12 6.2% 25 3.2% 1 4.2% 36.6%171.8%20.0% 00.0% 0 23.9% 37 2.7% 10 (Refused) 6.5% 43 5.5% 14 7.2% 29 19.4% 6 8.5% 6 2.7% 7 4.5% 5 47.1% 80.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2% 16 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

051006 NEMS market research Demographics Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 27 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Male Female 16to24 25to34 35to59 60to64 65+ ABC1 C2DE Carinhhold

ZONE Zone

Harrow Road 15.2% 100 12.2% 31 17.1% 69 22.6% 7 16.9% 12 15.6% 40 15.2% 17 5.9% 1 12.0% 55 25.2% 39 12.5% 47 St Johns Wood 15.2% 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% 14 20.2% 76 Warwick Way / Tachbrook 15.2% 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 Street Church Street / Edgeware 15.2% 100 17.7% 45 13.6% 55 19.4% 6 15.5% 11 15.6% 40 10.7% 12 17.6% 3 13.3% 61 20.0% 31 10.3% 39 Road Marylebone High Street 9.0% 59 8.3% 21 9.4% 38 3.2% 1 5.6% 4 10.2% 26 4.5% 5 0.0% 0 10.9% 50 5.8% 9 9.5% 36 Queensway / Westbourne 15.4% 101 16.5% 42 14.6% 59 3.2% 1 15.5% 11 15.6% 40 17.9% 20 23.5% 4 16.3% 75 12.3% 19 15.7% 59 Grove Praed Street 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 Base: 657 254 403 31 71 256 112 17 459 155 377

051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 28 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove 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% 67 Kensington 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% 2 Victoria 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% 0 Queensway / Westbourne 2.4% 16 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 8.9% 9 0.0% 0 Grove 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% 4 Kings Road 2.1% 14 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.0% 12 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 Marylebone 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% 1 Brent Cross 1.5% 10 3.0% 3 7.0% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Mail order / delivered / 1.5% 10 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 1.7% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 internet Abroad (unspecified 1.1% 7 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 location) Kilburn 1.1% 7 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Marble Arch 0.9% 6 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 Whiteley'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% 0 Harrow Road 0.9% 6 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Market, 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% 0 Market, 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% 0 St 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% 0 Regent Street 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Notting Hill 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 Portobello Road 0.6% 4 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 Bond 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% 1 Tesco, Church Street, St 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Johns Wood Warwick Way / Tachbrook 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Street Bayswater 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 Hammersmith 0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 German 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% 1 Knightsbridge 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 Central London 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 Baker Street 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Covent Garden 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 O2 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% 0 Praed 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 Ladbroke Grove 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Camden Town 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Primark (unspecified 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 location) Sainsbury's, Crommel Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Barnet Wembley 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 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 Park 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 Bromley 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Cardinal Junction 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Shepherd'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% 0 Church 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% 0 Clapham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Cricklewood 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 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 Goldbourne Road, 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Kensington Hampstead 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Harrow 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Hyde Park 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 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 Market, Litchfield 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 (unspecified 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 location) Mayfair 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, Marble 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Arch 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% 0 Osterley 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% 0 Oxbridge 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Coburn Mews 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, O2 Centre, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Finchley Road 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

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 29 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove 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% 1 Stanmore 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% 10 Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 30 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove Q02 At which store do you normally do most of your food and grocery (convenience) shopping ?

Waitrose, High Street, 8.2% 54 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 14.0% 14 45.8% 27 1.0% 1 11.3% 11 Marylebone Tesco, Church Street, St 7.2% 47 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 38.0% 38 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 3.1% 3 Johns Wood Sainsbury's, Wilton Road, 5.9% 39 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 39.0% 39 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Victoria Sainsbury’s, Ladbroke 5.0% 33 21.0% 21 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 4.1% 4 Grove, Chelsea Somerfield, Edgware Road, 3.8% 25 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 19.6% 19 London Sainsbury’s, O2 Centre, 3.5% 23 0.0% 0 21.0% 21 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Finchley Road, London Mail order / internet / 3.3% 22 2.0% 2 8.0% 8 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 1.7% 1 5.9% 6 1.0% 1 delivered 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% 1 Waitrose, Finchley Road, 2.7% 18 3.0% 3 12.0% 12 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 London Tesco, Portobello Road, 2.4% 16 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.7% 1 8.9% 9 0.0% 0 London Tesco, Warwick Way, 2.0% 13 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.0% 12 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Victoria Waitrose, Swiss Cottage, 2.0% 13 0.0% 0 13.0% 13 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London Marks & Spencer, Edgware 1.7% 11 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 4.1% 4 Road, London 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% 0 Marks & Spencer, Oxford 1.4% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 5.2% 5 Street 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% 2 Iceland, Harrow Road, 1.1% 7 7.0% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London Tesco, Cromwell Road, 1.1% 7 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.1% 3 Kensington Market, Portobello Road, 1.1% 7 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 6 0.0% 0 London Marks & Spencer, Marble 1.1% 7 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 Arch Sainsbury’s, Edgware Road, 1.1% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.1% 3 0.0% 0 4.1% 4 London Waitrose, High Street, 0.9% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.9% 6 0.0% 0 Kensington Sainsbury’s, Kilburn High 0.9% 6 3.0% 3 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Road Marks & Spencer, Whiteleys 0.8% 5 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 of Bayswater, Queensway Marks & Spencer Simply 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3 Food, Marylebone Station 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% 0 Sainsbury Local, Allington 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 Street, Victoria Sainsbury’s, Swiss Cottage, 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London 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% 0 Sainsbury’s, Wilton Road, 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Victoria Sainsbury's, Kingsgate 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Parade, Victoria Street Marks & Spencer, 0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Queensway 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% 0 Sainsbury’s, Westbourne 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 Grove, London Sainsbury Local, 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 Westbourne Grove 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% 0 Asda, 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% 0 Tesco, 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% 0 Fresh & Wild, Westbourne 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 Grove, London Sainsbury Local, Paddington 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3 Station 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

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 31 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove Kensington Tesco, 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% 0 Tesco 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% 2 Marks & Spencer Simply 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 Food, Paddington Station 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% 0 Sainsbury’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% 0 Sainsbury's, Kingsmall, 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Hammersmith Sainsbury’s, Harrow Road, 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 London Tesco, High Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Marylebone 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% 0 Market, Warwick Way, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Westminster 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% 0 Marks & Spencer, Camden 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Town Marks & Spencer, High 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 Street, Kensington 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% 0 Tesco, 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% 0 Sainsbury’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% 0 Whiteley'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% 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% 0 Sainsbury'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% 0 Waitrose, 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% 0 Budgens, Queensway 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, Victoria 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Cardinal Place 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% 0 Safeway, Edgware Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 London Planet Organic, Westbourne 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Grove Portobello Whole Foods, 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Portobello Green Local shops, Vincent 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 London 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% 0 Asda, Colindale 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 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% 0 Sainsbury’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% 0 Sainsbury Local, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Southampton Street, Covent Garden 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% 0 Sainsbury Local, Brompton 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Road Budgens, Tottenham 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 Road Sainsbury’s, Queenstown 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Road, Lambeth Market, Borough Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London Bridge 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% 1 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% 0 Sainsbury’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% 0 Marks & Spencer, Victoria 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Station 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% 0 Green Valley, Barclay Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 London Sainsbury’s, Gloucester 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Road, London 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% 0 Marks & Spencer, Kings 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Road, Chelsea 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% 0 Marks & Spencer, Notting 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Hill Gate Tesco, Englands Lane, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Belsize Park

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 32 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove Local shops, Victoria, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London 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% 0 Asda, Connaught Hall 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Approach, Westminster 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% 0 Budgens, Porchester Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 London 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% 0 Crispen’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% 1 Tesco, 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% 1 Tesco, 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% 0 Tesco, 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% 1 Tesco, Tottenham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Iceland, Meadville 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Waitrose, Gloucester Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 London Local shops, Edgware Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 London 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% 0 Waitrose, Temple Fortune 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Parade 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% 1 Westbourne 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% 0 Farmers market (unspecified 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 location) Market, Strutton Ground, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Westminster 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% 0 Tesco Express, Charing 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Cross 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% 0 Tesco (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 Sainsbury'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% 1 Marks & Spencer, Finchley 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Road, Golders Green 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% 0 Tesco, 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% 0 Local 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% 10 Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 33 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove 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% 42 Quality 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% 12 Value 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% 7 Preference 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% 7 Good 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% 6 Range of shops and services 4.0% 26 2.0% 2 4.0% 4 3.0% 3 6.0% 6 6.8% 4 4.0% 4 3.1% 3 available 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% 2 Easy 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% 0 Large store 2.1% 14 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 7.0% 7 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Good 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% 1 Range 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% 1 No 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% 1 Provide 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% 1 Habit / 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% 2 Convenience 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% 2 They 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% 1 I 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% 0 Generally convenient 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Good 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% 2 Other shops and services 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 nearby 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% 1 I 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% 0 Reward 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% 0 Congestion charges are in 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 place near to other stores 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% 0 To 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% 0 If 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% 1 Longer 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% 0 Igowithafamilymember / 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 friend (Don’t know / no reason in 2.1% 14 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 1.7% 1 3.0% 3 2.1% 2 particular) Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 34 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove 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, St 8.7% 57 0.0% 0 26.0% 26 0.0% 0 29.0% 29 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 Johns Wood Waitrose, Marylebone High 4.0% 26 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 5.0% 5 28.8% 17 0.0% 0 3.1% 3 Street Sainsbury, Wilton Road, 4.0% 26 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 24.0% 24 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Victoria Somerfield, Edgware Road, 3.3% 22 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 18.6% 18 London 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% 0 Tesco Metro, Portobello 2.6% 17 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.9% 13 0.0% 0 Road, London 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% 0 Tesco, Warwick Way, 1.7% 11 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 10.0% 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Victoria 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% 0 Marks & Spencer, Edgware 1.5% 10 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3 Road Marks & Spencer Simply 1.4% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 7.9% 8 0.0% 0 Food, Notting Hill Iceland, Harrow Road, 1.2% 8 8.0% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London Marks & Spencer Simply 1.2% 8 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 6.0% 6 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Food, Marylebone Station Marks & Spencer, Oxford 1.2% 8 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.1% 3 1.0% 1 3.1% 3 Street Local shops (unspecified 1.2% 8 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 location) 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% 0 Local shops, Abbey Road, 0.9% 6 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 London 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% 4 Tesco, 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% 0 Sainsbury’s, Kilburn High 0.9% 6 2.0% 2 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Road, Brent Local shops, Lupus Street, 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Westminster Sainsbury’s, Ladbroke 0.8% 5 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Grove, London 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% 2 Bestbuy, 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% 1 Costcutter, Golborne Road, 0.6% 4 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Kensington Local shops, Kendal Street, 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.1% 4 High Park 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% 0 Marks & Spencer, High 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 Street, Kensington 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% 0 Marks & Spencer, Whiteleys 0.6% 4 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 of Bayswater, Queensway Local shops, Edgware Road, 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 Westminster Local shops, Harrow Road, 0.6% 4 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London 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% 0 Waitrose, 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% 0 Tesco, 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% 0 Whiteley'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% 0 Fresh & Wild, Westbourne 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 Grove Mail order / internet / 0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 delivered Sainsbury, Kingsgate Parade, 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Victoria Street Sainsbury Local, Paddington 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3 Station Marks & Spencer, Marble 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 Arch 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% 0 Local shops, Lisson Grove, 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Marylebone 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

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 35 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove London Ladbroke Grove 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, Great Peter Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London 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% 0 Tesco, High Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Marylebone Local shops, Boundary 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Road, London Tesco Express, Praed Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Paddington Sainsbury Local, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 Westbourne Grove 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% 0 Portland 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% 0 Local 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% 0 Costcutters (unspecified 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 location) Sainsbury Local, Allington 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Street, Victoria Marks & Spencer Simply 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Food, Finchley Road, London Marks & Spencer, Victoria 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Cardinal Place Marks & Spencer, Swiss 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Cottage Local shops, Church Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London Costcutter, Lupus Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Westminster 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% 2 Tesco, Shurland Avenue, 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London 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% 0 Tesco, Meadville 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Local shops, Warwick Way, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Westminster Local shops, Portobello 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Road, London Tesco Express, Monk Street, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London 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% 0 Marks & Spencer Simply 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 Food, Paddington Station 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% 0 Sainsbury’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% 2 Sainsbury’s, Wilton Road, 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Barnet 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% 0 Waitrose, 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% 0 Local 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% 0 Local shops, Newgate Close, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London 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% 0 Tesco Express, Charing 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Cross Marks & Spencer, Victoria 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Station 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% 0 Sainsbury’s, Finchley Road, 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Hampstead Sainsbury’s, Gloucester 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Road, London Local shops, Great Portland 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Street Local shops, Mozart Street, 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Paddington Local shops, Claremont 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Close, London Sainsbury’s, O2 Centre, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Finchley Road, London 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% 0 Sainsbury’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

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 36 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove London Sainsbury’s, Westbourne 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Road, Notting Hill Gate Local shops, Chepstow 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Road, London Marks & Spencer Simply 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Food, Notting Hill Gate Local shops, 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% 1 Paddington Chipstow Stores, Chipstow 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Road, London 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% 0 Planet Organic, Westbourne 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Grove Portobello Whole Foods, 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 Green Local shops, Sutherland 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Avenue, London Tesco Metro, Marsham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Street, Westminster Embassy News, Embassy 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Road, Notting Hill Gate 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% 0 Somerfield, Harrow Road, 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London Somerfield, High Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Camden Town 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% 0 Sainsbury’s, Queenstown 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Road, Lambeth 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% 0 Local shops, Blenheim 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Terrace, Paddington 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% 0 Tesco, Melcombe Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London Local shops, Cherrett Close, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London 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% 0 Tesco, Whiteleys of 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Bayswater, Queensway The Ginger Pig, High Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Marylebone Crispin’s, Kendal Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 London Local shops, Great Western 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Road, Paddington Safeway, Edgware Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 London Local shops, High 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 Marylebone Paddington Street, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Marylebone 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% 0 Local shops, Alguin Court, 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Stanmore Local shops, Mackennal 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Street, London Local shops, Moscow Road, 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 London Market (unspecified 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 location) Fairhazel Gardens, Camden 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Town Sainsbury's (unspecified 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 location) Sainsbury's, Keble Road, 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London Suffolk 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, Regency 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 Westminster Local shops, Regents 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 Road 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

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 37 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove Paddington TheLisboaDeli,Golborne 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Road, West Ham 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% 0 Tesco Metro, Holland Park 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Avenue, London Local shops, Vincent 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 Westminster 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% 44 No 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

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 38 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove 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% 6 Poor range of shops / 11.3% 22 23.8% 5 25.0% 2 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 8.3% 1 2.3% 1 22.6% 12 services 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% 1 Poor 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% 8 Ihavenoneedtogothere 8.8% 17 9.5% 2 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 10.0% 3 0.0% 0 16.3% 7 5.7% 3 Generally inconvenient 5.2% 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 6.7% 2 0.0% 0 7.0% 3 5.7% 3 Poor 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% 6 Prefer to shop at larger 4.6% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 3.3% 1 8.3% 1 7.0% 3 3.8% 2 centres No local centre near to home 4.6% 9 14.3% 3 0.0% 0 11.1% 3 3.3% 1 8.3% 1 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 or work Poor public transport / hard 4.1% 8 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 7.4% 2 10.0% 3 8.3% 1 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 to travel there Another larger centre is 4.1% 8 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 6.7% 2 8.3% 1 4.7% 2 3.8% 2 easier to get to There are a better choice of 2.6% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.3% 1 0.0% 0 7.0% 3 1.9% 1 shops locally Prefer to shop at large food 2.6% 5 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 11.1% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 store 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% 1 Too expensive 2.1% 4 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 1.9% 1 Unsafe 1.0% 2 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 Only shop in West End / 1.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.3% 1 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 largecentrecitycentre I am not able to leave the 1.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.7% 1 0.0% 0 8.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 house I don't know the area very 1.0% 2 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 well 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% 1 There is nothing appealing 1.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.8% 2 there Because of the language 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 barrier It depends where I am at the 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 time I justdon'tgotothatarea 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 trust some of the 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 market traders They don't have enough 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 household shops 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% 0 When the weather is good I 0.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 0.0% 0 prefer to go elsewhere I work during shop opening 0.5% 1 4.8% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 times 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 17.5% 34 23.8% 5 0.0% 0 14.8% 4 16.7% 5 16.7% 2 14.0% 6 22.6% 12 particular) Base: 1942182730124353

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-Westbourne Grove / 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% 1 Quite good 5.8% 27 11.4% 9 2.2% 2 5.5% 4 5.7% 4 2.1% 1 6.9% 4 6.8% 3 Neither 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% 1 Quite Poor 13.0% 60 8.9% 7 21.7% 20 12.3% 9 11.4% 8 19.1% 9 6.9% 4 6.8% 3 Very poor 25.7% 119 32.9% 26 20.7% 19 21.9% 16 27.1% 19 17.0% 8 22.4% 13 40.9% 18 Don’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% 18 Mean: -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

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 39 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove 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% 3 Quite good 21.4% 99 13.9% 11 15.2% 14 19.2% 14 30.0% 21 25.5% 12 36.2% 21 13.6% 6 Neither 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% 13 Quite Poor 19.7% 91 22.8% 18 26.1% 24 20.5% 15 21.4% 15 6.4% 3 6.9% 4 27.3% 12 Very poor 8.0% 37 13.9% 11 5.4% 5 9.6% 7 5.7% 4 0.0% 0 5.2% 3 15.9% 7 Don’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% 4 Quite good 26.6% 123 20.3% 16 35.9% 33 16.4% 12 21.4% 15 42.6% 20 37.9% 22 11.4% 5 Neither 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% 13 Quite Poor 13.8% 64 16.5% 13 6.5% 6 17.8% 13 21.4% 15 2.1% 1 12.1% 7 20.5% 9 Very poor 8.0% 37 19.0% 15 2.2% 2 4.1% 3 8.6% 6 0.0% 0 5.2% 3 18.2% 8 Don’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% 5 Mean: 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% 3 Quite good 24.4% 113 26.6% 21 10.9% 10 26.0% 19 34.3% 24 21.3% 10 32.8% 19 22.7% 10 Neither 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% 17 Quite Poor 17.3% 80 7.6% 6 38.0% 35 13.7% 10 2.9% 2 23.4% 11 20.7% 12 9.1% 4 Very poor 9.7% 45 11.4% 9 19.6% 18 4.1% 3 2.9% 2 8.5% 4 6.9% 4 11.4% 5 Don’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% 5 Mean: 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% 4 Quite good 24.8% 115 7.6% 6 41.3% 38 28.8% 21 15.7% 11 34.0% 16 24.1% 14 20.5% 9 Neither 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% 8 Quite Poor 13.4% 62 20.3% 16 10.9% 10 15.1% 11 15.7% 11 0.0% 0 10.3% 6 18.2% 8 Very poor 7.3% 34 20.3% 16 2.2% 2 1.4% 1 11.4% 8 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 11.4% 5 Don’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% 10 Mean: 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% 2 Quite good 26.6% 123 17.7% 14 34.8% 32 27.4% 20 24.3% 17 29.8% 14 32.8% 19 15.9% 7 Neither 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% 9 Quite Poor 16.0% 74 16.5% 13 6.5% 6 24.7% 18 24.3% 17 6.4% 3 10.3% 6 25.0% 11 Very poor 11.4% 53 21.5% 17 5.4% 5 6.8% 5 14.3% 10 0.0% 0 8.6% 5 25.0% 11 Don’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% 4 Mean: 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% 6 Quite good 31.5% 146 19.0% 15 38.0% 35 32.9% 24 37.1% 26 27.7% 13 31.0% 18 34.1% 15 Neither 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% 10 Quite Poor 10.2% 47 13.9% 11 4.3% 4 6.8% 5 21.4% 15 4.3% 2 8.6% 5 11.4% 5 Very poor 7.3% 34 19.0% 15 3.3% 3 4.1% 3 10.0% 7 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 9.1% 4 Don’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

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 40 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove 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% 17 Quite good 32.0% 148 39.2% 31 27.2% 25 31.5% 23 31.4% 22 19.1% 9 36.2% 21 38.6% 17 Neither 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% 2 Quite Poor 3.5% 16 1.3% 1 2.2% 2 8.2% 6 4.3% 3 4.3% 2 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 Very poor 4.1% 19 5.1% 4 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 2.9% 2 17.0% 8 3.4% 2 4.5% 2 Don’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% 8 Quite good 39.1% 181 22.8% 18 51.1% 47 38.4% 28 28.6% 20 53.2% 25 48.3% 28 34.1% 15 Neither 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% 9 Quite Poor 7.1% 33 8.9% 7 1.1% 1 9.6% 7 12.9% 9 0.0% 0 6.9% 4 11.4% 5 Very poor 4.1% 19 11.4% 9 0.0% 0 2.7% 2 8.6% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.5% 2 Don’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% 5 Mean: 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% 3 Quite good 31.5% 146 21.5% 17 32.6% 30 30.1% 22 42.9% 30 34.0% 16 36.2% 21 22.7% 10 Neither 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% 12 Quite Poor 10.6% 49 16.5% 13 8.7% 8 12.3% 9 5.7% 4 0.0% 0 10.3% 6 20.5% 9 Very poor 5.8% 27 10.1% 8 1.1% 1 8.2% 6 5.7% 4 0.0% 0 5.2% 3 11.4% 5 Don’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% 5 Mean: 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% 1 Quite good 15.1% 70 17.7% 14 13.0% 12 13.7% 10 18.6% 13 12.8% 6 12.1% 7 18.2% 8 Neither 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% 13 Quite Poor 21.6% 100 16.5% 13 23.9% 22 23.3% 17 21.4% 15 21.3% 10 29.3% 17 13.6% 6 Very poor 26.8% 124 38.0% 30 20.7% 19 23.3% 17 28.6% 20 21.3% 10 27.6% 16 27.3% 12 Don’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% 4 Mean: -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% 2 Quite good 19.4% 90 5.1% 4 23.9% 22 13.7% 10 15.7% 11 36.2% 17 31.0% 18 18.2% 8 Neither 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% 10 Quite Poor 14.0% 65 15.2% 12 14.1% 13 20.5% 15 11.4% 8 2.1% 1 17.2% 10 13.6% 6 Very poor 11.0% 51 22.8% 18 14.1% 13 8.2% 6 12.9% 9 2.1% 1 0.0% 0 9.1% 4 Don’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% 14 Mean: -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% 5 Quite good 20.7% 96 20.3% 16 13.0% 12 30.1% 22 15.7% 11 36.2% 17 17.2% 10 18.2% 8 Neither 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% 4 Quite Poor 25.1% 116 24.1% 19 34.8% 32 17.8% 13 35.7% 25 6.4% 3 19.0% 11 29.5% 13 Very poor 11.7% 54 12.7% 10 9.8% 9 11.0% 8 20.0% 14 0.0% 0 6.9% 4 20.5% 9 Don’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

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 41 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove Q08 What mode of transport do you normally use to get to 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 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% 2 Car - passenger 0.9% 4 1.3% 1 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 2.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Walk 75.2% 348 77.2% 61 57.6% 53 87.7% 64 78.6% 55 80.9% 38 69.0% 40 84.1% 37 Bus 9.7% 45 12.7% 10 9.8% 9 4.1% 3 11.4% 8 2.1% 1 19.0% 11 6.8% 3 Motorbike / scooter 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Taxi 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 Underground 1.1% 5 0.0% 0 2.2% 2 0.0% 0 2.9% 2 2.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Bicycle 1.7% 8 2.5% 2 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 6.4% 3 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 Other 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 / Praed Street / 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 more 62.2% 288 67.1% 53 69.6% 64 58.9% 43 67.1% 47 66.0% 31 53.4% 31 43.2% 19 often Weekly 17.1% 79 11.4% 9 18.5% 17 23.3% 17 10.0% 7 19.1% 9 15.5% 9 25.0% 11 Fortnightly 8.0% 37 5.1% 4 9.8% 9 8.2% 6 5.7% 4 6.4% 3 8.6% 5 13.6% 6 Monthly 6.0% 28 6.3% 5 2.2% 2 6.8% 5 8.6% 6 2.1% 1 10.3% 6 6.8% 3 Less 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% 1 Base: 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% 30 Range 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% 8 Like 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% 1 Pleasant environment 3.5% 16 2.5% 2 3.3% 3 0.0% 0 4.3% 3 10.6% 5 5.2% 3 0.0% 0 Low 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% 1 Convenient 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% 0 Quality of the shopping 1.7% 8 0.0% 0 1.1% 1 2.7% 2 1.4% 1 6.4% 3 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 environment 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% 0 To 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% 0 Best 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% 0 For 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% 1 If 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% 1 Good 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% 0 It is somewhere different to 0.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 shop 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% 0 Late 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% 0 No 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% 1 For 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% 0 Good 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% 0 Good parking 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 1 If I have an appointment 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 locally 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% 0 Friends / 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 2.6% 12 5.1% 4 0.0% 0 4.1% 3 0.0% 0 2.1% 1 1.7% 1 6.8% 3 reason) Base: 463 79 92 73 70 47 58 44

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 42 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove 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% 30 Marylebone 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% 21 Kensington 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% 5 Brent Cross 5.6% 37 6.0% 6 21.0% 21 0.0% 0 9.0% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Edgware Road 3.2% 21 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 8.0% 8 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 8.2% 8 Kings Road 2.7% 18 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 13.0% 13 1.0% 1 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Warwick Way / Tachbrook 2.7% 18 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 15.0% 15 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 Street Knightsbridge 2.6% 17 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 11.9% 7 2.0% 2 3.1% 3 Victoria 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% 0 Kilburn 2.3% 15 6.0% 6 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 Queensway / Westbourne 2.3% 15 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 4.0% 4 2.1% 2 Grove 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% 0 O2 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% 0 Ladbroke 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% 2 Finchley 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% 0 Whiteley'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% 1 Bayswater 1.4% 9 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.7% 1 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 Market, 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% 2 Hammersmith 1.1% 7 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 Harrow Road 1.1% 7 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 Holloway Road, Camden 0.9% 6 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Town 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% 1 Covent Garden 0.9% 6 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Camden Town 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Brompton Road 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 St 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% 0 Baker Street 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Cromwell Road 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 Sloane Square 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 Waterloo 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Praed Street 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.1% 3 Cardinal 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% 0 Regent Street 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Church 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% 1 Bond 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% 0 Piccadilly 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Swiss Cottage 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Shepherd'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% 1 Clapham Junction 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Ashcroft 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% 0 Park Royal 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Earlscourt 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Chelsea 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Vauxhall 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% 0 Gloucester 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Portobello Road 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Tottenham 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% 0 Acton 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Maida Vale 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Ashford 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Elton 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Croydon 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% 0 Borough 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% 0 Bromley 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Butterfly 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% 0 Denby 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% 0 Ealing, Broadway 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 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% 0 Kew Shopping Park, Malt 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Lake Road Lewisham 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Milton Keynes 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 North 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% 0 Bloomsbury 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Peckham 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 (unspecified 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 location) 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% 1 Suffolk 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 43 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove Surrey 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Market, 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% 0 Wilton 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 Wimbledon 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Berwick 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% 0 Bethnal Green 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Market, Church Street, 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 London 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% 0 Midfield 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Muswell Hill 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Orchid 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% 0 Soho 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Stratford 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% 2 Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 44 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove Q12 What, if anything would make you more likely to visit Church Street-Edgware Road / Harrow Road / Marylebone High Street / Praed Street / 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% 27 Better choice of shops in 20.5% 135 29.0% 29 38.0% 38 23.0% 23 8.0% 8 6.8% 4 6.9% 7 26.8% 26 general Better choice of other non- 12.0% 79 25.0% 25 20.0% 20 12.0% 12 4.0% 4 3.4% 2 4.0% 4 12.4% 12 food shops Better food and convenience 7.8% 51 3.0% 3 11.0% 11 11.0% 11 8.0% 8 0.0% 0 5.0% 5 13.4% 13 shops Better maintenance / 7.6% 50 16.0% 16 1.0% 1 7.0% 7 6.0% 6 0.0% 0 5.9% 6 14.4% 14 cleanliness 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% 5 More / improved 5.2% 34 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 5.0% 5 17.0% 17 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 6.2% 6 supermarkets 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% 4 Better 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% 1 Made the area more 2.1% 14 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 8.5% 5 2.0% 2 5.2% 5 pedestrian friendly 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% 1 More 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% 4 Better / 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% 1 More 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% 0 Choice 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% 3 Less 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% 2 New 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% 2 More or better public 0.8% 5 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 services / community uses 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% 1 Less 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% 1 Better entertainment 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 facilities 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% 1 If I were given more 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 information about the area Support given to independent 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 businesses If money were invested in 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.1% 4 the area 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% 0 Larger / 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% 0 More 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% 0 More 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% 1 Friendlier staff in stores / 0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 restaurants 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% 1 Less foreign people in the 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 area 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% 0 Better 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% 0 If it were more convenient to 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 my home 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% 0 Reduced 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% 0 More or better health / dental 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 facilities 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% 0 No 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% 0 Better access for disabled 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 people 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% 0 If 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% 0 Quieter 0.2% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Improved 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% 39 Female 61.3% 403 69.0% 69 65.0% 65 59.0% 59 55.0% 55 64.4% 38 58.4% 59 59.8% 58 Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 45 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove 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% 6 25-34 10.8% 71 12.0% 12 11.0% 11 11.0% 11 11.0% 11 6.8% 4 10.9% 11 11.3% 11 35-59 39.0% 256 40.0% 40 40.0% 40 40.0% 40 40.0% 40 44.1% 26 39.6% 40 30.9% 30 60-64 17.0% 112 17.0% 17 19.0% 19 19.0% 19 12.0% 12 8.5% 5 19.8% 20 20.6% 20 65+ 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, 65.6% 431 41.0% 41 69.0% 69 72.0% 72 65.0% 65 74.6% 44 66.3% 67 75.3% 73 this includes English, Scottish, Welsh) 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% 2 Indian 2.7% 18 1.0% 1 4.0% 4 1.0% 1 4.0% 4 5.1% 3 1.0% 1 4.1% 4 White - Irish 2.3% 15 6.0% 6 3.0% 3 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 4.0% 4 0.0% 0 Caribbean 1.8% 12 8.0% 8 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 White 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% 2 White American 1.4% 9 1.0% 1 5.0% 5 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 White 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% 0 White (other) 0.9% 6 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 White 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% 0 Mixed Race 0.9% 6 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Greek 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 African 0.8% 5 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 Pakistani 0.8% 5 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 White Australian 0.6% 4 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 Iranian 0.6% 4 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.4% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 West Indian 0.6% 4 3.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Spanish 0.6% 4 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 Jamaican 0.5% 3 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 German 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Chinese 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Arabic 0.5% 3 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Albanian 0.5% 3 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Middle Eastern 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Latin American 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Polish 0.3% 2 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 European 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.1% 2 Caucasian 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Black British 0.3% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Malian 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Pilipino British 0.3% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 White Croatian 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Bangladeshi 0.3% 2 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Portuguese 0.3% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 2.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 European 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% 0 American Indian 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 Chinese American 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Egyptian 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 New Zealander 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Black (other) 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Swiss Portuguese 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Danish 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Mewari 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Dutch 0.2% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 1 Chinese 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% 0 White 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% 4 Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Zone Westminster Telephone Household Survey Page 46 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners October 2006

Total Harrow Road St John's Warwick WayChurch Street Marylebone Queensway / Praed Street Wood /Tachbrook /Edgware High Street Westbourne Street Road Grove 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 7.2% 47 15.0% 15 6.0% 6 4.0% 4 7.0% 7 5.1% 3 5.0% 5 7.2% 7 remember) (Refused) 16.1% 106 6.0% 6 22.0% 22 20.0% 20 13.0% 13 11.9% 7 24.8% 25 13.4% 13 Mean: 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% 33 1 42.0% 276 37.0% 37 50.0% 50 49.0% 49 29.0% 29 35.6% 21 40.6% 41 50.5% 49 2 12.9% 85 10.0% 10 16.0% 16 11.0% 11 9.0% 9 22.0% 13 15.8% 16 10.3% 10 3ormore 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% 4 Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97

SEG Socioeconmic Grouping:

A2.0% 13 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 3.0% 3 1.7% 1 1.0% 1 5.2% 5 B 35.0% 230 28.0% 28 47.0% 47 38.0% 38 30.0% 30 52.5% 31 25.7% 26 30.9% 30 C1 32.9% 216 26.0% 26 30.0% 30 27.0% 27 28.0% 28 30.5% 18 47.5% 48 40.2% 39 C2 9.1% 60 12.0% 12 7.0% 7 7.0% 7 13.0% 13 6.8% 4 10.9% 11 6.2% 6 D8.8% 58 14.0% 14 7.0% 7 10.0% 10 10.0% 10 6.8% 4 5.9% 6 7.2% 7 E5.6% 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% 0 St 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% 0 Warwick Way / Tachbrook 15.2% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Street Church Street / Edgeware 15.2% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Road 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% 0 Queensway / Westbourne 15.4% 101 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 101 0.0% 0 Grove 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% 97 Base: 657 100 100 100 100 59 101 97

Column %ges. 051006 NEMS market research Appendix I

Business Occupier Survey Results Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 93 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

Q0A Please enter the name of your business below:

Other 94.4% 17 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 87.5% 7 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

Q01 How long has your business been located in St John’s Wood district centre ?

Less than a year 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 1–2years 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3–5years 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 6–10years 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 10–25years 44.4% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 More than 25 years 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Don’t know / not sure 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

Q02 Are your premises leased or owner occupied (i.e. leasehold of freehold) ?

Leased 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Owner occupied 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know / not sure 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Landowner - Howard de 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Walden Landowner - Westminster 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Council (Not answered) 88.9% 16 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 80.0% 4 100.0% 8 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 94 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

Q03 Do you have any current plans to change your business premises ?

No plans 77.8% 14 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 100.0% 5 75.0% 6 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Minor works / improvements 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 such as signage/shopfront alterations Major changes such as 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 extension of changes to internal layout Relocate within new 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 premises outside the centre but within Westminster Close or relocate to new 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 premises outside Westminster Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

Q04 Which statement best describes your business’s current trading performance ?

Very good 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Good 33.3% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 80.0% 4 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Satisfactory 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 37.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Poor 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Don’t know / no opinion 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

Q05 Over the last 12 months has your trading performance…

Improved 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 40.0% 2 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Stayed the same 44.4% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 40.0% 2 50.0% 4 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Declined 33.3% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 37.5% 3 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Don’t know / not sure 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

Q06 Over the next 12 months do you expect your business performance to…

Improve 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Stay the same 66.7% 12 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 80.0% 4 62.5% 5 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Decline 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know / not sure 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 95 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

Q07 What are the main issues constraining your business ?

High overheads / rents 77.8% 14 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 80.0% 4 75.0% 6 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 General economy 44.4% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 40.0% 2 50.0% 4 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quality or size of premises 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Staff recruitment / retention 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Availability and location of 50.0% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 62.5% 5 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 car parking Price of car parking 50.0% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 62.5% 5 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Accessibility via public 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 transport and cycle Competition from other 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 businesses in the district centre Competition from other 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 businesses in the rest of the Westminster Competition from other town 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 centres If ‘Yes’ which centre/s Security issues 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 37.5% 3 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Lack of footfall / customers 33.3% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 37.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Poor location of premises 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Poor quality of 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% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 environment If ‘Yes’ what aspect (litter, shop fronts, etc) Poor quality shops 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Poor quality restaurants / 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 cafes / bars Lack of services (eg banks, 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 dentists, estate agents, etc) Internet competition 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Planning restrictions If ‘Yes’ 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 what aspect Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Litter 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Congestion charges 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 96 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

Q08 What is your opinion of St John’s Woods market position in shopping terms?

Too up market 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Fine as it is 66.7% 12 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 60.0% 3 62.5% 5 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Too down market 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

Q09 How would you describe St John’s Wood’s current shopping and service mix ?

Too many large chain shops / 38.9% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 37.5% 3 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 not enough small (independent) stores About the right mix 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Not enough large (chain) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 shops Toomanynon-retailuses 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Need more retail services 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (e.g. hairdressers) Too many retail services 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Other 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 37.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

Mean score - Very good=5, Quite good=4, Neither good nor poor=3, Quite poor=2, Very poor=1

Q10 How do you rate the centre in terms of the following ?

Rents

Very good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Very poor 44.4% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 62.5% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 1.77 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.40 1.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 97 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

Rates

Very good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 12.5% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Very poor 50.0% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 62.5% 5 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 1.80 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.40 1.33 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

Availability of parking

Very good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 33.3% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 60.0% 3 37.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Very poor 50.0% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 50.0% 4 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 1.71 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.20 1.75 1.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

Parking charges

Very good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 40.0% 2 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Very poor 44.4% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 60.0% 3 25.0% 2 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 1.88 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.40 2.57 1.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 98 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

Traffic congestion

Very good 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quite good 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Very poor 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 2.87 0.00 0.00 4.00 3.20 3.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

Bus service

Very good 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 33.3% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 37.5% 3 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Very poor 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 3.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 4.25 4.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

Train / Underground service

Very good 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 66.7% 12 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 80.0% 4 50.0% 4 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Very poor 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 4.14 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.33 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 99 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

Personal safety

Very good 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quite good 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Very poor 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 2.88 0.00 0.00 5.00 3.40 2.29 2.50 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

Business security

Very good 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quite good 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 12.5% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 50.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Very poor 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 12.5% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 2.63 0.00 0.00 4.00 3.00 2.29 2.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

Range of shops & services available

Very good 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 60.0% 3 12.5% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Very poor 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 2.65 0.00 0.00 4.00 2.60 2.75 2.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 100 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

Quality of shops & services available

Very good 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 38.9% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 40.0% 2 50.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Very poor 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 3.31 0.00 0.00 4.00 3.00 3.86 2.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

Entertainment and leisure facilities

Very good 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 60.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Very poor 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 12.5% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 2.50 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 3.40 2.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

Marketing / promotion / events

Very good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 40.0% 2 12.5% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Very poor 38.9% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 50.0% 4 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 1.73 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.20 1.50 1.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 101 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

Liveliness / street life / character

Very good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 38.9% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 62.5% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Very poor 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 2.94 0.00 0.00 4.00 2.80 3.43 1.50 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

The market

Very good 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 60.0% 3 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Very poor 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 37.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 2.50 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

Quality / number of places to eat / drink

Very good 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Quite good 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 37.5% 3 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Very poor 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 3.60 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.50 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 102 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

General shopping environment

Very good 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 33.3% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 40.0% 2 37.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 33.3% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Very poor 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 3.43 0.00 0.00 4.00 3.00 3.83 3.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

Convenience for shoppers

Very good 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite good 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Neither good nor poor 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Quite poor 27.8% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Very poor 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Don’t know 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 20.0% 1 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 2.93 0.00 0.00 4.00 2.75 3.29 1.50 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11AIncrease range of national multiple / chain stores

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 94.4% 17 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 87.5% 7 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 103 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11BIncrease range of local / speciality retailers

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 44.4% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 62.5% 5 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 50.0% 9 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 60.0% 3 37.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Mean: 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11CImprove quality of shops and services

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 83.3% 15 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 60.0% 3 100.0% 8 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11DImprove appearance of the district centre If ‘Yes’ What in particular

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 37.5% 3 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 72.2% 13 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 80.0% 4 62.5% 5 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Mean: 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 104 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11E Improve the market

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 94.4% 17 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 100.0% 8 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11F Make centre safer (CCTV, policing, better lighting etc..)

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 44.4% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 60.0% 3 50.0% 4 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 44.4% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 40.0% 2 37.5% 3 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Mean: 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11G Remove / reduce traffic congestion

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 88.9% 16 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 100.0% 8 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Mean: 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 105 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11HProvide more housing in the district centre

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 100.0% 18 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 100.0% 8 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11I Improve frequency of bus services to the district centre

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 94.4% 17 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 87.5% 7 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11J Improve frequency of train services to the district centre

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 100.0% 18 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 100.0% 8 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 106 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11KImprove public car parking availability and reduce car parking charges

1st most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 55.6% 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 40.0% 2 62.5% 5 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 33.3% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 60.0% 3 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Mean: 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11L Provide better entertainment and leisure

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 16.7% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 83.3% 15 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 60.0% 3 87.5% 7 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11M Improve quality and range of cafes and restaurants

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 94.4% 17 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 80.0% 4 100.0% 8 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 107 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11NImprove pedestrian links and facilities in the district centre

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 94.4% 17 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 80.0% 4 100.0% 8 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Mean: 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11O Improve quality of shop units / retail accommodation

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 88.9% 16 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 87.5% 7 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11PEncourage / promote Sunday trading

1st most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 88.9% 16 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 80.0% 4 87.5% 7 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 108 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11Q Promote / publicise the attractions of the district centre

1st most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.0% 2 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 66.7% 12 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 40.0% 2 62.5% 5 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Mean: 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11RImprove the quality of public transport facilities in the district centre

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 100.0% 18 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 100.0% 8 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11S More commercial uses / office accommodation

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 83.3% 15 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 60.0% 3 87.5% 7 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 50.0% 10.0%00.0%0 Mean: 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 109 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11T Opportunities from more people living and working in the area

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 94.4% 17 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 100.0% 8 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11UOpportunities to employ more local people

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 94.4% 17 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 87.5% 7 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

In planning for the future of the town centre, what do you think are the FIVE most important things listed below ?

Q11V Others not listed

1st most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 2nd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 3rd most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 4th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 5th most important 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Importance not rated 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 94.4% 17 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0% 5 87.5% 7 100.0% 2 0.0% 0100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Mean: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Q01 and Q02 St John’s Wood Business Occupiers Survey Page 110 for Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners November 2006

Total Less than a 1–2years 3–5years 6–10years 10–25years Morethan25 Don’t know / Leased Owner Don’t know / year years not sure occupied not sure

Q12 Please make any additional comments in the space provided below:

The rent is too high 22.2% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 1 37.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Other 11.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 Not enough parking spaces 5.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% 00.0%00.0%0 (Not answered) 61.1% 11 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 80.0% 4 37.5% 3 100.0% 2 0.0% 0 100.0% 20.0%00.0%0 Base: 180025820200

071006G NEMS market research Appendix J

Land Use Map – November 2006 District Centre Boundary -Core District Centre Boundary - Non Core (Secondary) A1 Convenience A1 Independent A1 International A1 National A1 Specialist A2 A3 A4 Arts Vacant CL10820 - LB West - District Centres Ground Floor Use (2006) - St Johns Wood 11.12.06 1 : 1,100 MAr CL10820 - 006 St Johns Wood - Ground FloorLand Retail Use Key GIS Reference: S:\CL10820 - LB West -LB District Centres\CL10820 West Centres District - St Johns Wood - Ground Floor Use.mxd Ground Floor Use (2006)

STREET

NBERRY

GREE

39

D

A

0

LRO L

60

WHI OW

ARR B

ET E R T NS A

M 62

GE 64 D BRI 66

T 68 70 1 72 HIGH STREE 0

74 WOOD 3 23 76 S 5 78 7

80 HRE LANE CHARLES ST JO HN' 9 82 84 11 86 13 88 15 90 17 92 94 21 96 23 98 ET 25 0 27

29 HRANE STRE COC 31 128 33 130 35 37

LANE 39 120 122 41 0 43 130

45 CHARLES

132 47 E 51 0 0 TREET REET S 134

53

AST TERRAC OOD

L 136 W 98

55 S

QUI ' 138

A 2 N

99 H 57 140

0 TJO ST JOHN'S WOOD HIGH 59

142 ST 61 63 102 65 0

67 EET

TR S W 71 105 75 73 2

77 OCHRANE S

NEME ANCE C N

RD O WS E 46 0 NE M 8

3 COCHRA 10 5 7 24 9 98 11 16

RRACE STE

ST ANN' 18 19 40 24 26 OAD R ON 28

WELLINGT ILL TERRACE SM

KING ICSROAD CIRCUS 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 and district centres. It states that for purposes of this policy statement, the “centre” for a retail development constitutes the primary shopping area. For all other main town centre uses the “centre” should be regarded as the area embraced by the town centre boundary. The extent of the town centre should be defined on the proposals map.

PPS6 states that the Primary Shopping Area should be the defined area where retail development is concentrated (generally comprising the primary frontages and those secondary frontages which are contiguous and closely related to the primary shopping frontage). The extent of the primary shopping area should be defined on the proposals map. Smaller centres may not have areas of predominantly leisure, business and other main town centre uses adjacent to the primary shopping area, and therefore the town centre may not extend beyond the primary shopping area. Primary frontages are likely to include a high proportion of retail uses. Secondary frontages provide greater opportunities for a diversity of uses. 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 SS7 sets 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 use Class order will require this policy criterion to be changed to include Class A3, A4 and A5.

Criteria B seeks to control the loss of Class A1 use at ground floor level in the Core Frontages, by preventing inappropriate changes of use to non-Class A1 uses.

Criteria C relates to Secondary Frontages and basement and first floor levels within 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 approach within the Secondary Frontages compared with the Core Frontages. Service uses (A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses) are generally more acceptable in the Secondary Frontages. Appendix L

Retail Capacity Assessment Methodology Retail Capacity Assessment Methodology

i. The retail capacity assessment in this report provides a quantitative capacity analysis in terms of levels of spending for convenience and comparison shopping. All monetary values expressed in this analysis are at 2005 prices, consistent with Experian’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 District Centres in Westminster (see section 10.2). The catchment/study area is based on postcode sectors and the proximity of other competing town centres. It represents the 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 from residents within the local catchment areas, although there will be an element of trade drawn 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 establishing per capita levels of spending for the local catchment area population. Experian’s ‘local consumer expenditure estimates for comparison and convenience goods’ for each of the study area zones for the year 2005 have been obtained. iv. Experian’s latest national expenditure projections between 2005 and 2015 have been used to forecast expenditure within the catchment area. Unlike previous expenditure growth rates provided by The Data Consultancy (formerly URPI), which were based on past trends, Experian’s projections are based on an econometric model of disaggregated consumer spending. This model takes a number of macro-economic forecasts (chiefly consumer spending, incomes and inflation) and uses them to produce 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 2005 to 2015. The recommended growth rates for the period 2005 and 2010 are 0.5% per annum for convenience goods and 4.3% per annum for comparison goods. These growth rates have been used in this study to forecast expenditure per capita up to 2009. Adjusted growth rates (0.9% and 3.3% per annum for convenience and comparison goods respectively) have been adopted to project expenditure between 2010 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 for convenience and comparison goods respectively, in line with Experian’s growth forecast 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 for shopping facilities within the local catchment area. The assessment of penetration rates 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 expected penetration rates and the expected level of expenditure inflow. These turnover estimates are converted into average turnover to sales floorspace densities. viii. The local catchment area population and expenditure projections for 2006 to 2016 are based on the 2001 Census and Westminster’s ward based projections.

ix. For both comparison and convenience spending, a reduction has been made for special forms of trading such as mail order, e-tail (non-retail businesses carried out online and using vending machines). Special Forms of Trading (SFT) and non-store activity is included within Experian’s goods based expenditure estimates. “Special forms 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, market stalls and door to door selling. SFT needs to be excluded from retail assessments because it relates to expenditure not spent in shops and does not have a direct relationship 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 the remaining 0.9% is other forms of SFT e.g. mail order. E-tailing can be broken down into 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 retail businesses (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 is approximately 40:60. xiv. Experian provide projections for e-tailing and other SFT. These projections have been used to exclude expenditure attributed to e-tailing through non-retail businesses, which will not directly impact on the demand for retail floorspace. In 2004 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-point of the range of projections provided by Experian suggests that these percentages could increase to 2% and 6.8% by 2011 respectively. Therefore the amount of e-tail expenditure through non-retail businesses is expected to increase significantly in proportional terms (+43% for convenience expenditure and +55% for comparison expenditure), 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 per capita spending figures. For both comparison and convenience spending, a reduction has been made for special forms of trading such as mail order and vending machines.

xvi. The analysis of existing shopping patterns in 2006 for convenience and comparison shopping are shown in Tables 1 and 4 below. The turnover density of existing floorspace is shown in Tables 2 and 5 and the summary of available expenditure within 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 shares following the implementation of existing food store commitments i.e. a proposed food store in Church Street/Edgware Road and the build up of trade following the opening of 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 constant market 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 TOTAL Tachbrook 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 Overall Market 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 Average Centres 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 Expenditure Centres 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 TOTAL Tachbrook 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 Overall Market 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 Average Centres 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 Expenditure Centres 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 in Westminster. 33 companies responded to the questionnaire, which equates to an 11% response rate. Of those who did respond, 13 (39%) indicated that they do have a 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 expanding an existing unit. Only London Clubs International was looking to expand an existing unit which was their ‘Sportsman’ on Quebec Street, in the Church Street/Edgware Road District Centre. Four respondents were not looking for a specific location for their 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 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 and Praed Street were 3rd 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.

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 information regarding the demographic profile, and the availability/price of car parking. Other pieces of information which respondents thought would help make such decisions were those relating to future developments/future availability of sites and footfall numbers.

Respondents who answered positively about their requirements in Westminster were also asked why they had not yet secured their requirements. The overwhelming majority gave availability of sites as a reason, the cost of renting wasalsoafairly common 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 was that they were fully represented in nearby/other central locations, the next most popular reason was that the rents are too high.

When asked for any additional comments, only Nandos, who required a new unit in Marylebone and/or Praed Street, indicated that Westminster’s planning policy regarding 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 A new form of strategic government for London established in July 2000, run by the Mayor of Authority (GLA) 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 ODPM Prestige international Prestigious retailers that operate in more than one country, e.g. Gucci, Gianni Versace, and retailers 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. Specialist Similar to an independent store, but this category reflects the quality and specialisation of the independent retailer so that a shopper may make a specific shopping trip to that shop.

Sui Generis Sui Generis is a term that refers to a use on its own. Any planning use not falling within a specific class within the Use Class Order falls within this category. Examples of sui generis uses in shopping centres are launderettes, mini cab offices, amusement centres and car showrooms. Town centre Town centre is defined in Annex A of PPS6 to cover city, town, and traditional suburban centres, which provide a broad range of facilities and services which fulfil a function as a focus for both the community and for public transport. It excludes parades of purely local significance.

Town Centre Health Required under PPS6, these contain information on the mix of uses, environmental quality and Check general economic health of shopping centres/areas. UDP Unitary Development Plan produced by Westminster City Council as the statutory development plan for Westminster, see www.westminster.gov.uk/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.