Economic Development Needs Assessment

March 2017

Mole Valley District Council Pippbrook Dorking Surrey RH4 1SJ

Tel: 01306 885 001 www.molevalley.gov.uk [email protected]

Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ...... 3

2.0 Introduction ...... 5

3.0 Scope, Context and Methodology of the Assessment ...... 8

The Functional Economic Market Area ...... 9

4.0 Understanding the Current Market ...... 12

Strategies and Assessments affecting Economic Development in Mole Valley ...... 13

Effectiveness of Core Strategy Employment Land Policy ...... 17

Economic Development implications arising from changes to Permitted Development Rights ...... 19

The Economic and Employment Characteristics of Mole Valley ...... 20

5.0 Retail and Other Town Centre uses ...... 25

DORKING – A Centre Assessment ...... 25

LEATHERHEAD – A Centre Assessment ...... 29

BOOKHAM DISTRICT CENTRE ...... 33

ASHTEAD DISTRICT CENTRE ...... 34

6.0 Quantitative Need for Retail and Other Town Centre Floorspace - Overview ...... 35

The Need for Additional Convenience Floorspace ...... 37

The Need for Additional Comparison Floorspace ...... 42

The Need for Additional Community and Leisure Facilities ...... 46

Summary and Conclusions ...... 48

7.0 Employment (Class B) Land and Floorspace Stock ...... 50

Market Intelligence ...... 53

The Mole Valley Business Survey ...... 53

8.0 Estimating the Objectively Assessed Need for Employment (Class B) Floorspace ...... 68

Quantitative Need ...... 68

Method 1: Employment growth based on increases in floorspace ...... 69

Method 2: Need Arising from Labour Supply Forecasts ...... 71

Method 3: Demand Led Forecast Growth in Employment ...... 74

9.0 Economic and Employment Land Profiles by Sub-Area ...... 83

Leatherhead ...... 83

Dorking ...... 86

Ashtead ...... 87

Bookham ...... 88

Fetcham ...... 89

Rural Areas ...... 90

Summary ...... 91

10.0 Employment Land Assessments ...... 92

Leatherhead ...... 92

Dorking ...... 105

11.0 Summary and Conclusions ...... 114

APPENDICES

1. FEMA Assessment

2. Technical Appendices plus Annexes – Employment

3. Shopper Survey Study Area Boundaries

4. MVDC Retail Floorspace Capacity Assessments

5. Mole Valley Business Survey Participants and Questionnaire

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 Mole Valley District Council is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan. This Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) forms part of the evidence base and has been prepared to assist the formulation of policy to support sustainable economic growth in the District over the plan period to 2033. It should be read alongside the council’s Functional Economic Market Area Assessment (September 2016) which sets out a contextual summary of Mole Valley’s economic geography and identifies the area across which development needs are to be assessed.

1.2 Regard has been had to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) practice guidance. This identifies the primary objective of the assessment as being: to identify the future quantity of land or floorspace required for economic development uses including both the quantitative and qualitative needs for new development; and provide a breakdown of that analysis in terms of quality and location and to provide an indication of gaps in current land supply.

1.3 Economic Development is defined as “Development, including those within the B Use Classes, public and community uses and main town centre uses (but excluding housing development)”. This study therefore assesses both current provision and future floorspace needs for the retail, leisure and employment sectors.

1.4 Economic uncertainties associated with the vote to leave the European Union may subdue business investment and employment growth. The possibility of higher inflation and a slow down in job creation is also likely to depress consumer spending. Growth indicators of a few years ago have been revised downwards and capacity forecasts subsequently diminished.

1.5 This said, Mole Valley has to date proved highly resilient. Unemployment levels have fallen and remain very low. Confidence and investment in the leisure, retail and employment sectors has been demonstrated and is ongoing.

1.6 Mole Valley does however have an ageing population. Indeed the growth in working age population across the District to 2033 is forecast to be marginal. Net in-commuting, which stood at 4,055 in 2011, is likely to remain a feature of the District.

1.7 The principal findings of this assessment can be summarised as follows:

 Based on current forecasts there is no need for the allocation of land to support additional convenience retail floorspace in the District to 2033. There may however be market features which support the need for additional convenience floorspace and any proposals coming forward will be considered on a case by case basis.

 Potential capacity for some 5,000m2 net comparison retail floorspace has been identified by the end of the plan period based on current market share.

 Forecasting methods do not suggest a need for additional land allocations for employment (Class B) uses in the plan period to 2033.

 Where existing employment sites are considered suitable for continued employment use they should be retained for that use.

 In terms of leisure floorspace the District appears to be well- provided for however there may be advantages for the vitality and viability of Leatherhead town centre to encourage the introduction of further food and drink and possibly leisure floorspace.

1.8 The findings of this Economic Development Needs Assessment are that the identified economic development needs of the FEMA to 2033 can largely be met in the currently available and planned floorspace in the District. As we enter a period of economic uncertainty and on-going fast-paced technological advances however, adaptability and flexibility in land allocation policy will be key to fulfilling the economic potential of the District.

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Mole Valley District Council is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan. This Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) forms part of the evidence base and has been prepared to assist the formulation of policy to support sustainable economic growth in the District over the plan period to 2033. It should be read alongside the Council’s Functional Economic Market Area Assessment (September 2016) which sets out a contextual summary of Mole Valley’s economic geography and identifies the area across which development needs are to be assessed (Appendix 1).

2.2 Regard has been had to the National Planning Policy Framework practice guidance issued in 2014. This identifies the primary objective of the assessment as being: to identify the future quantity of land or floorspace required for economic development uses including both the quantitative and qualitative needs for new development; and provide a breakdown of that analysis in terms of quality and location and to provide an indication of gaps in current land supply.

2.3 Economic development is defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as “Development, including those within the B Use Classes, public and community uses and main town centre uses (but excluding housing development)”.

2.4 The guidance recommends that the assessment of housing and economic development needs should be considered at the same time. The objectively assessed need for housing in the District, identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for Kingston Upon Thames and North East Surrey Authorities comprising Mole Valley alongside Elmbridge and Epsom and Ewell, was published in June 2016. It is considered that the views on future employment identified in this needs assessment are well-aligned with those identified within the SHMA.

2.5 The SHMA considered a number of employment led scenarios across the housing market area. At paragraph 6.38 it recognises commuting as an important feature of the employment market in the HMA. In line with this assessment the SHMA identifies a small net inflow of commuters to Mole Valley (4,055 – Table 6.8 of the SHMA refers) and projects an increase in jobs (across all sectors combined) within Mole Valley rising from 50,000 in 2015 to 55,000 in 2035. The SHMA’s analysis of the potential impact of changes in age structure, participation rates and commuting leads to the conclusion (para 6.45) that “there is no strong evidence to suggest the need for any substantial increase in OAN for housing as a result of projected employment change”. 5

Structure of the EDNA

2.6 The following section sets out the Scope, Context and Methodology of this assessment. Section 4.0 then outlines the current economic and policy influences on development in the District. This ranges from an overview of the macro-economic position down to the present-day economic and employment characteristics of Mole Valley.

2.7 District-wide retail and leisure provision is considered in Section 5.0 with a needs assessment for these sectors carried out in Section 6.0. This draws on retail studies commissioned by the Council to inform preparation of the Core Strategy and Dorking Area Action Plan and uses the Council’s monitoring data to assess the extent to which previously identified needs have been addressed. A revised floorspace needs assessment using 2017 as the base year has been undertaken. This forecasts potential floorspace needs through to the end of the plan period (2033) and employs the latest economic data and expenditure growth forecasts provided in Experian’s Retail Planner Briefing Note 14 released in November 2016.

2.8 The Mole Valley Employment Land Review 2013 (ELR) was prepared as part of the evidence base for a proposed site allocations plan known as the Housing and Traveller Sites Plan. This plan was based on the residual housing requirement set out in the Council’s adopted Core Strategy 2009. In December 2014 MVDC terminated preparation of the Housing and Traveller Sites Plan and work has instead started on a new Local Plan. The ELR 2013 concentrated on whether there was sufficient employment land to meet the economic goal of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the requirement to deliver 3,760 dwellings between 2006 and 2026. The ELR 2013 indicated that that there was sufficient employment land to meet changes in employment needs of the resident population together with some additional employment floorspace which could contribute to meeting wider demands for growth as set out in the NPPF. A detailed review of suitably located industrial and commercial land in Leatherhead concluded that all the areas and sites contribute to meeting economic and employment needs and should be retained.

2.9 Chapter 7.0 provides the context within which the Economic Development Needs for employment (Class B) floorspace falls to be assessed. It also details the results of a business survey undertaken in February 2016. Chapter 8.0 then goes on to identify the methods employed to estimate the Objectively Assessed Need for floorspace and concludes with forecasts of estimated floorspace need by sector through to 2033.

2.10 Chapter 9.0 provides a localised overview of the current economic performance and employment characteristics of the District’s principal centres

(Leatherhead, Dorking, Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham). Chapter 10 then provides an updated analysis of existing employment sites in the Leatherhead and Dorking areas, assessing their suitability for continued employment use, possible expansion, intensification of use or redevelopment for alternative uses.

2.11 The Summary and Conclusions of this Economic Development Needs Assessment are presented in Chapter 11.

3.0 Scope, Context and Methodology of the Assessment The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

3.1 The NPPF supports a genuinely plan-led system and plans for growth. It emphasises that plans must be positively prepared. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and a requirement to ensure development needs are met in full unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (para 14).

3.2 The NPPF requires that local planning authorities identify objectively assessed development needs, and Local Plans translate these needs into policy. This document assesses the economic development needs of the District.

3.3 Paragraphs 18-22 of the NPPF deal with building a strong competitive economy and providing flexibility. Paragraphs 23-27 concern ensuring the vitality of town centres. Paragraph 28 deals with supporting a prosperous rural economy. Paragraphs 160-161 consider the business and economic considerations which should form part of plan making.

3.4 In particular the NPPF sets out the requirement to build a strong, competitive economy and states that Local Plans should have a clear economic vision and strategy which positively and proactively encourages sustainable economic growth. It also indicates that with regard to allocated sites where there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for the allocated use then applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses.

3.5 The Framework states that planning authorities should have a clear understanding of business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area and should maintain a robust evidence base to understand both existing business needs and changes in the market, and identify and address barriers to investment. Local authorities should use this evidence base to assess the needs for land or floorspace for economic development including both the quantitative and qualitative needs for all foreseeable types of economic activity over a plan period, including for retail and leisure development (para 161). They should assess the existing and future supply of land available for economic development and its sufficiency and suitability to meet identified needs. It should include a re-appraisal of previously allocated land.

3.6 NPPF Practice guidance with regards to Assessments of housing and economic development need was updated in April 2016. With regards to employment trends the guidance states: “Plan makers should make an assessment of the likely change in job numbers based on past trends and/or economic forecasts as appropriate and also having regard to the growth of the working age population in the housing market area”.

3.7 In understanding the current market plan makers should also consider, inter alia:

 The recent pattern of employment land supply and loss to other uses

 Market Intelligence

 The existing stock of employment land

3.8 Local authorities should develop an idea of future needs based on a range of data which is current and robust.

The Functional Economic Market Area 3.9 Before addressing the core question of how much land the Council should provide for future economic development the Council has to determine a geographical area for analysis – the functional economic market area (FEMA). The Council concluded a FEMA Assessment in September 2016 and this document forms part of the evidence base to the Local Plan. It sets out a contextual summary of Mole Valley’s economic geography and, using the range of factors suggested in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) together with other evidence, concluded that no explicitly clear FEMA extent could be defined. Given the difficulty in defining a strong FEMA extent the assessment recommended that the EDNA for a new Mole Valley Local Plan should consider the Local Authority Area only but be mindful of wider considerations and the duty to co-operate. The Assessment can be found at Appendix 1.

3.10 The principal conclusions arising from the FEMA analysis are:

 The District is an area of high demand for employment and other land uses

 The District is likely to remain prosperous and economically buoyant in the future but this should not be taken for granted.

 The District’s economy relies heavily on the significant number of small firms notwithstanding there are major headquarters premises of national and multinational firms in the area.

 Leatherhead is the main employment centre in the District.

 There are high concentrations of employment and firms in Leatherhead North ward yet this ward scores relatively poorly (in Surrey terms) with regard to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation.

 The existing commercial stock is more modern than the national average especially with regard to office and B1 premises. Overall some 45% of the stock is less than 30 years old.

 Authority Monitoring Reports identify a net loss in commercial floorspace between 2012 – 2016. Total jobs in the District peaked at 2012 however unemployment rates have fallen from 1.5% in 2012 to just 0.5% in 2016. Estimates of the self-employed in Mole Valley have at the same time recovered from a dip in 2012 to rise from 9.5% of the workforce in 2012 to 16.3% of the workforce in 2015/16.

 At the 2001 Census the number of net in-commuters and the number of out- commuters was similar. At the 2011 Census the net in-commuting figure had risen to 4,055. The strongest commuting links are with the neighbouring authorities Reigate and Banstead and Epsom and Ewell.

 Job densities (being the relationship between the total jobs in the district and the number of residents of working age) is also similar at about 1 job per working age resident. This indicates that any increases in the number of jobs would have to be met by any forecast increases in economically active population of the District, or additional in-commuting.

The Council’s Duty to Cooperate

3.11 In May 2016 MVDC sent out letters to 25 neighbouring authorities querying the status of their own FEMAs, whether they had identified a Functional Economic Area and the methodology they had / would be using. None of the FEMAs or other recent economic / employment evidence base documents undertaken to date by neighbouring and near neighbouring local authorities included Mole Valley within their spheres of influence. This reinforced MVDC’s position that the FEMA for the purposes of this study should be the local authority area only.

3.12 In August 2016 Mole Valley circulated a draft FEMA to the same list of consultees eliciting 7 responses. A summary of these together with the Council’s response is contained in Appendix 1.

Methodology

3.13 This assessment seeks to follow guidance contained in the Planning Practice Guidance ‘Housing and economic development needs assessments’. The methodology advocated for assessing economic development and main town

centre uses is contained in section 4. Understanding the current market is key to understanding current and potential future requirements.

3.14 The Council’s monitoring data and Authority Monitoring Reports have been a key resource in this respect. Across all sectors an analysis of existing stock of floorspace along with recent gains/losses, including recent planning permissions has been undertaken. This includes a disaggregation both by Use Class and sub-area (for retail as well as employment floorspace).

3.15 The need for retail and leisure floorspace is driven principally by population and consumer expenditure forecasts, again disaggregated into convenience and comparison floorspace, which have been updated using the latest growth estimates found in Experian’s Retail Planner Briefing Note 14 (November 2016).

3.16 In terms of employment (Class B) floorspace the Planning Practice Guidance advises that to assist in forecasting future trends plan makers should consider:

 sectoral and employment forecasts and projections (labour demand)

 demographically derived assessments of future employment needs (labour supply techniques);

 analyses based on the past take-up of employment land and property and/or future property market requirements;

 consultation with relevant organisations, studies of business trends, and monitoring of business, economic and employment statistics

3.17 Projected demand should then be compared to the available stock of land so that any gaps in local employment land provision can be identified.

3.18 This assessment covers all of the above forecasting methods in order to compare the outputs and deliver a robust recommendation of economic development need to inform the Local Plan process.

4.0 Understanding the Current Market The Macro-Economic Climate

4.1 The Autumn Statement 2015 identified that no economy in the G7 had grown faster than the UK in any year since 2010. The Autumn Statement 2016 identified employment at a record high and unemployment at an 11 year low. Expectations for world growth had however been revised downwards on concerns about persistent weakness in the Eurozone and rising debt in emerging market economies. In June 2016 Britain voted to leave the European Union and the value of the pound has since fallen. Fears of recession have not however materialised and whilst inflationary pressures are expected as a result of the low pound, UK exports have benefited.

4.2 Turning to future economic growth the Autumn Statement 2016 delivered a more pessimistic outlook for economic growth, forecasting a slow down in growth from 2.1% in 2016 to 1.4% in 2017 as a result of lower investment and weaker consumer demand driven respectively by greater uncertainty and higher inflation resulting from sterling depreciation.

4.3 Uncertainties over the terms of our departure from the European Union will undoubtedly cloud the UK economic horizon for the coming few years. Indeed the Office for Budget Responsibility’s view is that the referendum decision means that potential growth over the forecast period is 2.4 percentage points lower than would otherwise have been the case. The level of company re-structuring and potential relocation of staff members to the continent is impossible to estimate at this stage however what seems clear is that the UK will need to look at new and emerging markets outside of Europe with the growth dynamic being more heavily influenced by global factors and the world economy.

4.4 Fears in early 2016 that the world economy was heading towards another recession appear to be receding. Indeed whilst the European (including UK) economies are generally static or have low growth and some Asian economies are experiencing a slow down in growth there appears to be renewed optimism in the state of China’s economy.

4.5 These "new" economies have large populations, an expanding middle class and increasing purchasing power in the world economy for goods and services. They are also now competing for energy and material resources and developing their own markets as well as

competing in the global economy. Their own service sectors are developing.

4.6 The UK economy is further exposed to increasing world prices and competitiveness and can expect a period of uncertainty, lower growth and structural re-adjustment. The former "norms" of the high growth of the long periods of previous years are not expected to return given the stronger economies elsewhere.

4.7 There is limited evidence indicating some UK companies are bringing their manufacturing "back home" rather than out-sourcing abroad as factors such as the relative costs and product quality are perceived to be important factors influencing consumer choice. This may be happening with regard to the service sector as well.

4.8 It is in the context of this new emerging global economy that UK firms (and those in Mole Valley) will have to compete. MVDC needs to ensure that the future policy framework for employment land meets the needs of businesses within this changing economic environment and within the overarching government principles of "planning for growth" and sustainable development as set out in the NPPF.

Strategies and Assessments affecting Economic Development in Mole Valley

i. Coast To Capital Local Economic Partnership

4.9 The Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) was established in 2011 and covers an area extending from Brighton to Croydon which includes the "Gatwick Diamond". This therefore includes the area covered by Mole Valley, albeit that the main axis of the LEP is linear along the north- south transport corridor of the M23 motorway, A23 and London - Brighton railway route. The role of the LEP is to provide strategic leadership in its area and set out local economic priorities for business to grow and prosper. In particular, working with local authorities, they will ensure economic activity and infrastructure delivery is coordinated across boundaries.

4.10 The LEP published a Strategic Economic Plan in March 2014. Seeking £666m of government funding the Strategy identified a programme of works to create across the region and over the 6 year period from 2015/16 to 2020/21:

60,000 new jobs 27,000 additional homes 970,000 m2 of new employment space

4.11 Within Mole Valley, Leatherhead falls within one of nine identified strategic business and employment locations, this being the East Surrey M25 Strategic Corridor. Indeed seed-bed funding has already been provided to the ‘Transform Leatherhead’ initiative.

ii. Gatwick Diamond Initiative (GDI)

4.12 Mole Valley is one of 7 Districts and Boroughs and two County Councils making up the GDI area. Its objectives are to Inspire, Connect and Grow through:

 Inspiring knowledge to enhance skills, productivity and innovation.  Improving facilities and transport connections by encouraging investment.

4.13 Smart growth is encouraged to build the area’s reputation as an economic powerhouse, but achieved in a sustainable way, safeguarding quality of life and the beautiful surrounding countryside.

4.14 The Gatwick Diamond is a business led initiative focusing on the action required to make a real difference to the area of East Surrey and central Sussex with Gatwick at its heart. The vision is to make the Gatwick area become a world class internationally recognised business location. It aims to promote the area’s image and quality by upgrading the quality and breadth of workforce skills and encouraging “knowledge” and “technology” in local businesses. To do this there is a need to ensure there are successful entrepreneurs and managers and labour and infrastructure to support it; together with enhanced transport connectivity of the area, locally and internationally. This is being progressed through the Gatwick Diamond Economic Strategy and a Futures Plan. This latter plan acknowledges that whilst performance compared to the rest of the UK is good the ranking internationally is only considered to be mid to low order in terms of business performance.

4.15 Its Local Strategic Statement acknowledges that given the strength of Crawley/Gatwick as a business location and the concentration of demand there, this area is expected to be the main focus for future economic development, at least in the short and medium term.

4.16 Clearly, the government’s decision in October 2016 to pursue a third runway at Heathrow as opposed to a second runway at Gatwick has resolved a long standing uncertainty. MVDC continues to support the growth of Gatwick as a one runway two terminal operation subject to its meeting environmental safeguards.

iii. Surrey Future and the Surrey Local Economic Assessment 2010

4.17 Surrey Future brings together Surrey's local authorities and business leaders to agree the investment priorities to support the county's economy and to consider how to manage planned growth sustainably both in Surrey and on its borders. The initial focus for Surrey Future is on the strategic physical infrastructure required to deliver the economic and spatial growth priorities in the Surrey Districts and Boroughs development plans. Surrey County Council published a Local Economic Assessment (LEA) in 2010 and this provides an evidence base for Surrey Future. It provides an understanding of the economic conditions in Surrey and how they affect residents, businesses and communities. It is not a policy document but can inform the strategic direction for economic development in Surrey; it does not have explicit targets. It provides economic forecasting of where the broader Surrey economy may be in 2030 based on a number of scenarios.

4.18 The Surrey LEA is a narrative on the broad range of factors – economic, social and environmental – that impact on sustainable growth and identifies challenges and opportunities for the Surrey economy. It aims to tell a “story of place” and includes future scenarios for policy makers to consider. It provides a contextual signpost for the economic needs assessment. A Surrey Economic Review released in February 2013 whilst not going so far as to revisit challenges and opportunities for the Surrey economy updated many of the key indicators of economic performance

4.19 In summary the LEA states that Surrey demonstrates strong performance in a number of areas (relative to comparator areas) with a high proportion of jobs in knowledge based industries, business start up rates and residents with high levels of qualifications. These are drivers of productivity. However there are also challenges including the declining proportion of residents of working age, declining levels of economically active people, slower rates of GVA growth and an (over) reliance on the banking, finance and public sectors for employment. These can be further summarised as:

Assumed strengths of Surrey economy: Drivers of the economy: Excellent connectivity/linkages Proximity to London, airport and A strong economy and labour market universities A strong business base Location of strong international Quality of the Environment companies Knowledge Based Businesses Wealth earned outside boundaries Enterprise and innovation Challenges and Strategic implications facing Surrey The County’s global position and relative regional position especially in the European context may reduce levels of investment. 15

The Surrey economy is not as strong as perceived? Infrastructure constraints make Surrey a less attractive location for business Availability of land for employment Pressure for housing from its own housing needs and pressure from London out migration Staff retention and recruitment in a context of normally high levels of employment and staff shortages; shortfalls in the working population making it increasingly difficult to recruit locally Local pockets of unemployment Disparities in income levels create problems when considering factors such as housing costs given the need for lower skilled workers as well as higher skilled workers for wealth generation Pressure on the natural environment which is both an asset and a constraint on future economic growth suggesting the greater need for ’SMART’ growth Need to reduce carbon emissions and waste Emergence of new global knowledge economies Reliance on banking and finance and public sector which may be expected to contract and have a knock-on effect on the private sector.

4.20 The document also identifies wider social and environmental factors which are also important considerations in the Surrey context for example the transition to a low carbon economy and retaining the high quality natural environment in the face of pressures for growth.

4.21 It also raises concerns as to whether Surrey will be able to compete on the world business stage with implications for investment; the growing pressure from London out-migration; and the need to reduce in- commuting by increasing the employability of the (potential) Surrey workforce to fill local jobs.

4.22 The Surrey LEA also comments that whilst there are a significant number of major companies, including global companies with their UK headquarters in Surrey, the County’s business demographic is characterised by the significant number and proportion of small firms and a relatively low level of medium size businesses. The LEA comments that Surrey towns are relatively small in size and therefore less likely to be able to accommodate growth firms.

4.23 In the wider context the LEA identifies Surrey’s natural environment as both an asset and constraint on future economic growth including the sustainable use of Surrey’s natural resources

iv. The Emerging Surrey Local Strategic Statement

4.24 In 2014 the Surrey Planning Officers Association established a Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Partnership to facilitate joint working between Surrey authorities to address and deliver upon strategic priorities. The LSS is intended to set out a consensus around common objectives and priorities through an overarching spatial planning vision for Surrey.

4.25 Mole Valley falls within the East Surrey/Gatwick Diamond Sub Area within which both Leatherhead and Dorking are identified as key locations.

4.26 Leatherhead is prioritised for regeneration initiatives to improve the town’s retail, leisure and residential offer accompanied by highway, parking and public realm improvements.

4.27 In Dorking the priorities are identified as improvements to the town centre to enhance retail and leisure attractiveness, and the identification of opportunities for residential and employment development that meet local needs while conserving the historic and cultural strengths of the town (para 3.8).

v. Transform Leatherhead Initiative

4.28 ‘Transform Leatherhead’, is an MVDC initiative in partnership with Surrey County Council and the Environment Agency. The Vision for Leatherhead is as follows:

‘Leatherhead Town Centre will be re-invented, expanded and transformed to fully realise its potential as a distinctive, enterprising and highly regarded market town. The town centre’s character, history and environmental setting will be celebrated and complemented by new and revitalised uses. High quality, people-friendly streets and spaces will combine to link the riverside, railway station, business and residential areas and the wider Mole Valley into the heart of the town centre. The town centre will be highly accessible by all forms of transport and vehicle movement will be managed efficiently whilst maintaining an emphasis on the quality of the environment and the sense of place. A wider range of shops, new housing, and leisure and community facilities will make Leatherhead a better place to live, work and visit. These developments will significantly enhance the quality and breadth of the town centre offer and deliver a sustainable and commercially successful mix of high street names and independent businesses.’

4.29 It is anticipated that funding for the scheme will come from Mole Valley District Council, the Local Enterprise Partnership’s Local Growth Fund and Surrey County Council’s Town Centre Revitalisation Fund.

Effectiveness of Core Strategy Employment Land Policy

4.30 The Core Strategy (2009) vision intended for Mole Valley to take its share of growth of homes and jobs in a way which was sustainable and minimised significant harmful change.

4.31 Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy ‘Sustainable Economic Development’ sought to safeguard accessible and well located industrial and commercial sites. The sustainability appraisal of the Core Strategy indicated that whilst economic growth was positive further commercial development and employment growth could lead to an overheated economy, traffic congestion, housing and labour shortage, skills considerations, and increases in in-commuting. The Core Strategy also acknowledged (para 2.35) that there was pressure to redevelop some employment land for housing which could prejudice the sustainable growth of the District’s economy.

4.32 The Local Plan 2000 contains saved policies relating to Employment land and floorspace as follows:

4.33 Policy E1 identifies that the maintenance and renewal of the District’s economy will be met primarily by encouraging the re-use of suitably located land already in industrial and commercial use. In built up area the loss of such land (identified on the proposals map) to other uses will not be permitted unless its retention for industrial and /or commercial use has been fully explored without success (Policy E2).

4.34 The Plan in Policy E3 identified a 2.2 Ha greenfield site at Curtis Road, Dorking to be held in reserve for the future industrial needs of the plan area.

4.35 In the period 2012-2016 Policy CS12 appears to have been effective insofar as there has been a net increase in floorspace for both factories and warehousing in the District. The reserve employment site at Curtis Road (Policy E3 land) has now been mostly redeveloped to provide an expansion of the Johnston Sweepers factory.

4.36 The Dorking Area Action Plan was adopted in 2012. Policies within (DT11 and DT12) seek to ensure sufficient opportunities to provide jobs for the sustainable growth of the District’s economy, the plan noting that the supply of industrial land within the town is extremely limited.

4.37 Policy DT10 seeks to resist the development of commercial land and premises for other uses unless retention for employment development has been fully explored without success through a marketing campaign over at least 12 months.

4.38 Policy DT11 is specific to the Vincent Lane Industrial area and encourages the provision of light and general industrial uses and storage and distribution uses supporting the provision of premises suitable for occupation by small firms.

4.39 An example of an operation of these policies was the Council’s refusal

in May 2012 of an application seeking the demolition of existing (run- down) buildings and the development of 30 dwellings on a part of the Vincent Lane Industrial area (MO/2011/1420). The first reason for refusal related to the lost of suitably located industrial and commercial land contrary to polices CS12 of the Core Strategy, policies E2, E4 and E5 of the Local Plan and policies DT10 and DT11 of the Dorking AAP. The scheme was however allowed on appeal, the inspector concluding that there was no realistic prospect of the land being developed for industrial or warehousing uses in the foreseeable future. The Council was also unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing supply at that time and the inspector considered that the requirement to reserve the land for employment use was outweighed by the need for housing land in the area.

4.40 The Council accepted the loss of Employment Land on the Bookham Industrial Estate in its deliberation on an application for planning permission for housing in July 2015 (MO/2014/1593). This application proposed the retention of existing office space (Photo-Me International) and the erection of 52 dwellings on ‘surplus’ open land, albeit with the benefit of planning permission for an industrial warehouse building. The applicants were able to demonstrate adequate marketing of the site for employment uses for a period of 11 months with no success and this was adequate to overcome safeguarding policy. Whilst that application was refused (and lost on appeal) principally on the grounds of over- development, a revised application lowering the number of residential units from 52 to 38 was granted in November 2016. As an aside the Photo Me office building has now gained Prior Approval for conversion to flats (MO/2016/0196).

4.41 The effectiveness of adopted employment policy has more recently been compromised by the Government’s introduction in 2013 of permitted development rights allowing office to residential conversions. Whilst the rights apply principally to the conversion as opposed to redevelopment of offices premises to housing, the impacts of the change in law have been keenly felt in the District, particularly in the Dorking area.

Economic Development implications arising from changes to Permitted Development Rights

4.42 In October 2015 the government announced new measures rendering permanent changes to permitted development rights first introduced in May 2013 enabling the conversion of offices to new homes without having to apply for planning permission. New permitted development rights were also introduced allowing the change of light industrial

buildings to new homes.

4.43 These proposals impact on being able to assess reliably the amount of employment floorspace, which may be available in the future to meet employment needs.

4.44 Floorspace monitoring shows that between Dec 2012 and March 2016 office floorspace in the District reduced by 14,700m2. The December 2012 baseline preceded by only a few months the introduction of the prior approval regime and consequently it can be assumed that office floorspace loss is mainly from this source. The figures (Tables 1c and 1d from the Technical Appendix found in Appendix 2) identify a 10% loss in the stock of offices in Dorking in the three year period. Prior approvals not yet started at August 2016 show potential for a similar level of floorspace loss which would take overall office stock loss in Dorking to over 20%.

4.45 Whilst Leatherhead has experienced a greater quantitative loss of office floorspace given its larger baseline stock the percentage impact has not been as significant as that in Dorking.

4.46 The District Council is concerned at the rapid loss of office floorspace being experienced in the District. It has thus served Article 4 Directions on established research and business parks and good quality secondary office space in Leatherhead and Dorking. Once in force the Directions will require an application for planning permission be made for any change of use sought thus removing permitted development rights which presently enable the conversion of office to residential accommodation.

The Economic and Employment Characteristics of Mole Valley

4.47 Mole Valley appears, compared to many other areas, economically resilient. The following key points are derived from the FEMA Assessment based principally on information derived from ‘Nomis’ labour market profiles.

 The 2011 census indicated that 39% of residents were educated to NVQ level 4 and above (degree equivalent) compared with 33% nationally. The ONS Annual Population Survey (Jan – Dec 2015) shows an increase to 50% of residents educated to NVQ level 4 or above against 37% nationally.

 Mole Valley and Waverley districts have the highest business densities in Surrey. The business density in Mole Valley was 61 businesses per 1,000 population by mid 2015 (information from

2011 Census and ‘Nomis’ labour market profile).

 Mole Valley is a marginal net importer of commuters. Between the 2001 and 2011 Census net in-commuting into the District had increased from 832 to 4055 persons

 There are only a small number of people claiming unemployment benefit; there are few people vulnerable to long term unemployment; a high proportion of the workforce are professionals; a small number of the workforce is low skilled; a high proportion of people are self employed; the crime rate is low; there’s a high level of social cohesion; the average level of household earnings is high; average house prices are high.

4.48 These and other factors can be set out in a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) to summarise the current socio- economic state of the District 2016.

Strengths Weaknesses

• High quality natural environment • Relative inaccessibility of some rural areas • High quality urban environment and town centres • Pockets of relative deprivation

• Good quality housing stock • High house prices

• Little deprivation • Relatively poor east-west communications • Population in good health • Noise from aircraft using Gatwick Airport • Low unemployment affecting SE of district

• Poor broadband service in rural areas • Well educated population

• Low Crime rates

• Good transport links to London Opportunities Threats

• Redevelopment potential through • Pressure to deliver housing numbers recycling of sites and intensification of uses • Increasing urbanisation through intensification • Entrepreneurial population with opportunities for start-ups • Increased incremental pressure on services / infrastructure; including transport infrastructure and congestion

• Insufficient affordable housing provided

• Pressures on the rural environment

Jobs and the Resident Labour Force

4.49 The Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES) information indicates that at 2015 there were 57,100 total jobs in the District. Between 2011 and 2015 the number of employee jobs increased by 200 from 43,900 to 44,100. The table below shows changes between 2011 and 2015 for some of the sectors only. (Tech App Table 11a)

Broad Sector 2011 2015 Difference

Retail 7,400 5,800 -1,600*

Construction 2,000 2,300 +300

Public Services 9,500 9,600 +100

Storage (ie B8) 500 600 +100

Accommodation, Food and 3,400 3,500 +100 Recreation

Manufacturing (ie B1c and B2) 1,600 2,500* +900 (see below)

Business Services (Unrestricted 18,600 19,100 +500 B1 and B1a) of which includes:

Information and communications 4,300 4,100 -200

Finance 1,900 2,200 +300

Professional, Science and 6,900 6,700 -200 Technical Total 43,900 44,100 +200

Table 4.1 : Mole Valley Employee Jobs 2011 and 2015

* The 2,500 manufacturing jobs identified in 2015 is significantly higher than that identified in previous years. ONS BRES team has confirmed that this increase in Manufacturing is due to the re-structuring of a single firm which is now counting Wholesale jobs as manufacturing. This also explains the fall in Retail and Wholesale jobs.

Unemployment

4.50 The District has low levels of unemployment with a current rate of 0.5% (Aug. 2016) compared with 1.5% nationally. This is based on the assessment of unemployment using Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimants as a proportion of working age population. There are 245 JSA claimants at Aug 2016 (a decrease from 757 in Jan 2012).

Self-employed

4.51 The ONS Annual Population Survey indicates that the numbers of self employed (i.e. not employees) has risen from 6,300 to 8,700 in 2015-16. The District has substantially higher rates of self employment (as a % of total employment) than the national average; 16.3% compared with 10.2%. (Tech App. Table 10 (Appendix 2)).

Labour Supply

4.52 For the purposes of this assessment the most recent 2014 ONS population projections are used. These are slightly lower than those at 2012 used to inform the 2016 SHMA.

4.53 At 2016 some 51,300 (59.0%) of the District’s estimated population is of working age. The number of persons of working age in the District is projected to increase in the short to medium term however decrease towards the end of the Plan period. Between 2016 and 2021 the working age population is projected to increase by 400 persons and by a further 200 persons to 2026 Thereafter the working age population is forecast to fall back slightly by 200 persons and remain constant at 51,700 to the end of the projection period (2033). (NB: working age population defined as age 16-64 for both males and females (Nomis)).

4.54 The proportion of the District’s population of working age is lower than the South East and national figures by about 3 - 4%. These lower proportions are maintained in the projected rates. The District therefore has an older age profile and the ability of local residents to fill any future increases in jobs (ie from employment demand projections) may be more limited than for other areas. Male and female pensionable ages are also to increase and this makes it difficult to assess what the size of the working age population will be at future points in time.

4.55 The ONS Annual Population Survey data for April 2015 – March 2016 indicates that 5,900 persons (11.5%) of the District's working age population were economically inactive of which 5,300 (90%) did not want a job. The inference is that only 600 persons may consider employment (across all sectors) and that it may be difficult for any significant increase in jobs in the District to be met from the local population.

Jobs Density

4.56 Jobs density is a statistical measure of workplace jobs in a local authority per resident of working age (from the mid-year population estimate). A job density of 1.0 technically means there is one job per resident of working age. The figure, for Mole Valley (2014 based) is 0.98 and in comparison the national figure is 0.82 (and 0.85 for the South 23

East). This is another indicator that the District has a tighter labour supply than other areas.

Occupations and Qualifications of Residents

4.57 Overall 53% of residents (age 16-74) are in the higher order managerial and professional occupations compared with 40% nationally. Working age residents are also more highly qualified than nationally: At December 2015 almost 50% have qualifications equivalent to NVQ4 (HND/first degree or similar) compared with 37% nationally.

Commuting

4.58 The 2001 Census showed high yet similar levels of net in and out commuting. In 2001 the District was one of net in-commuting (+830 persons). The 2011 census indicates that this figure has risen to 4,055 persons. Of those commuting into the District the highest rates are from adjoining local authority areas (e.g. Reigate and Banstead BC; and Epsom and Ewell BC) and this remains unchanged from 2001 Reigate and Banstead BC overtakes central London as the most popular destination for out-commuting.

5.0 Retail and Other Town Centre uses

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Local Planning Authorities to recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality. The Framework highlights the importance of meeting in full needs identified for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses which should not be compromised by limited site availability. Both quantitative and qualitative requirements should be assessed alongside the role and function of town centres, including any trends in their performance.

5.2 This chapter looks first at the characteristics and performance of the District’s town centres updating key ‘health’ indicators, outlining floorspace changes over the past five years and current policy initiatives.

5.3 The assessment subsequently looks at the level to which previously identified floorspace requirements have been met. Consideration is also given to the extent to which higher order centres outside of the District are changing their retail offer and the influence that this may have on trading patterns within the District and the role that Mole Valley’s centres wish to fulfil.

5.4 It is widely recognised that forecasts for floorspace requirements extending beyond a 10 year period should be treated with caution. This is borne out by the relative volatility in forecasting assumptions experienced over the past 10 years, particularly with regard to expenditure growth, and continuing economic uncertainty as the country enters a post-Brexit era.

5.5 Notwithstanding the above the Council has updated floorspace capacity assessments for both Comparison and Convenience goods through to the end of the plan period (2033). The very latest expenditure growth forecasts have been applied using Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 14 (released November 2016).

5.6 The Core Strategy 2009 identifies Dorking and Leatherhead as the District’s two main town centres. Ashtead and Bookham are identified as District centres catering for day to day shopping needs as well as providing focal points for their local communities.

DORKING – A Centre Assessment

5.7 Dorking is the largest town in Mole Valley and is a traditional market town. Much of the centre is designated a conservation area and includes many historic buildings. Dorking is well-established as an important 25

centre for the antiques trade which attracts many visitors. A concentration of antique traders can be found on West Street.

5.8 An essentially linear centre from which small alleys and narrow streets lead, the primary shopping area straddles High Street, South Street and West Street, also including parts of St Martin’s Walk. Cultural and recreational facilities are found to the east of the town centre either side of Reigate Road comprising Dorking Halls, a sports centre, a bowling Green and public tennis courts.

5.9 In 2012 the Council adopted an Area Action Plan for Dorking (AAP) which identified the Council’s vision and policy strategy for maintaining the town as ‘A vibrant, economically healthy and attractive historic market town centre…which provides a range of facilities and services for living working and recreation appropriate to its scale to meet the needs of its residents, surrounding rural communities and visitors’.

5.10 The plan identified a range of issues as follows:

 Need for larger retail units to improve the retail offer  Retention of a diversity of shops, particularly the specialist shops  Loss of shoppers to surrounding town centres, particularly as a result of the limited supermarket offer  Need to ensure St. Martin’s Walk is attractive to occupants and shoppers  Need to improve the general environment of the town  The scope to provide more housing  Impact of traffic

(i) Retailing

5.11 The town serves an essentially local population. An analysis of shopping patterns conducted for the Council’s Retail Assessments (produced by Roger Tym and Partners (RTP) in 2007 and 2010) identified that the town retained a relatively low 64% market share of convenience expenditure from its immediate catchment area and 31% of comparison expenditure.

5.12 The total Class A/sui generis floorspace in Dorking was estimated to be approximately 23,000 m2 (net), the largest share (13,286m2) comprising Class A1 Comparison floorspace.

5.13 Table 5.1 below provides an overview of how the retail composition of the centre has evolved, comparing monitoring data used by Roger Tym and Partners (2006) alongside latest monitoring data (September 2016), both provided by Mole Valley District Council.

Table 5.1 Dorking retail composition – Number of Units by Use Class Class Class Class Sui Vacant TOTAL A1 A2 A3-5 Generis 2006 215 37 44 2 25 323 2016 199 28 50 2 12 291

5.14 Initial observation of the above table may appear to suggest a decline in the fortunes of the centre with the ‘loss’ of some 32 units however an analysis of this change reveals the opposite.

5.15 Some 11 Units have been ‘lost’ as a result of amalgamation and creation of larger floorplate units. This is a positive response to the need for larger units identified in the adopted Area Action Plan.

5.16 A further 11 units no longer feature on the monitoring schedule. This includes 4 out of centre units, the Dorking Halls (clearly still in operation and contributing to the vitality and viability of the centre) and a number of units erroneously included on the 2006 schedule, either because they were at that time (and remain) in non-retail use, i.e. residential, or do not comprise discrete units. In addition 2 units on the 2006 schedule had been duplicated (both in Class A1 use).

5.17 Only four class A1 units within the primary shopping frontage have undergone conversion to other uses, both in St Martin’s Walk: Units 3 & 4, now Cote Brasserie, and units 8 & 9 which now accommodate the town library. Another former motor-cycle centre (sui generis) has been converted to a gym, improving the diversity of the centre. Just two units in the centre have been lost to residential uses these comprising a former Class A3 unit and former sui generis unit.

5.18 Dorking has consistently good occupancy rates with vacancy levels at approximately half the national average. The UK retail vacancy rate in July 2016 was 12.7%.

Table 5.2 Retail Vacancy Rates – Dorking Town Centre (source: AMR 2013 -14 & 2014-15) Dec. Dec. March Dec. March July Sept. 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016

6.5% 6.3% 7.4% 5.5% 6.5% 6% 5.5%

5.19 National multiple retailers represented in the centre include Marks & Spencer, The Body Shop, Boots, Superdrug, WH Smith, Waterstones, Edinburgh Woollen Mill, Halfords, Robert Dyas, Clarks, Specsavers, Vision Express, Fat Face, Sussex Stationers, Holland & Barrett, Waitrose and Sainsburys.

5.20 St. Martins Walk, anchored by Marks and Spencer, is a pedestrianised shopping and dining destination lying to the north of the High Street. Its adjoining car park hosts the town’s traditional Friday market which offers

a range of fresh flowers, food, pet supplies, household goods and haberdashery.

5.21 The Authority Monitoring report for 2014-5 identifies a net gain in retail floorspace related to the redevelopment and enlargement of the Waitrose foodstore on the corner of Junction Road and South Street which provided 1,356 m2 of net additional convenience floorspace. The store opened in October 2014.

5.22 Outside of the identified shopping area, a Lidl Store with a further 1,286m2 net sales area opened on the Vincent Works site in August 2013 and a former restaurant on Reigate Road, (also out of centre), was converted to a Tesco Express, opening in September 2013.

5.23 The number of retail units in the secondary shopping frontage grew by 4 units assisting the Council’s strategy of improving the diversity of shopping in the centre. Whilst the percentage of units in Class A1 use dropped by 4%, given the rise in the overall number of units this represented the change of use of just one unit.

5.24 Overall, it can be concluded that the retailing occupancy of the centre remains robust with low vacancy rates. A significantly improved convenience retailing offer developed over the past few years will have improved market share in this sector in line with AAP policy. As discussed later in this section, consultants for the Council forecast convenience expenditure market share retention from the immediate catchment area to rise from 64% to 80% on completion of the Waitrose and Lidl schemes.

5.25 The adopted AAP identifies a centrally located development site to the rear of St Martins Walk. Whilst the AAP was being progressed Sainsburys supermarket was in advanced discussions with the Council and it was envisaged that the site could accommodate a relocated and expanded foodstore development. Further investigation however raised site assembly issues and threw both the availability and deliverability of the site into question. The future potential of this site will be considered through the local plan process however it is unlikely that development as envisaged by Policy DT4 of the Area Action Plan will be achieved.

(ii) Community and Leisure Facilities

5.26 The Council owned Dorking Halls is a fully equipped entertainment and conference complex on the eastern end of the town centre. A large scale refurbishment programme was undertaken in 1994 – 7 and in 2011 digital technology and a 3D cinema screen was installed. There are now 3 halls / cinema screens and the venue also remains popular for live 28

theatre and music.

5.27 The Dorking Sports Centre which lies immediately adjacent to the Dorking Halls comprises a multipurpose sports hall providing facilities for cricket, table tennis, badminton, basketball, volleyball and 5 aside football. In addition there is a gym, studio, group cycling facilities and a pool as well as a café and crèche.

5.28 2016 saw the opening of the town’s first 24 hour gym operated by ‘Anytime Fitness’ located on the east end of the High Street.

The Dorking Town Partnership Business Survey

5.29 The Dorking Town Partnership was formed to explore the opportunities for businesses which could arise from identification of the town centre as a Business Improvement District (BID). In October 2016 it commissioned a survey of businesses in Dorking town centre which attracted some 117 responses, 75% of which came from the retail & leisure sector. Traffic / congestion was by far the greatest concern for respondents followed by parking. MVDC and Surrey County Council are proposing to carry out a traffic study, the results of which will help to identify and prioritise highway improvements to ease congested areas.

5.30 The town was generally perceived to be accessible by public transport, safe and clean however there was considered to be room for improvement with regards to signage (particularly to the town from the railway stations) and the physical realm. Streets and public spaces were generally felt to be attractive and well-maintained.

5.31 Despite this businesses perceived a decline in footfall and considered the quality and variety of retail outlets a concern. Notwithstanding the low vacancy rates identified above, almost a third of respondents cited vacant units a ground for concern and whilst a significant core of businesses expressed a very positive outlook for the town there was recognition that Dorking might not be performing to its full potential.

5.32 The Dorking Town Partnership has proposed the establishment of a Business Improvement District (BID) in Dorking to help the well-being of retail and commerce in the town centre. If successful it is, at the time of writing, scheduled to become operational in the summer of 2017.

LEATHERHEAD – A Centre Assessment

5.33 Leatherhead is the urban core in the centre of a group of three other settlements with Bookham and Fetcham to the west and Ashtead to the east.

5.34 Ashtead and Bookham support District Centres and Fetcham a local centre, all fulfilling an important role in catering for ‘top-up’ or everyday convenience and service shopping. Leatherhead is the commercial centre of this cluster of settlements and is the focus for retail, leisure and cultural floorspace provision.

5.35 Core Strategy CS7 seeks to consolidate and enhance the role of Leatherhead as the focus for day to day local shopping, business, entertainment and cultural needs of the town’s residents and business community and those of the adjacent communities of Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham.

5.36 A Property Market Review undertaken by Colliers International reviewing geodemographic data from Acorn forms part of the evidence base feeding into the Transform Leatherhead initiative. Consumer spend in Leatherhead town centre was identified at £35.6m of which 91.4% was derived from consumers living within the catchment area. This reinforces the primary retail function of the centre as being to cater for local residents.

5.37 The resident population of the wider catchment area was identified (by CACI) as standing at 224,253 residents, this area including the towns of Cobham, Ashtead, Epsom and Dorking. Only 6.75% of residents from this wider catchment area shopped in Leatherhead. The most popular retailing destinations for this catchment area were Epsom (21%), Kingston (16%), Guildford (6%) and Dorking (4%), all of which are higher order centres than Leatherhead. Epsom has double the number of retailing units as Leatherhead, whereas Kingston and Guildford have four times the number.

(i) Retailing

5.38 The Swan Shopping Centre comprises a large section of Leatherhead town centre and forms the majority of the prime retailing offer. Anchored by a Sainsbury’s supermarket the majority of Leatherhead’s national multiples are sited within the scheme which is served by the centres’ 339 space multi-storey car park.

5.39 National multiples presently include Boots, Poundland, Card Factory, WH Smith, Next, Costa, Holland & Barrett, Vodafone, Specsavers, Burtons/Dorothy Perkins, Timpsons and Thomas Cook.

5.40 The Swan Centre is fully occupied and several long leasehold purchases were made by the Council (also the freeholder) in April 2016 to facilitate future refurbishment objectives. Marketing of the centre highlighted the low rental values achieved across the scheme when compared with those in surrounding towns. (£40 psf Zone A compared to £60 in Dorking, £70 in Sutton and £80 in Epsom). This indicates that demand for floorspace

in the centre is not as competitive as in surrounding towns.

5.41 The Evidence Base to Transform Leatherhead Initiative commented on a limited comparison retail offer and low footfall at times.

5.42 Whilst Sainsburys anchors the Swan Centre, it faces strong competition from the out of centre Tesco superstore on Oxshott Road which provides a popular convenience shopping destination. Indeed the RTP study identified that Tesco attracted double the market share of Sainsbury from study area zones 1-4 (36% as opposed to 18.4%).

5.43 Food discounters in Leatherhead are represented by a Lidl foodstore on North Street. The qualitative choice available to shoppers has been expanded further by the opening of a new Waitrose store on Church Street in January 2017.

5.44 Table 5.4 below provides an overview of how the retail composition of the centre has evolved, comparing monitoring data used by Roger Tym and Partners (2006) alongside latest monitoring data (September 2016) both provided by Mole Valley District Council.

Table 5.4 Leatherhead Retail Composition – Number of Units by Use Class Class Class Class Sui Vacant TOTAL A1 A2 A3-5 Generis 2006 83 25 21 1 13 143 2016 68 19 23 3 13 126

5.45 As with Dorking, an analysis of monitoring data reveals that rather than some 17 units being ‘lost’ from Leatherhead, the centre has been adapting to change with some 16 units being amalgamated with others to provide larger floorplate outlets. Examples include units now occupied by Argos, Cycleworks, Temptation Household Store and furniture stores ‘Hamsey’s Bed Centre’ and ‘Englishman’s Castle’. Three units were duplicated in the 2006 schedule and a further two units have been subject to conversion to non-retail use over this period. One conversion was from a former hairdressers to residential whilst the other was from a video rental store to a dental surgery (Class D1).

5.46 Conversely the 2016 schedule identifies a number of new units. Several have been created by the disaggregation of a formerly vacant unit at 18 – 22 High Street. A Lidl foodstore at 25 North Street opened in 2007 occupying the site of the former Bull Hotel and a couple of new units are identified on North Street and Bridge Street.

5.47 The Authority Monitoring reports from 2013-14 and 2014-15 show how vacancy rates have remained relatively constant at around 9% in the last few years. The retail vacancy rate at the start of 2016 had risen slightly to 10.25% nonetheless this compares favourably to the national average of 31

12.7%. Of particular note is that the Swan Centre is currently fully occupied.

Table 5.5 Vacancy Rates in Leatherhead Town Centre Dec. Dec. March Dec. March July March 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016

11% 8.8% 9.5% 8.2% 9.7% 8.9% 10.3%

5.48 The Authority Monitoring reports of 2013-14 and 2014-15 summarise floorspace changes in the Districts principal centres. The only change identified for Leatherhead is the loss of 250m2 retail floorspace as a result of the above-mentioned conversion of 28 High Street to a dental surgery.

5.49 Consultation on the Transform Leatherhead Masterplan highlighted that the centre lacks the size and format of units that shoppers and retailers want. Acknowledging that demand for retail accommodation in Leatherhead remains low, the initiative identifies a remodeling of the Swan Centre alongside significant environmental enhancements as key actions in the regeneration project to revitalise the town centre.

5.50 Qualitative economic development needs for the regeneration of the town centre has been demonstrated. These needs can be reflected through policy in the Local Plan encouraging the regeneration of the area through flexible planning, place-making and, where feasible, remodeling in line with the Transform Leatherhead objectives.

(ii) Community and Leisure Facilities

5.51 The Leatherhead Leisure Centre is the number one leisure destination for the district. It provides a state of the art gym, group exercise studio, multi-use games area, badminton, basketball and volleyball courts, trampolines, bowls hall, squash courts, swimming pool, and diving pool. A crèche and café alongside meeting / conference rooms are also provided onsite. Outdoor facilities include netball and tennis courts.

5.52 Adjacent to the Leisure centre are both Leatherhead Cricket Club and the Leatherhead and Dorking Gymnastics Club which houses 3 fully equipped gymnasiums and is British Gymnastics’ high performance centre and regional centre of excellence.

5.53 Whilst the Leisure Centre is located out of centre further, gym facilities albeit private run by Nuffield Health, can be found in the town centre.

5.54 The Letherhead Institute (note old spelling) on the High Street, Leatherhead provides educational, social and recreational facilities for local people. It also houses a number of rooms available for hire for 32

meetings, clubs and events. Over 80 local clubs and organisations currently use the Institute. The Leatherhead Library (Surrey County Library) is located on Church Street.

5.55 Leatherhead Theatre (520 seats) provides, in addition to a cinema screen, an auditorium, conference room and studio spaces which can be hired out. The facility is considered an important cultural asset for the town.

5.56 In 2004 a Travelodge (91 rooms) opened on the High Street meeting a need identified in the Local Plan 2000. There are 17 hotels in the local area and Whitbread have Leatherhead on their target list for a 60-room Premier Inn as do Accor hotels that have a requirement for an Ibis Budget hotel.

5.57 A detailed analysis of the Surrey hotel market intended to inform the future plans and policies of the County Council, District and Borough Councils was published in August 2015. Commissioned by the County, ‘Surrey Hotel Futures’ lists hotel development in the pipeline including Cherkley Court south of Leatherhead which is currently undergoing conversion to a luxury 48-bedroom 5 star hotel with private members’ golf club. Part of this accommodation ‘The Garden House’, along with the golf club and a cookery school, opened in 2016 however the main hotel facility and spa is scheduled to open mid-2017. No other hotel development is presently proposed within Mole Valley.

5.58 Leatherhead Golf Club, an 18 hole course, is a member only club however is currently encouraging new membership. The Pachesham Club, west of Leatherhead (9 holes plus driving range) is open to the public 7 days a week and currently undergoing a redevelopment programme. To the south east of Leatherhead the members only Tyrrells Wood Golf Club also provides function facilities.

BOOKHAM DISTRICT CENTRE

5.59 Bookham District Centre has a total of 57 units in Class A occupation. In May 2015 the vacancy rate was 7% (4 units). The shopping area, anchored by 2 Co-op foodstores is dominated by independent retailers and provides a varied retail offer. The emerging Bookham Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) 2016 – 2026 identifies the centre as ‘strong and highly valued’ and identifies policies to safeguard the centre so that it continues to serve the community in the longer term.

5.60 The Transform Leatherhead evidence base (Baseline Data) identifies the provision of convenience floorspace in Bookham as ‘sufficient for the size of village and catchment’. NDP policy seeks to retain the status quo 33

and development resulting in the loss of retail floorspace within the retail centre will not be supported.

ASHTEAD DISTRICT CENTRE

5.61 Ashtead District Centre supports some 65 units in Class A occupation of which only one unit was vacant when surveyed in May 2015 representing a vacancy rate of just 1.5%. Vacancy rates have historically been very low representing just one or two units over the past 5 years.

5.62 The main shopping area is along The Street and shops in this area are predominantly independent retailers, cafes, restaurants and bakeries. A former Esso petrol filling station originally earmarked for redevelopment by Tesco is currently undergoing redevelopment to provide a ‘Simply Food’ unit for M&S with flats above. Once opened this will increase the net convenience sales floorspace of the centre by 682m2. This investment and additional floorspace will serve to underpin the convenience role of the centre enhancing its vitality and viability.

5.63 In addition to the services and facilities in and around The Street, a significant provision of retail activity is located along Craddocks Avenue, including a Tesco Express. A Neighbourhood Development Plan is also being progressed for Ashtead which seeks to protect existing retail shopping areas and relies on the policies of MVDC to support this objective.

6.0 Quantitative Need for Retail and Other Town Centre Floorspace - Overview

6.1 The Quantitative Need for additional retail floorspace is traditionally considered in terms of convenience and comparison floorspace. Convenience goods comprise principally food and drink, newspapers and magazines, tobacco and most ‘non-durable’ household goods i.e. cleaning items. Comparison goods covers the remainder, i.e. clothing and footwear, furniture and floorcoverings, electrical goods, books, utensils, jewelry, tools etc.

6.2 Retail expenditure growth differs between the two sectors as does the level of Special Forms of Trading experienced i.e. that level of expenditure spent outside of traditional ‘brick and mortar’ units. This includes mail-order, street markets and online shopping. Concerning the latter it should be noted that many stores sell online but source sales from regular stores rather than warehouses implying an increase in required store floorspace to cater for rising internet sales. ‘Click and Collect’ is now seen as the key driver of current and future internet growth (Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 14) however this is considered largely space- demand neutral.

6.3 A five year period of economic uncertainty and constraint followed the recession of 2007/08. A widely anticipated recovery which started in 2013 has since tailed off and GDP growth which peaked in 2014 is anticipated to slow sharply over 2017/18 given the major uncertainties created by the EU referendum vote (Source Retail Planner Briefing note 14).

6.4 A combination of higher inflation and slower employment growth is forecast to take a toll on consumer incomes and spending in the near future. Convenience goods sales were severely hit during the recession. The long-term trend over the period 1997-2015 showed a contraction in convenience retail sales of -1.2% per head per annum. Looking forward the forecast remains subdued and growth in convenience expenditure sales are forecast to grow at just 0.1% per head per annum over the period to 2035.

6.5 Not all sales growth will of course translate into floorspace requirements given the increasingly large role that online shopping plays in both the convenience and comparison sector. Special Forms of Trading (SFT) has significantly outpaced traditional retail sales in recent years and this pattern is expected to persist for several more years. As a percentage of retail sales, SFT sales are anticipated to reach 18.6% of total retail sales by 2022 rising to 20.4% by the mid-2030s. At 2015 they accounted for 13.4% of the market. 35

6.6 A contraction in consumer expenditure in the leisure market (spending on food and drink, cultural and recreational facilities, accommodation, and hairdressing/personal grooming) was also experienced post recession. Forecasts in growth in leisure expenditure have however returned to positive territory from 2014 onwards (to 2035), averaging 1.3% per head per annum. It should be noted however that this sector is the most sensitive to market uncertainties and changes in disposable income.

6.7 In the medium term whilst it is anticipated that economic growth will improve from the pace of the last 6 years it is not considered likely to return to the buoyant levels experienced pre-recession. Government finances remain tight and fiscal stringency is likely to remain a feature of economic policy for the foreseeable future. When interest rates rise to more ‘normal’ levels following the current historic lows the risk is that households may struggle to meet interest payments on debt.

6.8 It is further anticipated that savings may be higher than pre-recession levels as job security concerns continue and the need for pensions will feature more prominently in household finances.

6.9 Comparison goods are likely to feel the greater impact from slower economic growth as opposed to convenience sales where population growth is the main driver.

6.10 To date, adopted policy on floorspace capacity (or need) within the District has been informed by studies prepared in 2007 by Roger Tym and Partners (updated in 2010 to forecast projections through to 2026) and by a study commissioned from Strategic Perspectives to inform policy contained in the Dorking Area Action Plan adopted in December 2012.

6.11 The starting point for this assessment is therefore to look at floorspace needs identified through these studies. The second step is to identify that floorspace which has come forward in the intervening period to assess to what extent the need identified has been met.

6.12 The robustness of assumptions used in the forecasting of quantitative needs is then considered. This assessment will reflect on the implications for these forecasts arising as a result of updated economic data and emerging trends.

6.13 Finally the results of a revised capacity assessment undertaken by MVDC applying latest growth forecasts from Experian Retail Planner 14 (Dec. 16) forecast the capacity for additional retail floorspace in the District to 2033.

The Need for Additional Convenience Floorspace

6.14 Table 6.1 below summarises the Quantitative Needs Assessment contained in the Roger Tym and Partners 2010 report:

Table 6.1 District-Wide Convenience Floorspace requirement based on market share 2007 (M2) (RTP 2010 Tables 4.2 and 4.3) 2017 2021 2026 Expenditure derived net Convenience Floorspace 745 1,107 1,602 requirement Floorspace requirement based on overtrading above benchmark figs. 7,504 7,877 8,147 (RT Table 4.3 Scenario B)

6.15 The Scenario B overtrading assessment included adjustments following the observation of anomalies relating to the trading of the Tesco store at Hookwood.

6.16 The 2010 update was commissioned principally to assist in the preparation of the Dorking Area Action Plan. As such, as well as considering floorspace need on a District-Wide basis the study also looked at floorspace need in Dorking. The 2010 study identified substantial overtrading of convenience floorspace in Dorking and both to address this, and to increase the market share of the town from 64% to a suggested 75% concluded that an additional 3,111 m2 convenience floorspace could be justified by 2017, rising to 3,292m2 by 2026. Table 6.2 below refers.

Table 6.2 Dorking Net Convenience Floorspace Requirement (m2) (RTP 2010) 2017 2021 2026 Market share as 2007 (64% - 267 418 524 Zone 7) Increased market share to 75% 858 1,015 1,127 Increased market share + 3,111 3,215 3,292 floorspace derived from overtrading

6.17 Since this time the Waitrose store in Dorking town centre has been redeveloped to provide an additional net convenience floorspace of 1,356m2 and a new Lidl store has opened at Vincent Lane with a net convenience floorspace of 1,028m2 (the two schemes totaling a net convenience floorspace of 2,384m2). In addition a former car showroom on South Street has been redeveloped to provide 420m2 net sales for Majestic Wine Warehouse (gross internal 526m2 x 0.8%), and a former restaurant on Reigate Road converted to a Tesco Express. Table 6.3 37

below identifies convenience floorspace to have either been developed or permitted District wide 2010-2016. This totals a net convenience sales floorspace of 4,356m2 of which 3,234m2 has been provided in Dorking.

Table 6.3 District – wide Convenience Floorspace additions 2010 – 2016 Address Additional net convenience sales floorspace (M2) Lidl, Vincent Lane, Dorking 1,028 Waitrose extension. Dorking 1,356 M&S, The Street, Ashtead (permitted 682 but not yet trading) Waitrose,14-22 Church St Leatherhead* 440 (opened January 2017) Majestic Wine, South St., Dorking 420 Tesco Express Reigate Rd., Dorking 430 Total additional Conv. Floorspace 4,356 *Application MO/2015/0062 increased retail floorspace by 676m2 x 65% = 440m2 net sales

6.18 Tables 6.4 and 6.5 below identify the outstanding floorspace requirements at 2016 both across the District and in Dorking town for net convenience sales floorspace based upon the 2010 needs assessment. The RTP study suggested that the residual floorspace need may be met in Bookham, Leatherhead and/or Fetcham subject to further analysis of possible impacts on existing centres and provided that there was clear benefits in addressing expenditure leakage and reducing the qualitative deficiencies of overtrading.

6.19 It should be noted that ‘need’ calculations derived from overtrading can be considered a qualitative as opposed to quantitative requirement for additional floorspace. Clearly not all stores around the country will trade at benchmark turnovers and actual evidence of overtrading, i.e. long checkout queues, difficulty in keeping shelves restocked should be considered alongside raw numerical data.

Table 6.4 Outstanding District Wide net convenience sales floorspace requirement (M2) 2017 2021 2026 Expenditure derived net Convenience Floorspace 745 1,107 1,602 requirement Floorspace requirement based on overtrading above benchmark figs. 7,504* 7,877 8,147 (RT Table 4.3 Scenario B) Additional floorspace since 4,356 4,356 4,356 2010 (Table 6.3) District wide Surplus / 3,148 3,521 3,791 net Requirement M2 *Adjusted requirement 2,204 2,528 2,764 excl. Hookwood overtrading 38

*This District-wide requirement takes account of overtrading at the 24-hour Tesco store in Hookwood which lies on the District’s boundary adjacent to Horley/Gatwick. If it is assumed that all of the floorspace requirement arising from this store’s overtrading be accommodated outside of the District, the District wide requirement for convenience floorspace reduces to 6,560 m2 at 2017, leaving an unmet requirement of 2,204m2 at 2017. (RTP 2010 para 4.44)

Table 6.5 Outstanding net convenience sales floorspace requirement in Dorking (M2) 2017 2021 2026 Market share as 2007 267 418 524 (64% - Zone 7) Increased market 858 1,015 1,127 share to 75% Increased market share + floorspace derived from 3,111 3,215 3,292 overtrading Net conv. floorspace 3,234 3,234 3,234 increase since 2010 Dorking Surplus / -123 -19 58 net Requirement M2 Source: RTP 2010 tables 4.5 - 4.8

6.20 Given operator interest in the Dorking market and a number of competing foodstore schemes coming forward in 2010/11 the consultancy firm Strategic Perspectives was instructed by the Council to examine the potential retail impact of proposed convenience floorspace increases in Dorking to inform the Area Action Plan (Adopted 2012).

6.21 It forecast that the effect of the Lidl store would be to increase the expenditure retention rate (market share) of the town (from Zone 7 residents – those in the primary catchment area) from 64.2% to 66.5%. The Lidl and extended Waitrose stores combined were estimated to increase market share to 80%, 5% above the 75% target set by Roger Tym and Partners which they themselves considered ‘ambitious’. Should market share retention have increased to these levels this may justify need for additional convenience floorspace over and above that forecast.

6.22 The Dorking Area Action Plan (AAP) was adopted in December 2012 covering a 10 year period from 2012 – 2022. One of the visions of the plan, in line with its evidence base, was to seek to increase retail floorspace for convenience goods in Dorking. Table 6.5 above suggests that given the recent substantial increase in convenience floorspace in Dorking there no longer remains a quantitative convenience floorspace requirement in the town through to 2026. This policy objective of the plan has been achieved.

6.23 In the District’s centres outside of Dorking an additional 440m2 of convenience floorspace has been provided by the opening of Waitrose in Church Street and in Ashtead, conversion of a former Esso garage to an

M&S ‘Simply Food’ is currently underway. Whilst quantitative need analysis undertaken in 2010 would nonetheless appear to support yet further additional convenience floorspace in the Leatherhead area both operator and consumer behaviour has changed fundamentally in recent years.

6.24 A contraction in convenience sales from 2012-15 and a switch in consumer behaviour to more frequent ‘top up’ shops away from weekly shops at large store formats have both contributed to the ‘big four’ operators (Sainsburys, Tesco, Morrisons and Asda) reining in expansion programmes. At the same time discounters such as Aldi and Lidl have been increasing market share with aggressive store opening programmes. The rise in online grocery sales has also impacted upon floorspace needs however the degree to which the impact of online sales on floorspace is felt will depend on the locality and sourcing of goods purchased online (whether from shop floor or warehouse). Nationally, online sales now represent 10.5% of all grocery (convenience) sales (source: IGD).

6.25 The RTP convenience floorspace need assessment made a deduction in expenditure available to support new floorspace of 50% of the SFT figure identified by Experian at that time. From 2017 onwards SFT was then forecast to be 6.5% and RTP thus deducted 3.25% from available study area expenditure. At todays date a deduction of 5.25% for SFT would be more appropriate. This would have the effect of reducing levels of expenditure to support new floorspace and thus reduce the need for additional convenience floorspace across the district.

6.26 The RTP projections also applied a uniform 0.9% growth rate in convenience expenditure per head pa across the forecast period (2007 to 2026). Later Retail Planner Briefing notes (8.1 used by SP and 11 (Oct..13)) provide information that during this period expenditure ‘growth’ was in fact largely in negative territory.

% Growth per 2007 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 2014 - 20 2021-30 annum

Convenience Goods 0.4% -1.6% -2.9% -0.5% -2.3% -0.6% -0.6% +0.6% +0.8%

Source: Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 8.1 (August 2010). Figure 1 & Retail Planner Briefing Note 11 (October 2013)

6.27 In November 2016 Experian released its latest forecasts for expenditure growth in the Retail Planner Briefing Note 14. This identifies the long- term trend 2007-2015 averaging -1.2% per head a year. Expenditure in the convenience sector is forecast to continue contracting until 2019 following which the long term growth forecast is relatively stagnant,

averaging 0.1% per head per annum from 2019 to 2035.

6.28 Expenditure growth (albeit marginal) does not necessarily translate into floorspace requirement and the Experian forecast subsequently reassesses growth rates which should be used to calculate the demand for retail floorspace. It factors in a rising proportion of convenience expenditure converting to ‘SFT’ or online sales and this results in a forecast convenience sales per head per annum ‘growth’ figure of -0.1% across the period 2017-35. Contraction is expected to be greatest in the short/medium term:

% Growth per head 2015 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 2019- 2024- 2017-35 per annum 23 35

Convenience Goods -1.3% -0.4% -0.3% -1.1% -0.2% 0.0% -0.1% adjusted for SFT sales via traditional floorspace

6.29 Whilst expenditure per head destined for traditional retail sales contracts throughout the period to 2033, population is nonetheless expanding. In order to estimate an Objectively Assessed Need for Retail floorspace through to 2033 MVDC has taken as a starting point the population forecasts and results of the household survey used by RTP across the 8 zones of the study area which extends beyond the District’s boundaries (See Appendix 3).

6.30 By applying the revised growth forecasts to the RTP retail study area population and convenience expenditure estimates it can be seen that expenditure available to support new convenience floorspace is now forecast to fall in the short to medium term. Towards the end of the forecast period (to 2033) an expenditure increase of some £5.5m over and above current levels is anticipated. (Table 1 in Appendix 4 refers).

2017 2021 2026 2033 Population 174,579 174,744 175,113 182,322 Expenditure (£m) 314.0 308.7 306.9 319.5

6.31 The Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 14 notes that the scope for sales density (floorspace efficiency) increases for convenience goods floorspace is very limited thus no allowance for this has been applied. Taking a broad brush approach, dividing the ‘available’ £5.5m expenditure by an annual average sales density of £6,834 psm (Briefing note 14 Fig 4a annual average 2024-35 figure rebased to 2007 prices) would therefore equate to capacity for an additional 805m2 of net convenience floorspace across the study area to 2033 (assuming that 100% of such expenditure growth was retained within the study area). 41

6.32 The evidence above indicates that based on current forecasts there is no need for the allocation of sites to support additional convenience floorspace in the District to 2033 and at the present time here are no gaps in convenience goods provision in the town and district centres. Each town and district centre has at least one foodstore which anchors the wider retail and leisure offer.

6.33 Notwithstanding the above it should be noted that growth forecasts provided by Experian are UK averages and there may well be marked differences between local areas. Mole Valley has very low unemployment and has a greater number of employees in professional/managerial positions than the UK average. The District thus has a relatively affluent population which may be more resilient to challenging economic conditions. There may therefore be market features which support the need for additional convenience floorspace and any proposals coming forward will be considered on a case by case basis.

The Need for Additional Comparison Floorspace

6.34 Mole Valley is surrounded by a number of higher order centres which draw substantial levels of comparison goods expenditure from the District. Guildford, Horsham, Crawley, Epsom, and Kingston all draw trade from the District. The Roger Tym and Partners study highlighted significant comparison expenditure leakage from the district, the district’s shopping centres attracting just 16% of study area comparison expenditure. Comparison floorspace in the district is located principally in Dorking (14,600 m2) and Leatherhead (6,050m2) town centres.

6.35 By contrast Guildford supports some 125,000m2 ground floor floorspace spread across 588 retail and service units (April 2015). It has a particularly wide range of national multiple retailers and in addition to the High Street has three covered shopping centres. A planned comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment of the town’s North Street site, immediately adjacent to the prime shopping area has the potential to provide a further 37,000 m2 floorspace. The Council is currently exploring how the scheme can be advanced with M&G Real Estate Ltd., who own the long leasehold on the adjoining Friary Centre.

6.36 Similarly Kingston supports some 173,000 m2 ground floor retail/service floorspace spread across 546 units with 70% of the comparison floorspace made up of national multiple retailers. In March 2015 the Council adopted the Eden Quarter Development Brief which aims to expand Kingston’s retail offer and deliver a mix of retail units, convenience and leisure floorspace (up to 30,000 m2 retail floorspace).

6.37 There thus exists a real possibility that the retail offer in both Guildford and Kingston will expand significantly during the plan period increasing the attraction of these centres to Mole Valley residents. Nonetheless there is opportunity for the districts’ centres to set themselves apart, exploit their strengths and differentiate their offer to retain visitor numbers and hence vitality and viability.

6.38 The Transform Leatherhead initiative will, upon completion, increase the attractiveness of the town and it is hoped reduce expenditure leakage to nearby centres, notably Epsom. Revised capacity assessments undertaken by Mole Valley outlined later in this chapter consider floorspace needs based both on constant market share (those derived from the RTP household survey given that comparison floorspace remains largely unchanged since the survey date) and a modest increase in market share from the District’s current 16% to 17%.

6.39 In terms of comparison goods the RTP study (2010 update) identified a requirement for an additional 5,400 m2 net comparison floorspace by 2017 (rising to 17,904m2 by 2026). The study suggested that half this (2,700m2) be accommodated in Dorking Town centre with the remainder provided in other centres in the district.

6.40 In 2010 Strategic Perspectives (SP), providing an update of retail capacity forecasts to feed into the Dorking AAP updated District-wide Comparison Goods Capacity Forecasts to 2026. This employed more cautious expenditure growth forecasts and a higher ‘productivity’ growth allowance in line with the then latest data from Experian Retail Planner Briefing note 8.1 (Aug. 2010) (Table 7.3 of the SP report refers).

6.41 Table 6.6 (below) compares the RTP Retail Study forecasts with those updated by SP in 2010.

Table 6.6 Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirements – District Wide net m2 2017 2021 2026 RTP (Jan 5,414 11,286 17,904 2010) SP Update 3,571 5,833 9,009 (Dec 2010)

6.42 Since 2010 some 588m2 comparison floorspace has come forward in foodstore permissions (330m2 at Waitrose, 258m2 at Lidl) and a further 751m2 at Attlee’s Country Store on Station Road (MO/2014/0980), together totaling 1,339m2. The SP capacity forecast would indicate that there thus remains a requirement or ‘latent demand’ for 2,232m2 comparison floorspace within the District at 2017.

6.43 Against a challenging background of relatively volatile data input assumptions MVDC has revisited the floorspace projections employing revised growth figures and productivity (or sales density growth) rates. In 43

line with the accepted methodology of floorspace capacity projections the Council’s revision assumes floorspace equilibrium at the base year (2017).

6.44 Experian forecasts now assume a more cautious growth in comparison goods expenditure particularly over the medium term (2021 – 2026) than that applied in the RTP and SP studies. Table 6.7 (below) refers:

Table 6.7 Comparison Goods Expenditure % Growth per head per annum Source 2007-08 2008-16 2016-21 2021-26 RTP Retail Study: Partial Update +4.91% +1.805% +5.85% +4.25% (2010)

Source 2007 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 2013 -17 2018 - 26 Table 5.2 of Strategic 2.7% 3.7% -0.6% 0.4% 1.2% 2.4% 2.7% 2.9% Perspectives Study

Source 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-23 2024-35 Experian Retail Planner Briefing -0.3% -0.3% 1.9% 1.0% +7.2% +4.3% +1.9% +2.0% 3.2% Note 14 (Nov 16) Fig 6 (Ex SFT adjusted for sales via stores)

6.45 As can be seen from the table above, the projected growth in comparison goods expenditure has, particularly in the short to medium term reduced substantially having wide-reaching consequences for floorspace requirements.

6.46 The % of expenditure spent (predominantly online) in Special Forms of Trading (SFT) was identified in the RTP household shopping survey as 11.7% across the study area. This was a high figure compared to the national average at the time (8.6%) however was explained as being partly influenced by the affluent nature of the study area / access to internet.

6.47 Acknowledging predictions that SFT would increase, the RTP study also allowed for an uplift in SFT of 2% of available expenditure across all forecast years. Non-store retailing continues to grow however, rapidly outpacing traditional forms of spending. The emergence of technology to facilitate browsing and purchasing through mobile phones and the development of interactive TV shopping is expected to boost internet retailing further.

6.48 In Great Britain the average weekly spend online in September 2016 was £931million, representing a 22% increase over September 2015. At September 2016 the amount spent online accounted for 15% of all retail spending compared with 12.6% at September 2015 (Source: ONS Statistical Bulletin Retail Sales in Great Britain: September 2016).

6.49 Experian forecasts the SFT share of total retail sales (convenience and comparison combined) to reach 18.6% by 2022 rising to 20.4% by the mid-2030s. (Retail Planner 14, Oct 16). Expenditure by SFT on comparison goods had always significantly outstripped that spent on convenience goods thus the percentages for comparison SFT alone will be higher however this must also be balanced by the knowledge that many stores selling online will source sales from regular stores rather than warehouses. The calculation of how demand for retail floorspace will be affected by the rapid expansion of SFT remains a key issue nonetheless given the rapid expansion of this sector it is considered prudent to raise the forecast % uplift for SFT across the study area from 2% to 4%.

6.50 Table 6.8 (below) compares the RTP and SP forecasts with the updated needs assessments undertaken by Mole Valley (Appendix 4). The impact of the economic recession on consumer spending and forecast expenditure growth has had a significant impact on the capacity forecasts for the District. Whereas Strategic Partnerships forecast comparison expenditure across the study area to grow by some 37% between 2017 and 2026, revised forecasts reduce this to 25%. Productivity growth (floorspace efficiency gains) together with increased allowances for special forms of trading (principally online sales) now outstrip additional turnover available at 2021 resulting in a ‘surplus’ of comparison floorspace.

6.51 It is only in the second half of the plan period that floorspace needs start to arise there being expenditure capacity to support in the region of 5,000 m2 net by 2033. Applying a 65% net to gross ratio this translates to a gross floorspace requirement of some 7,700m2.

Table 6.8 Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirements – District Wide net m2

2017 2021 2026 2033 RTP (Jan 2010) 5,414 11,286 17,904 SP Update 3,571 5,833 9,009 (Dec 2010) MV Update 0 -1,071 784 5,190 (Dec 2016) (Assumes App 5 Table 2 Equilibrium) Constant Market Share (16%) MV Update 0 -1,136 832 5,513 Dec 2016) (Assumes App 5 Table 3 Equilibrium) Increased Market share (17%)

The Need for Additional Community and Leisure Facilities

6.52 Commercial leisure is an increasingly important contributor to town centre vitality and viability as centres seek to increase both footfall and ‘dwell- time’ as the nature of retail and high street shopping undergoes transformation. The challenges of the recent economic downturn, the tightening of consumer expenditure and changes in consumer shopping behaviour have changed the face of many high streets and an increase in the food and drink plus health and fitness sectors have contributed to the ability of centres to retain visitor numbers.

6.53 Expenditure growth in the leisure sector has been fluctuating widely in the post recession period. Expenditure per head retracted in 2008/09 with negative ‘growth’ rates of -2.6% and -8.6% respectively as consumers felt a squeeze on disposable income and prioritised expenditure in other areas. Whilst growth rates entered positive territory in 2010 /11 they again fell into the negative in 2012 /13. Looking forward expenditure growth rates are anticipated to remain subdued in the near future, 0.5% pa in 2017 falling to 0.2% pa in 2018 however averaging 1.3% per head pa from 2019-23 and subsequently 1.5% per head pa from 2024 onwards. (Retail Planner Briefing Note 14))

6.54 Whereas the RTP study identified available leisure expenditure within the study area growing over the 10 year period 2007 – 2017 by some £99m, actual and revised growth figures show that available expenditure across the study area in this period is likely to have contracted by some £17.8m.

6.55 Some 70% of leisure expenditure is identified as being spent on food and drink. In terms of market share, expenditure on food and drink is the most localised with Mole Valley retaining a 25% market share and Dorking and Leatherhead being the most popular destinations.

6.56 Whilst there have been some notable losses of restaurant floorspace in the recent past (i.e. Frankie and Bennys on Reigate Road Dorking, now Tesco Express), the food and drink sector throughout the District has proved relatively resilient in a difficult economic climate. Indeed new restaurants continue to open in Dorking with a cluster of eating establishments creating an attractive ‘food court’ on St Martins Walk.

6.57 Leatherhead is less prosperous in terms of food and drink operators with Church Street being the main location for such units near to The Leatherhead Theatre. The baseline report to the Transform Leatherhead Initiative (Inspire the Future) suggests that the theatre is currently underperforming and could contribute more to the leisure economy. It also suggests that the introduction of further food and drink units could increase the attraction of the centre to residents

6.58 In terms of leisure expenditure on recreation / sport the RTP study identified Leatherhead as the principal destination in the study catchment area. The Leisure Centre underwent substantial expansion and refurbishment in 2010 since which time visitor numbers have improved year on year. The year ending March 2016 saw the centre achieve some 751,355 visits. Further investment is the centre is planned for Easter 2017 when the gym will undergo refurbishment.

6.59 The National Benchmarking Service for Sport and Leisure Centres provided a report on the Leatherhead Leisure Centre to MVDC in July 2016. It identified a local catchment population of 20,417 after adjusting for nearby competing facilities. Having surveyed some 379 users of the centre the overall customer satisfaction score came out at marginally below the industry average for mixed centres. The main areas of perceived weakness however related to cleanliness and the helpfulness of reception staff rather than overcrowding. The centre’s satisfaction score for the overall swimming experience was well above the industry average. Utilisation performance and market penetration in the local catchment area were both identified as strong. The centre is considered to be effective in attracting new customers and reaching a broad base of customers in its catchment area

6.60 Dorking Sports Hall is the second most important leisure destination in the District and this underwent refurbishment in 2013. As with Leatherhead, visitor numbers are improving year on year: 493,773 in 2013/4, 533,972 in 2014/5 and 541,192 in 2015/16. In 2016 an ‘Anytime Fitness’ Gym opened on Dorking High Street operating 24/7. Not only will this will add to the leisure offer of the town, by operating 24/7 the unit will also add to the qualitative leisure offer in the fitness market.

6.61 Mole Valley has no multiplex cinema development thus Epsom, where there is an 8-screen multiplex is the most popular destination for study area residents with Guildford following a close second. Interestingly 25% of respondents said that they did not participate in cinema/theatre going or visit museums. Mole Valley cinemas (at Dorking Halls and Leatherhead Theatre) retain only 16% market share of expenditure and there would appear to be potential to claw back some of this expenditure leakage. Vue Cinemas have advised the Transform Leatherhead Initiative that they have a requirement and would be willing to consider a site in the town centre were a suitable venue to become available.

6.62 Given the not-insignificant fall in expenditure on the leisure sector in the past 10 years and continuing economic uncertainties, the use of expenditure forecasts to quantify new floorspace requirements for leisure use is no longer considered an appropriate tool. Leisure expenditure is one of the first areas to suffer impact in times of an economic downturn or tightening of finances. The Council considers that a more robust approach is to consider qualitative provision across the District, assessing

the extent to which any overtrading can be observed and the extent to which any current or forthcoming initiatives may shape the demand for such floorspace.

6.63 The Hotel Futures Study 2015, commissioned by the County Council, highlighted strong demand for serviced apartments in the county’s key towns and business locations from the long stay corporate market. Midweek corporate demand for hotel accommodation was also identified as being very strong across Surrey and has grown strongly since 2014. The report found evidence of some companies in Leatherhead using hotels in Epsom, suggesting an inadequacy of hotel provision in the town to meet the needs of local companies.

6.64 Corporate demand for hotel accommodation in Dorking does not appear as strong as in Leatherhead. This is to be expected given the greater concentration of knowledge based office headquarters in the Leatherhead area. The market in Dorking is considered to focus more on the ‘grey’ market for leisure breaks with visitors attracted to the countryside of the Surrey Hills AONB and National Trust properties in the locality.

6.65 At the time of writing the Council is aware of strong operator interest in hotel development from both Whitbread (for a 60-bed Premier Inn hotel) and Accor (for an Ibis Budget hotel) both in the Leatherhead area. The Hotel Futures Study also identifies expressions of interest from Boutique, Midscale (3*) and Budget operators in the Dorking market. Leatherhead is also identified as a target location for operators of serviced apartments or aparthotels.

6.66 Housing in town centres has been on the increase particularly since changes to permitted development rights facilitated the change of use of office to residential accommodation. Dorking in particular is seeing a particularly strong conversion rate with some 20% of town centre office accommodation presently undergoing conversion. Whilst support for an increase in housing within the centre was one of the key issues to emerge from the adopted Area Action Plan this must be balanced with the need to retain employment opportunities. This is considered in the following chapters. Nonetheless, the attraction of additional residential premises (and by default consumer expenditure) to the District’s centres is seen as a positive benefit to their vitality and viability as footfall, ‘dwell- time’ and expenditure retention, particularly on food and drink, are all likely to increase.

Summary and Conclusions

6.67 In the face of a very challenging economic climate Mole Valley’s town and district centres have proved robust and continue to trade well with vacancy levels well below the national average.

6.68 Policy objectives of the Dorking Area Action Plan to encourage an increase in convenience floorspace in the town have been achieved and there has been significant investment in the town.

6.69 Revised forecasts indicate that there would not appear to be a strong requirement for additional convenience floorspace in the plan period to 2033 however any proposals that should come forward will be considered on a case by case basis.

6.70 In terms of comparison floorspace the District’s towns appear to be maintaining the ‘status quo’. The impact of the recent economic recession and current uncertainty can be seen in the markedly different capacity assessments for additional comparison floorspace. The most recent forecasts identify potential capacity for in the region of 5,000m2 net sales comparison floorspace by the end of the plan period based on current market share. Should the Transform Leatherhead initiative result in reduced expenditure ‘leakage’ from the district then floorspace capacity could rise further.

6.71 In terms of leisure floorspace the District appears to be well-provided for however there may be advantages for the vitality and vitality of Leatherhead town centre to encourage the introduction of further food and drink and possibly leisure floorspace. Operator interest from both cinema and hotel operators seems apparent, particularly in the Leatherhead area. Demand for serviced apartments in the Leatherhead area would also appear strong.

6.72 In the current economic climate adaptability will be key to achieving robust and ‘future-proof’ policy in the emerging local plan.

7.0 Employment (Class B) Land and Floorspace Stock

7.1 The following sections summarise the information from the Technical Appendices found in Appendix 2. The base date for floorspace figures provided is end March 2016.

Total floorspace stock

7.1 Total commercial floorspace is estimated to be 480,500m2 with offices at 259,800m2 and factories (i.e. industrial) at 103,700m2 and warehouses at 117,000m2

7.2 The ELR 2013 identified total commercial floorspace stock at 2008 being 493,500m2 decreasing by 4,000m2 to the end of 2012. Local monitoring information identifies a further 9,000 m2 loss in floorspace to the end of March 2016 resulting in a total commercial floorspace stock of 480,500m2. Table 1b of the Technical Appendix refers.

7.3 Overall the total office floorspace decreased by some 14,700m2 between 2012 and 2016 slightly offset by incremental increases in both factory and warehouse floorspace. The loss of office floorspace can be attributed principally to the introduction of the prior approval regime in May 2013 providing permitted development rights for the conversion of office to residential premises. Floorspace losses in Dorking have been particularly high in percentage terms (21%).

Age of the employment floorspace stock

7.4 Data at 2004 (TA Table 2) indicates that the District had a significantly more modern stock of office, factory and warehousing premises than nationally. Overall 45% of all stock (and 55% for offices) was in premises built between 1980 and 2000; compared to 26% nationally. Further new development and refurbishments since this time will have increased these percentages. Having such a modern stock increases the attractiveness of the District to new employers. It also indicates that the amount of older stock is declining and this can reflect a reduction in opportunities for those companies seeking more basic and /or affordable accommodation.

7.5 Changes to Permitted Development Rights facilitating the conversion of office to residential premises have, according to property agents Hurst Warne, ‘helped to soak up the historic outdated 1980’s office stock’. In their Market Study of 2016 they also note that most buildings not capable of providing modern office stock have now been converted. 50

7.6 Despite this some more modern stock may not meet current business requirements (e.g. raised floors, suspended ceilings, air-conditioning) and may be more difficult to let. Several premises have recently undergone or are in the process of refurbishment to bring them up to current standards. Examples include 4 units at "The Square", Randalls Way, Leatherhead and Bluebird House, Mole Business Park, Leatherhead.

Existing Employment Sites

7.7 Almost half of the total commercial floorspace stock in the District is located in Leatherhead, and more than two thirds of the office floorspace.

7.8 The second most important employment centre is Dorking. An assessment of sites in the Dorking area was undertaken as part of the Dorking Industrial and Commercial Land Review (2011). Chapter 7.0 provides an updated quantitative and qualitative overview of employment land in both Leatherhead and Dorking. Detailed consideration is also given to the villages of Ashstead, Bookham, Fetcham and the rural areas.

Outstanding planning permissions and vacant premises (Technical Appendix Tables 3a and 3c)

7.9 Offices and Business use: At the end of March 2016 there was planning permission for 6,308m2 of deliverable office and business floorspace; an increase of 1,248 m 2 from December 2012. At March 2016 permissions and vacant office and business use floorspace totalled 30,298 m2 a slight reduction of some 1,682m 2 from December 2012 however an increase of 7,677m2 from June 2014. Vacant floorspace, at 23,990m2 represents a 2,930m2 decrease from levels in 2012 however a 4,489m2 increase from the level at June 2014 (Table 3a) although such figures hide the turnover of premises.

7.10 It is estimated that 9.2% of the office stock was vacant at March 2016 and this is comparable to the national rate. A vacancy rate of between 7 and 10% could be considered normal in a buoyant market to allow for market churn. The availability of a range of good quality new and vacant floorspace is important in order to allow new firms to come into the district and for existing firms to adapt to changing requirements for floorspace.

7.11 Industrial and Warehousing: At the end of March 2016 there was planning permission for 4,315m2 of deliverable industrial and warehousing floorspace; a reduction from 14,680m2 in 2012. Vacant industrial and 51

warehousing floorspace levels are considerably lower than that for offices; only 6,408m2 being available.

7.12 Only 2.9% of the industrial and warehousing stock is vacant and reflects a tighter supply of existing vacant premises in such uses (Table 4b).

7.13 Long term information on the take-up of vacant floorspace (2006 – 2016) confirms that Leatherhead is the most dynamic sub-area for employment floorspace. It’s annual average floorspace take-up is 3,527m2 for Class B1 (office) floorspace which is 77% of the District wide take up rate. The annual average take up of vacant industrial floorspace is relatively low (2,400 m2 pa District wide) and split equally between Leatherhead and Dorking. This reflects limited vacant floorspace in the existing stock and the low amount of new industrial floorspace permitted and implemented. Net changes in floorspace from both completions (including change of use) and the take up of vacant floorspace are positive across all sectors however all relatively low (Table 8b). It is the case in Mole Valley that as new employment generating development comes forward this is achieved principally through the redevelopment of existing sites.

Firms in Mole Valley

7.14 The main employment area is north Leatherhead which accommodates almost 30% of the jobs in the District. Dorking supports over a fifth of jobs in the District. The total number of VAT registered firms in the District has been consistently increasing from 2008 and stood at 5,245 in 2015 (up from 4,670 in 2011).

7.15 The dominant employment sector is that covering professional, scientific and technical sector within which over 25% of firms fall compared to 18% nationally. The number of firms in this sector has grown from 1,060 in 2010 to 1,320 in 2015 (see TA Table 24). The District is the national (in some instances international) headquarters of significant firms in this sector including ExxonMobil (petroleum), Unilever (food and household products) and KBR (engineering consultancy). Firms such as CGI (computer services), Unum (finance and insurance) and Aviva (formerly Friends Life) also have an important presence in the District.

7.16 The number of manufacturing firms decreased slightly to 200 in 2015 from 220 at 2010. Manufacturing is locally important, for example Dorking is the home of Johnston Sweepers one of the few major manufacturing companies in Surrey. There are a number of high technology manufacturing companies with several at Mole Business Park, Leatherhead. (Tech Appendix Table 24).

7.17 There are also a significant number of very small enterprises (0-4 employees); indeed almost 80% of firms in the District are of this size compared with 77% nationally. This together with a higher rate of self employment than nationally (16.3% at 2016 compared to 10.2% nationally) indicates a high entrepreneurial base and resource. It is important to maintain this and ensure that suitable premises are available for such small companies, and new start-ups, across the range of business and other commercial uses.

Market Intelligence

7.18 Hurst Warne has recently (September 2016) undertaken a market study examining the office market of both Leatherhead and Dorking.

7.19 The Leatherhead office market is currently experiencing high levels of office refurbishment including back to frame refurbishments demonstrating improving investor confidence in the market. Rental values are also improving. A record rent has recently been achieved at Leatherhead House.

7.20 The town is considered to have a healthy office stock with levels of oversupply now starting to be eroded as the demand/supply dynamic starts to return to its long term average.

7.21 The study identifies that within the town centres and immediately surrounding business parks there is limited scope for new office development. In terms of stock the supply of good secondary space is likely to become constricted in the medium term as many of those not capable of providing modern office attributes will have been converted to residential under PD rights.

The Mole Valley Business Survey

7.22 In February 2017 Mole Valley District Council conducted an evidence gathering exercise surveying a representative sample of businesses across the District.

7.23 One of the main objectives was to improve MVDC’s understanding of the issues faced by these businesses, particularly those associated with the use and demand for business floorspace.

7.24 The business survey set out to contact businesses occupying office, industrial and warehouse floorspace in order to gain an insight into:

- Satisfaction with current business accommodation and location

- Future plans for expansion / contraction and relocation

- How these factors might translate into demand for business floorspace over a 5 – 10 year period.

7.25 Local businesses were invited to respond to an online questionnaire hosted on the MVDC website, publicised via press releases and through the Chambers of Commerce. Responses were also gathered from targeted emails, telephone calls and face to face interviews. This enabled the targeting of a sampling structure representative of the local business community both in terms of geographical spread, business sector and size. In total some 111 responses were received from businesses representing 3,999 jobs in the District, 16% of the BRES* jobs total for those sectors represented (24,500 at 2015 see Technical Appendix Table 12). The names of the individual businesses to have participated, as well as the Business Survey Questionnaire, is contained in Appendix 5.

*BRES = Business Register and Employment Survey from the Office of National Statistics

Size, Sector and Location of Businesses Surveyed 7.26 The survey sought to capture information from firms of all sizes and business sectors. The geographical spread of businesses from whom responses were received are identified below in Tables 7.1(a) and 7.1(b). Table 7.1(c) provides a breakdown of respondents by business size (no. of employees) and sector.

Table 7.1(a) Distribution of Survey Responses

Leatherhead Industrial 29 Rural/Village Industrial Estates 25 Estates and Business Parks

Dorking Industrial Estates 17 Dorking Town Centre businesses 21 and Business Parks

Bookham Industrial Estates 3 Leatherhead Town Centre 16 and Business Parks businesses

Table 7.1(b): Geographical Location of all responding businesses by postcode

Postcode No. of Businesses Surveyed in postcode area

KT21 1

KT22 50

KT23 3

RH4 38

RH5 6

RH6 13

Total 111

Table 7.1(c) Profile of Responses received by sector and employee size band.

Sector Micr Small Medium Large 100+ Tota o (5 - 20) (20 – 50) 50+ l (<5)

Manufacturing 5 10 5 2 0 22

Legal, Finance and Insurance 4 6 2 2 2 16

IT and Communication 4 4 1 2 1 12

Business Administration and 1 6 4 0 0 11 Support

Construction 1 6 2 0 1 10

Scientific & Technical (incl. 0 4 1 1 2 8 engineering)

Motor Trade (car servicing, 5 2 1 0 0 8 repair, hire)

Property 2 4 1 0 0 7

Trade and Storage 5 1 1 0 0 7

Wholesale 2 2 0 0 0 4

Transport and Storage 0 3 0 0 0 3

Other 1 0 0 0 2 3

Total 29 48 18 7 7 111

7.27 The above tables confirm that the survey results are sourced from a broad range of industry sectors and company sizes reflecting the structure of the employment sectors in the local business economy.

Key Reasons for Business Location

7.28 Table 7.2 below shows the reasons surveyed businesses gave for being based in their current location. Given the distinct differences between the principal centres of Leatherhead and Dorking both in terms of floorspace offer and accessibility the responses to this question have been considered on a centre- specific as well as District-wide basis.

Table 7.2: Top Ten Reasons for Businesses choosing to locate in Mole Valley

Reason Leatherhead* Dorking Rural Total Businesses Businesses Businesses

Owner or senior directors 18 23 12 53 live(d) in area / Historical ties

Local clientele 14 4 1 24

Central to Staff 9 7 0 16

Good accessibility & 11 2 2 15 transport connections to London, Gatwick, Heathrow & rest of UK

Centrally located within 5 3 2 10 Surrey/South East

Good Working Environment 1 2 2 5 / Quiet

Only accommodation 2 1 1 4 available when looking

Good Value for Money 2 0 1 3

Close to Gatwick 0 0 3 3

Close to London 0 3 0 3

*Incl. built up area of Bookham, Fetcham and Ashtead

7.29 The overwhelming reason for businesses being located in Mole Valley was proximity to either current or previous owners’ homes however Leatherhead businesses also scored highly on proximity to a local client base and good accessibility/transport connections.

7.30 Only those firms surveyed on rural business parks in the south east of the District (Charlwood / Hookwood) cited proximity to Gatwick airport as the principal reason for their location in the District

7.31 Leatherhead was often cited as a location central to staff and indeed several businesses have relocated from neighbouring boroughs (notably Epsom and Ewell) to refurbished office premises on Leatherhead’s Business Parks in the past few years. Industrial firms have also recently relocated from Kingston and Surbiton citing a lack of available floorspace in neighbouring boroughs as a significant ‘push’ factor.

Top Ten Circumstances which may cause businesses to leave Mole Valley

7.32 Businesses were asked to consider what circumstances would drive their company out of the area. A large proportion of businesses surveyed (approximately 1/3rd) could foresee no situation which would make them consider leaving the area. With business rates very much in the news at the time of writing it is perhaps not surprising that hikes in business rents and rates topped the list of reasons why companies may consider moving out. Three other principal reasons related to a perceived lack of accommodation for relocation or expansion plans, lack of affordable and safe parking and a drop in business activity/turnover. The first two of these were cited particularly by businesses located in Dorking.

Table 7.3 Top Ten Circumstances which could cause businesses to leave Mole Valley

Reason Leatherhead* Dorking Rural Total Businesses Businesses Businesses

None 20 9 4 33

Higher costs 9 10 6 25 (Rent/Rates)

Lack of 2 7 4 13 accommodation for

relocation or growth

Lack of 2 8 0 10 affordable/Safe Parking

Reduction in 3 2 4 9 business or clientele

Lease not renewed 3 1 1 5 / Building sold

Traffic congestion 1 3 0 4 worsening

Decision Taken by 2 1 0 3 Head Office (outside Mole Valley)

Lack of investment 1 2 0 3 in the Town

Inability to attract 0 1 1 2 sufficient labour

Perceived difficulties experienced by businesses in Mole Valley

7.33 Businesses were asked about the principal issues or difficulties affecting the operation of their business. The top ten issues raised are identified in Table 7.4 below. The biggest difficulty shared by a large number of businesses is staff recruitment, not solely for those jobs requiring technical skills but also office administration roles and careworkers. It is the most significant difficulty experienced by businesses in both Leatherhead and Dorking and comes a narrow second for those businesses located in rural areas. In rural areas poor broadband service is highlighted as the biggest issue facing businesses.

Table 7.4 Issues and Difficulties facing Mole Valley Businesses

Reason Leatherhead* Dorking Rural Total Businesses Businesses Businesses

Staff Recruitment / lack of 19 17 7 43 skilled employees

Highway Congestion 15 8 2 25

Parking 11 9 2 22

Uncertainty associated with 10 5 4 19 Brexit

Lack of suitable local 3 5 3 11 accommodation for relocation/expansion

Poor Broadband 2 0 9 11

Lack of affordable housing 6 2 0 8 for staff

High Costs (Rent/Rates) 1 4 1 7

Lack of Public Transport 0 1 1 2

Lack of Mid-Range hotels 2 0 0 2

7.34 Some 129 current staff vacancies were identified by businesses responding to the survey. On top of this the majority of businesses, 65%, envisage employee numbers increasing in the next 5 – 10 years (Table 4.5 below refers). Business confidence in the District is high despite a relatively muted economic outlook nationally and a significant number of local companies (19) highlighting uncertainties associated with Brexit as a concern.

Table 7.5 Employment Intentions in the next 5 – 10 Years

Employee Nos. Office based businesses Industrial/Warehousing Total set to: businesses

Increase 46 22 68

Remain 15 22 37 Constant

Decrease 2 1 3

7.35 Of the three businesses indicating a likely reduction in employee numbers in the next 5 – 10 years, two of these would be resulting from retirement plans.

7.36 Highway congestion and parking also scored highly in terms of issues faced by local businesses. Those businesses in Leatherhead and Dorking citing parking 59

difficulties were located principally in the town centres where long-term parking was considered inadequate. One company in Leatherhead town centre cited staff having to leave work to re-park their cars during the day given the 4-hour parking restrictions. Another stated that lack of parking impeded its ability to increase staffing numbers.

7.37 Specifically businesses were asked what difficulties they faced related to accessibility or transport congestion and whether or not this was considered to have an adverse effect on their business. Many highlighted traffic congestion during rush hours causing occasional staff lateness and lost man hours however few identified any specific adverse effect on their business. The exception to this came from businesses located in Vincent Lane, Dorking where deliveries can be significantly delayed and one company had experienced deliveries being cancelled due to highway congestion.

Positives of a location within Mole Valley

7.38 Businesses were also asked to identify what they considered to be the positives of a location in Mole Valley. Those in Dorking and the rural areas highlighted the environment as the number one positive whilst for those located in Leatherhead road linkage and wider accessibility came in first.

Table 7.6: Positives of Locating in Mole Valley

Reason Leatherhead* Dorking Rural Total Businesses Businesses Businesses

Good road links & access 27 10 11 48 to M25/rest of UK

Pleasant Environment 11 11 12 34

Access to local services, 11 8 0 19 e.g. post office, banks, shops

Good Public Transport 11 5 2 18

Proximity / Easy access to 3 10 4 17 London

Quality of Staff / locality of 2 9 2 13 workforce

Good Access to Airports 3 3 6 12

Good Parking 7 2 2 11

Good Mix of Businesses in 3 2 2 7 surrounding area

Proximity to clientele 4 2 0 6

Satisfaction with Existing Business Premises

7.39 Businesses were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with their current business premises with 1 = very satisfied and 5 = very dissatisfied. The findings are presented below with responses from office occupiers and industrial/warehouse occupiers considered separately. Overall satisfaction levels appear very high in both sectors.

Table 7.7A Office Occupiers in Mole Valley

1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Very Fairly Neither Fairly Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Road Access 19 30 5 10 1 0

Access to Public 22 25 4 4 3 4 Transport

Location 34 27 2 0 1 1

Local Facilities i.e. 19 30 8 5 2 1 open space, retail

Security 22 29 8 3 1 2

Parking Facilities 21 16 9 8 11 0

The image the 20 28 9 4 2 2 property projects about the business

Its suitability for 28 33 3 1 0 0 purpose

Value for money 16 26 14 2 1 6

7.40 In the case of office occupiers a high proportion (75%+) are mostly satisfied with location, road access, local facilities, access to public transport, security and image. A very high number (93%) expressed satisfaction with their building’s suitability for purpose.

7.41 A more mixed response was received as regards parking facilities and value for money. Whilst some 56% of businesses expressed satisfaction with parking facilities this was the lowest scoring factor by some margin. Road access also attracted a significant level of ‘fairly dissatisfied responses’ principally related to congestion. The one ‘very dissatisfied’ business highlighted that this response related to the poor upkeep of a privately owned rural access road.

Satisfaction with Existing Industrial / Warehousing Premises

7.42 Again there is a generally high level of occupier satisfaction with industrial/warehousing premises with location, access to local facilities and suitability for purpose all scoring particularly highly (85%+). The lowest scoring element is access to public transport however this can be explained by the fact that the majority of industrial/warehousing premises, particularly in the rural areas, are located away from the District’s town centres and public transport hubs

Table 7.7B Industrial/Warehouse Occupiers in Mole Valley

1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Very Fairly Neither Fairly Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Road Access 17 14 7 5 2 0

Access to Public 8 14 10 8 1 4 Transport

Location 18 23 4 0 0 0

Local Facilities i.e. 11 28 4 1 0 1 open space, retail

Security 12 22 6 5 0 0

Parking Facilities 13 21 5 3 3 0

The image the 10 20 8 2 2 0 property projects about the business

Its suitability for 15 23 2 3 1 1 purpose

Value for money 10 16 14 1 1 3

Relocation and Expansion Plans of Local Businesses

7.43 Of the 111 businesses surveyed, some 26 responded that they may consider relocating in the next 5 – 10 years. Only 2 of these businesses (one office occupier and one industrial unit occupier) considered there to be adequate choice and availability of premises for relocation. Six were actively looking at the present time and had already sought property details / visited potential opportunities.

Current Location of businesses potentially seeking to relocate in next 5 – 10 years

Dorking Leatherhead Rural

Present Location 11 9 6

7.44 Of those giving thought to relocation, the majority (22 businesses) were considering a local relocation within Mole Valley. The remaining 4 businesses, presently employing some 39 staff between them would be considering the following locations:

 Elmbridge (Local to Director)

 Elsewhere in South East

 North or West of England

 Coastal Area in South East

7.45 Two businesses looking to relocate were anticipated to be forced relocations as a result of site redevelopments. Of the remaining 24 these were evenly split between office and industrial/warehouse occupiers. Aside from the two forced relocations, a desire to expand floorspace was the universal driving factor for those businesses considering relocating within Mole Valley. Of those looking to leave the District reasons included moving the business closer to the owner’s home however one business cited the reason as staff shortages and difficulties in getting staff to the 63

workplace (i.e. excessive commute, congestion and lack of parking).

Table 7.8 Size of business (by employee numbers) and premises type of those considering relocation in Mole Valley

Micro Small Medium Large 100+ Total (<5 employees) (5 - 20) (20 – 50) 50+

Office 3 6 1 0 0 10

Industrial/Warehousing 5 5 1 1 0 12

Known Floorspace Needs of Businesses considering Relocation

Table 7.9 Size of Business Premises Sought

<200m2 200- 500- 1,000 - 2,000m2+ 500m2 1,000m2 2,000m2

Office 3 4

Industrial/Warehousing 2 3 1 1 1

7.46 Not all businesses specified a floorspace requirement, however of those businesses surveyed net additional floorspace needs in Mole Valley totalled approximately 1,311m2 office floorspace and 4,871m2 industrial floorspace over the next 5 to 10 years. These figures exclude a potential mixed office/industrial/warehousing requirement for an additional 7,000m2 from a single local business.

7.47 Of the 22 businesses considering a relocation within Mole Valley some 7 were equally considering the option of expanding floorspace on their current site – either through construction of additional floorspace or renting adjacent floorspace (if it became available).

7.48 4 of the 7 businesses in Dorking would potentially be looking to relocate to industrial units ranging in size from 200m2 to 1,800m2, the remaining office occupiers seeking relatively small to mid size (250m2) office premises.

7.49 Businesses considering relocating within Mole Valley were asked to identify their first and second choice preference in terms of locational criteria.

Table 7.10 Locational preference for Relocation Office Relocation Industrial/Warehousing Relocation

1st Choice 2nd Choice 1st Choice 2nd Choice

Town Centre 6 1

Business or Industrial 2 3 5 Park close to Town Centre

Out of town Business 3 2 3 Park or Industrial Estate

Stand alone office or 1 2 3 industrial premises

Rural Area 1 1

7.50 The majority of office based businesses considering relocation suggested that they would be looking first for a town centre location. The majority of industrial floorspace occupiers would be looking towards industrial estates close to town centres for their expansion needs.

7.51 The business survey identified potential relocation demand totaling 2,840m2 from present occupiers of Dorking based industrial units. At March 2016 just 4 industrial units totaling 1,042m2 were vacant plus a 2 warehouse unit of 677m .

7.52 Whilst only 26 businesses responded that they would be considering relocation in the next 5 to 10 years, some 68 forecast employee numbers to rise. This indicates that many businesses in the District are not presently using existing floorspace to maximum efficiency and can foresee future efficiency gains by accommodating higher staff numbers on existing floorspace.

Forecasts of Floorspace Contraction over the next 5 – 10 Years

7.53 Some seven businesses responding to the survey envisaged a decreasing floorspace requirement over the next 5 – 10 years. One of these was due to retirement (and the business closing). Another micro-business considered there to no longer be a need for office floorspace outside of the home. Of the remaining five, four of these companies indicated that employee numbers were set to increase over the same period which indicates that these businesses are simply looking at improving floorspace efficiency given the emergence of smarter working practices. One third of businesses responding to the survey also allowed staff to work from home.

Interest in Business Support

7.54 In 2016 MVDC appointed an Economic Development Manager. Businesses were thus asked if they would be interested in obtaining support in various areas as listed below:

Area of Support Yes

Help on Relocation or Expansion of your operations 17

Support on Recruitment and Skills Development 32

Advice on Business Growth and Development 15

Networking Opportunities 38

7.55 Given that Staff Recruitment is emerging as the greatest concern for existing businesses it is not surprising that support in this area is in high demand. A third of businesses also expressed an interest in networking opportunities. Some 28 businesses also expressed an interest in attending a Council-led workshop to assist in developing the Council’s Economic Development Strategy.

Conclusions from the Mole Valley Business Survey

 There is a very high level of satisfaction with existing business premises particularly in terms of suitability for purpose

 The biggest issue to emerge as a concern for local businesses is staff recruitment however in rural areas poor broadband service is the biggest issue

 In general businesses have a positive outlook for the next 5 – 10 years with 65% envisaging staff numbers increasing

 Most increase in staffing numbers will be accommodated by improving floorspace efficiency in existing units

 Leatherhead has demonstrated that it provides the location and accommodation to attract businesses relocating from neighbouring boroughs to the north

 Of those Mole Valley businesses considering relocation over the next 5 - 10 years most are micro or small businesses and do not consider there to be adequate choice or availability or premises

 Those considering office relocations want to be located in town centres as a first preference

 Those considering industrial/warehouse relocations want to be located on industrial estates close to the town centre

8.0 Estimating the Objectively Assessed Need for Employment (Class B) Floorspace

Quantitative Need

8.1 The NPPF indicates that local authorities should make efforts to identify and meet business and other development needs and allocate sufficient land. This includes using the evidence base to assess the needs for land or floorspace for economic development, assessing the existing and future supply of land available and assessing its sufficiency and suitability to meet identified needs.

8.2 This Assessment makes use of and considers the outcomes of three alternative methods for forecasting employment land / floorspace needs. These are based on floorspace trends, labour supply forecasts and demand led trend based employment forecasts.

Worker Floorspace Ratios

8.3 The assessment makes use of worker floorspace (w/f) ratios. These are an estimate of the floorspace used by an employee and can be used to calculate the number of jobs that could be generated by the occupation of vacant floorspace or new completed development. Alternatively the ratios can be used to assess the amount of floorspace required for a given amount of employment growth (ie, to accommodate the increased number of employees).

8.4 The most recent set of worker/floorspace ratios are those published by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA): Employment Density Guide 3rd edition Nov 2015. Table 6.1 (below) compares these figures with Surrey County Council data used to inform the Council’s 2013 ELR.

Floorspace per worker m2

HCA 2015 Figures Surrey County Council

Offices (average) 12.0 (NIA) 17.6 ] 26 - 36 ] 42.3 High Tech / R&D space 40 – 60 (NIA) 67.0

Industrial (light) 47 (NIA) 37.5 ] 42.0 ] 35.3 Manufacturing 36 (GIA) 33.1

Storage 70 46.2

Table 8.1 HCA and Surrey CC Worker Floorspace Ratios (Net)

8.5 Making use of the latest HCA guide indicates far tighter office w/f ratios than previously used however this reflects the trends in changing working practices including the principles of “smart growth” and the more flexible use of office space (e.g. hot desking, shared space and working from home for example).

How Should Employment Trends be taken into account?

8.6 The NPPF guidance indicates that assessments of the likely change in job numbers should be based on past trends and or / economic forecasts as appropriate and also having regard to the growth in the working age population in the housing market area.

8.7 This review uses these methods to look at ranges of future jobs and floorspace requirements or needs. The review seeks to provide a best estimate of how many jobs could be generated from the current floorspace in outstanding permissions and vacant premises; it also looks at population projections and the future number of people of working age and makes assumptions for the number of jobs in Class B1-B8 and the floorspace requirements. It also uses demand led employment projections and converts the changes in jobs ascribed to Class B1- B8 uses to additional floorspace requirements (or reduced requirements if a declining trend). By looking at these strands conclusions can be made as to whether there is sufficient suitable floorspace with permission and vacant to meet needs against these different methods.

Method 1: Employment growth based on increases in floorspace

1a: Employment growth based on past trends of net increases in floorspace

8.8 This assessment has regard to reasonably long term net changes in floorspace between 2008 and 2016 however importantly also has regard to the impact from the conversion of offices to residential made since amendments made to the General Permitted Development Order came into effect in 2013. Trends have changed from net gains in offices/B1 in the 2013 ELR to one of net losses. Conversely, the trend of net losses of industrial and storage floorspace identified in the 2013 ELR has turned around to one of net gains. The principal reason for this is however completion of one large development on a reserve employment site in Dorking by Johnston Sweepers.

8.9 The Technical Appendix sets out the detailed data (Tables 29 and 30). This has been condensed into the following table which converts net changes in floorspace into jobs using the worker floorspace ratios. 69

Offices Industry Storage Total

B1 B2 B8 Empl.

Change

2 2 2 Net change in floorspace 2008 – 2016 -11,871m +2,347m +1,397m (8 years)

2 2 2 Annual average floorspace -1,484m 293m 175m

Derived Floorspace change:

2 2 2 a) 2016 - 2021 (5 years) -7,419m 1,465m 875m

2 2 2 b) 2021 - 2026 (5 years) -7,419m 1,465m 875m

2 2 2 c) 2016 - 2026 (10 years)(a + b) -14,838m 2,930m 1,750m

2 2 2 d) 2026 – 2033 (7 years) -10,388m 2,051m 1,225m

Worker floorspace ratio: 12.0 42.0 70.0

Jobs change arising:

2016 - 2021 (5 years) -618 35 13 -570

2021 - 2026 (5 years) -618 35 13 -570

2016 - 2026 (10 years) -1,237 70 26 -1,142

2026 - 2033 (7 years) -866 49 18 -799

2016 – 2033 (17 years) -2,102 119 43 -1,940

Table 8.2 Changes in jobs arising from the net change in floorspace stock

8.10 Based on past trends the above table forecasts a continuing loss of floorspace in the Class B1 Office market however small increases in industrial and storage floorspace. The predicted loss in office employment (2,102 jobs over the plan period to 2033) significantly outweighs the forecast gain in jobs in the industrial/ manufacturing/ storage sectors, estimated at some 162 jobs. Caution should be applied in interpreting these trends it being acknowledged that employment growth takes place for other reasons and is not directly related just to net or gross changes in floorspace. Likewise basing floorspace requirements solely on forecast increases in jobs (Method 3) may significantly over estimate floorspace requirements.

1b: Employment growth based on implementation of planning permissions and occupancy of vacant premises

8.11 An alternative method is to take the amount of deliverable floorspace in outstanding planning permissions and vacant premises at the base date of March 2016 and using worker floorspace ratios convert this into the number of jobs which could be accommodated should all the floorspace be taken up:

Offices /B1a Industry and Total

Storage B1c- B8

Outstanding permissions and vacant floorspace 30,298m2 10,723 41,021 at March 2016 Worker floorspace ratio 12.00 42.0

Total jobs 2,525 255 2,780

Table 8.3 Potential jobs which could be generated from available floorspace (From TA Table 31)

8.12 Table 6.3 indicates that the implementation of all available floorspace at March 2016 could generate 2,780 jobs of which 2,525 are in the office and business sector. This available floorspace does not include those offices which have prior approval for conversion to residential (as at March 2016).

8.13 Taking together the combined results of the above forecasting method there would appear to be no quantitative need for the allocation of land to accommodate additional employment floorspace in the district over the plan period to 2033. There would appear to be sufficient floorspace in the pipeline to accommodate a growth in jobs in the B1c – B8 sectors and a significant oversupply of office floorspace. In the 5 months to the end of August 2016 a further 16,218m2 of office floorspace either achieved Prior Approval for conversion to residential or had not been implemented. Nonetheless, using the forecast method above a floorspace surplus would remain even if all this floorspace was lost from the existing stock.

Method 2: Need Arising from Labour Supply Forecasts

8.14 This method asks what the additional local labour supply (ie increases in working age population) is likely to be, over time, and what proportion 71

are likely to require jobs in the District in those employment sectors incorporating Class B1-B8 uses.

8.15 Changes to the Mole Valley working age population have been identified in paragraphs 4.59 to 4.61 above. Tables 16 to 18 of the Technical Appendix look at the projections and conclude that increases in working age population (ages 16 – 64) over the plan period to 2033 will be marginal (a net increase of 400 persons).

8.16 Whilst the 2001 Census data indicated almost as many persons in- commuted as out-commuted and in effect these flows cancelled each other out, the 2011 Census data indicated a net in-commuting figure of 4,055 persons. The exercise below considers resident based changes in labour supply and subsequently considers the implications for net in- commuting.

8.17 It should be recalled that some 90% of the working age population who are economically inactive would not necessarily be seeking employment. These caveats will affect the figures below.

8.18 The data for this exercise are Tables 33-34 of the Technical Appendix. The tables take the total increases in working age population over different time periods and, using the current proportion of 47.3% of existing jobs being in Use Classes B1-B8, identifies the total additional working age population of the District who could be in such employment. After 2026 the working age population remains static and then declines and hence no calculation is made beyond this time. Worker floorspace ratios can be used to convert these jobs into floorspace requirements.

Table 8.4: Estimated Jobs in Class B1 – B8 Arising From Increases In Working Age Population (Ages 16 – 64)

Total Change in Assuming Jobs in Jobs in Jobs in Working Age 47.3%* new B1c B8 population jobs in Class B1 B1a – B8 and B2 (1.6% of total) (42.2% of total) (3.5% of total)

2016-2021 400 189 169 14 6

2021-2026 200 95 84 7 3

Total 2016 600 284 253 21 9 - 2026

Estimated Requirements for Class B1 – B8 Floorspace Arising From Increases In Working Age Population (derived from table above)

Floorspace Jobs in Floorspace Floorspace in Jobs in in B1a from in B1c- B2 B8 from w/f w/f ratio of B1c from w/f Jobs in ratio of 70.0:1 B1a 12.0:1 ratio of B8 and B2 42.0:1

2016- 169 2,028m2 14 588m2 6 420m2 2021

2021- 84 1,008m2 7 294m2 3 210m2 Total Class B 2026 Floorspace Requirement

Total 253 3,036m2 21 882m2 9 630m2 4,548m2 2016 - 2026

Table 8.4 Converting changes in working age population to jobs and floorspace

8.19 The figures show a requirement, to 2026, for 3,036m2 of office and business floorspace. In comparison there is available in deliverable planning permissions and vacant premises a total of 30,298m2. There is also sufficient industrial and storage floorspace; 10,723m2 available compared to a requirement for 1,512m2. Given the large margin by which available floorspace exceeds potential requirement as a result of changes to the working age population any increase in the requirement for Class B floorspace as a result of increases in the working age population of adjacent local authorities from which the majority of in-commuting is derived can be easily absorbed. The figures can be used as a check and balance against the demand led employment jobs / floorspace method.

8.20 The 2016 SHMA used for the purposes of its forecasts a working age population between the ages of 18 – 69 taking account of changes in participation in education and assumed later retirement. Across the HMA the working age population was anticipated to rise by some 14% with three-quarters of this increase occurring in Kingston (para 6.13 of the SHMA refers). The SHMA calculated the increase in working age population in Mole Valley over the period 2012 to 2037 to be 2,100 (84 pa). Using the SHMA parameters the working age population over the 10 year period 2016 – 26 would increase by some 840 as opposed to the 600 forecast by Nomis (working age population 16 – 64).

8.21 Table 8.5 below looks at estimated jobs arising from this higher increase in working age population (aligned with that identified in the SHMA) and translates this into potential floorspace requirements. 73

Table 8.5: Estimated Jobs in Class B1 – B8 Arising From Increases In Working Age Population (Ages 18 – 69)

Total Change in Assuming Jobs in Jobs in Jobs in Working Age 47.3%* new B1c B8 population jobs in Class B1 B1a – B8 and B2 (1.6% of total) (42.2% of total) (3.5% of total)

Total 2016 840 397 354 29 13 - 2026

Estimated Requirements for Class B1 – B8 Floorspace Arising From Increases In

Working Age Population (derived from table above)

Floorspace Jobs in Floorspace in Floorspace Total Class B Jobs in in B1a from B1c- B2 from in B8 from Floorspace w/f ratio of B1c w/f ratio of Jobs in w/f ratio of Requirement B1a 12.0:1 42.0:1 70.0:1 and B2 B8

2 2 2 m2 Total 354 4,248m 29 1,218m 13 910m 6,376 2016 - 26

8.22 At March 2016 there was 41,021m2 of available Class B floorspace (permissions and vacant) (source: Tech App Table 3a). Any floorspace requirement arising from increases to the working age population will therefore be easily absorbed. There would appear to be no need for additional floorspace above that already available to meet forecast changes in the District’s working age population in these employment sectors.

Method 3: Demand Led Forecast Growth in Employment

8.23 This method uses the latest available Experian employment forecasts as at June 2016. This is demand led trend based employment forecast information. The forecasts use government BRES data which is extrapolated forward having regard to historic trends and other factors including forecast GVA growth. However they are otherwise unconstrained demand led forecasts.

8.24 The forecasts use the 2007 SIC employment broad sectors. These 74

need to be matched, as best as possible, to Class B1 - B8 development types to enable comparison with floorspace information. The data for all the broad sectors is at Annex 5 of the Technical Appendix.

Groupings of Broad Sectors to Use Groups 2016 2021 2026 2033 Classes

B1a and unrestricted B1 Jobs (offices and J, K, L, M, N, S 19,000 19,600 20,100 20,900 business uses)

B1c and B2 Jobs (manufacturing) C 1,400 1,300 1,100 900

B8 Jobs (transport and storage) H 500 500 500 400

Total B1-B8 Jobs 20,900 21,400 21,700 22,200

Table 8.6 Experian Class B Employee Job Forecasts by Use Class

8.25 Table 8.6 summarises the data from Tables 27 and 35 of the Technical Appendix. It shows total jobs in B1-B8 uses derived from the SIC broad sectors. The table shows that, on the continuation of trends Mole Valley would see an increase in office jobs and a decline in manufacturing / industrial jobs. Storage jobs remain unchanged until after 2026. Employee changes over time by sector can then be converted to floorspace requirements by using the worker / floorspace ratios

8.26 Such a standardised conversion of jobs to floorspace does not have regard to other factors which may influence floorspace requirements. Indeed additional jobs can be accommodated by means which do not necessarily involve additional floorspace. For example increasing floorspace efficiency from changing working practices including hot desking and job share, working from home and making more efficient use of under-utilised space / ancillary space in existing premises and intensification of use (i.e. "Smart" growth).

8.27 Moreover using trend based information, with no local context, can be a self fulfilling prophecy as it would just reinforce trends. Having regard to these issues the demand led forecasts should be treated with caution.

8.28 The following table (Technical Appendix Table 36) summarises the outcome of converting the demand forecast range of jobs to equivalent floorspace requirements for B1-B8 uses:

Table 8.7: Converting jobs to floorspace - Class B1a / Unrestricted B1

2016 - 21 2021 - 26 2016-2026 2026 - 33 2016 – 2033 Total Total

Forecast Change in 500 1,100 1,900 B1a / B1 jobs 600 800

x W/F ratio 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0

= Total B1a / B1 7,200m2 6,000m2 13,200m2 9,600m2 22,800m2 floorspace requirement

Available floorspace 30,298m2 30,298m2 30,298m2 30,298m2 at March 2016 (Table 3b)

Surplus +23,098m2 +17,098m2 +7,498m2

Table 8.7: Converting job changes to floorspace requirements: B1a - B1 unrestricted

8.29 The table shows, crudely, a significant oversupply of Class B1 office floorspace to meet demand led forecasts for jobs until the end of the plan period. As noted previously however prior approvals not yet started or newly achieved in the period March to end-August 2016 totaled 16,218 m2 (TA Table 1e). There is inevitably uncertainty attached to the likelihood of all this floorspace being converted to residential use. Were this to occur however there could be a case, using this demand-led methodology, for a marginal increase in office floorspace towards the end of the plan period.

8.30 The following table (based on Tables 37 of the Technical Appendix) carries out the same exercise for industrial uses (i.e. manufacturing). It shows the reduction in jobs would mean a requirement for less floorspace:

Table 8.8: Converting jobs to floorspace - Class B1c - B2

2016 - 21 2021 - 26 2016-2026 2026 - 33 2016 – 2033 Total Total

Forecast B1c–B2 jobs -100 -200 -300 -200 -500 x W/F ratio 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0

= Total B1c–B2 -4,200m2 -8,400m2 -12,600m2 -8,400m2 -21,000m2

floorspace requirement

Available floorspace at 7,231m2 7,231m2 7,231m2 7,231m2 March 2016 (Table 3b)

Surplus +11,431m2 +19,831m2 +28,231m2

Table 8.8: Converting job changes to floorspace requirements: B1c-B2

8.31 The following table (based on Table 38 of the Technical Appendix) carries out the same exercise for warehousing / storage uses (Use Class B8). Table 8.9: Converting jobs to floorspace - Class B8 2016 - 21 2021 - 26 2016-2026 2026 - 33 2016 – 2033 Total Total

Forecast increase in B8 0 0 -100 jobs 0 -100

x W/F ratio 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0

= Total B8 floorspace 0 0 0 -7,000m2 -7,000m2 requirement

Available floorspace at 3,492m2 3,492m2 3,492m2 3,492m2 March 2016 (Table 3b)

2 2 +10,492m2 Surplus / deficit 3,492m +3,492m

8.32 Table 8.10 below summarises the floorspace needs identified through forecast growth in employment:

Table 8.10 Summary of Floorspace Needs as a result of a forecast growth in employment - All Class B uses

2016-2021 2016-2026 2016-2033 Total Total Total

Class B1a / Unrestricted B1 -23,098 -17,098 -7,498

Class B1c - B2 -11,431 -19,831 -28,231

Class B8 -3,492 -3,492 -10,492

Total -40,608 -43,008 -48,808

8.33 The tables indicate that with regard to floorspace in all B class uses that there is a “surplus” to the end of the plan period. The level of potentially ‘surplus’ floorspace at 2033 represents some 10% of existing stock. Future conversions of office to residential premises under the prior notification procedure could impact on the availability and thus future demand for office floorspace however this will have to be kept under regular review.

Comparing the Methods:

8.34 The forecasts from the different methodologies can be compared to indicate a range of floorspace requirements based on the above exercises. Tables 8.11 to 8.13 below refer.

8.35 Given the availability of vacant premises and extant planning permissions which together total 41,021m2 no forecasting method suggests a scenario whereby additional land allocations for Class B use will be required in the plan period to 2033. With the exception of Class B1 office use, surplus floorspace is anticipated to grow throughout the plan period. At 2033 the combined Class B floorspace surplus is likely to lie in the region of 7 – 10% of existing stock.

8.36 Table 8.12 compares the results of the three forecasting methods for Class B1 office floorspace in isolation. As with the combined Class B floorspace figures all three methodologies project a floorspace ‘surplus’ of between 5 and 10% at 2026 beyond which, economic uncertainties and the reliance which can be placed on such forecasts inevitably declines. Floorspace surpluses are nonetheless projected forwards to the end of the plan period.

8.37 Table 8.13 undertakes the same exercise and compares the three methodologies for forecasting floorspace demand for the industrial /manufacturing and storage sectors. Here the three forecasting methods are not readily reconciled. Forecasts based on past trends in net changes in floorspace project a small upswing in the demand for Class B2/B8 floorspace with demand continuing to increase throughout the plan period. Existing vacancies and extant permissions could absorb this floorspace requirement.

8.38 Conversely, Experian projections of decreasing employment in these sectors leads to a forecast of significant oversupply of Class B2 /B8 floorspace representing 10.6% of floorspace stock at 2026.

8.39 Vacancy or ‘surplus floorspace’ does however play an important role in the operational health of the property market. The common benchmark for vacancy rates considered to be within a normal range is a figure of between 5% to 10% of the total built stock. This enables markets to function efficiently and allows for market churn, choice and flexibility. A surplus in supply is required to ensure that the market can react quickly to demands arising.

8.40 Whilst Class B floorspace surpluses are therefore forecast to exist throughout the plan period, they do not reach a level whereby the reallocation of employment sites for alternative uses should be actively considered or promoted. Where existing employment sites are considered suitable for continued employment use they should, on balance, be retained for that use.

8.41 Regular floorspace monitoring of the office market will be necessary throughout the plan period given the emergence of the prior notification regime. Given the relatively high residential values in the District the Council recognises the threats posed to its supply of office accommodation. The Council is thus in the process of serving Article 4 Directions on parcels of land in Leatherhead and Dorking in a bid to protect key clusters of office development from conversion to residential under permitted development rights.

Table 8.11 Summary of forecasts of Employment Floorspace Requirements by Class B Use

2016-21 2016-26 2016-33

Method 1: B1 B1c – B8 Totals % 2016 B1 B1c – B2 B8 Totals % 2016 B1 B1c – B2 B8 Totals % 2016 Net changes B2 Stock Stock Stock in floorspace -5,079 2 -7,419 1,465 875 - 1.1% -14,838 +2,930 +1,750 -10,158 -2.1% -25,226 +4,981m +2,975 -17,340 -3.6% (TA Table 30 2 2 m m 2 a-e) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 m m m m m m m m m aggregated)

% Class B % Class B % Class Consequent jobs at jobs at B -618 35 13 -570 -1,237 70 jobs 25 -1,142 -2,102 119 jobs 43 -1,940 net change in 2016 2016 jobs at jobs jobs jobs 2016 jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs -2.7% jobs jobs jobs -5.5% (notional) -9.3%

Method 2: B1 B1c – B2 B8 Totals % Class B jobs jobs jobs jobs at 2016 Labour 354 29 13 397 N/A supply +1.9% floorspace requirement 4,248m2 1,218m2 910m2 6,376m2 s resulting Floorspace Req. resulting from labour supply increase: in increases to Vacant premises & planning permissions at 2016 30,298 7,231 3,492 41,021m 2 Working (TA table 3b): m2 m2 m2 Age -26,050 -6,013 -2,582 - Population Floorspace requirement: 2 % 2016 2 m 2 34,645m m m 2 Stock 18 – 69 (As Per SHMA) -7.2%

Method 3: B1 B1c – B2 B8 Totals % Class B B1 B1c – B2 B8 Totals % Class jobs jobs jobs jobs at jobs jobs jobs B +800 2016 jobs at Job +1,100 -300 0 +1,900 -500 -100 1,300 2016 demand Forecast change in Jobs (Experian): +3.8% +6.2% led floorspace Floorspace Req. resulting from forecast change in 13,200 -12,600 0 +600m2 22,800m2 -21,000 -7,000 -5,200 jobs: requireme m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 nt (TA Table 35) 2 Vacant premises & planning permissions at 2016 30,298 7,231m 3,492 41,021m 30,298 7,231 3,492 41,021 2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 (TA table 3b):

2 2 Floorspace requirement: -17,098 -19,831 -3,492 -40,421m % 2016 -7,498m2 -28,231 -10,492 -46,221 % 2016 m2 m2 m2 Stock m2 m2 Stock -8.4% -9.6%

2016 Employment Floorspace Stock = 480,500 m2 Available Floorspace at March 2016 (Permissions and Vacant premises) = 41,021m2 = 8.5% total stock) No. of Jobs in Class B Uses at 2016 = 20,900 (Table 8.6 and Annex 5)

Table 8.12 Summary of Forecasts for Class B1a / unrestricted B1 floorspace

2016-21 2016-26 2016-33

Method 1: % 2016 % 2016 % 2016 Net changes in floorspace Stock Stock Stock (TA Table 30 a-e) 2 -2.9% 2 -5.7% 2 -9.7% aggregated) -7,419m -14,838m -25,226 m

Consequent net change in jobs (notional) % Class B1 % Class B1 % Class B jobs at 2016 jobs at 2016 jobs at 2016 -618 jobs -1,237 -2,102 jobs -3.3% -6.5% -11.1% jobs

Method 2: B1 % Class B1 jobs jobs at 2016

Labour supply floorspace 354 +1.9% requirements resulting in N/A increases to Working Age Population 4,248m2 18 – 69 (As Per SHMA) Floorspace Req. resulting from labour supply increase:

2 Vacant premises & planning 30,298m permissions at 2016 (TA table 3b):

2 Floorspace requirement: -26,050m % 2016 Stock -10.0%

Method 3: B1 % Class B1 B1 % Class B1 jobs jobs at 2016 jobs jobs at 2016

Job demand led +1,100 +5.8% +1,900 +10.0% Forecast change in Jobs (Experian): floorspace requirement (TA Table 35) Floorspace Req. resulting from forecast 13,200m2 22,800m2 change in jobs:

2 2 Vacant premises & planning 30,298m 30,298m permissions at 2016 (TA table 3b):

2 Floorspace requirement: -17,098m % 2016 -7,498m2 % 2016 Stock Stock -6.6% -2.9%

2016 Class B1a / unrestricted B1 Floorspace Stock = 259,900 m2 Available Class B1a / unrestricted B1 Floorspace at March 2016 (Permissions and Vacant premises) = 30,298m2 = 12% total stock) No. of Jobs in Class B1a / unrestricted B1 Uses at 2016 = 19,000 (Table 8.6 and Annex 5)

Table 8.13 Summary of Forecasts for Class B1c / B2 / B8 floorspace

2016-21 2016-26 2016-33

Method 1: B1c, B2 & B8 B1c, B2 & B8 2 % 2016 % 2016 % 2016 2,340m Net changes in Stock Stock 2 Stock +7,956m floorspace (TA 2 Table 30 a-e) + 1.1% +4,680m +2.1% +3.6% aggregated)

% Class B1c, B2 & % Class B1c, B2 & % Class B1c, B2 Consequent net change in jobs B8 B8 & B8 48 jobs jobs at 2016 95 jobs jobs at 2016 jobs at 2016 (notional)

2.5% 5% 162 jobs +8.5%

Method 2: B1c, B2 & B8 % Class B1c, B2 & jobs B8 jobs at 2016 Labour supply 42 N/A floorspace +2.2% requirements resulting in 2,128m2 increases to Floorspace9.0 Req. Economicresulting from labour and Employment Land Profiles supply increase: Working Age Population 18 – by SubVacant- premisesArea & planning 10,723 69 (As Per permissions at 2016 (TA table 3b): m2 SHMA) 9.1 Leatherhead is the main commercial2 employment area of the district Floorspace requirement: -8,595m % 2016 accommodating some 50% of the district’s Stock emp loyment (Class B) floorspace at March 2016. Some 27% is -3.9% accommodated in Dorking. Whilst this chapter thus focusses on the employment role and strengths Method 3: % Class B1c, B2 & B1c B2 & B8 % Class B1c, B2 of Leatherhead it goes on to provides a brief B8summary of thejobs economic & B8 jobs at 2016 jobs at 2016 Job demand led and employment characteristicsB1c, B2 & B8of the other main built up -areas600 of the Forecast change in Jobs (Experian): jobs -15.8% -31.6% floorspace District, namely Dorking, Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham together with requirement (TA -300 Table 35) the rural areas. The summaries comment on the wider economic nature of each area where possible. Floorspace Req. resulting from forecast -12,600m2 -28,000m2 change in jobs: 9.2 In terms of employment land the NPPF requires local planning authorities to: 2 2 Vacant premises & planning 10,723m 10,723m permissions at 2016  plan positively for the location, promotion and expansion of (TA table 3b): clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high 2 2 Floorspacetechnology requirement industries: -23,323m % 2016 -38,723m % 2016 Stock Stock  Identify priority areas for economic regeneration -10.6% -17.5%  Support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they

2016 Class B1c / B2 / B8 Floorspaceare Stock expanding = 220,600 m or2 contracting Available Class B1c / B2 / B8 Floorspace at March 2016 (Permissions and Vacant premises) = 10,723m2 = 4.9% total stock) No. of Jobs in Class B1c / B2 / B8 Uses at 2016 = 1,900 (Table 8.6 and Annex 5)

9.0 Economic and Employment Land Profiles by Sub-Area

9.1 Leatherhead is the main commercial employment area of the District accommodating some 50% of the District’s employment (Class B) floorspace at March 2016. Some 27% is accommodated in Dorking. Whilst this chapter thus focusses on the employment role and strengths of Leatherhead it goes on to provide a brief summary of the economic and employment characteristics of the other main built up areas of the District, namely Dorking, Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham together with the rural areas. The summaries comment on the wider economic nature of each area where possible.

9.2 In terms of employment land the NPPF requires local planning authorities to:

 Plan positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven creative or high technology industries

 Identify priority areas for economic regeneration

 Support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting.

Leatherhead 9.3 Leatherhead is located in the north of the District and forms part of a larger built up area with Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham. It is located on the A24 which connects with Dorking and Horsham in the south and Epsom and central London to the north. It is served by Junction 9 of the M25 motorway giving good access to Heathrow Airport and Gatwick Airport (via the M23), the rest of the national motorway network and centres around London and the South East. There are railway services to Guildford, Dorking and Horsham and regular services into central London (Waterloo and Victoria). The railway station (and bus interchange) is well located in close proximity to the town centre and several of the main employment areas.

9.4 Leatherhead is home to more traditional M25 west occupiers including a number of global companies operating European and UK headquarters. Large employers are KBR, Exxon Mobil and Unilever. There is a strong concentration of research and development and ICT companies, many based around the Cleeve Road and Randall’s Road area on the outskirts of the town centre. 83

9.5 The main commercial employment areas are the town centre itself and the business parks and industrial estates located predominantly on the north and west side of the town. There are also major office buildings not in the town centre or on business parks, for example at Thorncroft Manor.

9.6 The 2011 Census indicates Leatherhead has a population of 11,300, an increase of 1,600 persons since 2001. Whilst being the largest commercial centre of the District it is not the largest population centre. Both Dorking and Bookham are of similar population size and Ashtead is larger than these (14,200 persons).

9.7 The technical appendices (Tables 1a to 1e) set out the estimated stock of employment floorspace (m2) in Leatherhead at March 2016 compared to 2012.

Offices Factories Warehouses Total 2012 (See 170,000 25,000 46,000 241,000 ELR 2013) 2016 166,000 25,500 47,000 238,500

9.8 Over this period, office floorspace lost through Prior Approvals measured 4,000m2. A further 7,013m2 gained prior approval for conversion to residential between March to end-August 2016 or at August 2016 remained unimplemented. A Market Study undertaken for the Council by agents Hurst Warne suggests that the majority of buildings achieving prior approvals for conversion to residential are ill- suited to providing the modern office attributes sought by today’s occupiers (i.e. raised floors, suspended ceilings, modern air conditioning systems, energy efficient lighting). The study reports that most of the buildings not capable of providing modern office stock have now been converted.

9.9 In general terms however the stock of commercial floorspace is relatively modern and there have been many substantial refurbishments in recent years, i.e. The Square, One Springfield Drive and Bluebird House (now 2/3rds let). Refurbishments of The Square and One Springfield Drive were undertaken on a speculative basis and demonstrate returning investor confidence in the sector. Agents Hurst Warne in their Market Study highlight the ‘healthy office stock’ in the town, evidence of rising rents and returning investor confidence post- recession.

9.10 In terms of supply, at March 2016 the Council’s monitoring data identified 23 vacant office units in Leatherhead together totaling some 16,346m2 (TA Annex 3 refers). Hurst Warne identified 21,230m2 to be ‘available’ in 24 units at September 2016 though not all of these were 84

vacant. The balance of stock between Grade ‘A’ and Grade ‘B’ was considered correct and office supply sufficient to accommodate demand over the medium term (3 – 5 years).

9.11 The Council recognises the importance of keeping key office clusters in place and retaining the quantum of floorspace necessary to maintain Leatherhead as a key office destination attractive to multi-national as well as local companies. The Council is thus in the process of serving Article 4 Directions on parcels of land in Leatherhead (as well as in Dorking). Once in force the Directions will require an application for planning permission be made for any change of use sought thus removing permitted development rights which presently enable the conversion of office to residential accommodation.

9.12 Outstanding planning permissions in Leatherhead at March 2016 stood at 4,831m2, all but 110m2 falling in Class B1 (TA Annex 2 refers). Much of this (4,221m2) is to be provided at One Springfield Drive, currently undergoing refurbishment and extension (Annex 4 refers). The total excludes the live permission for 7,950 m2 of B1(a) floorspace on the KBR site, (the unbuilt residual of a larger implemented scheme), as delivery of this unit is uncertain.

9.13 Aside from the 23 vacant office units referred to in paragraph 9.10 above, some 7 industrial/manufacturing units lay vacant at end March 2016 together totaling 2,948m2 and one B8 storage unit totaling 1,492m2.

9.14 Technical Appendix 5A, identifies net changes in floorspace 2008 – 2016. This shows that actual floorspace levels have remained relatively static in Leatherhead over the 8 year period there having been a net increase in office floorspace of 571m2, a net decrease in industrial floorspace of 428m2 and a net loss of some 2,185m2 in storage floorspace.

9.15 Table 7 of the TA shows the overall take up of vacant floorspace since April 2006. The table indicates that 35,268m2 of offices and business space has been occupied; an annual take-up rate of 3,527m2. The amount taken up in industrial and storage space is lower at 1,237m2 and 1,033m2 per annum respectively.

9.16 Taking vacant office floorspace at 16,346m2 and permitted B1 at 4,721m2 this totals 21,067m2 which would indicate a 6 year supply of office floorspace in Leatherhead should average take up rates continue. There is however a tighter supply for industrial/manufacturing floorspace (2.4 years) and storage / warehousing (1.5 years) again reflecting a tighter supply and availability of the latter.

Jobs and Skills

9.17 The 2015 BRES data identifies 16,500 employee jobs in Leatherhead, down from 17,300 in 2011. This is 37% of all employee jobs in the District. A total of 13,000 jobs are in Leatherhead North ward indicating a high concentration of jobs within a single ward (being almost one third of jobs in the District (TA Table 25 refers). Indeed it is one of the largest employment centres (wards) in the County.

9.18 47% of jobs are in the business services sector however these have also dropped off from 8,600 in 2011 to 7,800 in 2015.

9.19 Some 52% of Leatherhead residents are employed in the managerial, professional and technical occupations compared with 40% nationally. For the Leatherhead North ward this was 45%, some way below the District average of 53%. Given that many jobs in North Leatherhead are on the research and business parks employing many managerial, professional and technical workers this would indicate a skills mismatch between residents and the needs of employers. This is accentuated when looking at educational attainment levels in North Leatherhead. The 2011 census reveals that 19.4% of residents have no qualifications and that only 37% of pupils achieved 5 or more GCSE’s at grade A-C compared with a District average of 61%.

9.20 From the above it can be concluded that the needs of employers in Leatherhead North are currently met by in-commuting from elsewhere in the District or from outside the District.

Dorking 9.21 The Dorking Industrial and Commercial Land Review 2011 was prepared to support the preparation of the industrial and commercial policies in the Dorking Town Area Action Plan. The review provided an assessment of industrial and commercial land within Dorking town.

9.22 At the time there was estimated to be approximately 141,000 m2 of office, industrial and storage floorspace in the town. By end December 2012 this had fallen to 132,000m2 and by March 2016 to 129,500 m2. The majority of this floorspace loss has been in the office sector which has lost some 10.3% of floorspace stock since December 2012. Much of this can be attributed to the conversion of offices to residential as a result of prior approvals coming forward following changes to permitted development legislation in 2013.

9.23 Monitoring in the five month period between end-March and end-August 2016 identifies a potential further 10% loss in office floorspace as a result of prior approvals. Should these schemes be implemented the total loss in office floorspace Dec. 2012 to August 2016 could exceed 20%. 86

9.24 There has however been an increase in factory floorspace over this period with the expansion of the Johnson Sweepers Factory onto reserve Employment Land to the west of the Curtis Road Industrial estate, occupied in October 2013. A redevelopment at Parsonage Mills (Attlees) on Station Road is under construction and will contribute an additional 920m2 B2/B8 floorspace.

9.25 Offsetting the above however is the loss of the Vincent Works employment site which now supports a Lidl foodstore and adjacent housing development.

9.26 Beyond the town centre which supports smaller offices, Dorking has two main office areas. The first is around the mainline Dorking railway station comprising the Aviva site plus nearby Biwater House, Park Lodge and Regent House though the latter has prior approval for conversion to residential (as yet unimplemented). The second main area is Dorking Business Park to the west of the town which is currently approximately 50% let. Some buildings on the park are currently undergoing refurbishment.

9.27 Local letting agents (Hurst Warne) advise that office floorspace take up over the past few years has been limited. They warn that good secondary space is now starting to suffer from a lack of supply due to prior approval conversions however suggest that there remains over 5 years of supply of offices within Dorking, the majority of this within Dorking Business Park.

9.28 Outstanding planning permissions for Class B floorspace in Dorking at March 2016 comprise 1,324m2 B1, and 2,683m2 B2. Additional vacant floorspace at March 2016 comprises 10 office units in Class B1 (totaling 7,644m2), 4 light industrial/manufacturing units (totaling 1,042m2) and 1 warehouse unit of 677m2. (Technical Appendix Annexes 2 and 3 refer).

Ashtead 9.29 Ashtead is the most populated area in Mole Valley with a population of 14,600 at 2016 however remains mostly residential in character. It lies on the A24 with good access to nearby employment centres such as Leatherhead and Epsom, is in close proximity to Junction 9 of the M25 and is well connected by rail with services to central London, Epsom, Dorking and Guildford.

9.30 Two central office premises, at either end of the District Centre have been lost to residential use through prior approvals and there is now no major office in the centre of the Village. There are no industrial estates in Ashtead and any individual commercial premises are, in the main, occupied as vehicle servicing workshops.

9.31 On the southern edge of the built up area of Ashtead, and with good road connections to the M25, is the UK headquarters of ExxonMobil, a major employer in the District. The village also supports some 9 local state and independent schools as well as the Ashtead Hospital.

9.32 The emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) highlights the difficulties that local firms have in recruiting employees particularly for lower paid jobs. Unemployment rates for the 3 Ashtead wards are at or below the district average. Ashtead Hospital is cited as an example of a local employer struggling to hire nursing staff.

9.33 At 2015 there were about 4,400 people employed in Ashtead (a drop of 400 from 2011). Information provided by Nomis suggests a slight fall in the number of personnel employed in health and education sectors however a rise in business services (professional, scientific and technical, information and communications), this being the main employment sector totaling over 1,900 jobs in 2015 up from 1,600 in 2011 (all figures rounded to nearest 100).

9.34 The 2011 Census indicates 6,970 residents are economically active; 71% of the population aged 16 - 74. There are 6,536 persons in employment of which 1,342 are self employed. The NDP estimates that there are some 800-900 businesses being run from Ashtead homes.

9.35 Almost 59% of residents are employed in the managerial, professional and technical occupations compared with 41% nationally.

Bookham

9.36 Bookham is in the NW of the District and is part of a larger built up area with Fetcham. It is located on the A246 which connects Leatherhead with Guildford. It is also served by railway services to Guildford Leatherhead and onwards to London. The railway station is located well to the north of the centre of Bookham but is in close proximity to Bookham Industrial Park. Traffic wishing to use the M25 has to go via Leatherhead or otherwise to Junction 10 at Wisley involving a far longer journey.

9.37 Bookham Industrial Park, built in the 1980’s, houses approximately 35 units though some have been amalgamated, the size and flexibility of units (ranging from 93m2 to 285m2) is seen as a positive for the park. The industrial park houses a diverse range of occupiers and vacancy levels are normally low however the emerging Bookham NDP passes comment on the age and poor design of the units as well as poor road access.

9.38 Adjoining the Industrial Park is the headquarters of Photo-Me International, the photo booth operations company. Their site of 88

approximately 1Ha comprises the company's HQ in a modern office building of about 800m2 however this has recently benefitted from prior approval for conversion to residential (as yet unimplemented) and planning permission for the erection of 38 dwellings on the remainder of the site was granted in November 2016.

9.39 Separate employment areas can be found along Guildford Road and at Finches Yard, Eastwick Road. To the south of the built up area of Bookham the National Trust have their regional HQ offices at Polesden Lacey.

9.40 At 2015 there were about 2,300 people employed in Bookham, a figure that remains unchanged from 2011. As with Ashtead, the main employment sector is business services which has seen a slight rise to 1,100 employees, up from 1,000 in 2011. Employment in medical and health has remained constant at 700 employees.

9.41 The 2011 Census indicates 5,300 residents are economically active; 68% of the population aged 16-74. There are 4,900 persons in employment of which 1,070 are self-employed. Unemployment rates for the 2 Bookham wards are below the district average.

9.42 55% of residents are employed in the managerial, professional and technical occupations compared with 41% nationally.

9.43 Annex 3 of the technical appendices identifies that at March 2016 there was one vacant unit of 249m2 available on the Bookham Industrial Park.

Fetcham 9.44 Fetcham is located in the NW of the District and is part of a larger built up area with Bookham. It is mainly residential in character with very few employment sites. It is located on the A246 which connects Leatherhead with Guildford. The nearest railway stations are at Bookham and Leatherhead with services to Guildford and London. Traffic wishing to use the M25 has to go via Leatherhead or otherwise to Junction 10 at Wisley.

9.45 Individual large commercial premises are Fetcham Park House which provides serviced office accommodation and meeting / conference facilities and a Surrey County Council Rentwood resource centre on School Lane. Office buildings can be found on the Fetcham/Leatherhead border along Guildford Road.

9.46 At 2015 there were 1,600 people employed in Fetcham, up from 1,400 in 2011. In keeping with the employment characteristics of the District, the main employment is in the business services sector where jobs have risen by 100 (from 500 to 600 jobs). Public Services (including health 89

and education) rank second in terms of employment with a constant 300 employees.

9.47 The 2011 Census indicates 4,070 residents are economically active; 72% of the population aged 16 - 74. There are 3,770 persons in employment of which 830 are self employed. Unemployment rates for the 2 Fetcham wards are below the district average.

9.48 54% of residents are employed in the managerial, professional and technical occupations compared with 41% nationally.

Rural Areas 9.49 The District has an extensive rural area with many villages and settlements. This rural area extends to the southern boundary of the District and includes areas near to Gatwick Airport. Several of the villages have small, purpose built industrial estates either within the villages (e.g. at Strood Green and Capel) or just outside (e.g. Charlwood). Additionally there are many commercial uses in converted rural buildings. Some of these are, in effect, small business and industrial estates. For example at Jayes Park at Ockley; Dean House Farm at Newdigate; and Coast Hill Farm at Wotton (the latter described as Surrey Hills Business Park). Annex 6 of the Technical Appendix lists the main commercial estates and groups of premises in the villages and countryside and shows they are well distributed throughout the rural area.

9.50 Supporting Text to Table 1c of the Technical Appendix (TA) estimates there to be some 79,000m2 of commercial floorspace within the rural area. This is about 16% of the total stock. The ELR 2013 identified there to be some 108,000m2 of commercial floorspace in the rural areas at 2012 however this figure included the 22,100m2 headquarters of ExxonMobil located on the edge of Ashtead and some 2,150m2 of office floorspace on the edge of Fetcham which are now excluded. The actual fall in B-Class commercial floorspace in the rural areas 2012- 2016 is thus some 4,750m2 (a drop of 4.4%).

9.51 At March 2016 extant planning permission for commercial floorspace in the rural areas totaled 1,786m2 comprising 204m2 office, 309m2 light industrial and 1,213m2 warehousing/storage floorspace.

9.52 Whilst total floorspace has dropped, the number of people employed in the rural areas has risen by some 10.6% since 2011. At 2015 some 8,300 were employed compared to 7,500 in 2011. (TA Table 13d refers). Again, the main employment sector is business services where the majority of new jobs have been created (2,700 jobs compared to 2,200 in 2011). At 32.3% of jobs this is however still below the District 90

average of 43.3%. There has also been a significant rise in the number of jobs in the public services sector (including education and health) rising from 1,800 to 2,200 jobs. Whilst jobs in the accommodation, food and recreation sector remain experience a slight drop (down 100 to 1,100) the percentage of jobs in this sector, 13.3% remains significantly above the District average (7.9%). This will however include hotel and related jobs in the Hookwood area near Gatwick Airport.

9.53 The 2011 Census indicates 48% of rural residents are employed in the managerial, professional and technical occupations, slightly lower than the District figure but still higher than the national rate of 41%. Residents in skilled trades occupations are 13.6% being higher than the District and national rates (10.6% and 11.4% respectively).

Summary

9.54 Employment centres within the district show similar characteristics containing a high percentage of jobs in the business services sector (Professional, scientific and technical activities, information and communications and Financial and insurance sectors). Public Services, including health and education are also large employers.

9.55 Unemployment rates are uniformly low and large numbers of jobs are in the managerial, technical or professional sector.

9.56 Leatherhead is the commercial heart of the District, particularly in terms of office floorspace and headquarters. The assessment does however identify a mismatch in terms of the educational attainment and skill sets of residents in the ward of North Leatherhead compared to the profile of jobs provided therein.

10.0 Employment Land Assessments

10.1 The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to deliver sustainable development and build a strong, competitive economy. Local planning authorities are advised to review land allocations regularly and should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.

10.2 In line with Planning Policy Guidance an analysis of existing allocated employment sites has been undertaken for both Leatherhead and Dorking assessing their suitability for continued employment use and enabling the Council to identify any gaps in current land supply. The assessments took the form of desk-top analysis supplemented by site visits conducted in the summer of 2016.

10.3 The sites considered are identified on the Local Development Framework proposals map and considered in detail below.

Leatherhead

10.4 Up to date assessments of the following employment sites have been undertaken.

 Brook Way / Regent Park area, Kingston Road  Barnett Wood Lane Industrial Area  Mole Business Park, Station Road  Leatherhead Trade Park (formerly Leatherhead Ind. Estate)  Leatherhead Research Area, off Cleeve Road & Springfield Dr.  Leatherhead Research Area, Randalls Way  Wates Building, Station Approach (formerly Logica)  Plough Industrial Estate, Kingston Road  Ryebrook, Bay Tree Avenue, Kingston Road  Kings Court, Kingston Road

The findings are presented in the following tables.

Table 10.1 Brook Way / Regent Park area, Kingston Road

Brook Way / Regent Park Area

Type of Site Industrial and Commercial; and Business Park

Site Description Location Within the built up area of Leatherhead to the north of the town. West Hill School is located to the west, Tesco to the north, industrial to the south and residential to the east.

Access/Parking

The area is located directly off Kingston Road (B2430) with good access to the surrounding road network and M25.

Condition

This area comprises 3 sectors. The northern most is Brook Way which comprises modern business units on the frontage and more traditional industrial units to the rear. The Regent Park section comprises modern business units. The southern sector is off Oak Road and comprises a Travis Perkins builders merchant and an industrial/warehouse unit and yard. The area provides a good mix, including high quality units of a range of sizes. Some of the units to the rear of Brook Way are older they add to the range of quality and mix of units across the town.

Total Site Area 4.5 ha

Total estimated floorspace Regent Park 5 buildings total = 6,700m2 Stewart House = 1,208m2

Blenheim Court (9 units) total = 1,284m2 Bradmere House = 929m2

2 2 Arkensis House = 1,180m Bradmere Court = 520m

2 2 Leatherhead Motor Co = 950m Hyperion = 490m

Total number of units The Brook Way area comprises 23 units including includes 9 modern small Business units at Blenheim Court (completed March 2009) as well as Arkensis House (offices); 4 small frontage offices on Kingston Road and 4 industrial / office units at Bradmere House. There are 5 industrial units to the rear including Stewart House and Hyperion a furniture manufacturer. The other occupiers are Leatherhead Motor Co and Tweeters recording studio.

Regent Park comprises 5 modern business units (completed in 1998) one of which is occupied as Regus serviced offices. Oak Road comprises an industrial warehouse unit and yard and a builders merchant (with separate offices)

Access to services and Access is on a main road within 2 minutes drive time of the M25 and with a bus stop outside facilities the site. The railway station is about 1,500 metres away. There are major retail stores nearby.

Policy and Constraints Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Growth

Northern section of the site is located in a Flood zone.

Vacancy History The Regent Park units normally have a high level of occupancy. The older units on Brook Way and Oak Road have a number of longstanding occupiers but more recently also higher levels of vacancy. Planning History There is no recent planning history.

Is the site suitable for The site is suitable for continuation of its existing use. continued industrial and commercial use The site provides a good mix of office and industrial units, located in an area of similar uses. It is well located in terms of access off the Kingston Road and has good parking facilities. The site is suitably located within the built up area of Leatherhead and history of high occupancy.

Hurst Warne commented in 2013: The site offers a good mix of office and industrial units located in an area of similar uses, and is well located in terms of access off the Kingston Road and access to the road network. Regent Park has good parking facilities although Brook Way is a private road with parking issues and poor access for articulated vehicles. The older buildings on Brook Way, e.g. Stewart House are suitable for redevelopment for B1C/B2 uses. There is no real opportunity to expand the site.

Table 10.2 Barnett Wood Lane Industrial Area

Barnett Wood Lane Industrial Area

Type of Sites Industrial and commercial

Site Description Location

The area comprises 2 sectors physically separated by the railway line. The southern sector includes Crouch Estate / Yard and the Rydon Business Centre accessed off Barnett Wood Lane. The other part of this area is accessed off Kingston Road and comprises Bridge Works and 2 other premises. The area north of the railway line is also accessed off Kingston Road.

Access/Parking

The area is located directly off Barnett Wood Lane and Kingston Road and has good access onto the M25 and surrounding road network. Hurst Warne (HW) comment: Traffic problems are caused by articulated vehicles accessing the A-Plant site with no turning circles. Similarly, access to the Crouch Industrial Estate is very narrow and is adjacent to residential. Bridge Works is accessed along a private road and under a railway bridge with poor access.

Condition

The Rydon Business Centre units are quite recent and the Crouch Yard (warehousing / industrial) are also relatively modern premises. The other units are more traditional industrial buildings.

Total Site Area 3.7 ha

Total estimated floorspace A) Rydon Business Centre (5 units) = 1,300m2.

B) Crouch Estate Unit 1 = 4,025m2 (subdivided into 4; one of which is vacant)

Unit 2 = 970m2 Unit 3 = 1,866m2

2 2 C) Units off Kingston Road i) A Plant = 1,058m . ii) Denny's Uniforms = 1,446m

D) Bridge works, Kingston Road - floorspace unknown. 94

Total number of units Crouch Yard comprises 3 units one of which has been sub divided. The occupiers are predominantly warehouse / distribution and vehicle repairs.

The Rydon Centre (completed in late 2001) comprises 5 units (one company occupies 3 units).

Bridge Works is sub divided into 11 units (and one unit further sub divided). The 2 individual units are occupied by "A" Plant Hire, Denny Uniform and Streetwise Couriers.

1 unit on the area north of the railway line (access on Buffers Lane.

Access to services and The site is located off Barnett Wood Lane and Kingston Road and has good transport links to the facilities M25. The site is located near to bus stops on Barnett Wood Lane and Kingston Road and is about 1,000 metres from the railway station.

Hurst Warne (HW) comment: Access to A-Plant, Denny Uniforms and Street Wise buildings is poor for articulated vehicles, causing traffic problems at peak periods.

Policy and Constraints Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land and Policy E4 - Existing Industrial and Commercial Land

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

Vacancy History Low vacancy at Bridge Works and normally units are readily re-let.

Planning History North of the railway line the former site of Headland Gauges was redeveloped for flats (in 2006) and only one commercial unit remains.

Is the site suitable for Hurst Warne commented in 2013: A comprehensive re-development of the Crouch Estate, Bridge continued industrial and Works and A Plant and Streetwise buildings would be sensible assuming other sites are commercial use available, as they are not ideal for current use purposes.

The Council considers the areas south of the railway line to be well utilised providing a wide range of size and type of premises but not of the best quality. They provide a contribution to the mix of quality of industrial premises in Leatherhead and it is appropriate to keep the areas in employment uses.

The area north of the railway line is now predominantly residential.

Table 10.3 Mole Business Park, Station Road

Mole Business Park, Station Road

Type of Site Business Park and Offices

Site Description Location The site is located on the western side of Leatherhead with the green belt on the west and southern side.

Access/Parking One access to the business park is located on the Leatherhead one way system and the other is on Randalls Road. The site is well located with regard to railway and bus interchange and the town centre is readily accessible. There do not appear to be any parking issues on the site.

There is a single unit accessed off Old Station Approach.

Condition All of the units on the business park are modern (post 1980) and in good condition.

Total Site Area 4.4 ha

2 Total estimated floorspace 29,900m

Total number of units There are 16 small to medium size units (totalling 7,900m2) of which only one was vacant at March 2 2016. The large industrial/warehouse unit (5,660m ) is occupied by Sungard as a business continuities centre. Unit 18 (5,025m2) on the Randalls Road frontage is an office/business unit. Leatherhead House (6,500m2) is a modern office building with occupiers including JLT Employee Benefits Ltd and Learning Tree International.

There are a further 3 medium - large business units totalling 4,080m2. The largest of these, Bluebird House has been recently refurbished and upgraded and is partly re-let at October 2016.

There is an additional small industrial unit on Old Station Approach and old small commercial premises, Ensign House, on Randalls Road.

Access to services and facilities The site has good access to services and facilities.

Policy and Constraints Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

The southern section of the site is located in a Flood zone. Vacancy History There is currently one vacant industrial unit and some office floorspace available in Leatherhead House. Generally the units are readily re-let.

Planning History The Leatherhead House office building was extended and refurbished in 2005 -06.

Is the site suitable for continued The site has high levels of occupancy and good access to services. There is a wide range of industrial and commercial use occupiers including those in the knowledge sectors and high tech and precision manufacturing.

The site is suitable for the continuation of its existing use.

Table 10.4 Leatherhead Trade Park (formerly Leatherhead Industrial Estate)

Leatherhead Trade Park (formerly Leatherhead Industrial Estate)

Type of Site Industrial and commercial

Site Description Location

The site is located on the west side of Leatherhead and is next to the Mole Business Park

Access/Parking

The site is well located with regard to the highway network and is within 200m of the railway station and bus interchange, and the town centre is readily accessible. There is plenty of parking on the site.

Condition

The site comprises modern industrial / warehousing units all in good condition. They are not as high a specification as those on Mole Business Park.

Total Site Area 1 ha

2 Total estimated floorspace 4,400m

Total number of units There are 8 units on the site and was fully occupied at March 2016:

Unit 1 - Magnet Solutions Unit 5 - W Finch and Co

Unit 2a - Magnet Southern Unit 6 - Saracen Data Store

Unit 2b - Merityre & Exhaust Centre Unit 7 - CSI Sport

Unit 3 - Camberley Autos Unit 8 – Wassen Int.

Unit 4 - Saracen Data Store Access to services and facilities The site is located off the Leatherhead one way system.

Policy and Constraints Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

The southern section of the site is located in a Flood zone.

Vacancy History The site has high levels of occupancy and with several longstanding tenants. Vacant units are normally readily re-let.

Planning History There is no recent planning history.

Is the site suitable for continued The site is suitable for the continued use for industrial and commercial land. industrial and commercial use.

Table 10.5 Leatherhead Research Area, off Cleeve Road and Springfield Drive

Leatherhead Research Area, off Cleeve Road and Springfield Drive

Type of Site Research and Business

Site Description Location This is an extensive research and business area in the north west part of Leatherhead. It comprises 2 sectors one accessed off Cleeve Road and the other off Springfield Drive.

Access/Parking Both areas are accessible to the main road network. Parts of the Cleeve Road sector are within reasonable walking distance of the railway station. The Springfield Drive area is further out on the edge of Leatherhead. Access through Cleeve Road is poor for articulated vehicles. It is a through road but serves residential areas.

There are parking issues associated with some units /occupiers on both sectors of this area.

Condition All of the units on the Springfield Drive site are modern and include headquarters premises. The Office Park was built in 2003 and the Unilever HQ in 2008. The two headquarter buildings occupied by KBR were built in 1997. Kelvin House is being extended and upgraded with completion by end of 2016.

On the Cleeve Road access the Axis building comprises 10 modern small business units completed in 2010. There are also 5 medium and large size "high tech" units built in the 1980's: Axis 1140-2 and Alpha and Beta. The Cobham / Intertek area and premises are a range of both modern and more traditional research buildings; the latter refurbished when PIRA moved in. Olympus House was built in 2000. There is also a modern research / warehouse unit. The South Building, a 1980’s office building at the entrance to the Axis centre is currently vacant. A landowner’s condition report advises that the building is in need of refurbishment

Total Site Area 18.8 ha

Total estimated floorspace The following are known: Springfield Drive:

Kelvin House = 4,2211m2 (when extension completed)

The Office Park = 12,990m2 (3 units) Unilever Headquarters = 20,717m2

KBR Headquarters = 18,050m2

Cleeve Road:

Olympus House = 2,760m2

Bilton Centre (Axis Building) = 1,640m2

Alpha and Beta = 4,140m2

Axis Units 1140 - 1142 = originally 930m2 each. One unit has a warehouse extension of 2 2,045m

Total number of units Springfield Drive area:

This includes the headquarters for Unilever (food and household products) and KBR (consulting engineers) and 3 large business units known as The Office Park including CGI (formerly Logica) and KBR as occupiers.

Cleeve Road Area:

Fronting Cleeve Road is a traditional research building with a modern extension occupied by Intertek. The main occupiers on the rest of the site are Cobham (high tech) and Smithers PIRA (paper manufacturing research). They share some research space and also occupy separate modern and / or refurbished premises. Both Cobham and Intertek are associated with electrical safety and services. South Building occupies a site at the entrance to the Axis Centre.

There is a separate large industrial research building (Olympus House) with several occupiers. Within the site are also 2 other large business/high tech units, Alpha and Beta (currently empty); three medium size Axis units and 10 new small units in a building known as the Axis or Bilton Centre. Access to services and facilities Parts of the area are some way from the centre of Leatherhead and several companies operate shuttle bus services to the railway station and town centre.

Policy and Constraints Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land Core

Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

Vacancy History Historically there are low vacancy levels though space in Olympus House took time to let. The small units at the Bilton Centre were quickly taken up. Space in some of the Axis 1140-1142 units has been more difficult to let but currently they are fully occupied. South Building, a three-storey 1980’s office building is presently vacant.

Planning History The 2 headquarters buildings were built for Halliburton and now occupied by KBR following a management buyout. They are part of a scheme for 3 buildings and the third building has not been constructed. A certificate of proposed lawful use (MO/1998/1542) keeps this "live". This building would have a floorspace of 7,650m2. The ERA Site has recently been the subject of an application for planning permission for a mixed use commercial and residential scheme proposing 117 dwellings (MO/2016/1280). The application was refused in December 2016 on 8 grounds including loss of a safeguarded employment site contrary to Local Plan Policy E2 and Core Strategy Policy CS12.

Is the site suitable for continued The site is considered suitable for continued business and commercial use. The site is a industrial and commercial use. major employment area important for both headquarters and research occupiers.

Older ERA / Cobham buildings on the south west side of the site (r/o Intertek buildings) were demolished and redeveloped for 110 flats in 2006-07. Much of this "lost" commercial floorspace was replaced elsewhere in the research area.

On the part of the site now occupied by residential development it would be reasonable to amend the policy designation boundary to reflect this in due course.

Table 10.6 Leatherhead Research Area, Randalls Way

Leatherhead Research Area, Randalls Way

Type of Site Research and Business

Site Description Location This comprises an extensive research and business area mainly off Randalls Road however there are 2 buildings which front Cleeve Road.

Access/Parking The area is on the main road network and within walking distance of the railway station. When fully occupied parking on some of the Randalls Way site has been tight and there is some on street parking on Cleeve Road.

Condition There is one traditional research building (formerly occupied by Leatherhead Food Research) but the rest of the buildings are modern. 4 of these units were built in the 1980 and have now been fully refurbished and upgraded and are par re-let.

Total Site Area 8.4 ha

Total estimated floorspace Total floorspace about 36,300m2 Comprising: Cleeve Road:

Cleeve Court = 1,900m2 Fountain House - 670m2

Randalls Way: Priory House and Westminster House = 2,185m2 (completed in 2000)

Imperial Park = 4,900m2 (completed Sept 1999)

Police Federation HQ totalling 6,700m2 of which 2,064m2 are offices

(completed by March 2008) The Square = 7,018m2 (refurbished)

2 2 Leatherhead Food RA building = 7,440m Medina House = 2,415m

2 2 Cassini Court = 1,860m Pascal Place = 1,210m

Total number of units Cleeve Road: This area comprises 2 buildings Cleeve Court, constructed as a high tech (B1b) unit, and with a number of firms occupying space. The other building is Fountain House and which comprise 6 small office/business units. Both have high levels of occupancy. Randalls Way comprises a traditional research building previously occupied by Leatherhead Food RA. Some space is available as small business/research suites in what is known as the Leatherhead Enterprise Hub. Beyond this are the 4 buildings known as "The Square".

On the left hand side are 3 large business units and 2 medium size business units and which have some vacant space. To the rear of the site is Imperial Park, a building comprising 4 modern industrial / warehousing units.

Access to services and facilities The site is reasonably well located with regard to Leatherhead railway station and the town centre.

100

Policy and Constraints Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

Vacancy History There has been a turnover of occupiers of the larger business units.

The industrial/ warehouse units at Imperial Park have had several changes of tenants but do not remain vacant for long periods.

Cleeve Court and Fountains Court are normally fully occupied.

Leatherhead Food Research Association has vacated its building. Space in the Leatherhead Enterprise Hub is for start-ups and small firms many of these are in the high technology and science / knowledge sectors.

Planning History Refurbishment of the 4 business units at "The Square" was completed in early 2016. In 2006-7 the original PIRA site and buildings (on the Randalls Road frontage) were redeveloped with 127 flats and with the new HQ for the Police Federation. PIRA relocated to the research area off Cleeve Road.

Is the site suitable for continued The area is a longstanding business and research area and is suitable for continued use. industrial and commercial use. On the part of the site now occupied by residential development it would be reasonable to amend the policy designation boundary to reflect this in due course.

Table 10.7 Wates Building, Station Approach (formerly Logica)

Wates Building (formerly Logica), Station Approach

Type of Site Offices

Site Description Location This site is on Randalls Road and adjoins the railway station.

Access/Parking The site is readily accessible being on the main road network in close proximity to the railway station and bus interchange.

Condition This is a modern building which is the headquarters of Wates the housebuilding and construction company.

Total Site Area 1.7 ha

2 Total estimated floorspace 4,100m

Total number of units 2 linked office buildings completed in 1999. Access to services and facilities The site is readily accessible by public transport and is within walking distance of the town centre.

101

Policy and Constraints Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

Vacancy History The site is fully occupied Planning History There is no recent planning history. Is the site suitable for continued This site is suitable for continued office and business use. industrial and commercial use.

Table 10.8 Plough Industrial Estate, Kingston Road

Plough Industrial Estate, Kingston Road

Site Description Location This area comprises employment sites along the west side of Kingston Road.

Access/Parking The areas are accessed off Kingston Road with good access to the M25. The northern part is accessed off the Plough roundabout. The southern part of the area also includes the new industrial estate at Kingslea Works accessed off Kingslea. Car parking is understood to be adequate. Leatherhead railway station is about 800metres away

Condition The northern part of the area has a range of uses including open storage. It includes a frontage office building, and premises occupied by those in the recycling, construction industry and vehicle trades. Buildings tend to be more basic including those recently erected at Kingslea Works.

Total Site Area 2.6 ha

Total estimated floorspace The 16 units at Kingslea Works total 1,460m2. The other units have not been measured.

Total number of units The Plough Roundabout Industrial Estate includes the following occupiers :

Unit 1 - Coleman Roofing Unit 2 - Build Centre & Van Rental

Unit 3 - Keydrive Car & Van Rental Unit 4 - Scotts Scaffolding

Unit 5 - A E Hughes & Sons (Roofing Specialists) Unit 6 - Mole Valley Plant Hire

Unit 7 - D & E Roberts Recycling Depot

The offices at 115 - 121 Kingston Road are occupied by Perennial (Gardeners Royal Benevolent Society) amongst others. Then there are 16 new small industrial units at Kingslea Works estate and which are fully occupied. Access to services and facilities Leatherhead railway station is about 800 metres distant.

Policy and Constraints Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land and Policy E4 - Existing Industrial and Commercial Land Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development 102

Vacancy History The Plough Roundabout area is well occupied including longstanding companies. The new small industrial units at Kingslea Works were been quickly taken up. Planning History The 16 small industrial units at Kingslea Works commenced in May 2006 and whilst work subsequently stalled they are now completed. Is the site suitable for continued This site is suitable for the continued use for industrial and commercial land. industrial and commercial use.

Table 10.9 Ryebrook, Bay Tree Avenue, Kingston Road

Ryebrook, Bay Tree Avenue, Kingston Road

Site Description Location The site is located off the Kingston Road.

Access/Parking The site has good access to the M25, railway station and town centre. Parking is thought to be satisfactory.

Condition The site comprises 2 large modern office buildings on the frontage and to the rear an industrial estate of 7 modern units. One of the office buildings has recently been upgraded and is now the regional HQ of a major house builder.

Total Site Area 2.3 ha

Total estimated floorspace The 2 office buildings were constructed in 1999 and total 4,050m2. The industrial units were built 2 2 2 in 1991 and range from 110m to 585m and total 2,480m Total number of units At March 2016: Unit 1 - JD Motorsports Unit 2 -To let Unit 3 - Premier Blinds Unit 4 - Salon services

Units 5a - Plumb Centre Unit 5b - City Electrical Factors Unit 6 - Brandon Tool Hire

Unit 7 - Cane Adam (DIY Trade Shop) Opus 1 - Babcock 4s (Surrey County Council Education)

Opus 2 - Berkeley Homes - southern Access to services and facilities The site is located close to the town centre and has good access to services and facilities. Policy and Constraints Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land Core

Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

Vacancy History At March 2016 there was one small industrial unit to let. Planning History There is no recent planning history. Is the site suitable for continued The site is suitable for its continued use. industrial and commercial use.

103

Table 10.10 Kings Court, Kingston Road

Kings Court, Kingston Road

Type of Site Business Use (B1 Offices)

Site Description Location

This is a single headquarters type office building located on Kingston Road.

Access/Parking

The site has car parking to meet the standards and is well located being within walking distance of the railway station and town centre.

Condition

This is a modern office building. It has been advertised as Grade A specification.

Total Site Area 0.51 hectares

2 Total estimated floorspace 3000m

Total number of units One building: completed in 2000

Access to services and facilities The site has good access to the M25, railway station and town centre.

Policy and Constraints Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land Core

Vacancy History StrategyThe building Policy is capableCS12 - Sustainable of sub division Economic and at March Development 2016 only 450m2 was to let.

Planning History There is no recent planning history.

Is the site suitable for continued The premises are suitable for continued employment use industrial and commercial use.

10.5 The assessments show that Leatherhead has a considerable range of industrial and commercial areas including major research areas and business parks. There is a range of locations, sites and premises to suit a range of needs and requirements by type of use, size and quality. The assessments indicate high levels of occupancy.

10.6 Hurst Warne has indicated parts of some areas which could be redeveloped, whilst not being specific as to a future use. However even these areas are well utilised and apparently meet the needs of occupiers who do not require the highest specification.

10.7 The assessments do not identify any areas or sites which are not suitable for retention in industrial and commercial uses

104

Dorking

10.8 Whilst not matching the quantum of employment floorspace found in Leatherhead, Dorking nonetheless supports a number of important employment sites identified on the Local Development Framework proposals map. Dorking has been the town under greatest pressure for prior approval conversions of office accommodation to residential since the relaxation of permitted development rights in 2013. Tables below provide an up to date assessment of employment land in the town at the following safeguarded sites:

 Aviva, Pixham End (Friends Life)  Dorking Station  Old Char Wharf (including Dorking West Station Yard and Carvilles premises)  Dorking Business Park  Curtis Road Estate  Vincent Lane (north)  Havenbury Estate (near Dorking West Station)

105

Table 10.11 Aviva, Pixham End (Friends Life) Aviva, Pixham End (Friends Life)

Type of Site Business Use (B1 Offices)

Site Description Location This is a single headquarters site in a campus setting on the northern edge of the built up area

Access/Parking The site has extensive car parking and is well located being within walking distance of Dorking main and Dorking Deepdene railway stations.

Condition The main buildings on the campus were probably built in the 1960s.

T otal Site Area 8.1 hectares (excluding sports field)

Total estimated floorspace 2 About 13,420m (GIA) Total number of units -

Access to services and facilities The site has good access to the A24 and A25 and railway stations.

Policy and Constraints Mole Valley Local Plan Policy E2 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Land (the site being outside the DTAAP boundary)

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

800m of SAC

Part of site in Flood Zone

Vacancy History 2 About 4,470m is available to let at October 2016. Planning History There is no recent planning history.

Is the site suitable for continued Aviva have announced their intention to vacate the site in the foreseeable future. The site industrial and commercial use. is suitable for continued employment use.

106

Table 10.12 Offices at Dorking Station Offices at Dorking Station

Type of Site Business Use (B1 Offices)

Site Description Location This comprises Regent House a single headquarters office building and major offices incorporated in the Dorking railway station building mainly occupied by Biwaters.

Access/Parking The site is part of or immediately adjoins Dorking railway station and bus interchange. Regent House has car parking to meet the standards and there is contract parking to the side of the railway station. The area is well located with regard to public transport and is within walking distance of the town centre. Dorking Deepdene rail station is also nearby.

Condition Both office buildings are relatively modern with Regent House being built in the early 1990s.

Total Site Area 1.3 hectares

Total estimated floorspace 2 4,576m Total number of units 2 2 2 buildings; Regent House =1979m and Biwater House = 2,579m Access to services and facilities The site has good access to the main road network, railway stations and bus services and to the town centre.

Policy and Constraints Dorking Town AAP Policy DT11 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Sites Core

Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

800m of SAC

Vacancy History Biwater House is mainly occupied as a single headquarters but with some space separately let and which has become available from time to time.

Regent House has been occupied on a floor by floor basis. One floor currently being vacant with the former tenant moving elsewhere in Dorking. It is understood the other tenant is vacating the building.

Planning History There is prior approval to convert the building to in to 27 flats (M0/2016/0650) which at the end of October 2016 had not been implemented.

Is the site suitable for continued Notwithstanding that one building has prior approval for conversion to residential it is a modern industrial and commercial use. building and is also suitable for continued employment use. Biwater House is also suitable for continued employment use.

107

Table 10.13 Old Char Wharf

Old Char Wharf (including Dorking West Station Yard and Carvilles premises)

Type of Site Mixed: Industrial, offices and storage

Site Description Location A linear area on the south side of the railway line at Dorking West station.

Access/Parking The area has satisfactory car parking and Carville's has its own car park. The site is immediately adjoining Dorking West station and is in walking distance of the town centre. The area is near to the main road network.

Condition The industrial units are of basic specification.

Total Site Area 1.27 hectares Total estimated floorspace 2 About 4,950m . Data from VOA, estate plans and planning history Total number of units 9 small industrial units; Station View Garage; mixed office / production unit occupied by Carville's; the former Engine Shed with a number of tenants and open storage. Access to services and facilities The site has good access to a railway station and Dorking town centre.

Policy and Constraints Dorking Town AAP Policy DT11 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Sites

Dorking Town AAP Policy DT12 - Redevelopment of Sites for Industrial and Storage or Distribution Uses

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development Vacancy History Carville's are a longstanding company. The small units become available from time to time and are readily re-let.

Planning History There is no recent planning history.

Is the site suitable for continued The area is suitable for continued employment use industrial and commercial use.

108

Table 10.14 Dorking Business Park Dorking Business Park

Type of Site Business Park (B1 offices and high tech) and light industrial units to rear of the site

Site Description Location Business park on the western side of the town.

Access/Parking The site has car parking to meet the standards and is well located being within walking distance of Dorking West railway station, bus stops and town centre.

Condition This is a modern (1980's) business park and of which some units have been recently refurbished to Grade A.

Total Site Area 3.0 hectares

Total estimated floorspace 2 12,700m Total number of units 7 B1 business / high tech units of a range of sizes and 6 industrial units.

Access to services and facilities The site has good access to the main road network, railway station and town centre.

Policy and Constraints Dorking Town AAP Policy DT11 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Sites

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development Part of the site is

in proximity to an operational gas holder Vacancy History The largest building, Brockham House, has been vacant for several years but is undergoing refurbishment to Grade A. Other medium size units have or are vacant and have been slow to let. The B1c units to the rear are usually readily re-let.

Planning History There have been recent planning applications with regard to the refurbishment of several of the units. Is the site suitable for continued The business park is suitable for continued employment use industrial and commercial use.

109

Table 10.15 Curtis Road Estate

Curtis Road Estate

Type of Site Industrial Estate

Site Description Location This is a major industrial estate on the western side of Dorking.

Access/Parking There are a range of premises each with their own parking however some on street parking occurs along Curtis Road. The area is within walking distance of Dorking West railway station and town centre.

Condition There are a range of premises of varying size and quality. For example the industrial units in Enterprise House are not modern. The Atrium at the end of Curtis Road comprises refurbished premises which contain serviced offices of good quality. Also at the end of Curtis Road is the modern major factory for Johnston Sweepers and which was completed in late 2013.

Total Site Area 8.68 hectares

Total estimated floorspace 2 About 31,000m including the new Johnston Sweepers factory. Data from VOA, estate plans and planning history.

Total number of units N/K - some units are sub-divided and there is flexible space at The Atrium completed in 2000

Access to services and facilities The site has good access to the main road network, Dorking West railway station, bus stops and town centre.

Policy and Constraints Dorking Town AAP Policy DT11 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Sites Dorking Town AAP Policy DT12 - Redevelopment of Sites for Industrial and Storage or Distribution Uses

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development Part of the

site is in proximity to an operational gas holder

Flood Zone

Vacancy History Many occupiers are longstanding. Enterprise House occasionally has a vacant unit but they are readily re-let. The Atrium, serviced offices, is understood to be well utilised. Overall vacancy is very low. Planning History 2 Johnston Sweepers have not built their second smaller unit of 1,500m , the site currently 2 used for their open storage requirements. The Atrium has permission for an additional 745m offices in a new mezzanine. The Attlees part of the site (Parsonage Mills) has permission for 2 redevelopment including industrial floorspace of 1,183m alongside an expanded retail offer.

Is the site suitable for continued The premises are suitable for continued employment use industrial and commercial use.

110

Table 10.16 Vincent Lane (North) Vincent Lane (north)

Type of Site Industrial area with a mix of uses

Site Description Location Industrial units and industrial estate at the northern end of Vincent Lane, on the western side of the town.

Access/Parking The area is reasonably well located with regard to the town centre and is on the main road network. Dorking West railway station is more than 800 metres away.

Condition The buildings are of a range of sizes and quality and includes reasonably new and refurbished (completed Spring 2010) small industrial units at the Glebelands Centre.

Total Site Area 2.1 hectares

Total estimated floorspace 2 10,200m

Total number of units N/K as some older units may be sub-divided or amalgamated. At the northern end of the area is a main office building occupied by Interpet with new, refurbished and older industrial units to the rear. Further south are individually occupied units including those related to printing services and car servicing.

Access to services and facilities The site has good access being on the main road network, albeit on a one way section which is narrow in places. The town centre is in walking distance, bus stops are nearby. Dorking West station is however more than 800 metres away.

Policy and Constraints Dorking Town AAP Policy DT11 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Sites

Dorking Town AAP Policy DT12 - Redevelopment of Sites for Industrial and Storage or Distribution Uses

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

Vacancy History Many occupiers are long standing. The modern small units at the Glebelands Centre were readily let. Planning History There is no recent planning history.

Is the site suitable for continued The area is suitable for continued employment use industrial and commercial use.

111

Table 10.17 Havenbury Estate

Havenbury Estate (near Dorking West Station)

Type of Site Small Industrial Units

Site Description Location This is a small industrial estate of 15 units on the south side of the railway line adjoining Dorking West railway station.

Access/Parking The site has car parking to meet the standards and near Dorking West railway station and within 800 metres walking distance of the town centre.

Condition The units are of a good basic quality. One unit has been extended and several have additional mezzanine floorspace.

Total Site Area 1.25 hectares

Total estimated floorspace 2 1,125m (excluding any extensions and mezzanines)

Total number of units 15 units

Access to services and facilities The site has good access to the main road network, Dorking West, railway station and town centre.

Policy and Constraints Dorking Town AAP Policy DT11 - Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Commercial Sites

Dorking Town AAP Policy DT12 - Redevelopment of Sites for Industrial and Storage or Distribution Uses

Core Strategy Policy CS12 - Sustainable Economic Development

Vacancy History The units have high levels of occupancy and any units which become vacant are normally re-let in a short period of time.

Planning History There is no recent planning history.

Is the site suitable for continued The estate is suitable for continued employment use industrial and commercial use.

10.9 The above shows that the safeguarded employment areas of Dorking merit their protection, are well occupied and provide a diverse range of accommodation. There is limited provision in storage/warehouse premises however this is not surprising given the distance of the town from the motorway network when compared with Leatherhead. All allocated employment sites assessed contribute positively to the 112

economic development needs of the district and should be retained as such.

10.10 Given the high value of residential property compared to commercial rental values, particularly in Dorking, pressure is likely to remain, for prior approval conversions at least in the short term. This said, property agents Hurst Warne advise that most of the older buildings incapable of providing modern office stock have now been converted and that good secondary space is starting to suffer from a lack of supply.

10.11 The Council served a number of Article 4 Directions on employment sites in the District between November 2016 and January 2017. Once in force they will assist the Council in its objective of ensuring a supply of land to support the sustainable economic development of the District.

113

11.0 Summary and Conclusions

11.1 The analysis conducted in this report contributes to the evidence base which will underpin the spatial land allocation policies in the Mole Valley Local Plan to 2033.

11.2 The current climate is one of economic uncertainty as the country emerges from a deeply felt recession into the turbulence of a Brexit negotiation. These uncertainties are expected to subdue business investment and employment growth. The anticipation of higher inflation and a slow down in job creation is likely to depress consumer spending.

11.3 In the face of these challenges Mole Valley has to date proved highly resilient. Unemployment levels have fallen and remain very low. Confidence and investment in both the retail and employment sectors has been demonstrated by the completion of significant additions to convenience floorspace in Dorking, achieving one of the main policy objectives of the adopted Area Action Plan, and the expansion of manufacturing floorspace at Johnston Sweepers alongside several major refurbishment projects of office accommodation.

11.4 Market intelligence gathered from office and industrial businesses identifies a positive outlook with 65% of those surveyed envisaging staff numbers increasing in the next 5 – 10 years.

11.5 Looking forward, the growth in working age population across the District to 2033 is forecast to be marginal across the whole plan period (maximum additional 840 persons). A rise in the working age population is forecast to peak in 2026 before dropping off again towards the end of the plan period, largely due to the ageing population. Mole Valley is an area of net in-commuting, this being 4,055 at 2011 and given the very limited rise forecast in resident working age population this position is unlikely to change. Market intelligence indicates that staff recruitment is the biggest concern for local businesses.

11.6 The preceding chapters have identified the following economic development needs for the District to 2033:

 Forecasting methods do not suggest a need for additional land allocations for Class B use in the plan period to 2033.

 Where existing employment sites are considered suitable for continued employment use they should, be retained for that use. Market intelligence indicates a perceived undersupply of industrial units in Dorking.

114

 Careful monitoring of the supply and demand for office accommodation should be undertaken as the impact of prior approval notifications becomes felt, particularly in the Dorking area.

 Potential capacity for some 5,000m2 net comparison retail floorspace has been identified in the latter part of the plan period based on current market share. In the short term the District may experience a surplus of comparison floorspace as an increase in online sales outstrips expenditure growth.

11.7 The findings of this Economic Development Needs Assessment are that the identified economic development needs of the FEMA to 2033 can largely be met in the currently available and planned floorspace in the District. As we enter a period of economic uncertainty however, adaptability and flexibility in land allocation policy will be key to fulfilling the economic potential of the District.

115

APPENDIX 1

An Assessment of Mole Valley’s Functional Economic Market Area September 2016

Mole Valley District Council September 2016

Functional Economic Market Area for Mole Valley: an Assessment

Executive Summary

This report gathers a wide range of evidence to assist in determining the extent of the FEMA that Mole Valley district is located within. Planning Practice Guidance is not clear what a FEMA is and using the range of factors suggested in the PPG together with other evidence no explicitly clear FEMA extent has been defined. There may be apparent functional links and similarities with other neighbouring local authorities but the detailed information does not show these similarities are necessarily strong.

It is recommended the economic development needs assessment (EDNA) for a new Mole Valley Local Plan should consider the local authority area only but be mindful of wider considerations and the duty to co-operate. It is acknowledged that there are links, not necessarily strong, with Epsom and Ewell and Reigate and Banstead. These two local authorities could perhaps be the “first points of call” within the spirit of duty to cooperate should the Mole Valley economic development needs assessment indicate Mole Valley District may not be able to meet its own employment and economic requirements as part of the preparation of a Local Plan. Foreword

Mole Valley District Council is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan and this assessment forms part of the evidence base. The aim of the assessment is to set out a contextual summary of Mole Valley’s economic geography and identify, or otherwise understand, the ‘functional economic market area’ of which Mole Valley District is part. It examines the various ways that may define a Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA).

As part of the preparation of a new Local Plan it is vital to understand the potential demands being placed on land from new development. For an area such as Mole Valley future housing requirements and residential development is a major part. It is also vital to understand the needs arising for economic development and the land and development required to support the growth expectations of local businesses and other economic needs.

The Mole Valley Local Plan will set out the expected level of development in the District with regard to housing (including affordable housing), economic development, other needs and infrastructure requirements. The Local Plan will also allocate sites for development and include the policies against which planning applications will be considered.

The Functional Economic Market Area assessment will be used as the basis for further employment needs evidence on demand and supply through the preparation of an Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA). The FEMA can identify any wider geographical area the EDNA may need to consider and identify which authorities the Council will need to engage under the duty to cooperate.

Topics and Sections Section No Topic Title Paras 1 Introduction 1.1 - 1.24 2 Administrative area 2.1 - 2.16 3 Extents of any Local Economic Partnerships: and Gatwick 3.1 - 3.25 Diamond Initiative 4 The Relationship to London 4.1 – 4.5 5 Transport: Networks, Routes and Connectivity 5.1 – 5.31 6 Strategic Housing Market Area 6.1 – 6.13 7 The Nature of Employment and the Flows of Goods, Services 7.1 – 7.15 and Information within the Local Economy 8 Service Market for Consumers 8.1 – 8.10 9 Catchment areas of facilities providing cultural and social 9.1 – 9.4 wellbeing 10 Other Sectors: 10.1 – 10.11  Local Property Market Areas  Areas of interest of local commercial property marketing agents  Movements of businesses 11 Our Neighbours FEMAs 11.1 – 11.2 12 Overall Conclusions and Recommendation 12.1 – 12.4

Maps Map 1: Mole Valley - location in the South East

Map 2: Mole Valley: Surrey context

Map 3: Mole Valley local context and built up areas

Map 4: Coast to Capital Local economic Partnership Area

Map 5: Coast to Capital LEP - East Surrey M25 Corridor

Map 6: Gatwick Diamond Initiative area

Map 7: Mole Valley local context and main transport networks

Map 8: 2001 Travel to Work Areas (TTWA) extract

Map 9: 2011 Travel to Work Areas (TTWA) extract

Map 10: 2011 TTWAs covering Mole Valley and neighbours

Map 11: 2015 SHMA Area including Mole Valley

Map 12: SEEDA Priority Sectors (Top 100 by Turnover)

Map 13: Property market areas identified in 2007 CBRE study

Tables Table 1: Coast to Capital LEP - GVA per head of WAP

Table 2 – Foreign owned companies in the Coast to Capital region 2014

Table 3: Indicative travel distances and times from Leatherhead and Dorking

Table 4: Mole Valley, neighbouring authorities and TTWAs

Table 5: top ten locations of employment for Mole Valley residents

Table 6: Top ten locations of residence for the Mole Valley workforce

Table 7: Top ten total employment flows in and out of Mole Valley

Table 8: Total Jobs and Jobs Density 2014

Table 9: Employee Job growth 2009 to 2014

Table 10: Employee Jobs by Industry

Table 11: Percentages of employee jobs in specific employment sectors

Table 12: Sectoral concentrations

Table 13: IT Employment as a share of total employment: C2C LEP

Table 14: Hurst Warne: Commercial properties to let and done deals

Table 15 : Assessments of FEMAs undertaken by neighbouring local authorities

Table 16: Assessment of similarities

Figures

Fig 1: Mole Valley and neighbours: Venn diagram

Annexes

1: Nathaniel Lichfield Partnership: commentary on changes between 2001 and 2011 TTWAs

2: New Occupiers of Business and Commercial / Industrial premises June 2015 – March 2016

3: SEEDA priority sectors maps

1 Introduction

1.1 Local planning authorities need to be aware of the functional economic market area they are located within and to appreciate the influences that will shape economic development of their area. The functional economic market area establishes the authorities you will involve, work with, or have regard to, as part of Local Plan preparation and is important if there is a need to cooperate regarding meeting objectively assessed need (OAN) for employment.

1.2 There is no formal definition of a Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) and no definitive map of the geographies of FEMAs. The approach for this assessment has been informed by Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) chapter: Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessments and the factors identified, under the PPG heading “How can functional economic market areas be defined” and which are suggested can be used for this purpose. This assessment also makes use of additional factors which may inform the “picture” of the local economic area.

1.3 This assessment considers the geographic extent, or extents, of any FEMA that Mole Valley may form part; why this needs to be identified; and how the FEMA informs Local plan preparation. It assists in determining which neighbouring and / or nearby authorities Mole Valley DC will need to engage with during future work relating to preparing a new local plan for Mole Valley and in particular with regard to the duty to cooperate.

1.4 The starting point is the National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF) paragraph 17 core principles. This states (at bullet point 3) with regard to plan making that every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities (emphasis added).

1.5 That is economic development, jobs and employment land requirements should be considered in the same way as housing requirements in terms of meeting objectively assessed needs and the duty to cooperate.

1.6 Paragraph 160 of the NPPF goes onto say that local planning authorities ‘should have a clear understanding of business needs within the economic markets in and across their area’. To achieve this they should:

. work together with county and neighbouring authorities and with Local Enterprise Partnerships to prepare and maintain a robust evidence base to understand both existing business needs and likely changes in the market; and

. work closely with the business community to understand their changing needs and identify and address barriers to investment, including a lack of housing, infrastructure or viability.

1.7 Local authorities therefore need to be aware of the functional economic market area within which they are located and to appreciate the influences that will shape economic development of their area. Local authorities also need to have a good understanding of any wider economic area of which they are part. The PPG further emphasises the need for local planning authorities to work with other authorities in the same functional economic market area to identify development needs, because such needs ‘are rarely constrained precisely by local authority administrative boundaries’.

1.8 However when preparing a first NPPF compliant Local Plan it may be pragmatic to undertake an economic development needs assessment for the local authority area notwithstanding that the FEMA extent may extend beyond the local authority boundary. This reflects that local plans and evidence bases of neighbouring authorities may all be at different stages of preparation.

Previous Employment Land Reviews and FEMAs

1.9 Mole Valley DC produced an Employment Land Review (2008) as part of the evidence base for the preparation of the Core Strategy (adopted in October 2009) and an Industrial and Commercial Land Review (Jan 2012) as part of the preparation of the Dorking Town Area Action Plan (adopted Dec 2012). Both of these evidence base documents predate the NPPF and PPG.

1.10 As part of the preparation of the now abandoned Housing and Travellers Sites Plan a new Employment Land Review was published. This was published in late 2013 and had regard to the “beta” version of the PPG which referenced the need for a FEMA. The ELR 2013, paras 4.2 - 4.5 dealt briefly and succinctly with the concept of a FEMA:

4.2 The geography of commercial property markets can be thought as the requirements of the market in terms of the location of premises and spatial factors related to supply and demand. The NPPF guidance (ie now PPG) indicates there is no standard approach to defining a functional economic area but to have regard to a range of factors. These include the extent of LEPs, travel to work areas, transport network and administrative area.

4.3 The South East Regional Property Market Study (CBRE - March 2007) presented a classification of commercial property market areas based on the dynamics and "natural groupings" of markets around the South East. This was proposed as an indication of areas within which market linkages and agglomeration tendencies are more robust and hence where the case for cross-authority dialogue on employment land allocations is strongest. One such area is Surrey-SW London which includes much of the District. This area includes 3 hubs identified in the South East Plan, specifically Guildford, Reigate / Redhill and Woking.

4.4 Looking specifically at Mole Valley, the District does not fall within a single travel to work area (TTWA). The Dorking and rural areas of the District, being within the Crawley / Gatwick TTWA; and the Leatherhead area being within the London TTWA. Part of the District falls within the scope of the Gatwick Diamond Initiative and consequently the whole District has been incorporated in the new Coast to Capital LEP which covers a broad area from Brighton to Croydon. However this does not reflect the Surrey - SW London property market area described above. The District experiences considerable levels of commuting (about 50% of residents commute out and with similar flows in) to adjoining districts but predominantly to central London. Good road and rail communications and the proximity to 2 international airports, together with fast broadband provision, also means that companies and the (high level of) self employed in the District may not feel constrained geographically or functionally. Furthermore the major companies in the District, especially those in the Leatherhead area, are UK and international headquarters. Dorking is perceived as a more self contained area within the District. The critique of the ELR indicated that the majority of companies in Dorking and Leatherhead would not consider themselves’ part of the Gatwick Diamond area.

4.5 On the basis of this evidence it would not appear there is a reasonable functional economic area for the District.

Planning Practice Guidance

1.11 Rather than a single employment land review Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) now recommends undertaking Economic Development Needs Assessments (EDNAs) and Economic Land Availability Assessments (ELAAs). These can be undertaken jointly, or as a single piece of work, with the housing evidence for the Local Plan. However both the EDNA and EELA should be preceded by a functional economic market area assessment (FEMA).

What is a Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA)

1.12 The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) establishes that as part of a local authority’s economic development work it is particularly important that the extent of the FEMA that their district is located within is understood. However the extent of a FEMA may vary with the indicators used.

1.13 PPG states that the geography of commercial property markets should be thought of in terms of the requirements of the market in terms of the location of premises, and the spatial factors used in analysing demand and supply – often referred to as the functional economic market area. Significantly the PPG is not clear what a FEMA is, and that it can be assessed by a range of factors (see para 1.22).

1.14 The Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) report considered that for Local Plan preparation the Strategic Housing Market Area (SMHA) and FEMA extents could or should be the same. Indeed the PPG also states that in some cases housing market areas and functional economic areas may be the same. However there are potentially significant differences between the two.

1.15 The PPG states, with regard to SHMAs that where Local Plans are at different stages of plan production you can draw on the existing evidence base of partner local authorities in their housing market area but should co-ordinate future housing reviews. It is considered that this rationale also applies to the preparation of a first FEMA and it may be appropriate to consider whether the extent for such a first FEMA is, or could be, just the local authority area.

1.16 Para 4.16 of HEDNA Technical Advice Vol 3 (Peter Brett Associates April 2016) comments: ideally the FEMA should define the geographical scope of the of the economic needs assessment but in practice it will not always be practical for the study to cover the whole FEMA for example because local plan timetables are not aligned. In that case the local authority may undertake the study on its own. That is even if a FEMA is defined which may be wider than the local authority area the first economic development needs assessment may just cover the local authority area. A SHMA area reflects property areas and where people (ie households) choose to live. The PPG defines a SHMA as an area defined by household demand and preferences for all types of housing, reflecting the key functional linkages between places where people live and work. However preferences may be related to other factors including stage in life choices, house prices and availability. The quality of the local environment may also be a key consideration.

1.17 However a FEMA reflects different factors (see para 1.22) and these can be additional to where people choose or have to work. Economic market areas can reflect where businesses choose to locate and such corporate locational decisions may be completely different from the decisions of individual households. Such decisions may be at managerial or director level and / or may reflect the national or global plans and the locational flexibilities of major companies.

Why is a FEMA important for Local Plan Preparation?

1.18 Identifying your functional economic market area establishes the authorities you will involve, work with, or have regard to, as part of Local Plan preparation. This will be important if there is a need to consider duty to cooperate regarding meeting objectively assessed need (OAN) for employment. You also need to understand if you are considered part of a neighbours’ FEMA and whether you may be asked to consider assisting them with the delivery of their employment requirements.

The duty to co-operate:

 relates to sustainable development or use of land that would have a significant impact on at least two local planning areas or on a planning matter that falls within the remit of a county council;  requires that councils set out planning policies to address such issues;  requires that councils and public bodies ‘engage constructively, actively and on an on-going basis’ to develop strategic policies; and  requires councils to consider joint approaches to plan making.

1.19 Paragraph 156 of the NPPF sets out the strategic issues where co-operation might be appropriate and paragraphs 178-181 of the NPPF give further guidance on ‘planning strategically across local boundaries’, and highlight the importance of joint working to meet development requirements that cannot be wholly met within a single local planning area, through either joint planning policies or informal strategies such as infrastructure and investment plans.

1.20 The Employment Land Review 2013 (paras 4.6 - 4.14) had regard to the economic and employment evidence bases of local authorities adjoining Mole Valley, at that time, and the duty to cooperate. The conclusion was that of neighbouring authorities being able to "consume their own smoke" and meet their own economic and employment land requirements. There did not appear to be any strategic employment issues that needed to be addressed through the duty to cooperate.

1.21 The current position with regard to economic and employment evidence studies of neighbouring authorities is considered later in this report. This FEMA considers the following matters:  What is Mole Valley’s FEMA: who does it include: do they agree it includes them?  Does the FEMA match our SHMA area: should it?  Is Mole Valley covered by a hierarchy of functional areas and if so what is the practical FEMA extent for Local Plan preparation?

How do you carry out a FEMA?

1.22 PPG states that since patterns of economic activity vary from place to place, there is no standard approach to defining a functional economic market area (emphasis added), however, it is possible to define them taking account of factors or indicators including  extent of any Local Enterprise Partnership within the area;  travel to work areas;  housing market area;  flow of goods, services and information within the local economy;  service market for consumers;  administrative area;  Catchment areas of facilities providing cultural and social well-being;  Transport network.

1.23 It is appropriate to consider additional factors, for example known movements of businesses and areas of interest of local commercial property marketing agents. Also of importance are any defined FEMA extents identified by neighbouring authorities (and other nearby local authorities in their sphere of influence). That is: do other authorities identify Mole Valley district as being within their FEMA extents?

1.24 The assessment looks at the above factors and indicators in turn, and provides succinct conclusions for each. These are drawn together and together with the information from each section are used to draw up an overall table of Mole Valley’s neighbours and near neighbour local authorities to identify areas of a similarity. Finally these similarities are considered as to whether they are strong enough factors to be able to robustly identify those neighbouring local authorities who could be considered to be Mole Valley’s FEMA partners.

2 Administrative Area

Locational and contextual summary

2.1 Mole Valley lies at the heart of Surrey, mid-way between London and the Sussex coast and covers 25,832 hectares (about 100 square miles). The 2011 Census population is approximately 85,400 persons and the 2015 mid year estimate is 86,100 persons.

2.2 The District comprises the built up areas of Ashtead, Bookham, Fetcham and Leatherhead in the north with Leatherhead as the main commercial centre. Dorking in the centre of the district is a traditional market town. Beyond the built up area there are a number of rural villages scattered throughout the District, all below 3,000 in population.

2.3 The District is bisected by the North Downs which runs east - west across the district. This includes areas such as Ranmore Common and Box Hill. To the north of the Downs the landscape forms part of the Thames Basin. To the south of the Downs the district comprises Wealden Greensand which includes Leith Hill, the highest point in the South East, and further south and east the open character of the Low Weald.

Map 1: Mole Valley - location in the South East

Map 2: Mole Valley: Surrey context

2.4 The District is bordered to the north by the boroughs of Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, and the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. To the west lie the boroughs of Guildford and Waverley and to the east the borough of Reigate and Banstead. Crawley Borough and Horsham District, which lie in West Sussex, border the District’s southern boundary.

2.5 An important feature of Mole Valley is its close proximity to the economic generators of London to the North, Gatwick Airport on the southern border and the Leatherhead interchange of the M25 motorway. Mole Valley traditionally has been an area of high market demand and subject to intense pressure for development. As planning controls have prevented the outward spread of the built-up areas, development requirements upon Mole Valley have resulted in more intensive development, particularly in the North of the District. The pressures of development, traffic and other activity are increasingly felt, not just in terms of major development schemes but also the collective effects of a range of small-scale developments. The adopted Core Strategy centres on the need to protect the environmental characteristics of the District as a valuable and irreplaceable resource, whilst meeting development requirements and reflecting the needs of the community.

Map 3: Mole Valley local context and built up areas

An Economic commentary

2.6 The District is traditionally seen as being economically resilient with low levels of unemployment and higher proportions of the workforce and residents being in higher order jobs. Most of this information is from “Nomis” labour market profiles.

Businesses, Jobs and Employment

2.7 In 2015 there were about 5,250 business enterprises in the district and about 50,000 jobs of which 43,100 are employee jobs. The proportion of people who are self employment just exceeds the national rate. About 89% of all employee jobs are in the services category and this is slightly above the South East region and national rates. In particular Financial and Business services jobs are almost one third of all jobs compared with a quarter of jobs nationally. Conversely the proportion in manufacturing jobs is less than half the national rate.

2.8 The number of manufacturing firms fell from 298 in 2006 to 235 at 2012 and had further decreased to 200 firms in 2015. The employment sectors covering the scientific and technical, financial and business services (sectors J-N) forms 51% of business enterprises compared to 40% for Great Britain. In 2015 79.5% of enterprises are in the lower micro size band of 0-4 employees compared with 76.3% nationally. The proportion of large firms (250+) employees is the same as the national rate (0.4%). At the time of writing major employers in the District include:

Leatherhead Area Dorking Area

 Unilever  Unum  ExxonMobil (ESSO Petroleum)  Aviva (Friends Life)  KBR  Kuoni Travel  CGI  Johnston Sweepers

 Edif ERA

2.9 Several of these firms are on sites which constitute their UK, or wider, headquarters operations. Johnston Sweepers the only major manufacturing company in the District and one of the relatively few major manufacturing companies in Surrey. They have significantly expanded their operations in Dorking.

Unemployment

2.10 The May 2016 Job Seekers rate at 0.5% is one of the lowest rates and well below the national rate of 1.5% Using the wider rate of those claiming main out of work benefits the rate is 4.5%, half the national rate of 9% (at November 2015).

Occupations of Mole Valley Residents

2.11 The ONS Annual Population Survey (to Dec 2015) indicates 45% of Mole Valley residents are employed in the higher occupational groups (managerial and professional /technical) and which closely matches the 44% nationally. This is from a sample survey and in previous years the difference has been more marked; 53% for Mole Valley compared with 41% nationally for these groups.

Working Age and Economically Active population

2.12 The working age population (16 - 64 male/female) from the 2011 Census is 52,000. The ONS mid year estimate for 2014 indicated this was now 51,100. The proportion of the population in Mole Valley aged 16-64, at 59.3% is lower than the national rate of 63.5%.

Qualifications

2.13 The 2011 Census indicates that 53% of Mole Valley residents are in the higher occupational classifications of managerial and professional and technical jobs compared with 41% nationally. 39% of residents are educated to NVQ level 4 and above (degree equivalent) and compared with 33% nationally. The ONS Annual Population Survey (Jan – Dec 2015) indicates Mole Valley residents educated to NVQ level 4 and above is 50%; and 37% nationally.

Earnings

2.14 The 2015 ONS Survey of Hours and Earnings shows that average gross weekly pay for full time workers resident in Mole Valley is £598 compared with £575 for the South East and £530 for Great Britain. This compares with the 2012 figure of £659 for Mole Valley; and £556 for the South East and £508 for Great Britain. Should this trend continue it could have an effect on local spending potential.

SWOT Analysis

2.15 The 2013 Employment Land Review includes a SWOT analysis, which it is considered still holds good, and which is replicated below:

Strengths Weaknesses

 High quality natural environment  Relative inaccessibility of some rural areas  High quality urban environment and town  Pockets of relative deprivation centres  High house prices  Good quality housing stock  Relatively poor east-west communications  Little deprivation  Noise from aircraft using Gatwick Airport  Population in good health affecting SE of district  Low unemployment  Well educated population  Low Crime rates  Good transport links to London Opportunities Threats

 Redevelopment potential through recycling of  Pressure to deliver housing numbers sites and intensification of uses  Increasing urbanisation through intensification  Entrepreneurial population with opportunities  Increased incremental pressure on services / for start-ups infrastructure; including transport infrastructure and congestion  Insufficient affordable housing provided  Pressures on the rural environment

Conclusion

2.16 Whilst the above analysis recognises the weaknesses as well as the strengths of the District, Mole Valley’s particular benefits, when compared to the national picture can be highlighted as:

 Generally good access to London, and Heathrow and Gatwick Airports  Low levels of unemployment  High levels of jobs in the services sector  A highly qualified resident population  A higher proportion than nationally of very small firms.

3 Extents of any Local Economic Partnerships: and Gatwick Diamond Initiative

Local Economic Partnerships

3.1 The government's ambition is that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs will provide strategic leadership in their areas and set out local economic priorities for business to grow and prosper. In particular, working with local authorities, they will ensure economic activity and infrastructure delivery is coordinated across boundaries.

3.2 Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs) were established in 2010 and geographical boundaries proposed by the partnerships have been formally agreed by Ministers. The boundaries were assessed using criteria set out in the Local Growth White Paper and the purpose and logic for current boundaries were described as reflecting the "geography of local functioning economic areas". However some now consider that the premise upon which some LEPs were originally designated may have changed and that some local economies no longer match the boundaries of their LEP. It has been stated that: ‘LEPs are much more fragmented and failed to match functional economic geography in any meaningful sense’. (Professor David Bailey and Gill Bentley in conjunction with the Regional Studies Association).There is also criticism that the geographical boundaries of LEPs are more political than economic. The following paragraphs have regard to these considerations in the context of Mole Valley within the Coast to Capital LEP.

3.3 Mole Valley falls within the Coast to Capital LEP from its membership of the Gatwick Diamond Initiative (see section 4). Coast to Capital spans the UK’s two most successful and important economic regions; it extends from South London to the coast, from Chichester in the west along to the city of Brighton and Hove and on to Lewes in the east. Coast to Capital comprises the whole of West Sussex, the London Borough of Croydon, the City of Brighton and Hove, East Surrey and the local authority district of Lewes, which is part of East Sussex. It has a resident population of nearly two million and an estimated 116,000 businesses.

3.4 At the heart of the LEP area is Gatwick Airport, the UK’s second airport, surrounded by the Gatwick Diamond, a large and successful hub for businesses and the "Gatwick Diamond" is one of the 5 partnership areas of the LEP (as shown on the map below). Coast to Capital also contains an extensive rural area; nearly two thirds of the South Downs National Park lies within its boundaries, as does the whole of West Sussex. Gatwick Airport is an important driver of economic growth across the Coast to Capital area. Gatwick is now one of the most important air-rail-road hubs in the UK. Croydon is London’s largest borough and is undergoing a commercial renaissance. Brighton is a city with an international reputation for creativity and entrepreneurism.

3.5 The LEP is private sector led and whose vision seeks, by 2035 to have developed an economy that supports business development and growth and is:

 Trade led with a business community that is outward looking  Investment led and driven by the need to innovate  Have a skilled workforce delivering high value added and knowledge driven products and services.  An economy which is less dependent on locally trading businesses and on public sector spending  Equipped to compete internationally and with high rates of business formation

3.6 The LEP published a Strategy for Growth in July 2012. This is primarily an economic investment document with the strategic objectives to increase the levels of enterprise and entrepreneurship and to increase levels of business internationalisation. It implies rates of growth of 4% per annum. The document states that over time the LEPs strategic objectives should be reflected in the strategies and plans of the local authorities and that there should not be conflicting aims. It is expected that LEPs will have an increasing power and influence to shape the future direction of local economies and levels of development. Indeed the Government statement "Investing in Britain's Future" set out the intention for LEP's to develop strategic economic plans. In this regard the Coast to Capital Growth Deal published July 2014, aims to encourage growth across the Coast to Capital region, through targeted investment in infrastructure and innovation, as well as supporting Coast to Capital’s thriving business base.

Map 4: Coast to Capital Local economic Partnership Area

3.7 Map 4 shows that Mole Valley is wholly within the Coast to Coast LEP and with most neighbours also within the same LEP. However to the west Mole Valley borders Guildford and Waverley boroughs both of which are within the Enterprise M3 LEP. They have also identified themselves as a separate FEMA (together with Woking). Elmbridge to the NW is also in the Enterprise M3 LEP. Section 11 of this assessment looks at the individual neighbouring authorities and the work they have undertaken to define FEMA extents. London is also considered separately.

3.8 The focus, to date, has been on across the LEP initiatives rather than any spatial focus; other than recognising the Gatwick Diamond Initiative partnership area. However the Vision for the Coast to Capital area established in the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), March 2014 is that the region will deliver exceptional growth and productivity gains to deliver economic performance to rival the best in Europe and the rest of the world. The SEP establishes six strategic priorities which are at the heart of the Strategic Economic Plan. They encompass

place-based and hard infrastructure issues; business and sector issues; the workforce; and communities. One of these priorities promotes Successful Growth Locations and Opportunity Areas one such area being the East Surrey M25 Corridor which includes Leatherhead.

Map 5: Coast to Capital LEP - East Surrey M25 Corridor

3.9 The SEP states that the East Surrey M25 corridor is a linchpin of the Coast to Capital economy. Comprising the 4 boroughs and districts of Epsom & Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge, it links London to Gatwick Airport and the south coast, and supports movements east - west along London’s orbital routes - the M25, A25 and North Downs Line. National and international business headquarters are sited along the corridor with clusters centred on the towns of Epsom, Leatherhead, Dorking, Oxted, Reigate and Redhill. Gatwick Airport is an important employer and generates jobs in the wider economy, with a high proportion of its workforce coming from the East Surrey corridor. It remains to be established whether this is a true functional economic grouping of 4 authorities in the LEP area or a grouping of convenience connected by the M25 motorway.

3.10 Map 4 shows Mole Valley’s relative position and strengths within the LEP and the constituent local authorities. Table 1 shows the GVA (Gross Value Added) per head of WAP (working age population) by the Local Authority areas. It highlights the effect Gatwick Airport has on the local economy, as GVA per head of WAP in Crawley is by far the largest in the LEP region at nearly £87,000. The other most sizable area is Mole Valley at £67,200. Some of the sizable gap can be attributed to the above average proportion of large businesses in the Gatwick Diamond area, and particularly in Crawley, as larger businesses are generally more productive than their smaller counterparts, this also suggests there are higher value, higher skilled jobs in the Gatwick Diamond area. Some other authorities have significantly lower rates indicating that the LEP is not uniformly performing or cohesive.

Table 1: Coast to Capital LEP - GVA per head of WAP GVA per WAP in Local Authority Areas

Crawley Mole Valley Reigate and Banstead Chichester Worthing Coast to Capital Horsham Brighton and Hove Mid Sussex Epsom and Ewell Lewes Tandridge Croydon Adur Arun

Table 2: Foreign owned companies in the Coast to Capital region 2014

Foreign Owned Companies 2014 Number % share United Kingdom - 1.7% Coast to Capital 1,720 1.5% Gatwick Diamond 1,130 2.5% Mole Valley 220 3.6% Adur 25 0.9% Arun 45 1.0% Brighton and Hove 140 0.6% Chichester 85 1.4% Crawley 330 8.3% Croydon 205 0.9% Epsom and Ewell 40 1.0% Horsham 125 1.6% Lewes 30 0.8% Mid Sussex 120 1.6% Reigate and Banstead 215 2.4% Tandridge 85 1.3% Worthing 55 1.0% Source: Experian Market IQ database 2015/Coast to Capital 2015

3.11 Foreign owned companies have been shown to make a proportionally greater contribution to the national economy compared to their share of businesses (ONS: Business Ownership in the UK 2012) and are more likely to be engaged in exporting activities than British companies, making them an important part of the national and local economy.

However such companies may not feel such a functional “tie” to the locality they have chosen to locate in and have a more outward (ie global) perspective. Employee movement for example is likely to be considered on an international footing. It could be inferred that localities with higher levels of foreign owned companies, with Mole Valley at double the national rate, may not have such an easily identifiable or indeed significant FEMA extent compared to those areas where home-grown businesses have strong local links.

3.12 In 2014 it was estimated that foreign owned companies in the Coast to Capital region, accounted for around 1.5% of all businesses lower than both the London rate of 3.7%, and the UK rate of 1.7%. However there are areas of strong foreign ownership in the LEP. Crawley has 8.3% of companies are under foreign ownership due the Gatwick Airport effect. Mole Valley (3.6%) is also significantly above the national rate and indeed is close to the London rate. Mole Valley’s near neighbour, Reigate and Banstead (2.4%), is also above the UK rate.

Physical links to the rest of the LEP

3.13 The main orientation of the Coast to Capital LEP is linear along the north – south transport corridor of the M23 motorway and A23; and the London to Brighton railway route. Along this corridor are the main centres of Croydon, Redhill, Gatwick Airport / Crawley and Brighton. Other towns such as Leatherhead, Dorking, Reigate and Epsom may be more peripheral. One consequence to date is the more limited investment which has gone to Mole Valley (eg: seed bed funding for the Transform Leatherhead initiative).

3.14 Road and rail links to these main centres from towns in Mole Valley are of variable quality and not necessarily direct or rapid. For example Leatherhead has good rail access to Croydon but not particularly to Gatwick and further south to Brighton. Road links via the motorway network and interchanges are good, in principle. From Dorking there is good rail access to Gatwick Airport, however road access to Gatwick is via more local roads. There are longer journeys, by road and rail to both Brighton and Croydon. Consequently physical transport routes are not necessarily strong evidence of linkages with the rest of the LEP and for which Mole Valley could be described as part of a cohesive area. Transport is also considered as a separate topic.

Conclusion: Coast to Capital LEP

3.15 Mole Valley is clearly positioned within the Coast to Capital LEP and there are factors indicating its relative strengths within the area. This points to the LEP as a FEMA extent indicator but pragmatically this may not be so. Mole Valley’s towns and commercial centres are not along the main LEP corridor and Mole Valleys’ inclusion within the LEP arises more from its prior identification within the Gatwick Diamond Initiative rather than being evidenced by functional links. This is considered further in the next section.

Gatwick Diamond Initiative

3.16 Mole Valley is part of the Gatwick Diamond Initiative (GDI), an area formally designated in 2003 as one of the former South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) ‘diamonds for growth’. The GDI is a business led initiative focusing on the action required to make a real difference to the area of East Surrey and central Sussex with Gatwick at its heart. The GDI has been incorporated within the Coast to Capital LEP area and given official status as an area partnership.

Map 6: Gatwick Diamond Initiative area

3.17 The GDI is made up of the following 7 Districts and Boroughs and 2 County Councils:

 Crawley Borough Council  Epsom & Ewell Borough Council  Horsham District Council  Mid Sussex District Council  Mole Valley District Council  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council  Tandridge District Council  Surrey County Council  West Sussex County Council

3.18 The GDI area stretches from Brighton to south London and from Dorking to East Grinstead. Most of Mole Valley, including Dorking and with Leatherhead more on the periphery, is within the area and the Council has agreed to work with other members of the Initiative - particularly the five other local planning authorities (Crawley, Horsham, Mid- Sussex, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge) - to ensure that future land use planning decisions in the GDI area are consistent with the shared vision for the economic, social and environmental development of the sub-region.

3.19 The vision is to make the Gatwick area become a world class internationally recognised business location. It aims to promote the area’s image and quality by upgrading the quality and breadth of workforce skills and encouraging “knowledge” and “technology” in local businesses. To do this there is a need to ensure there are successful entrepreneurs and managers and labour and infrastructure to support it; together with enhanced transport connectivity of the area, locally and internationally. Its specific objectives are to Inspire, Connect and Grow through:

 Inspiring knowledge to enhance skills, productivity and innovation.  Improving facilities and transport connections by encouraging investment.  Smart growth to build our reputation as an economic powerhouse, but achieved in a sustainable way, safeguarding our quality of life and beautiful surrounding countryside.

3.20 This is being progressed through the Gatwick Diamond Economic Strategy and a Futures Plan. The Plan’s three strategic objectives, as above, have been developed in consultation between partners and are based on a commitment to work together to deliver world class assets and services. The principal elements of the Plan which are relevant to spatial planning in Mole Valley are as follows:  The attraction of high quality knowledge based industries to the area  Delivery of transport solutions to provide improved services and better connect towns in the Diamond to each other and serve future business needs  Focusing development on improving economic prospects through facilitation of high value added activities, improved educational assets, quality of life and quality of place.  The development of co-ordinated strategic planning and investment, including town centre regeneration, infrastructure improvements to provide a world class business location.

3.21 The Futures Plan acknowledges that whilst performance compared to the rest of the UK is good the ranking internationally is only considered to be mid to low order in terms of business performance. The vision is that the Gatwick Diamond will be a world class, internationally recognised business location achieving sustainable prosperity. With regard to Mole Valley in particular the GDI seeks to attract to the area high quality knowledge based industries and the delivery of this aim is reflected in Core Strategy Policy CS12 and the concentration of such firms in the Leatherhead area.

3.22 The Gatwick Diamond Futures Plan can be viewed at www.gatwickdiamond.co.uk and key facts at http://www.gatwickdiamond.co.uk/the-gatwick-diamond/key-facts.aspx

3.23 However the Gatwick Diamond Local Strategic Statement (para 4.5) comments that given the strength of Crawley/Gatwick as a business location and the concentration of demand there, this area is expected to be the main focus for future economic development, at least in the short and medium term. Redhill/Reigate and, to the edge of the Diamond, Leatherhead, with their locations close to the M25, attract a slightly different business market and are also expected to continue to be important locations for business development. See: http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/web/PUB171047

3.24 The commentary points to the GDI being a FEMA extent indicator for Mole Valley but the GDI’s purpose and vision, to which the local authorities have signed is not strongly spatially defined (see map for example) and indeed points to Leatherhead being somewhat peripheral. Mole Valleys’ reasons for inclusion within the GDI may relate more to the wider role and function of the Gatwick Diamond Initiative rather than as a perceived functional economic area.

Conclusion: Gatwick Diamond Initiative

3.25 Mole Valley is clearly positioned within the Gatwick Diamond Initiative area however the GDI itself is not a strong FEMA extent indicator.

4 The Relationship to London

4.1 Mole Valley only abuts a small part of London (part of the Borough of Kingston upon Thames) but the capital’s economic scale means that it has a significant influence on the District and its economy perhaps more so than for the Coast to Capital LEP. There is an argument that this influence distorts the identification of a functional economic market area and should not be included. However the London “factor” is a crucial decision making consideration for where people live and work and the locational decisions for businesses.

4.2 Projections prepared for the London Plan suggest that the total number of jobs in London could increase from 4.9million in 2011 to 5.8 million by 2036, growth of 17.6%. At 49% of net new job growth forecast, professional, real estate, scientific and technical activities are likely to see the largest increase. Job growth within the capital is likely to continue to influence the employment patterns of Mole Valley residents especially as the district forms part of the wider commuter belt around London. Commuting patterns are considered separately.

4.3 The 2013 London Strategic Housing Market Assessment recognised that the London housing market extends beyond boundaries of London itself but for practical considerations the study considered the Greater London area to be an effective Housing Market Area for the purposes of strategic planning in the Capital. In 2015 the Boroughs and District of Elmbridge, Epsom & Ewell, Kingston upon Thames and Mole Valley commissioned consultants to carry out a Strategic Housing Market Assessment covering their areas. This reflected the pragmatic consideration that a SHMA area may not necessarily stop at the border with London. This rationale indicates that for employment and economic reasons London is also a relevant consideration.

4.4 The 2015 London Plan places particular emphasis on supporting the greater contribution outer London can make to the capital’s economic success. In this regard, Kingston, the London Borough neighbouring Mole is identified as a Strategic Industrial Location, which is intended to reconcile the demand for, and supply of productive industrial land in London including for businesses requiring a high quality environment. The District’s relationship to LB Kingston is a consideration as are commuting patterns in to and out of London.

Conclusion 4.5 The influence of London can be a contributory factor to the identification of a FEMA.

5 Transport: Networks, Routes and Connectivity

5.1 The marketing brochures of property agents promoting commercial premises in Mole Valley extol the virtues and connectivity of the main towns of Leatherhead and Dorking in particular with regard to access to other major locations including London and Gatwick and Heathrow airports and the motorway network.

5.2 For example to paraphrase examples for Leatherhead:  Leatherhead is located in the prosperous county of Surrey, 21 miles south of central London and 17 miles from Guildford. This historic market town benefits considerably from its close proximity to the M25 and the ease with which the rest of the south east of England is accessible through the national motorway network. Rail services to Central London are fast and efficient with 7 peak departures per hour from Leatherhead railway station to London with a journey time of just over 45 minutes. Heathrow Airport (25 miles) and Gatwick Airport (21 miles) provide excellent access to air transport.

5.3 The Leatherhead and District Business Brochure (2010/11) makes similar comments:  Leatherhead enjoys multi-modal connectivity with the UK and international business destinations. It is less than 20 miles from central London and at the hub of a major travel network. Its road, rail and air links ensure UK, European and global markets are easily accessible. Yet only a few minutes away lie the North Downs, an outstanding area of woodland and chalk downland, and a site of special scientific interest. The town provides access to a large pool of potential employees, with more than ten million people living within one hour’s travel. The proximity of Heathrow and Gatwick airports creates access to global markets and technological skills which are driving high rates of economic growth. o By air the UK’s two largest international airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, are within 25 miles of Leatherhead via the motorway network. Heathrow, the world's busiest international airport, is less than one hour’s drive away whilst Gatwick Airport, the UK's second largest business airport, with 80 airlines serving over 200 destinations, is within a 30 minute drive. o By road Junction 9 of the M25 London Orbital motorway is just half a mile from Leatherhead town centre, providing access to all parts of the UK: the North (A1, M1), South (M3, M23), East (M2, M20, M11) and West (M4, M40). The A3 major regional trunk road is less than 10 miles away via the M25, giving access to the coast at Portsmouth and to central London. o By rail the frequent direct service to London (Waterloo, Victoria and London Bridge) takes around 45 minutes. Other destinations easily accessible by rail include Horsham (29 minutes) and Guildford (26 minutes).

5.4 And for Dorking:  Dorking is situated south of Junction 9 of the M25 at Leatherhead. With three stations and positioned on the A24 / A25 axis, Dorking benefits from excellent connectivity to Central London, the M25 and motorway network, Gatwick and Heathrow Airports. The town is well connected to Leatherhead, Guildford, Reigate, Redhill and Horsham. Gatwick Airport is approximately 13 miles to the south. Dorking main station provides regular services to Central London. Dorking West and Dorking Deepdene stations connect to Guildford and Reading; and to Redhill onward to Gatwick Airport. These rail services provide access for staff and visitors to and from the town from north, south, east and west. With a number of local bus routes connecting the town and local area the town is very well served for public transport. The catchment area for staff is therefore extensive.

5.5 Map 7 below shows the Mole Valley local context and main transport networks. Indicative travel distances and times by road (source: AA route planner) and rail (peak time) are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Indicative travel distances and times from Leatherhead and Dorking

Destination From Leatherhead From Dorking By Rail By Car By Car By Rail By Car By Car (minutes) (miles) (minutes) (minutes) (miles) (minutes) M25 J9 - 2 5 - 6.5 16 Redhill 36 13 22 12 8.5 20 Croydon 25 15 40 43 17 41 Guildford 29 17 23 17 12 26 Gatwick 60 21 30 35 15 31 Heathrow 2hr 05 25 32 2hr 15 31 42 Epsom 8 6 18 8 10 23 Wimbledon (LB 27 12 35 34 20 38 Merton) Central London 46 21 56 50 29 1hr 08 (Victoria / Waterloo stations) Clapham Junction 34 20 40 45 25 50 Additionally: Kingston 45 10 30 55 15 38 Esher 53 7 17 1hr 05 12 27 (Elmbridge BC) Weybridge 1hr 02 15 22 1hr 21 31 (Elmbridge BC) Horsham 30 19 33 22 13 24 Godalming 40 2 33 45 16 36 (Waverley BC)

5.6 The places stated are those from some commercial property agents’ brochures and emphasise those they consider important for businesses, decision makers, and commuters and residents. Additional locations are to main towns in neighbouring authorities and reflect towns potentially considered as part of a potential functional area.

5.7 Journey times to most destinations referred to in the table are less than 1 hour and many neighbouring towns and centres are less than 45 minutes away. However these reflect peak time rail rather than off peak where journey times may be considerably extended; and road journey times are under ideal conditions. However off peak services may be less frequent and take longer than peak services and as such may not be so convenient for employees working part time or limited / antisocial hours. Off peak services may equally influence commuting and travel distance patterns and such workers may spend longer travelling or commute from nearer in; the latter case this could infer a tighter economic area against this indicator.

5.8 A map of the full rail network in Surrey is available at: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/7922/Surrey_Rail_Map_WEB.pdf

5.9 Bus routes and services mainly serve the local areas in the District but also serve destinations including Kingston, Redhill, Horsham and Guildford; they could not be described as rapid or of a particularly high frequency.

5.10 Several public transport nodes, particularly railway stations are not located near the relevant town centres and hence claimed travel times do not reflect total journey time to a town or commercial centre. Some centres near to Mole Valley are not served by direct services. For example neither Esher or Weybridge railway stations (in adjoining Elmbridge

Borough) are in close proximity to their town centres nor are they accessible by direct services. That is “real world” public transport connectivity may indicate that transport, as an indicator for economic functionality, may be more tightly spatially defined than otherwise might be considered. Furthermore main and local road congestion may considerably extend “normal” drive times such that the desirability of travelling longer distances to work by car may also be a disincentive and could tighten functional transport areas.

5.11 In the context of the Coast to Capital LEP area the connectivity of Dorking and Leatherhead can be to be assessed against the three main areas of the LEP: Gatwick Airport/Crawley, Brighton and Croydon. Road and rail links to these areas from centres in Mole Valley are of variable quality and not necessarily direct or rapid. For example Leatherhead has good rail access to Croydon but not particularly so to Gatwick and further south to Brighton. Road links from Leatherhead via the motorway network and interchanges are good, in principle, to these areas and as seen from the examples at the start of this topic section positively promote Leatherhead in this regard. From Dorking there is good rail access to Gatwick Airport, however road access to Gatwick is via more local roads. There are longer journeys, by road and rail to both Brighton and Croydon. Consequently physical transport routes are not necessarily strong evidence of linkages with the rest of the LEP and for which Mole Valley could be described as part of a cohesive area.

5.12 The LEP has identified one of its Successful Growth Locations and Opportunity Areas as being the East Surrey M25 Corridor and covers 4 authorities in the LEP area (Mole Valley, Epsom and Ewell, Reigate and Banstead and Tandridge). Crossrail 2 is the proposed new high-frequency, high-capacity rail line running through London and into Surrey and Hertfordshire. The proposed Crossrail 2 route includes south west branches extending to Shepperton, Hampton Court, Chessington South and Epsom. The proposal will deliver significant accessibility improvements which may be locally beneficial. However Crossrail 2 will not be operational until 2030 at the earliest and should not influence the transport indicator. The latest indication is that Crossrail 2 will not be extended in to Mole Valley.

5.13 Proposals to improve rail services on the east-west Great Western rail line will particularly benefit longer distance services on this line (eg between Gatwick Airport and Reading) and will improve access to Deepdene Station, as well as ease of access to neighbouring towns such as Guildford and Redhill. Possible service improvements on the north-south (ie Epsom, Leatherhead, Dorking etc) line are particularly aimed to reduce overcrowding.

Conclusion: Transport connectivity

5.14 In principle Mole Valley, and in particular the main towns of Leatherhead and Dorking, have good transport connectivity and particularly with regard to strategic locations (Central London and Gatwick and Heathrow Airport). The two towns do not however share the same connectivity benefits, e.g. Gatwick is more accessible from Dorking and the M25 is better accessed from Leatherhead. The transport connectivity to the wider area is thus not the same for the two principal settlements of the District. An assessment of the different relative accessibility from Leatherhead and Dorking and whether by road or public transport, thus leads to a more tightly drawn FEMA boundary.

Map 7: Mole Valley local context and main transport networks

Travel to Work Areas

5.15 Travel to work areas (TTWA) have been developed to identify approximations of self- contained labour markets, reflecting where most people live and work The Office of National Statistics uses commuting data to produce this information and the most recent network of TTWAs was produced in 2015 using 2011 Census data. The defining criteria were that at least 75% of an area's resident workforce should work in the area, and at least 75% of the people who work in the area should also live there. The area should also have a working population of at least 3,500. For areas with a working population in excess of 25,000, lower self-containment rates of 66.7% are accepted as part of a limited ‘trade off’ between workforce size and level of self-containment. TTWA boundaries are non-overlapping and contiguous, and cover the whole of the UK.

5.16 Over time there has been a consistent pattern of a reduction in the number of TTWAs as more people tend to commute longer distances to work, leading to an increase in the average size of TTWAs in terms of geographical area and population, and a consequent decrease in the number of TTWAs. In 1991 there were 308 TTWAs covering the UK, in 2001 there were 243 TTWAs, and a further reduction to 228 in 2011. This is a 6% reduction in TTWAs from 2001 to 2011. The areas identified from 2011 Census data differ substantially from those identified in 2001, especially in and around London. Changes to TTWA boundaries result from the interplay of many different shifts in the complex patterns of commuter flows, rather than exclusively from changes in the number and location of jobs. The trend in successive Censuses has been for TTWAs to become larger as the volume of longer distance commuting increases. In 2011 there were 228 TTWAs across the UK, compared to 243 in 2001 (a reduction of 6%). There were 308 TTWAs in 1991 and 344 in 1981. However between 2001 and 2011 the London TTWA contracted by over 20% in terms of land area.

5.17 TTWA’s identify areas of self containment and this may be a proxy of areas within which businesses and employers in an area may chiefly recruit staff and hence be competing for labour. Strong demand for labour within a TTWA can be expected to lead to higher salary and wage levels than TTWAs with low labour demand. Where there is high labour demand this may result in higher wages and hence further stimulate the supply of labour. This could be through increased efficiency in the use of the labour resource in the TTWA, in-migration, and additional in-commuting through people being willing to travel further to take up jobs in the area. This is set out further in a commentary by Nathaniel Lichfield Partnership as to the reasons for change and the implications (see Annex 1).

5.18 Additionally key strategic routes have the ability to extend TTWAs beyond the immediate sub-region, due to efficient transport links reducing overall journey times and enabling workers to commute longer distances. For these reasons TTWAs may not match or be a reasonable proxy for a functional economic market area. Indeed other factors (eg see Transport section) may effectively tighten a local area within a TTWA.

5.19 High proportions of people working from home may also indicate areas with higher than average rates of self containment and that a tighter local area is more appropriate as a functional area. The 2011 Census indicates that 16% of residents in employment (age 16 - 74) in Mole Valley work mainly at, or from, home. This rate is higher than that of 12% for Coast to Capital LEP and 10.3% nationally.

5.20 In addition to working from home, levels of self employment may also be a useful indicator of a tight economic area. The 2011 Census (KS601) identifies for Mole Valley that 14.7% of the economically active population is self-employed. This is higher than the rate for the Coast to Capital LEP area, at 12.0%, and the national rate of 9.5%.

5.21 The 2001 TTWA map (Map 8) identifies Leatherhead as being within the London TTWA and Dorking within the Crawley TTWA. The 2011 TTWA map (Map 9) now identifies Leatherhead and Dorking as both being within the Crawley TTWA. Ashtead to the north of Leatherhead remains in the London TTWA; this is a predominantly residential area. Rural parts of Mole Valley to the west of Dorking are in the Guildford and Aldershot TTWA.

Map 8: 2001 Travel to Work Areas (TTWA) extract

Map 9: 2011 Travel to Work Areas (TTWA) extract

5.23 Map 10 shows the wider area for the 2011 TTWAs covering Mole Valley and neighbours. The pattern of employment centres in and around London is highly complex and commuting patterns are diffuse and although smaller than in 2001, the 2011 London TTWA extends outside Greater London including in to parts of Surrey.

Map 10: 2011 TTWAs covering Mole Valley and neighbours

5.24 The SMHA for Kingston upon Thames and North East surrey Authorities (June 2016) covers Mole Valley, Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell and LB Kingston. The 2011 TTWA boundaries divide the four SHMA authorities into four TTWAs, with Elmbridge divided between the Slough and Heathrow and Guildford and Aldershot TTWAs. Epsom & Ewell is exclusively within the London TTWA, Kingston split between the Slough and Heathrow and London TTWAs; and Mole Valley split into three predominantly within Crawley but parts also in London, and Guildford and Aldershot TTWAs. In contrast in 2001 Kingston, Elmbridge and Epsom & Ewell fell within the London TTWA, whilst Mole Valley was split between London and Crawley, with the boundary running south of Leatherhead and north of Dorking. The maps above and the following table indicates that most of Mole Valley shares common TTWA extents mainly with adjoining neighbours Reigate and Banstead, Crawley and Horsham.

Table 4: Mole Valley, neighbouring authorities and TTWAs

London TTWA Crawley TTWA Guildford and Slough and 2011 2011 Aldershot TTWA Heathrow TTWA 2011 2011 SHMA partners: Mole Valley Yes Yes Yes No Epsom and Ewell Yes No No No Elmbridge No No Yes Yes LB Kingston Yes No No Yes Other Mole Valley neighbours: Guildford No No Yes No Reigate and Yes Yes No No Banstead Waverley No No Yes No Crawley BC No Yes No No Horsham DC No Yes No No

Commuting

5.25 Transport networks and travel to work areas may identify broad areas for consideration for a FEMA however these may not indicate main commuter flows including where net flows in and out cancel and where there are significant flows in a specific direction (either in or out). According to the 2001 Census Mole Valley experienced net in-commuting of 832 persons. The 2011 Census indicates that net in-commuting had increased to 4,055 persons. The following link is to 2011 Census interactive commuting flow data for Mole Valley. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/WU02UK/chart/1132462311

5.26 The SHMA (SHMA Annex 4 Table 23) identifies the main travel to work linkages. This 2011 data identifies the main linkages (as gross commuting inflow and outflow combined as being between Mole Valley and Reigate and Banstead and also Mole Valley and Epsom and Ewell.

5.27 The table of top in and out commuting flows (Table 7) shows the main commuting flows between Mole Valley and other authorities. The following tables (Tables 5 and 6) identify the top ten locations of employment for Mole Valley residents; and also the top ten locations of residence for the Mole Valley workforce. Those authorities who are SHMA partners are identified in green.

Table 5: top ten locations of employment for Mole Valley residents

Location of employment of Mole Out - Commuters % of Mole Valley residents Valley residents ( econ active) Reigate and Banstead 2,466 6.0 Westminster LB and City of 2,230 5.4 London (ie Central London) Guildford 1,792 4.3 Epsom and Ewell 1,600 3.9 Elmbridge 1,274 3.1 Kingston LB 1,062 2.6 Crawley (ie incl Gatwick) 879 2.1 Sutton LB 772 1.9 Horsham 447 1.1 Merton LB 425 1.0 MV econ-active residents in employment (2011 Census) = 41,169

Table 6: Top ten locations of residence for the Mole Valley workforce

Place of residence of employees in In – Commuters % of workforce Mole Valley (Work in Mole Valley) Reigate and Banstead 3,452 7.4 Epsom and Ewell 1,927 4.1 Horsham 1,600 3.4 Guildford 1,503 3.2 Sutton LB 1,367 2.9 Elmbridge 1,131 2.4 Crawley (ie incl Gatwick) 1,100 2.4 Kingston LB 1,055 2.3 Merton LB 712 1.5 Croydon LB 677 1.4 MV workforce (2011 Census) = 46,437

5.28 Table 7 aggregates the total flows in and out of Mole Valley and identifies the net flows as well; high total flows indicating strong overall linkages. Other strong links may be “one way” only (eg to central London). Some flows may be one way and reflect commuting from areas of “relatively” cheaper housing in to Mole Valley (eg from Horsham). Other areas with perceived strong economic links (eg Crawley / Gatwick Airport) are perhaps less strong than thought and indicate that predominant net flows are not from the southern part of Mole Valley; that overall the stronger links are to authorities adjoining the northern part of Mole Valley. Note that although Reigate and Banstead borders the whole eastern side of Mole Valley the main commercial centres of Redhill/ Reigate are to the centre of this Borough and with the smaller town of Horley to the south.

Table 7: Top ten total employment flows in and out of Mole Valley

Total Flows (In and Out Net flow Commuting) (net in = +; net out = -) Reigate and Banstead 5,918 +986 Epsom and Ewell 3,527 +327 Guildford 3,295 -289 Elmbridge 2,405 -143 Westminster LB and City of 2,280 -2,172 London (ie Central London) Sutton LB 2,139 +595 Kingston LB 2,117 -7 Horsham 2,047 +1,153 Crawley (ie incl Gatwick) 1,979 +221 Merton LB 1,137 +287

Commentary

5.29 The tables indicate strong commuting links with Reigate and Banstead Borough. Of Mole Valley’s SHMA partners the stronger commuting link is with Epsom and Ewell Borough. In comparison links with SHMA partners Elmbridge and Kingston LB are relatively less strong. Indeed in the case of LB Kingston there are almost equal levels of commuting in both directions and may indicate a link notwithstanding the actual numbers commuting in or out are not amongst the highest. Commuting between Guildford and Mole Valley is also reasonably high in both directions. Of Mole Valley’s southern neighbours in and out levels with Crawley are perhaps not as high as could be expected given this includes Gatwick

Airport as a major employment location in the south east. Mole Valley experiences relatively high levels of in-commuting from Horsham perhaps reflecting relatively lower house prices; this is not matched by out commuting to Horsham. Both of these could indicate that links with our southern neighbours, and hence our relationship to Gatwick Diamond and Coast to Capital LEP as functional areas, are relatively not as strong as could be.

5.30 In terms of out-commuting, the District’s second strongest relationship is with the City of London and Westminster and this has to be considered as an exceptional factor influenced by Mole Valley’s location in the London commuter belt. The relationship with the SHMA evidence on commuting and migration is considered next.

Conclusion: TTWA and commuting

5.31 The large size of the TTWAs in and around London limits their value as a key source of evidence in determining FEMA boundaries. Much of Mole Valley shares common TTWA extents with adjoining neighbours Reigate and Banstead, Crawley and Horsham. However these do not reflect our SHMA partners. The strong commuting links with Reigate and Banstead and Epsom and Ewell are the most apparent potential linkages and indicate they could share characteristics that would include them in a Mole Valley FEMA extent.

6 Strategic Housing Market Area

6.1 A recommendation from the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) is, for Local Plan preparation, that strategic housing market areas (SHMAs) and FEMA areas could, or should, be the same.

6.2 The Eastern Surrey SHMA 2007 defined a housing market area which included Elmbridge, Epsom & Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge. At the present time Tandridge are producing their own SHMA and it is understood Reigate & Banstead are not currently updating any SHMA studies.

6.3 In 2015 Elmbridge, Epsom & Ewell, Kingston upon Thames and Mole Valley commissioned consultants to carry out a Strategic Housing Market Assessment covering their areas. This reflected the pragmatic consideration that SHMAs areas do not necessarily stop at the border with London. Similarly for employment and economic reasons London is a relevant consideration. As set out in Planning Practice Guidance, the study examined evidence on house prices, migration and other indicators to identify HMA boundaries.

6.4 The work concluded that the four authorities of Kingston upon Thames, Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell and Mole Valley do form a coherent and self-contained HMA as identified through strong migration linkages and supported by evidence on house price patterns and commuting links. Detailed consultation with surrounding authorities and other bodies confirmed that this was viewed as an appropriate boundary. The four authorities fully recognise that there are strong linkages with surrounding authorities, particularly to the south of the HMA.

6.5 It is not intended to reproduce the evidence in the SHMA here. However the following comments from the SHMA are relevant to the consideration of a FEMA.

6.6 The SHMA acknowledges that:

 The economy of the area and its surroundings help to create demand for housing. The three Surrey authorities are among the 20 least deprived areas in England, and Kingston is the second least deprived London Borough. Residents in the HMA are more likely to be economically active than the Surrey or London averages, and occupations and industry are dominated by higher–end activities such as financial and professional occupations, with high proportions of managers, directors, and professional and technical roles and important commuting linkages with central London and other economic centres such as Gatwick Airport in the south and Heathrow Airport. Between 2000 and 2013, the HMA became increasingly focussed on higher paid employment.

 In addition to demographic trends, Planning Practice Guidance recommends the consideration of projections of employment growth when considering the objective need for housing. Within this HMA, there is no strong evidence to suggest the need for any increase in OAN for housing as a result of projected employment change.

 The area covered by this SHMA is characterised by a high level of economic prosperity, matched by high dwelling and land values and an attractive environment.

 The four authorities of Elmbridge, Epsom & Ewell, Kingston and Mole Valley form a coherent and self-contained housing market area (HMA), as identified from strong migration linkages and supported by evidence on house price patterns and commuting links.

6.7 With regard to employment data the SHMA identifies losses of jobs, over time, in Epsom & Ewell and Mole Valley. The former saw the ‘loss’ of 9,000 jobs over the period 2000 - 2013

(-21%). However the SHMA comments that over half of this loss (5,000 jobs) can be put down to the relocation of a major regional employer who’s HQ had been in Epsom Town Centre. The SHMA acknowledges that as ONS local classifications are based on registered offices, these jobs would have been located all over the South East, and their apparent ‘loss’ cannot be interpreted as a sign of local employment decline.

6.8 The SHMA also comments that Mole Valley saw an 11% decline (5,000 jobs) but does not add the same caveat. Mole Valley Council has concerns at the accuracy of older data and the use of long term figures. The SHMA comments that discounting these anomalies the overall figures in the SHMA (ie for all four authorities) indicate a gradual shift from job supply within the HMA to employment outside it, associated with increased commuting. It will be for the Mole Valley Economic Development Needs Assessment to look at these factors.

6.9 The SHMA area is identified on Map 11 below:

Map 11: 2015 SHMA Area including Mole Valley

6.10 The SHMA comments that its evidence on commuting flows shows a more complex picture than that revealed by the analysis of migration patterns, with generally weaker linkages between all the authorities examined in the SHMA. This indicates that the relationships between SHMAs and FEMAs extent, as advocated by the LPEG may not hold good in this instance. The SHMA identifies the complexity of London/South East labour markets and increased/longer distance commuting levels as a factor. There are significant flows to central London in common with many other areas in outer London and adjacent to it.

6.11 The SHMA data confirms, with regard to migration analysis, that Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex on the one hand and western Surrey on the other form relatively self-contained areas focussed on Crawley and Guildford respectively. These areas are identified as both SHMAs and FEMAs and which do not include Mole Valley. The SHMA identifies three

groups of migration linkages. Within the third (ie lower) tier the SHMA notes the strongest linkage is with Reigate and Banstead and also Epsom and Ewell. There is only a relatively low level of linkage with Elmbridge.

6.12 The SHMA also suggests Mole Valley needs to consider the housing market linkages of its southern portions to the south and east. The SHMA comments these areas, around Dorking and beyond, will continue to be attractive to people from Kingston and other parts of London, they will equally feel the 'pull’ from the HMAs associated with economic development in the Gatwick Diamond area. The “Commuting” topic (see paras 5.25 – 5.30) has indicated these relative commuting levels and compared them with stronger links to our northern neighbours.

Conclusion

6.13 The SHMA points particularly to linkages with Epsom and Ewell, and Reigate and Banstead but these are lower level. The Local Plan Expert Group recommendation that FEMAs and SHMAs should be the same extents does not hold in this instance. Based on the SHMA and also considering the evidence regarding TTWAs neither are wholly satisfactory as a reasonable proxy for a FEMA.

7 The Nature of Employment and the Flows of Goods, Services and Information within the Local Economy

The Nature of Employment

7.1 The number and types of jobs in Mole Valley can be compared with neighbouring local authorities to see if there are any similarities particularly with regard to the size of the employment base, the types of jobs and industrial sectoral clusters and concentrations and jobs density for example.

Job Density

7.2 One measure of notional self containment of an employment area is that of job density. This represents the ratio of total jobs to the resident population age 16-64. It reflects a concept of being able to match your local residents with the total jobs in the local area and hence the degree of notional self containment. For example a ratio of 1:1 indicates there is 1 job in the locality for each resident age 16-64. Low ratios (less than 1) indicate fewer residents than jobs and would infer high levels of in-commuting to fill jobs. Table 8 shows jobs density for Mole Valley and neighbours.

Table 8: Total Jobs and Jobs Density 2014

Local Authority Area Total Jobs Job density (ratio 1:x.xx) Mole Valley 50,000 0.98 Adjoining Neighbours Elmbridge 70,000 0.87 Epsom and Ewell 36,000 0.74 Guildford 94,000 1.0 Reigate and Banstead 77,000 0.86 Waverley 63,000 0.87 Crawley BC 91,000 1.26 Horsham DC 60,000 0.75 Kingston LB 82,000 0.72 Other near Neighbours Tandridge 43,000 0.83 Woking 58,000 0.92 Runnymede 58,000 1.04 Spelthorne 43,000 0.70 Sutton LB 78,000 0.61 Croydon LB 142,000 0.58 Merton LB 97,000 0.70 Mid Sussex 68,000 0.77 Chichester 76,000 1.15 Source: ONS NOMIS

7.3 Compared to most neighbouring areas Mole Valley has relatively fewer total jobs albeit significantly more than SHMA partner area Epsom and Ewell. However Mole Valley’s jobs density at 1:0.98 is almost a 1 to 1 relationship and indicates potentially high self- containment. The sub section: “Commuting” has shown that in the “real world” localities with a close match of jobs to residents (ie Mole Valley) can still experience high levels of commuting both in and out of the locality.

Job Growth

7.4 Job growth in Mole Valley and adjoining neighbours and other near neighbours since 2009 (Table 9) has largely been positive. Average job growth across Mole Valley and adjoining neighbours is 4.1%. This average rate is higher than that achieved by Mole Valley

and SHMA partners and reflects in particular the higher rates of jobs growth achieved by major employment centres of Crawley (ie including Gatwick Airport) and Guildford. Neither of these identified Mole Valley as part of their FEMAs.

Table 9: Employee Job growth 2009 to 2014

Local Authority Area 2009 2014 Growth (%)

Mole Valley 42,200 43,100 2.2 Adjoining Neighbours Elmbridge 54,100 56,100 3.7 Epsom and Ewell 27,700 28,800 3.9 Guildford 72,000 75,100 4.1 Reigate and Banstead 60,400 62,200 2.9 Waverley 49,800 52,800 5.7 Crawley BC 78,800 84,600 7.4 Horsham DC 48,500 49,900 2.3 Kingston LB 75,600 77,400 2.2 Total (incl MV) 509,100 530,000 4.1% Other near Neighbours Tandridge 30,900 32,700 5.2 Woking 46,200 47,600 3.0 Runnymede 50,700 52,000 2.5 Spelthorne 35,800 37,300 4.0 Sutton LB 63,500 68,900 8.5 Croydon LB 120,800 115,100 -4.7 Merton LB 65,100 78,600 20.7 Mid Sussex 53,300 54,400 2.1 Chichester 53,600 56,900 6.2 Source: BRES ONS from NOMIS

Nb: Published data is to the nearest hundred; therefore %s may not sum using the figures in the table.

Industry clusters and concentrations

7.5 Specific employment concentrations for Mole Valley and neighbours may identify areas of common strengths and may indicate to some extent linkages across authorities. The following table shows that almost 89% of jobs are in the services industry sector and that this overall rate is slightly above regional and national rates. However within the services industry sector Mole Valley shows particular concentrations in the Information and communication (J) and Financial and other business services (K-N) sectors. Table 11 looks at these 2 sectors in comparison with neighbouring authorities to assess whether there may be sectoral concentrations.

Table 10: Employee Jobs by Industry

Employee jobs by industry Mole Valley Mole Valley South East Great Britain (Grouped Sectors) Employee Jobs (%) (%) (%) Total 43,100 - - - Primary Services (A-B: 200 0.4 0.2 0.4 agriculture and mining) Energy and Water (D-E) 300 0.6 1.1 1.1 Manufacturing (C) 1,500 3.5 6.2 8.5 Construction (F) 2,900 6.6 4.8 4.5 Services (G-S) 38,300 88.8 87.6 85.6 Wholesale and retail, including 6,500 15.1 17.0 15.9 motor trades (G) Transport storage (H) 700 1.7 4.6 4.5 Accommodation and food 3,200 7.4 7.4 7.1 services(I) Information and communication 3,700 8.7 5.8 4.1 (J)

Financial and other business 13,200 30.7 22.5 22.2 services(K-N) Public admin, education and 8,800 20.4 25.6 27.4 health (O-Q) Other Services (R-S) 2,100 4.8 4.8 4.4 Source: BRES ONS from NOMIS. Data extracted 20th July 2016: Labour Market profile for Mole Valley.

Table 11: Percentages of employee jobs in specific employment sectors

Local Authority Area Information and communication Financial and other business (J) services( K-N) % % Mole Valley 8.7 30.7 Adjoining Neighbours Elmbridge 6.8 26.9 Epsom and Ewell 3.2 27.5 Guildford 4.9 23.2 Reigate and Banstead 4.6 30.8 Waverley 6.0 28.3 Crawley BC 3.2 25.5 Horsham DC 4.9 22.3 Kingston LB 5.2 20.2 Other near Neighbours Tandridge 3.1 23.0 Woking 8.2 30.2 Runnymede 8.1 23.7 Spelthorne 7.3 19.7 Sutton LB 6.1 26.8 Croydon LB 4.2 23.3 Merton LB 4.9 30.4 Mid Sussex 3.9 23.8 Chichester 2.6 22.7 Other Comparators Coast to Capital LEP 4.1 23.9 Great Britain 4.1 22.2 Source: BRES ONS from NOMIS. Data extracted 20th July 2016.

7.6 Of Mole Valley’s SHMA partners only Elmbridge shows similarities in terms of strengths in both sectors and with Epsom and Ewell also being strong in the Financial and other business sectors. LB Kingston does not show particular strengths in these sectors. Of the other adjoining neighbours Reigate and Banstead shares strengths in the Financial and other business sectors; and Waverley also shows strengths in both sectors. Of non- adjoining neighbours Woking is the nearest with regard to similar strengths in both sectors. The table also shows Mole Valley’s strengths in these sectors compared to the Coast to Capital LEP average.

7.7 Whilst these two services are prominent sectors for Mole Valley it is important to understand which sectors of concentration are important for our neighbouring local authorities. Table 12 identifies the top 3 sectors for each local authority where employment in those sectors is above national rates. The information is taken from ONS location quotients and is a local measure of geographical concentration of industries. The analysis looks at the individual sectors rather than the grouped sectors in Table 10 . This may identify concentrations of more detailed sectors not so apparent in the aggregated groups.

Table 12: Sectoral concentrations

Local Authority Sectoral Rate Sectoral Rate Sectoral Rate Area Concentration Concentration Concentration 1 2 3 Mole Valley J : Information and 2.51 M : Professional, 2.17 K : Financial and 1.43 communication scientific and insurance activities technical activities Adjoining Neighbours Elmbridge M : Professional, 1.83 R : Arts, 1.75 J : Information and 1.72 scientific and entertainment and communication technical activities recreation Epsom and Ewell R : Arts, entertainment 1.67 M : Professional, 1.58 P : Education 1.41 and recreation scientific and technical activities Guildford M : Professional, 1.59 J : Information and 1.34 R : Arts, 1.33 scientific and communication entertainment and technical activities recreation Reigate and K : Financial and 3.22 Q : Human health 1.29 F : Construction 1.25 Banstead insurance activities and social work activities Waverley S : Other service 1.65 J : Information and 1.59 P : Education 1.52 activities communication Crawley BC H : Transportation and 5.47 D : Electricity, gas, 2.28 N : Administrative 2.08 storage steam and air and support service conditioning supply activities Horsham DC L : Real estate 1.60 E : Water supply; 1.40 R : Arts, 1.29 activities sewerage, waste entertainment and management and recreation remediation activities Kingston LB R : Arts, entertainment 2.05 S : Other service 1.49 J : Information and 1.44 and recreation activities communication Other near Neighbours Tandridge F : Construction 2.13 R : Arts, 1.72 P : Education 1.46 entertainment and recreation Woking J : Information and 2.16 M : Professional, 2.11 R : Arts, 1.91 communication scientific and entertainment and technical activities recreation Runnymede J : Information and 2.27 M : Professional, 1.83 N : Administrative 1.68 communication scientific and and support service technical activities activities Spelthorne J : Information and 2.17 H : Transportation 1.63 F : Construction 1.43 communication and storage Sutton LB N : Administrative and 2.48 F : Construction 1.28 J : Information and 1.18 support service communication activities Croydon LB O : Public 1.87 K : Financial and 1.28 P : Education 1.25 administration and insurance activities defence; compulsory social security Merton LB N : Administrative and 1.63 L : Real estate 1.50 J : Information and 1.39 support service activities communication activities Mid Sussex K : Financial and 1.61 E : Water supply; 1.37 L : Real estate 1.25 insurance activities sewerage, waste activities management and remediation activities Chichester O : Public 1.83 I : Accommodation 1.41 R : Arts, 1.37 administration and and food service entertainment and defence; compulsory activities recreation social security Source: ONS Locational Concentration tables: [where a value greater than 1 means that an area has a higher share of employee jobs in a specific industry than nationally]

7.8 As previously, the SHMA partner authorities are shown in green. Additionally for those authorities adjoining Mole Valley and which share the same sectoral concentrations these are additionally shown in bold italics. This exercise highlights:

 Of the SHMA partners only Elmbridge shares 2 sectors and neither of these are at the same concentrations as Mole Valley.  Of the shared sectors with SHMA partners Epsom and Ewell and LB Kingston neither sector is at rates comparable to Mole Valley.  Of the other adjoining neighbours only Guildford shares 2 common sectors and again these are not at concentrations comparable with Mole Valley.  Reigate & Banstead and Waverley each share 1 common sector with Mole Valley. Reigate & Banstead’s concentration of Financial and insurance activities (K) is considerably higher than Mole Valley’s.  Crawley and Horsham to the south of Mole Valley do not share any sectoral concentrations.

Networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries

7.9 Paragraph 21 of the NPPF requires local authorities to ‘plan positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries’. It is appropriate to consider whether there are any particular clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high tech industries in Mole Valley and whether there are similar clusters in neighbouring or nearby authorities and whether this contributes to the consideration of FEMA extents.

7.10 Dorking in the centre of the District has major offices for several financial services companies. However Leatherhead, in the north of Mole Valley, has a longstanding history of being a centre for research and high technology / knowledge based companies though the types of research companies and number of firms has changed through the years. This is reflected in the number of “business parks” in the area. Current knowledge driven, creative or high technology companies are particularly related to electronics and engineering and computer services.

7.11 The Coast to Capital LEP: Economic Assessment 2015 looked at IT related employment concentrations for the local authorities within the LEP. Table 13 is reproduced from the LEP assessment and shows the strong representation of IT related employment in Mole Valley compared with the other Coast to Capital LEP local authorities.

Table 13: IT Employment as a share of total employment: C2C LEP

IT Employment as a share of total employment: C2C LEP

South East 5.3% Coast to Capital 3.3% Gatwick Diamond 3.7% Mole Valley 8.0% Horsham 4.3% Brighton and Hove 4.2% Adur 3.8% Croydon 3.6% Tandridge 3.1% Reigate and Banstead 3.1% Mid Sussex 3.0% Crawley 2.6% Epsom and Ewell 2.6% Lewes 2.3% Worthing 2.0% Arun 1.4%

Chichester 1.3%

Source: Business Register and Employment Survey 2013

Sector analysis by the former South East England Development Agency

7.12 Research by the former South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) identified the following sectors as being critical to the future growth of the South East Economy:

 Advanced Engineering & Marine  ICT, Software & Digital Media  Pharmaceuticals, Life Sciences & Healthcare  Environment & Energy  Aerospace & Defence  Financial & Professional Services

7.13 The maps associated with these are not of best quality having been extracted from archive documents. They are included as Annex 3 and show:

 Advanced Engineering & Marine: concentration of businesses across the SW sector of M25 motorway (including Mole Valley) and M3 and M4 corridors but low locational quotients for these areas. That is significant agglomerations of firms but not reflecting concentrations of jobs. Therefore considered to have a low influence on a FEMA extent.  ICT, Software & Digital Media: as with the commentary, above, regarding knowledge clusters this shows clusters of businesses and locational quotients to the west of Mole Valley and with Mole Valley being on the periphery.  Pharmaceuticals, Life Sciences & Healthcare: this shows no real evidence of clustering around Mole Valley and its neighbours.  Environment and Energy: this shows evidence of an agglomeration of firms in the north of Mole Valley (ie Leatherhead) but no wider evidence of clustering with any neighbouring authorities.  Aerospace and Defence: This shows one firm in the northern part of Mole Valley and several in neighbours Epsom and Ewell, and Elmbridge. However there is no locational quotient concentration. Indeed any such concentration is to the south and east (eg Crawley and Gatwick Airport related) but excludes Mole Valley.  Financial and Professional Services: This shows a number of firms in Mole Valley in both Dorking and Leatherhead and indicates clustering of businesses and high locational quotients particularly with neighbours Reigate & Banstead in the east and some authorities to the west. Whilst this sector indicates a degree of concentration it is limited as a factor influencing a FEMA extent as it is only one sector out of the six selected sectors.

7.14 Map 12 (next page) shows the location of the top 100 most strategic businesses in Surrey (by turnover) in 2010. The biggest clusters of such companies are to be found in the north of the county and the main clustering in Surrey of the top 100 companies occurs in Guildford, Woking, Frimley, Leatherhead, Staines-upon-Thames, Egham and Addlestone. It shows concentrations of large firms at Leatherhead and a similar size major company in the neighbouring town of Epsom however other nearby towns in other SHMA partner authorities (Reigate and Banstead, and Elmbridge) do not indicate the presence of such large firms by turnover.

Conclusions

7.15 The following conclusions can be drawn from the above evidence:

 Mole Valley shows particular concentrations in Information and Communication (J) and Financial and Business Services (K-N); and within the latter professional, scientific and technical activities (M).  Of the SHMA partners only Elmbridge shares 2 sectors and neither of these are at the same concentrations as Mole Valley.  Of the shared sectors with SHMA partners Epsom and Ewell and LB Kingston neither sector is at rates comparable to Mole Valley.  Of the other adjoining neighbours only Guildford shares 2 common sectors and again these are not at concentrations comparable with Mole Valley.  Reigate & Banstead and Waverley each share 1 common sector with Mole Valley. Reigate & Banstead’s concentration of Financial and insurance activities (K) is considerably higher than Mole Valley’s.  Crawley and Horsham to the south of Mole Valley do not share any sectoral concentrations.  For the purposes of defining a FEMA extent knowledge clusters and sectors analysis are not necessarily significant.

Map 12: SEEDA Priority Sectors (Top 100 by Turnover)

8 Service Market for Consumers

8.1 This section looks at the broad retail and service market for consumers relevant to Mole Valley to see there are any trends or functional links which may assist in determining the FEMA extent. Baseline retail evidence is in the Mole Valley Town, District, Local and Village Centres Study (November 2007). [A partial update, published in January 2010 was undertaken for the Dorking Town Area Action Plan (adopted Dec 2012)]. The baseline contextual position is explained in paras 6.2.1 - 6.2.3 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2009):

 6.2.1 Dorking and Leatherhead are both small market towns containing a range of shops, businesses and leisure facilities in their centres. They are also social hubs and entertainment centres for people living in the towns, villages and countryside around them. They are the District's two main town centres providing the greatest range and choice of facilities in the District. It is important to maintain their vitality and viability for the general well-being of the District and the local economy as well as for those who live in, work in or visit Mole Valley. Both centres are facing competition from larger centres at Guildford, Crawley, Horsham and Kingston as well as from changing retail patterns, including the use of the internet and mail order purchasing. There is also pressure to convert shop premises to restaurants and takeaways.  6.2.2 Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham have smaller centres which are focal points for their communities providing easy access to a more limited range of local shops and services than the two town centres. Like the town centres, they also face competition from other centres and other evolving retailing practices and experience pressure to change the use of shops to restaurants, takeaways and offices.  6.2.3 The Council's strategy is to maintain this hierarchy of centres. The principal focus of new retail development will be directed to the town centres. The Council will seek to ensure that the nature and amount of new development in each centre is appropriate to its scale and character and role in the hierarchy. 8.2 The above paragraphs specifically refer to the larger centres in neighbouring local authorities of Guildford, Crawley, Horsham and Kingston; that is these are centres all around Mole Valley. Residents of Mole Valley are very mobile, with high levels of car ownership such that the majority of households have a choice of shopping destinations particularly for comparison goods. Mole Valley residents are able to travel to other centres that offer the choice they are looking for or best serve their shopping needs. Broadly speaking, Guildford to the west of Mole Valley may be attractive to Mole Valley residents of both Dorking and Leatherhead. Leatherhead residents may predominantly be attracted to Kingston town centre; and residents in the south of the District may be attracted to Horsham and Crawley town centres.

8.3 Additionally Epsom town centre may also be attractive to residents in the north of the District whilst those in the east of the District may also shop in Reigate and Redhill. It is understood some occupiers of the Leatherhead business parks offer bus services to Cobham for lunchtime shopping.

8.4 The following retail developments have taken place, since the adoption of the Core Strategy, which maintain and improve the attraction of Dorking town centre:  A replacement Waitrose store increasing net sales over the original store by 1,356m2  A new Lidl store of 1,286m2 net sales

Transform Leatherhead

8.5 A masterplan is being prepared to provide a strategy to transform Leatherhead town centre. It provides a strategic vision for the town centre, a set of objectives and recommendations on how the key opportunity sites and projects can be taken forward. The draft masterplan provides useful commentary for Leatherhead within the context of the ‘service market for consumers’ FEMA topic.

8.6 The draft masterplan acknowledges that whilst Leatherhead town centre will never be able to compete with its larger neighbours such as Guildford or Kingston, it is failing to punch its weight as a significant town. It is considered the town centre needs to promote a vision that establishes Leatherhead’s ‘unique selling points’ that distinguishes it from neighbouring centres. In particular, through community support transform Leatherhead town centre by; • Bringing forward robust and commercially viable proposals that will revitalise and rejuvenate Leatherhead town centre through a mixture of uses and create an attractive and welcoming environment; • Enhance Leatherhead from economic and social perspectives; • Bring forward proposals for environmental and transportation improvements.

8.7 A baseline report was produced in August 2015. CACI demographic and market information from the preceding 12 months identified consumer spend in Leatherhead at £35,600,000. Of this spend 91% is from people living in the Leatherhead catchment area. 7% is from ‘worker’ spend and 2% is ‘tourist’ spend. This suggests the primary retail function of the town centre is to cater for local residents.

8.8 The baseline report also comments that Epsom provides the greatest competition to Leatherhead. The CACI estimate is about 22% of the Leatherhead resident consumer spend ‘leaks’ to Epsom and Kingston upon Thames offers the second greatest competition at about 16%. Other competing towns include Guildford (6%), and other centres Reigate, Cobham and Sutton being about 3%. London West End is also competition for Leatherhead (5%).

8.9 In terms of people working in the Leatherhead locality, the baseline report comments, that although Leatherhead has a very strong business community they do not spend as much as would be expected in the town centre. One reason is it is understood that some larger employers bus their employees to Cobham at lunchtime; and the Lidl supermarket, located between the Business Parks and the town centre, deters workers from full use of the town centre. The evidence points to the potential to increase and retain more spend in Leatherhead and the greatest opportunity for growth is from the business and visitor community, who have significant spending power on a daily basis.

Conclusion

8.10 The evidence regarding retail spending within the two main town centres of Mole Valley shows that the sphere of influence (catchment area) which could assist defining a FEMA extent is relatively constrained due to the retailing opportunities in nearby centres. Recent evidence from Transform Leatherhead, in terms of FEMA linkages, points to Epsom and Ewell and Kingston upon Thames having some influence with regard to service markets for consumers.

9 Catchment areas of facilities providing cultural and social wellbeing

9.1 Businesses, decision makers and employees all consider wider cultural facilities and social wellbeing factors for the location of their business and as part of their decisions on place of work or residence. This can be with regard to facilities in the locality or nearby in neighbouring centres or localities.

9.2 In principle Dorking and Leatherhead town centres and the local centres provide facilities for the population commensurate with the size of the populations of there areas. The 2013 SA Scoping Report summarises much of the information for a baseline for these matters. In particular:

 There are local libraries at Dorking, Leatherhead, Bookham and Ashtead and local museums at Leatherhead and Dorking  Provision of open space, sport and recreation for health purposes is important for wider wellbeing and Mole Valley is well provided with regard to open space. The National Trust is a major land and property owner and manages/owns about 13% of the extent of the District. Spaces and facilities such as Box Hill, Polesden Lacey and Leith Hill provide access to open space for residents and visitors alike.  The District’s local heritage is much valued by residents and visitors alike. There are 1,010 Listed Buildings and 28 Conservation Areas. A current project “The Deepdene Trail” will repair key architectural and landscape features of the historic Deepdene Estate in Dorking and will attract visitors. The District had a good reputation for it’s participation in Heritage Open Days.  The Dorking Halls accommodate a wide range of entertainment functions including cinema, theatre and concert events. The Leatherhead Theatre provides a range of programmes.  There are modern sports and swimming facilities at Leatherhead and Dorking. There are also private fitness centres in the towns.  The District is well provided with golf courses and a new course is under construction at Cherkley Court.

9.3 Cultural and social facilities in neighbouring towns may also be of a size commensurate for their needs and so may not directly compete with Dorking and Leatherhead. However larger centres such as Guildford and Kingston provide a higher order or offer more choice (eg multiple cinema screens). Good railway services between Dorking, Leatherhead and London also allows residents easy access to the theatres and concert halls in the West End and other cultural facilities of a national standard.

Conclusion

9.4 Overall there are no facilities within the District, or competition from neighbouring authority areas, which would indicate cultural and social wellbeing should be considered an important factor for the consideration of a FEMA extent.

10 Other Sectors: property, business and commercial areas

Local Property Market Areas

10.1 A study identifying commercial property areas in the South East was undertaken by CBRE in 2007. Whilst this study was completed 9 years ago, it benefits from not being constrained by administrative boundaries. The report: South East Regional Property Market Study (March 2007) remains a useful starting point for the identification of property market areas (PMAs) and these can be an indicator of a FEMA extent. The report identified 13 functional PMAs within the South East region. PMAs are described in the CBRE report as;

o ‘areas within which market linkages and agglomeration tendencies are most robust, and hence where the case for cross-authority dialogue on employment land allocation is strongest. It does not imply an absence of linkages between the individual areas. Indeed given the fluid nature of markets in some parts of the region, linkages across the boundaries of adjacent areas may be strong, particularly in high- demand areas where in strong market conditions displacement and substitution activity can be significant’.

10.2 The 13 PMAs identified by CBRE can be seen in Map 13 below:

Map 13: Property market areas identified in 2007 CBRE study

10.3 Mole Valley falls within PMA area 8: Surrey - South West London and broadly matches the former SEERA sub region identified as the London Fringe. The map shows Leatherhead is centrally located within this PMA and that the area includes the SW fringes of the London region (specifically parts of the London Boroughs of Kingston, Richmond, Merton, Sutton and Croydon). Other towns in this PMA include Guildford, Woking, Epsom, Weybridge,

Redhill and Reigate. The map also clearly shows Crawley / Gatwick and Horsham as being in a separate PMA (9) to the south of Mole Valley.

10.4 Work undertaken since this time indicates a fragmentation of the Surrey – South West London PMA. In 2013 PMAs were redefined within the M3 LEP area. Guildford and Woking were together seen to form a new PMA. A 2016 update produced by Regeneris (Enterprise M3 Commercial Property Market Study) identified both Woking and Guildford as falling within their own commercial PMAs.

Areas of interest of local commercial property marketing agents:

10.5 With Leatherhead being centrally located in PMA8 one way of assessing whether such extents are still meaningful is to look at commercial property agents in the area to see how far they operate geographically. Major premises “to let” in the Leatherhead area may use a London / nationally based agent and are also generally joint-marketed with a Leatherhead based firm: Hurst Warne. Hurst Warne’s banner is “Local expertise, regional presence - commercial property surveyors specialising in the South East markets” and they operate in the Surrey, Kent, Hampshire, Berkshire and South West M25 area. Their website identifies properties “to let” on their books and they also publish a schedule of the deals the company has done. A crude analysis of these may indicate the extent of their commercial operation or “market” based on Leatherhead (albeit they also have premises in Fleet, Woking and Redhill). As other agents also operate in other towns in the PMA the exercise should indicate a commercial market extent and not just locations with most premises “to let”. The information may be skewed where individual floors in the same building are advertised separately and some premises may be duplicated in both sets of data (eg where recently let). The information in Table 16 has been collated from the Hurst Warne website as at 26th July 2016:

Table 14: Hurst Warne: Commercial properties to let and done deals

Local Authority No of No of Total Commercial centres PMA LEP units units (est. from “to let” “done CBRE map) deals” Mole Valley 35 13 48 Leatherhead / Dorking 8 C2C Hart 23 13 36 Fleet 6 EM3 Woking 22 7 29 Woking / West Byfleet 8 EM3 Elmbridge 20 8 28 Weybridge / Esher / 8 EM3 Cobham Surrey Heath 15 6 21 Camberley / Frimley 6 EM3 Guildford 12 7 19 Guildford 8 EM3 Reigate and Banstead 10 7 17 Redhill / Reigate 8 C2C Epsom and Ewell 2 1 3 Epsom 8 C2C Rushmoor 16 1 17 Farnborough / Aldershot 6 EM3 Runnymede 10 4 14 Chertsey 6 EM3 Spelthorne 2 0 2 Staines 5 EM3 LB Kingston 7 2 9 Chessington 8 London LB Croydon 1 1 2 8 C2C LB Merton 1 0 1 8 London LB Bromley 1 0 1 10 London Bracknell Forest 3 0 3 Bracknell 1 TVB Reading 4 0 4 Reading 1 TVB Wokingham 1 1 2 1 TVB Windsor and Maidenhead 1 0 1 1 TVB Slough 1 0 1 1 TVB Basingstoke and Deane 1 0 1 6 EM3 East Hants 2 1 3 Alton 6 Solent Waverley 4 1 5 Cranleigh / Haslemere - EM3 Tandridge 1 1 2 Godstone 8 C2C Crawley 1 0 1 Crawley 9 C2C Horsham 1 0 1 Horsham 9 C2C  C2C = Coast to Capital LEP TVB = Thames Valley Berkshire LEP  E3M = Enterprise M3 LLEP

Movements of businesses

10.6 As part of the routine monitoring of new vacant premises and the re-letting of premises in the town centres and on the business parks of Leatherhead, Dorking and Bookham an attempt is made to assess where new occupiers have come from and where firms moving out have re-located to. The information for 2015-16 is at Annex 2. It is a small data set but reflects known firms who have a visible presence and have moved. Moves “in” are mainly within Mole Valley. The few identified movers from outside Mole Valley include an international firm and a company from LB Kingston (a Mole Valley SHMA partner) and from Shepperton (a separate PMA and LEP). A one year sample is too small to be meaningful but provides some context. Annex 2 indicates several movements within the District and perhaps a number of new firms as well which may be a limited indication of a degree of “self- containment”.

10.7 There are too few movements of major firms to indicate trends but nevertheless known relocations add to the contextual information. In 2015-16 the one significant employer who moved out of the District was Leatherhead Food Research who moved to Burgh Heath, Epsom (ie: a SHMA partner area and within the same PMA and LEP). In the 2 previous years 2013-2015) significant movers have been:

o Out:  Brown Shipley (private bank) – Leatherhead to central London  Highways England (gov’t department) – Dorking to Guildford  WM Mercer (actuaries) – Leatherhead to Woking (?)  Puma UK (sports goods HQ) – Leatherhead to central London (?) o In:  Bytes (IT software) – Ewell to Leatherhead  Berkeley Homes Southern (housebuilder) – Billinghurst (Horsham DC) to Leatherhead

10.8 The Leatherhead and District Chamber of Commerce published a Business Brochure 2010/11. This is still current and comments in the document provide some context for how the Leatherhead business community sees itself. In particular:

 A Growing Business Environment: Leatherhead is one of the main commercial centres of the Mole Valley District. In the last two decades Leatherhead's business community has grown dramatically, and continues to do so, with office and business park developments providing state-of-the-art accommodation for small to medium sized businesses.

 Unrivalled Transport Links: In addition to attracting small enterprises, entrepreneurs, specialist retailers and sole traders, the positioning of Leatherhead as a strategic location with excellent links to London, the M25 and Gatwick and Heathrow Airports, has been recognised by multi-national corporations and organisations that have expanded here or relocated to the town.

 Multi-National Corporations Hub: Unilever, The Police Federation, ExxonMobil, KBR and Logica are amongst those international companies and national organisations that have chosen to locate their headquarters in Leatherhead & District. The influx of big businesses and affluent professionals has transformed the commercial landscape of the town, boosted the local economy and created opportunities for suppliers of professional business services, retailers and restaurateurs.

10.9 The Brochure gives examples from 2 major employers in the Leatherhead area with regard to why they chose to locate to Leatherhead. Exxonmobil are now a longstanding company in Leatherhead whilst Unilever relocated to Leatherhead in November 2008. Both moved to purpose built headquarters buildings. The following summarises the comments with regard to the reasons for choosing Leatherhead.

Exxonmobil:

 The company moved from Esso's office in central London to Leatherhead in 1990. In choosing to move out of Central London a study took place to identify the best location. This analysed where their employees lived (to cause the least disruption) and identified transport links, both for employees and for visitors to our office, including colleagues from abroad and from our refinery at Fawley, which is within reasonable travelling distance. One of the deciding factors in favour of Leatherhead was the good communications provided by the M25, which had recently opened, providing easy access to and from Heathrow and Gatwick.  In 2010/11 the company had just over 800 employees and approximately 200 contractors based in Leatherhead. Of these, 160 employees live in the KT22 postcode area, but many more live in neighbouring villages and towns, such as Ashtead, Epsom, Dorking and Reigate.

Unilever:

 Employees were spread over three sites in Crawley, Walton on Thames and Kingston; which collectively formed the UK head office. A key part of transforming the company was to have one head office that brought all our people into a positive working environment. Approximately 1300 people are based at the Leatherhead site.

Conclusion

10.10 Property market areas and commercial agent analysis shows more of a westward focus than perhaps evidenced by other information. The PMA map clearly shows the Crawley/ Gatwick / Horsham part of the Coast to Capital LEP to south of Mole Valley as a separate area and where any FEMA linkage would be considered weak.

10.11 Whilst the numbers and examples of significant movements is too few to draw strong conclusions there are indications of movements of firms between Mole Valley and some of its SHMA partners as well as wider movements.

11 Our Neighbours FEMAs

11.1 An assessment has been undertaken of adjoining neighbours and near neighbours economic and employment evidence base work and to see if they have undertaken their own functional economic area assessments. Where FEMAs have been undertaken it is relevant whether they consider Mole Valley falls within their extent or area of influence. The following table summarises the position at July 2016. A number of the authorities have not yet undertaken or published reports which analyse the extent of the FEMAs that they are located in.

Table 15 – Assessments of FEMAs undertaken by neighbouring local authorities

Local Authority FEMA FEMA extent Notes Done Adjoining Neighbours Elmbridge Yes Elmbridge, Runnymede and Spelthorne Indicates weak links with MV and so MV is not part of their FEMA. Elmbridge is a MV SHMA partner Epsom and No - Epsom and Ewell is a MV SHMA partner Ewell Guildford Yes West Surrey (Guildford, Woking, - Waverley) Reigate and No - Reigate and Banstead have a recent Core Banstead Strategy do not intend to look at this issue at this time Waverley Yes West Surrey (Guildford, Woking, - Waverley) Crawley BC No Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex are Crawley’s D2C statement comments : that partners for the NW Sussex Economic Leatherhead attracts a different business Growth / Employment Land Review market to Crawley Horsham DC No Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex are - partners for the NW Sussex Economic Growth / Employment Land Review Kingston LB No - Kingston undertook an economic analysis in 2014 but this isn’t a FEMA. It notes that Kingston falls within the wider economic area of Greater London, with a strong functional relationship with south / central London in particular. It refers to significant in-commuting from Elmbridge. Kingston is a MV SHMA partner. Other near Neighbours Tandridge Yes Tandridge Tandridge has determined they are self- contained for the purposes of the Local Plan Woking Yes West Surrey (Guildford, Woking, - Waverley) Runnymede Yes Includes Spelthorne and parts of Woking, - Elmbridge, Hounslow and Hillingdon Spelthorne Yes shared with Runnymede See Runnymede Sutton LB No - Did an economic analysis in 2014 but this isn’t a FEMA. Croydon LB No - Their ELR 2013 update indicates the local property market includes Sutton, Reigate and Redhill, Bromley and Merton but does not include any part of MV. Merton LB No - Employment land study 2010: Merton consider their property market area for offices to be other suburban centres in Outer London (ie not including MV) Mid Sussex No Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex are - partners for the NW Sussex Economic Growth / Employment Land Review Chichester No - Their evidence shows migration and commuting to / from Waverley and Guildford.

Conclusions

11.2 None of the FEMAs or other recent economic / employment evidence base documents undertaken to date by neighbouring and near neighbouring local authorities have included Mole Valley as within their spheres of influence.

12 Summary Conclusions

12.1 The summary conclusions from the previous sections are set out below:

Administrative Area and context

o Mole Valley benefits from or has:  Generally good access to London, and Heathrow and Gatwick Airports  Low levels of unemployment  High levels of jobs in the services sector  A highly qualified resident population  A higher proportion than nationally of very small firms.

Extents of any Local Economic Partnerships

o Mole Valley is clearly positioned within the Coast to Capital LEP and there are factors indicating its relative strengths within the area. This points to the LEP as a FEMA extent indicator but pragmatically this may not be so. However Mole Valley’s towns and commercial centres are not along the main LEP corridor. Mole Valleys’ inclusion and place within the LEP arises more from its prior identification within the Gatwick Diamond Initiative rather than being evidenced by functional links.

Gatwick Diamond Initiative

 Mole Valley is clearly positioned within the Gatwick Diamond Initiate area but there may not be strong economic and commercial reasons for this; the GDI itself is not a strong FEMA extent indicator.

The Relationship to London

 The influence of London can be a contributory factor to the identification of a FEMA.

Transport: Networks, Routes and Connectivity

 In principle Mole Valley, and in particular the main towns of Leatherhead and Dorking, have good transport connectivity and particularly with regard to strategic locations (Central London and Gatwick and Heathrow Airport). However there are factors, which indicate a tighter assessment of this factor especially when looking at the different relative accessibility from Leatherhead and Dorking and whether by road or public transport.

Travel to Work Areas and Commuting

 The large size of the TTWAs in and around London limits their value as a key source of evidence in determining FEMA boundaries. Much of Mole Valley shares common TTWA extents with adjoining neighbours Reigate and Banstead, Crawley and Horsham. However these do not reflect our SHMA partners. The strong commuting links with Reigate and Banstead and Epsom and Ewell are the most apparent potential linkages and indicate they could share characteristics that would include them in a Mole Valley FEMA extent.

Strategic Housing Market Area

 The SHMA points particularly to linkages with Epsom and Ewell, and Reigate and Banstead but these are lower level. The Local Plan Expert Group recommendation that FEMAs and SHMAs should be the same extents does not hold in this instance.

Based on the SHMA and also considering the evidence regarding TTWAs neither are wholly satisfactory as a reasonable proxy for a FEMA.

The Nature of Employment and the Flows of Goods, Services and Information within the Local Economy

 Jobs density indicates a high degree of self containment but real world commuting indicates significant movements and, perhaps surprisingly for an area influenced by London, is an area of in commuting.  The District is one of low employment growth (2009-2014).  Mole Valley shows particular concentrations in Information and Communication (J) and Financial and Business Services (K-N); and within the latter professional, scientific and technical activities (M).  Of the SHMA partners only Elmbridge shares 2 sectors and neither of these are at the same concentrations as Mole Valley.  Of the shared sectors with SHMA partners Epsom and Ewell and LB Kingston neither sector is at rates comparable to Mole Valley.  Of the other adjoining neighbours only Guildford shares 2 common sectors and again these are not at concentrations comparable with Mole Valley.  Reigate & Banstead and Waverley each share 1 common sector with Mole Valley. Reigate & Banstead’s concentration of Financial and insurance activities (K) is considerably higher than Mole Valley’s.  Crawley and Horsham to the south of Mole Valley do not share any sectoral concentrations.  For the purposes of defining a FEMA extent knowledge clusters and sectors analysis are not significant.

Service Market for Consumers

 The evidence regarding retail spending within the two main town centres of Mole Valley shows that the sphere of influence (catchment area) which could assist defining a FEMA extent is relatively constrained due to the retailing opportunities in nearby centres. Recent evidence from Transform Leatherhead, in terms of FEMA linkages, points to Epsom and Ewell and Kingston upon Thames having some influence.

Catchment areas of facilities providing cultural and social wellbeing

 Overall there are no facilities within the District, or competition from neighbouring authority areas, which would indicate cultural and social wellbeing should be considered an important factor for the consideration of a FEMA extent.

Other Sectors: property, business and commercial areas

 Property market areas and commercial agent analysis shows more of a westward focus than perhaps evidenced by other information. The PMA map clearly shows the Crawley/ Gatwick / Horsham part of the Coast to Capital LEP to south of Mole Valley as a separate area and where any FEMA linkage would be considered weak.  Whilst the numbers and examples of significant movements is too few to draw strong conclusions there are indications of movements of firms between Mole Valley and some of its SHMA partners as well as wider movements.

Our Neighbours FEMAs

 None of the FEMAs or other recent economic / employment evidence base documents undertaken to date by neighbouring and near neighbouring local authorities have included Mole Valley as within their spheres of influence.

Identifying possible FEMA links

12.2 The following table summarises all the evidence considered in the previous sections and identifies those local authority areas where there are considered to be linkages. These are not scored or weighted; the intention is just to identify areas which may be pertinent for consideration in the final conclusions. Notwithstanding this it is apparent that Epsom and Ewell BC, and Reigate and Banstead BC have the most similarities.

Table 16: Assessment of similarities

Neighbour Same C2C Gatwick Good Good Shared Commut Commut Same Shared Services Shared Known MV Number of LEP LEP: Diamond rail road TTWA -ing –ing SHMA strong market for Property cross Identified similarities East Partner links links OUT IN to economic / consumers Market boundary in a Surrey from MV MV employment Area and movement n’bours M25 (+1,000) (+1,000) sectors links of firms FEMA / ELR Adjoining Neighbours Elmbridge NO 5 Epsom and NO 11 Ewell Guildford NO 6 Reigate and NO 10 Banstead Waverley NO 0 Crawley BC NO 5 Horsham DC NO 6 Kingston LB NO 5 Other near Neighbours Tandridge NO 4 Woking NO 1 Runnymede NO 0 Spelthorne NO 0 Sutton LB NO 2 Croydon LB NO 3 Merton LB NO 1 Mid Sussex NO 3 Chichester NO 1 Central London NO 2

Overall Conclusion and Recommendation

12.3 This report gathers a wide range of evidence to assist in determining the extent of a functional economic market area for Mole Valley. Planning Practice Guidance is not clear what a FEMA is and using the range of factors suggested in the PPG together with other evidence no explicitly clear FEMA extent has been defined. The assessment points to Epsom and Ewell, and Reigate and Banstead as having the most similarities. However these are not weighed and the detailed commentary in the sections of the report indicate some of the “similarities” are not necessarily strong. For example whilst sharing LEP and Gatwick Diamond areas they may, as with Mole Valley, be perceived to be somewhat peripheral partners. There are strong commuting links, through good road and rail connections, however in certain potentially key areas, for example common significant employment sectors and commercial property areas the similarities are weak, or weaker than may have otherwise been expected. This does not point to identifying a reasonably robustly defined functional economic market area for the District. Those areas with some degree of linkage against the criteria can be shown in a Venn diagram:

Fig 1: Mole Valley and neighbours: Venn diagram

LB Croydon / LB Sutton Epsom & Ewell / LB Merton Elmbridge (who (LB Kingston to link with North) Runnymede and Spelthorne)

Guildford (who link with Waverley / Wokng) Mole Reigate & Tandridge Banstead Valley

Crawley / Horsham (who link with Mid Sussex Chiichester

12.4 Advice by Peter Brett Associates: HEDNA Technical Advice Vol 3 (April 2016) states: ideally the FEMA should define the geographical scope of the of the economic needs assessment but in practice it will not always be practical for the study to cover the whole FEMA for example because local plan timetables are not aligned. In that case the local authority may undertake the study on its own. That is even if a FEMA is defined which may be wider than the local authority area the first economic development needs assessment may just cover the local authority area. Given this advice and the difficultly in defining a strong FEMA extent it is recommended the economic development needs assessment (EDNA) for a new Mole Valley Local Plan should consider the local authority area only but be mindful of wider considerations and the duty to co-operate. It is acknowledged that there are links, not necessarily strong, with Epsom and Ewell and Reigate and Banstead. Commuting between Guildford and Mole Valley is also reasonably high in both directions. The scope of any cooperation with these authorities will be informed by the findings of the District’s Economic Development Needs Assessment.

Annex 1

Nathaniel Lichfield Partnership: commentary on changes between 2001 and 2011 TTWAs

First, there are 15 fewer TTWAs in the 2011 edition compared to 2001. As a consequence, their average size has increased. This is in line with a long-standing trend that has seen the number of TTWAs steadily decline since 1981 (there were 334 in 1981, 308 in 1991, 243 in 2001 and 228 in 2011).

A combination of variables could potentially be at play here, for example, better transport links, stronger town centres, higher house prices in urban areas and Green Belts displacing urban sprawl. Do fewer-and-larger TTWAs mean that people have to travel more to get to work or do they simply reflect a personal choice?

Crucially, strong inferences made purely on the basis of TTWAs can be dangerous and misleading. For example, people may be being displaced due to unaffordable housing or constraining planning obligations or because they are choosing to live further afield now that transport has improved.

Secondly, a quick look at the 2011 map suggests that London’s employment reach has shrunk since 2001. At the same time, the 2011 London TTWA has grown in absolute terms in both the number of residents in work and the number of jobs. Unsurprisingly, the capital city’s gravitational pull on its surroundings is powerfully stark.

London’s apparent geographical contraction – despite its growth in employment numbers – is easily explained. To determine a TTWA, 75% of the workers in an area need to be living in that area. However, this criterion can be relaxed and reduced to 66.7% in areas with at least 25,000 resident workers, in order to restrain “the size of the largest TTWAs and in particular the one centred on London”. In fact, as visible below, all of London’s neighbouring TTWAs (except Cambridge) were determined following the relaxed criterion.

Annex: 2 - New Occupiers of Business and Commercial / Industrial premises June 2015 – March 2016 (and: losses at end of schedule)

Occupier Use Address MV locality Previous Notes Business Type (est) Location / source (knowledge based= bold) LEATHERHEAD AREA 1 NDA B1a Grove House, Guildford Rd (gr floor) Leatherhead Leatherhead From Challenge Medicines / drug Court, BW Lane development consultancy 2 JD Motorsports B1c Unit 1, Ryebrook, Bay Tree Ave, Kingston Rd Leatherhead Leatherhead From Car parts and (NB floorspace take up counted last year as Woodlands Rd, accessories was being fitted out) L’head 3 Premier Blinds and B1c Unit 3, Ryebrook, Bay Tree Ave, Kingston Rd Leatherhead Fetcham Shop unit and Home improvements Awnings workshop in the village centre 4 Full House B1a Kings Court, Kingston Rd Leatherhead N/K Restaurant Restaurants Holdings management Ltd company 5 Landway B1a Unit 8 Leatherhead Trade Estate Leatherhead N/K* *have / had an Building company Construction Ltd office suite in The Atruim, Curtis Rd, Dorking 6 Xquisite PR B1a/B8 Unit 9 Mole Business Park Leatherhead N/K Event management and branding – digital media 7 3TOP Aviation B1c Unit 14 Mole Business Park Leatherhead N/K Aircraft parts Services services 8 Rawlinson and B1a Q3 The Square, Randalls Way Leatherhead N/K International International Hunter company chartered accountants 9 Julie West Solicitors B1a Unit 4 Axis Bilton Centre, off Cleeve Rd. Leatherhead NK- Independent legal practice 10 Waytime B1a Unit 6 Fountain House, Cleeve Rd Leatherhead N/K IT support services Technologies Ltd 11 Cross Roads Care B1a 121 Kingston Rd Leatherhead N/K Respite care for Surrey carers. Home care not for profit agency 12 Roseland Care B1a Brunswick House, Regent Park, Kingston Rd Leatherhead N/K Care home administration 13 LektronN B1a Dorset House, Regent Park, Kingston Rd Leatherhead Leatherhead Say they are a Electrical

Leatherhead Contractors based company 14 Taylor Maxwell Ltd B1a Ashcombe House, The Crescent Leatherhead N/K HQ in Bristol Building construction and other offices materials sales as well company 15 Touch Associates B1a Leret House, Swan Centre Leatherhead N/K Event management company 16 GA Telesis B1a Bridge House, 27 Bridge St Leatherhead N/K Aerospace company 17 Digitech resourcing B1a Bridge House, 27 Bridge St Leatherhead N/K IT staff recruitment 18 Poddymeter B1c/B8 Unit 13, Bookham Industrial Park Bookham LB Kingston Pressure Gauge manufacturers 19 Barwell Motorsports B1c/B8 Units 17 -18, Bookham Industrial Park Bookham Bookham Moved from Unit Motor racing team (Lamborghini) 13 – expansion premises 20 DCL Display B1c/B8 Units 39, Bookham Industrial Park Bookham Leatherhead From Brook Events and display Contractors Willow Farm contractors DORKING AREA 1 Broccoli marketing B1a Old Gunn Court, North St Dorking Shepperton Promotional Marina Marketing (Spelthorne BC) 2 Brodie Plant and B1a Studios 1 and 2, Kings Head Court, High St Dorking Dorking From Dorking Architects Goddard Business Park

3 Dorking Electric Tool B1c Unit 3 Graphic Yard, Vincent Lane Dorking N/K Electrical repairs repairs 4 Tecsolum Industrial B1c/B8 Enterprise House, Curtis Rd Dorking N/K Tecsolum is a Industrial Brushes Polish company components 5 Surrey Event B1c/B8 Enterprise House, Curtis Rd Dorking N/K Event management Services 6 Balsamic Fig B1c Unit 7, Old water Works, Curtis Rd Dorking N/K *based at: The Catering company Catering Big Field, Brockham 7 Mapperson Price B1a Old Gunn Court, North St Dorking N/K Chartered Accountants 8 Lafarge Roofing B1a Park Lodge, London Rd Dorking Dorking From Regent Brick and tile House by the manufactures office station 9 MV Asset B1a St Martins House, St Martins Walk Dorking N/K Investment company Management RURAL AREA 1 Surrey Clubs for B1a Units 1,3 and 4 Edolphs Farm, Norwood Hill Charlwood Dorking From Dorking Charity offices

Young People Rd, Charlwood Business Park (1 Tillingbourne Court) 2 Metro Demolition B1a The Old Dairy, Highworh Farm, Charlwood Charlwood Charlwood Demolition Contractors LOSSES (and consolidations) 1 Propitas Building B1a Crawley Dorking Offices were in Building Consultants Consultants Vincent Lane 2 Fiducia Design and B1a To Central Charlwood Design consultancy Build London 3 Leatherhead Food B1b/B1 https://www.leatherheadfood.com/leatherhead- Burgh Heath Leatherhead From Randalls Research company / Research food-research-successfully-completes-first- (Epsom) Way association phase-multi-million-pound-relocation

4 Echo Partners B1a/B1b Maidenhead Leatherhead From Marketing and Leatherhead branding consultants Enterprise Hub, Randalls Way 5 Touchlight Genetics B1a/B1b Hampton Leatherhead From DNA technology (LB Leatherhead consultancy Kingston) Enterprise Hub, Randalls Way 6 Treacle Tiger B1a Central Leatherhead Offices in Bridge HR and employment London St consultancy 7 Petris Technology Ltd B1 North Dorking Dorking Software. May have London Business Park moved more than 12 months ago

Annex 3: SEEDA priority sectors maps

Summary of FEMA Consultation Feedback and MV Responses.

The following table sets out the text of the responses received to the FEMA consultation. The response rate is low. 24 bodies / organisations were consulted and responses received from 7.

Consultee contacts were taken from the Council’s Objective database and the draft distributed mainly to generic “planning. policy@local authority” addresses. Many of these were double checked against the contacts on their Local Plan / Policy websites and some were telephoned to check and confirm who the email consultation should go to. Hence the low response is not a result of poor communication. Indeed the consultation email asked for the FEMA document to be distributed to economic development officers of the local authorities as well.

Consultation responses have been summarised below. Key points have been extracted and Mole Valley’s response detailed alongside. In brief, the principle of our doing an EDNA based on MV data and extent is generally accepted / agreed. Guildford BC and Surrey CC consider we may have underplayed the links with Guildford and wider east-west linkages however Guildford does not have as strong linkages with MV as E&E and R&B.

Local Authority Responded Summary of Response MV Comment and Action to Consultation Yes / No Over-arching bodies Coast to Capital LEP NO Gatwick Diamond Initiative NO Surrey County Council YES Planning Practice Guidance sets out various factors that might be taken into account in defining a FEMA and the report considers those factors Noted that we would expect to be included.

As the report sets out, the Coast to Capital LEP is based around the north- south M23/Brighton Mainline corridor although Mole Valley is located within the East Surrey M25 Corridor area of the LEP, which is east-west orientated. However, both the Coast to Capital and Enterprise M3 strategic economic plans recognise there are cross boundary links and identify improvements to the North Downs Line as a priority for investment and this will improve Mole Valley’s connectivity with surrounding areas including Guildford. Therefore, it is suggested that the There are nonetheless marked differences in report should give more consideration to east-west connectivity beyond the connectivity of Leatherhead and Dorking the LEP boundary given the M25 and North Downs Line east-west/orbital to the wider area. links. In particular, the commuting flows to Guildford are almost as high as to Epsom and Ewell and there are similarities between Mole Valley and Para 10.4 will be amended to reflect GBC Guildford in terms of shared property market area links and known cross comments on its PMA. boundary movement of firms. MV asked Sue Janota for any evidence of “known cross boundary movement of firms” as We accept that it would be pragmatic for the initial economic Highways England moving from Dorking to development needs assessment to consider the local authority area only Guildford is the only of note on record. and that the borough council may need to work with Reigate & Banstead and Epsom & Ewell boroughs in order to fulfil the Duty to Cooperate, Noted. No change proposed. however, we would suggest that Mole Valley should consider whether there may be a need to work with Guildford as well. It is also important that the council continues to consult with the County Council and, given the links with London, the GLA on analysing economic and employment trends.

We have the following additional comments on the draft report:

Chapter 3 – Paragraph 3.9 could include reference to joint East Surrey economic initiatives such as joint bids to the LEP on business space and No change proposed for European funding for tourism. In terms of the LEP, East Surrey has been identifying itself as an economic area, although it is appreciated that this may not be shown in the data in the SEP.

Chapter 5 – This section potentially underplays east-west connectivity Improvements to mainline east-west across LEP boundaries, particularly with Guildford. Improvements to the connectivity is noted in para 5.13. Reference North Downs Line will improve Mole Valley’s connectivity with to Guildford (plus Redhill) to be added. surrounding areas.

It is not clear what the last sentence of the conclusion is referencing, Para 5.14 refers. “….there are factors which indicate a tighter assessment of this factor”. Leatherhead and Dorking whilst both This is not necessarily demonstrated by the preceding section. benefiting from good connectivity do not share the same connectivity benefits, i.e. ease of access to Gatwick from Dorking (direct train) significantly better than from Leatherhead. M25 access better from Leatherhead. Therefore connectively to wider area not the same for the two principal centres leading to more tightly drawn FEMA boundary. MV to consider rewording to clarify.

Chapter 7 – It is worth noting that sectors can complement each other in adjoining areas and that differences don’t necessarily imply the absence Agree but no change proposed. of an economic relationship.

Mayor of London/ GLA NO Adjoining Neighbours Elmbridge YES Thank you for consulting Elmbridge Borough Council on your Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) assessment. We support your conclusions that in this instance the Strategic Housing Market Area and Functional Noted Economic Area are not aligned due in part to the complexity of the London/South East labour market and commuting patterns. These conclusions match the findings of our own Functional Economic Area analysis.

There are no strategic cross-border issues identified in this report and Noted officers have no further comments to raise at this time.

Epsom and Ewell NO Guildford YES Thank you for consulting Guildford Borough Council (GBC) on the draft ‘Functional Economic Market Area for Mole Valley: an assessment’. GBC welcomes the opportunity to comment on the study and are committed to addressing cross-boundary strategic planning issues through the Duty to Co-operate. Regular engagement between Guildford Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council is particularly important given the authorities shared boundary and the range of issues facing both Councils and the wider area as a whole.

The document utilises a wide variety of information sources to provide a comprehensive assessment of the economic influences in the local area. It is noted and supported that all of the factors identified in National Planning Practice Guidance (‘How can functional economic market areas be defined?’) are addressed within the study.

GBC welcome the document’s recognition that Guildford Borough Council, Waverley Borough Council and Woking Borough Council have recently established the ‘West Surrey FEMA’ (an area incorporating the entire administrative area of each borough). However, we also recognise that Guildford maintains close links with Mole Valley and there remains a Agreed need for continued engagement and co-operation between the authorities on cross-boundary matters.

Having reviewed Mole Valley’s Functional Economic Market Area Assessment, GBC officers believe a number of points require further clarification or justification to ensure that the document and conclusions made within it are as robust as possible.

Firstly, it is noted that paragraph 3.11 of the document suggests that the presence of a significant number of international businesses within an Reword to clarify as GBC has mis-interpreted area may reduce the scope of the Functional Economic Market Area. this paragraph. However, the reasons for drawing this conclusion are unclear and thus it is considered that further justification is required to explain why this assertion has been made.

Similarly, paragraph 5.7 states that “For the purposes of this assessment journey times of less than 30 minutes may be appropriate to indicate the Text Removed potential for a FEMA link albeit rail times may be offset by frequency of services”. However, it is unclear why this threshold of thirty minutes has been applied or what evidence there is to suggest that it is appropriate in defining a FEMA.

Tables 5, 6 and 7 of the draft document highlight the commuting patterns between Mole Valley and neighbouring/local planning authorities. The tables demonstrate that a significant number of Mole Valley residents work in Guildford and a large number of Guildford residents undertake the reverse commute. Whilst these trends are somewhat understated within the supporting text, it is recognised that both Mole Valley and Guildford have stronger commuting links with other Local Authority areas. GBC supports the conclusions made within the document that No Action Required Mole Valley’s strongest economic links are generally with Epsom and Ewell and Reigate and Banstead and would encourage the Councils to explore future opportunities to work together on strategic issues.

Section 6 of the document describes the Housing Market Area and notes the recommendation made by the Local Plan Expert Group that Strategic Housing Market Areas and FEMA’s could, or should, be the same. Whilst the merits of doing so are briefly discussed in section 6 and again later described in paragraph 12.3, the document could benefit from further Already adequately explained. justification within section 6 (paragraph 6.13) as to why aligning the FEMA and SHMA is not considered appropriate.

Paragraphs 7.11 and 7.12 refer to a ‘Tech Monitor UK report’ (October 2013) undertaken by KPMG. However, it should be noted that a more recent study (December 2015) has been published. The findings of the study vary from the 2013 document and show that Mole Valley no longer falls within the top thirty Local Authorities for tech sector enterprise Accepted, remove reference. clusters.

Section ten of the document discusses commercial property market areas, referencing the 2007 South East Regional Property Market Study conducted by CBRE. The document identifies Mole Valley and Guildford within PMA area 8: Surrey – South West London. Whilst Mole Valley does not fall within the Enterprise M3 LEP area, it should be noted that Paragraph 10.4 to be amended to reflect Commercial Property Market Areas have been recently been redefined in comments this LEP area. A 2013 study concluded that Guildford and Woking formed one such PMA, although a 2016 update produced by Regeneris (Enterprise M3 Commercial Property Market Study: https://www.enterprisem3.org.uk/commercial-property-market-study) identifies both Woking and Guildford as falling with their own commercial PMA’s. It is recommended that the amendments made to PMA’s are referenced within the document.

Finally, it is suggested that within table 17, reference could be made to No change proposed. Table 17 is factual and the commuting and retail links between Guildford and Mole Valley. concerns the extent of known FEMAs in the surrounding area. See proposed change to para 12.4 below. Reigate and Banstead YES In general, we support the approach taken by Mole Valley in the FEMA study which appears thorough and robust. We note the findings of the assessment in relation to the nature and strength of the economic links and similarities between our respective boroughs and consider this to be Noted consistent with our own evidence and understanding. Given respective plan timetables, we support the overall conclusion that the Mole Valley Economic Development Needs Assessment (ENDA) Noted should focus on the Mole Valley area only. We have published our own Local Economic Needs Assessment (July 2016) – covering our local authority area only - to inform our Regulation 18 stage Development Management Plan and to which you may wish to refer as you develop your own EDNA. To clarify our own position in terms of our FEMA, whilst Reigate & Banstead has not undertaken a full FEMA assessment, the borough’s economic links and relationships were examined through the development of the Core Strategy (2014). This analysis was set out in the Economic Market Assessment (2008), Update to the Economic Evidence Base (2011) and within the context of the duty to cooperate (through examination document RBBC3: Duty to Cooperate Additional Statement). Through this, it was identified that the borough’s FEMA was primarily the Gatwick Diamond area, albeit recognising the influence of London on the borough’s economy – both generally and particularly in the north of the borough (close to Sutton and Croydon). Due to the stage which we are currently at in our own plan-making process, we are not intending to revisit the definition of our FEMA at this time. With regard to your identification of Epsom & Ewell and Reigate & Amend final sentences of Para 12.4 to read: ‘It Banstead as the “first ports of call”, we would suggest that the scope of is acknowledged that there are links, not any cooperation – should you be unable to meet identified needs – ought necessarily strong, with Epsom and Ewell and to be informed by the findings of the EDNA. There may, for example, be Reigate and Banstead. Commuting between sound economic reasons (e.g. sectoral clustering) why other adjoining Guildford and Mole Valley is also reasonably areas would be better placed to assist and a focus on these two high in both directions. ‘The scope of any authorities could therefore limit potential solutions to meeting any cooperation with these authorities will be unmet needs you may have. As such, whilst we agree that it is important informed by the findings of the District’s for our Council’s to continue working closely on matters of economic development needs assessment. needs and employment land and look forward to cooperating further as work on your EDNA progresses, we question whether the “first ports of call” reference is appropriate at this stage and given the findings of the FEMA assessment. Waverley NO but Auto response to confirm email received Crawley BC YES Thank you for inviting Crawley Borough Council to provide feedback on the draft Mole Valley Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) assessment, which forms part of the emerging Mole Valley Local Plan evidence base.

Crawley Borough Council welcomes recognition within the FEMAs of the inter-relationship between Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex as a Functional Economic Area, which is consistent with the approach and findings of the Northern West Sussex Economic Growth Assessment (2014). As identified by the FEMA, there is a degree of relationship between Mole Valley and Crawley in travel to work terms, but it is recognised that this is not the strongest, and the FEMAs recognition of the relationship between Crawley, Horsham and Mid Sussex as relatively a self-contained Housing Market Areas is consistent with the evidence Noted base of the Crawley Local Plan. Crawley Borough Council is committed to working alongside all of the Gatwick Diamond Local Planning Authorities, and will continue to liaise with Mole Valley District Council as it progresses through the Local Plan process, as part of the Duty to Cooperate.

Our Economic Development team also note that Crawley shares the SEEDA priority sector presence, which are very similar to the Coast to Capital LEP growth sectors. In the spirit of partnership working we would welcome exploring further collaboration opportunities and economic development partnership links with Mole Valley. Noted Horsham DC NO but Auto response to confirm email received Kingston LB NO Near neighbours referred to in FEMA Tandridge YES Many thanks for consulting TDC on your FEMA document. I can confirm that we have no comments to make on the document and it is in general accordance with our own FEA document published in 2015 and indicates Noted that we have no strong or direct links with Mole Valley, of sufficient levels, to consider you part of the Tandridge Functional Economic Area.

As we all know, things can change and as plans across Surrey are prepared, and employment is lost and created; there may be a legitimate need to reconsider our respective FEA’s at a later point and we can keep this under review through the Duty to Cooperate discussions as is needed. Our connections through the Gatwick Diamond will also help both authorities to keep this situation monitored.

Woking NO Runnymede BC YES Thank you for consulting Runnymede Borough Council on your draft Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) assessment. The Runnymede FEA analysis which was published in June 2015 found no notable links between Runnymede and Mole Valley and your report concurs with these Noted findings. As such I have no substantive comments to make on the contents of your report, other than to say that the analysis carried out appears very thorough and comprehensive and a range of factors considered in drawing conclusions.

Please note that this response is at officer level and as such, Runnymede Borough Council reserves the right to raise any further issues at any future Examination if Members of the Council wish to do so. Spelthorne NO Sutton LB NO Croydon LB NO Merton LB NO Mid Sussex NO Chichester NO but Auto response to confirm email received Other Bodies Leatherhead Chamber of NO Commerce Dorking Chamber of YES 2.2 Not all MV villages have populations of about 3000, Ashtead and General note: Many comments relate to Commerce Bookham are Villages and have larger populations than Dorking. Dorking topics to be covered in the EDNA. is classified as a market town but it is hardly a traditional one as it doesn't have a central market square - so I'd drop the word traditional. You Amend Para 2.2 to start last sentence with might like to review this para. ‘Beyond the built up areas there are a number of rural villages…’’ 2.5 Really talks about housing demand not economic demand and I think you need to clarify what you are talking about. No change proposed

2.7 It is worth mentioning the loss of office space due to "Pickles" changes in permitted development rights - I think Steve Lane of Martin No change proposed Robertson Brown is doing a review on Office space but he recently came Prior approval regime will be considered in up with a figure of desk loss in Dorking alone being 800-900 over the last EDNA. 18 months. The impact of this loss on retail in particular needs to be considered?

2.8 This isn't up to date - 50% of Kuoni was sold off and unless Stonegate Developers give in from their elected path on that site,(where they intend Para 2.8 Insert ‘At the time of writing… to bend permitted development rights and empty to develop space wanted by Kuoni) the remaining Kuoni will be "leaving" in 2017/18 So putting them as a major employer now may not be right. Avviva tell a similar story - 750+ employees in 2014 - now down to perhaps 200 and likely to be 0 by 2018. G3Baxi in Biwater House (who won the Queens Award for export of their oil consultancy services 2 yrs running) have also lost consultants due to the decline in the oil industry - perhaps such decline should be broadly mentioned. 2.14 I think you could make more of the loss in average earnings in MV - The paragraph also highlights a similar fall for £659 in 2012 and £598 in 2015. With raising prices over the same time, the South East and Great Britain over the this makes the potential spend of people in MV considerably lower than it same period. Add sentence to read: ‘If this was and that pushes people to just buy food and find bargains on the trend continues it could have an effect on internet... which impacts on the local economy. local spending potential.

2.16 If there is a benefit list should there not be a following "problem" Amend wording. ‘Whilst the above recognises list. the weaknesses as well as strengths of the ie Dorking's lack of lunchtime footfall due to loss of local District, Mole Valley’s particular benefits, offices/employees in the town.... when compared to the national picture, can Parking problems due to increased residential parking throughout side be highlighted as: ….’ streets. Perceived difficulty in getting into Dorking due to congestion caused by traffic - which is mostly just driving through.

6.7 Loss of jobs - worrying to see the figures and that is without the desk loss thanks to new permitted development rights.

Somewhere you need to mention the increase of peak travel traffic on A24 due to new houses in Horsham. These houses have caused traffic that has extended the peak travel period to now be 7ish - 9am in the morning and 3.30 - 6.30pm at night. Evidence: I live in Beare Green beside No change proposed the A24 and hear it!

The above could lead to slightly different conclusions in 6.13.

7.17 Needs to mention the serious loss of office space in Dorking in To be considered in the EDNA 2014/2015. after 8.9 ...Dorking Needs Action did a survey - admittedly about 2006? which indicated that Dorking town residents use the town but many in No change proposed. This section concerns the surrounding villages went out on the A roads to other locations - Transform Leatherhead. Westcott to Guildford. 3Bs to Reigate or Crawley, South Holmwood on to Horsham. Not all came into Dorking even then - but it is more pronounced now!

10.6 Johnston Engineering expansion was akin to moving new business in. they went from 3 units to 10 in Curtis Road area. and you have omitted the loss of 20 small enterprises- thrown out at 1 No change proposed months notice when Haybarn House Serviced offices were sold on to become housing.

Items not in the paper:- 1) The paper has an "assumption" that the housing property market is reasonably buoyant - it isn't. Why would estate agents publish rates of 0.5% if it was. We are getting more agents into the town but with fewer house sales and little on the market to purchase. Less sales impacts on all the knock on business relating to house sales.

I was not surprised to see that nearby Councils had not put MV into their FEMA. Only Leatherhead has a true business economy with larger enterprises in the Randalls Road area. Mole Valley and in particular Dorking are seen as "sleepy" when you talk to other Surrey districts (as I did occasionally when Chair of the MVDC). Tandridge really has little in common with MVDC, but in some ways Horsham does. The one big localish housing growth area(which is adding a lot of footfall in Horsham) is around Horsham Tescos. The cars from this housing has impacted very negatively on our traffic past the Cockerel Roundabout and onwards and increased peak traffic flow times - so they need to realise the consequences of their own actions and include MVDC in things they write. Hurst Warne Chartered NO Surveyors

APPENDIX 2

TECNHICAL APPENDIX PLUS ANNEXES TECHNICAL APPENDIX: DATA TABLES, FACTS AND FIGURES

Stage 1 – The Current Position

The Technical Appendix provides data and other information for the Economic Development Needs Assessment document. It excludes tables and statistics which are already included in the Functional Market Area Assessment (FEMA) and indicates the appropriate table from that document where appropriate. It also excludes baseline figures which can be found in the Employment Land Review 2013 and original Technical Appendix; that is information which is unchanged. Therefore, together, the data and tables in this Appendix, the FEMA and original Technical Appendix provide the information necessary for the EDNA.

Total Floorspace

Table 1a of the ELR 2013 Technical Appendix identified the total employment floorspace and stock of hereditaments (ie units) at 2000 and updated to 2008 using DCLG Commercial and Industrial Floorspace data1. The 2013 ELR updated this information (to end of 2012) using information from the Authority Monitoring Reports (AMRs). Using Middle layer super output areas (MSOA) the floorspace for Leatherhead and Dorking could be estimated. This has been further updated to March 2016 to give a best estimate of total commercial floorspace in the District.

Figures are updated by adding gross floorspace completed less floorspace lost in any redevelopment less any losses through redevelopment or changes of use to other uses. The latter includes prior approvals of offices to residential where such schemes have commenced. Figures may not sum due to rounding (to the nearest 100m2)

Table 1a Estimated Total Floorspace (m2) end of December 2012 Offices Factories Warehouses Total Mole Valley 274,500 99,000 116,000 489,500 Leatherhead 170,000 25,000 46,000 241,000 Dorking 78,500 28,000 25,000 131,500 Rest of MV 26,000 46,000 45,000 117,000

The latest figures are at 31st March 2016. The floorspace figures for Leatherhead are for the town and immediate environs covered by the relevant MSOAs. Hence other built up areas in the Leatherhead area are included in the rest of Mole Valley figures.

Table 1b Estimated Total Floorspace (m2) end of March 2016 Offices Factories Warehouses Total Mole Valley 259,900 103,700 116,900 480,500 Leatherhead 166,000 25,500 47,000 238,500 Dorking 70,400 34,200 25,000 129,600 Rest of MV 23,500 44,000 44,900 112,400

The baseline DCLG figures indicate 9,000m2 of commercial floorspace in Bookham, although this includes the now demolished Photo-me factory. Ashtead has the Exxonmobil HQ on its periphery of about 22,100m2. Fetcham does not have a significant amount of commercial space (albeit 2 office buildings on the edge of Leatherhead are in Fetcham East ward and total 2,150m2). This identified floorspace can be subtracted from to give a “Rural area” estimate of about 79,000m2; about 16% of the District’s floorspace in 2016.

Table 1c Floorspace change end 2012 – March 2016: m2 change (Figures in 1a – 1b)

1 The original DCLG figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000m2 and commercial and industrial groups do not accord directly with the Use Classes Order. For example are industrial research (Class B1b) premises offices or factories? Offices included non commercial offices (eg, police stations) and car showrooms as warehouses although they are sui generis and not Class B8. The data may categorise a building as a factory whereas it’s planning status is unrestricted Class B1 and could be occupied by different business activities including light industry (ie “factory”).

Offices Factories Warehouses Total Mole Valley -14,600 4,700 900 -9,000 Leatherhead -4,000 500 1,000 -2,500 Dorking -8,100 6,200 0 -1,900 Rest of MV -2,500 -2,000 -100 -4,600

Table 1d Floorspace change end 2012 – March 2016: % change (Table 1c as %) Offices Factories Warehouses Total Mole Valley -5.3% 4.7% 0.8% -1.8% Leatherhead -2.3% 2.0% 2.2% -1.0% Dorking -10.3% 22.0% 0 -1.4% Rest of MV -9.6% -4.0% negligible -3.9%

The increase in factory floorspace mainly reflects the completion of Johnston Sweepers factory on a greenfield site (reserve employment land).

The December 2012 baseline is only a few months “adrift” from the introduction of the prior approval regime for the conversion of offices to residential (in May 2013). Consequently office floorspace changes and percentages are mainly from this source. The figures indicate a loss of 10% of the stock of offices in Dorking over the 3¼ year period; albeit a significant proportion of this is the loss of one building – Federated House.

There is still the potential for further losses of offices through the prior approvals regime. The first data column (A) of the table below shows the amount of office floorspace which had approval for conversion to residential and had not started at 31st March 2016 together with additional prior approvals to 31st August 2016 (including those awaiting approval at that date). Column B indicates office losses over the last 3¼ years from Table 1c; and Column C (being A+B) shows the potential office floorspace which could be lost.

Table 1e Potential office floorspace losses through prior approvals at 31st March 2016 and new approvals to 31st August 2016 A B C Prior approvals Office losses Total potential Potential total % not started (to end Dec 2012- office losses loss of Aug 2016) m2 2016 (Table 1c) floorspace (from 2012 base) Mole Valley -16,218 -14,600 -30,818 -11.2% Leatherhead -7,013 -4,000 -11,013 -6.5% Dorking -8,155 -8,100 -16,255 -20.7% Rest of MV -1,050 -2,500 -3,550 -13.6%

The sites comprising prior approvals not started are listed at Annex 8. Total floorspace losses for Dorking are potentially particularly high, especially in percentage terms. Losses initially reflected prior approvals granted on older stock and premises above shops. However more recently more modern premises have been subject to prior approval applications. This is exacerbated by Dorking having a smaller total office stock at the 2012 baseline. Indeed the amount of potential stock lost is higher than for Leatherhead and which has the higher baseline stock. Ashtead has seen the loss of its two main office buildings (on The Street) to residential conversion.

2. The Age of the Stock of Employment Floorspace

DCLG published, in March 2005, tables at local authority level showing the relative age of the employment stock based on April 2004 Floorspace Statistics. These have not been updated and are now somewhat elderly. However they provide an indicator of the “modern” commercial stock of the District. Table 2 summarises the Mole Valley information and compares it with regional and national figures.

Table 2. Age of Commercial Floorspace Stock in Mole Valley South England Mole Valley East & Wales Total Stock Pre 1980 1980 – 2000 1980- 1980- 2000 2000 Floorspace Floorspace % Floorspace % % % m2 m2 m2

Offices 264,000 118,000 45 146,000 55 43 32

Factory 117,000 87,000 74 30,000 26 23 20

Warehous 113,000 67,000 59 46,000 41 37 31 es

Total 494,000 272,000 55 222,000 45 33 26

The table indicates that 55% off the office stock was built between 1980 and 2000. As shown the District’s office stock was significantly more modern than the South East or nationally and reflected the considerable redevelopment of employment sites for modern business use premises. At 2004, however, 74% of the factory stock and 59% of the warehouse stock predated 1980. Only 21% of the factory stock and 13% of the warehousing stock predated 1940. Overall 45% of the total stock was less than 30 years old (at 2004). Major new redevelopment since 2004 (eg the Unilever HQ and The Office Park, Leatherhead and the new factory for Johnston Sweepers, Dorking) will maintained or increased the proportion of the stock which is “modern”.

Whilst a significant proportion of the office stock is “modern” it may not be modern enough for current business needs without significant refurbishment and re-grading. This may, in particular, be applicable to some unrestricted use business units (Class B1) of which a number were built in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Indeed several of these are or have been subject to refurbishment (for example units at Dorking Business Park; The Square, Randalls Rd, Dorking and Bluebird House). Some “modern” buildings have been subject to prior approvals for conversion off offices to residential

Hurst Warne Chartered Surveyors have recently prepared an offices to residential market study (Sept 2016) for Mole Valley DC which comments:

We have been asked to identify the drivers influencing the decisions to convert offices-to-residential compared to retention or refurbishment. It should be noted that the office market has become more sophisticated since the 1980’s boom. Occupiers increasingly want highly specified offices that meet modern demands. These demands are as follows:  Large open plan floor plates, ideally in excess of 5,000 sq ft with limited columns.

 Coupled with the above, fairly generous floor to ceiling heights of 2.6m minimum from the raised floor to the bottom of the suspended ceiling in order to allow as much light into the floor plate as possible.  Suspended ceilings with recessed lighting (increasingly LED lighting).  A fully accessed raised floor system so that a structured cable network can be installed through the floor plate avoiding the need for IT and power infrastructure trailing on the floor.  Ideally a full air conditioning or at the very least a comfort cooling cassette system recessed within the ceiling void.  More recently over the past two years, office occupiers are increasingly requiring shower facilities and bike racks.  A fairly generous on site reception / front lobby area.

The historic 1980’s stock within both Leatherhead and Dorking struggle to provide the majority of the above attributes that modern office occupiers require. In addition to the above recent legislative changes requiring energy efficiency and green issues are coming to the forefront of company’s requirements when making decisions with regards to relocation. For many companies it does not become cost effective to relocate into older 1980’s stock which is harder to provide for more modern air conditioning systems and lighting which would aid energy efficiency. Therefore, especially in Leatherhead, we have seen a tendency over the past 5 years for office occupiers to favour the more modern office properties that can provide the above specification.

3. Outstanding Planning Permissions for Commercial Uses and Vacant Commercial Premises

Planning permissions for commercial developments are monitored and surveys to assess the implementation of permitted schemes, identify advertised vacant premises and the occupation of premises by new tenants is undertaken, usually on an annual basis. The latest monitoring information is at end of March 2016 and is summarised at Annexes 2 - 4. This information, with trend data from March 2006, is summarised in Table 3a below.

Table 3a: Permissions and Vacant Premises and Total Available Floorspace m2 March March March Dec June March 2006 2008 2010 2012* 2014 2016 Offices and Business a) Planning permissions 35,130 34,400 7,980 5,060 3,120 6,308 b) Vacant 24,180 19,330 25,580 26,920 19,501 23,990 c) Total 59,310 54,330 33,560 31,980 22,621 30,298 Industrial and Storage a) Planning permissions 15,780 19,600 12,550 14,680 5,880 4,315 b) Vacant 4,190 5,480 5,700 7,160 8,292 6,408 c) Total 19,970 25,080 18,250 21,840 14,172 10,723 Total Available floorspace: All B1 – B8 Uses 79,280 79,410 51,810 53,820 36,793 41,021

Notes:  Offices & Business Use = B1 unrestricted business use and B1a offices.  Industrial and Storage = B1b industrial research; B1c light industry; B2 general industry; B8 storage.  These figures exclude the third unit (of 7,650m2) for KBR at Springfield Drive, Leatherhead. It is uncertain if this site will be delivered (See Annex 4)  Vacant floorspace is for Leatherhead, Dorking and Bookham.

Table 3b: Offices, Industry and Storage Disaggregated - at March 2016 (m2) (Table 3a and Annexes 2 and 3) Offices and Industry (B1c – Storage (B8) Total Business (B1a) B2) Planning 6,308 2,992 1,323 10,623 permissions Vacant: 16,346 2,948 1,492 20,786 Leatherhead Vacant: 7,644 1,042 677 9,363 Dorking Vacant: Bookham 0 249 0 249 Total 30,298 7,231 3,492 41,021

4. Total Floorspace and Vacant Floorspace Rates

Vacancy rates have been calculated using the base DCLG Floorspace Statistics and updated using monitoring information. Total floorspace is derived using net floorspace change from the Authority Monitoring Reports (AMRs) to provide a best estimate of stock (Tables 1a and 1b). The AMR monitoring includes gross floorspace completed, less demolitions and changes of use, and losses to other uses. Monitoring of advertised vacant premises is also undertaken (see Table 3a).

Table 4a Vacant Floorspace Rates (m2) 2004 and 2008

2004 2008 Offices Factories Total Offices Factories Total and and W’houses W’houses

Total Floorspace 274,000 233,000 507,000 271,000 223,,000 494,000

Vacant 20,810 3,080 23,890 19,330 5,480 24,810 Floorspace

% Vacant 7.6% 1.3% 4.7% 7.1% 2.5% 5.0%

Table 4b Vacant Floorspace Rates (m2) 2012 and 2016

2012 (end of) 2016 (March) Offices Factories Total Offices Factories Total and and W’houses W’houses

Total Floorspace 274,500 215,000 490,000 259,900 220,600 480,500

Vacant 26,920 7,160 34,080 23,990 6,408 30,398 Floorspace

% Vacant 9.8% 3.3% 6.9% 9.2% 2.9% 6.3% Table 4b shows vacant floorspace as a proportion of total floorspace. Vacancy rates increased from 4.7% to 6.9% between 2004 and 2012 but have declined slightly to 6.3% at March 2016. Office vacancy levels rose from 7.6% in 2004 to 9.8% in 2012 but have declined slightly to 9.2% of stock. DCLG estimated the average national office vacancy rate at 9% between 1998 and 2005 (source: DCLG consultation on change of use from commercial to residential) and in 2004 and 2008. The Lambert Smith Hampton Office Report 2015 (pub April 2015) estimates the UK vacant office rate at 9.5% and Mole Valley is slightly below this rate. Vacant factories and warehouses increased from 1.3% to 3.3% of stock and is currently estimated at 2.9%; albeit the floorspace figures themselves are very low. This is an indication of a tight industrial floorspace supply.

Some of the modern vacant stock is in units built in the early-mid 1980s and which may require refurbishment to bring them up to current business standards as they may not now meet the needs of new occupiers. Examples of units which have been upgraded include Brockham House and Glasswork 2 at Dorking Business Park, Bluebird House, Mole Business Park and 4 units at “The Square”, Randalls Way, Leatherhead.

5. Take Up of Floorspace: New Developments and net change in floorspace

Tables 5a and 5b shows the net change in floorspace between 2008 and 2016. This is gross floorspace completed less changes in use class through the implementation of a planning permission, changes of use within commercial uses requiring permission, and losses of commercial floorspace to other uses (eg conversion and redevelopment).

Table 5a Estimated Net Changes in Floorspace (m2) 2008 – 2016

LEATHERHEAD DORKING

B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 Offices Industrial Storage Offices Industrial Storage

All Completions Gross 26,463 2,440 4,042 802 10,178 130 2008 -2016

Losses thru’ implementation of -17,225 -760 -1,219 - -2,336 - commercial permissions

Net completed 9,238 1,680 2,823 802 7,842 130 floorspace

Less Losses to Other -8,667 -2,108 -638 -12,661 -814 -900 Uses

Total Net Change in 571 -428 2,185 -11,859 7,028 -770 floorspace 2008 - 2016

Table 5b Estimated Net Changes in Floorspace (m2) 2008 – 2016

RURAL MV TOTAL

B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 Offices Industrial Storage Offices Industrial Storage

All Completions Gross 1,057 322 1,555 28,322 12,940 5,727 2008 -2016

Losses thru’ implementation of -210 -97 -200 -17,435 -3,193 -1,419 commercial permissions

Net completed 847 225 1,355 10,887 9,747 4,308 floorspace

Less Losses to Other -1,430 -4,478 -1,373 -22,758 -7,400 -2,911 Uses

Total Net Change in -583 -4,253 -18 -11,871 +2,347 +1,397 floorspace 2008 - 2016

Caveats and Notes: 1) Figures may not sum due to rounding. 2) Floorspace figures used in planning applications (TP1 forms) and for monitoring have changed from gross external measurement to net internal. The figures above are a mix of these and have not been adjusted for consistency.

Tables 5a and 5b show:

 Most completed office and business floorspace has been in the Leatherhead area; and would include the Unilever HQ for example.  Most completed industrial floorspace has been in the Dorking area; and reflects the new Johnston Sweepers factory.  There has been a net increase of industrial and storage floorspace in the district and this has occurred in the Leatherhead and Dorking areas.  Loss of office / business floorspace particularly reflects the more recent losses of offices to residential in both Leatherhead and Dorking. However there has been negligible net change in office / business stock in Leatherhead whilst there has been a significant net loss of offices in Dorking.

Tables 6a and 6b shows completed new developments and changes of use between July 2000 and March 2012 and the annual average.

Table 6a. Gross Completions including Changes of Use : 2008 - 2016 and Annual Average (m2)

LEATHERHEAD DORKING

B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 Offices Industrial Storage Offices Industrial Storage

Gross Completions 26,463 2,440 4,042 802 10,178 130 (8 years) (Row 1 of Table 5)

Annual Average (rounded) 3,310 300 500 100 1,270 20

RURAL MV TOTAL

Gross Completions 1,057 322 1,555 28,322 12,940 5,727 (8 years) (Row 1 of Table 5)

Annual Average (rounded) 130 40 190 3,540 1,620 720 For monitoring planning permissions are normally considered to be implemented when a very significant proportion of the floorspace is occupied; rather than the completed and vacant stage.

Table 6b. Net Completions including Changes of Use : 2008 - 2016 and Annual Average (m2)

LEATHERHEAD DORKING B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 Offices Industrial Storage Offices Industrial Storage

Net Completions (8 years) (Row 3 of 9,238 1,680 2,823 802 7,842 130 Table 5)

Annual Average 1,150 210 350 100 980 20 (rounded)

RURAL MV TOTAL

Net Completions (8 years) (Row 3 of 847 225 1,355 10,887 9,747 4,308 Table 5)

Annual Average 110 30 170 1,360 1,210 540 (rounded)

Comment: The figures show that gross and net additions to floorspace are relatively low. This may have implications when considering if demand led job forecasts, and associated gross floorspace requirements, is an appropriate method of assessing future floorspace needs (see Forecast Method 3).

Take Up of Floorspace: Take Up of Advertised Vacant Premises

The availability of a range of good quality new and vacant floorspace is important in order to allow new firms to come into the district and for existing firms to adapt to changing requirements for floorspace.

Surveys are undertaken of the town centres, business parks and other main employment areas in the built up areas on an annual basis. Rural sites are not routinely surveyed. Advertised vacant sites from the surveys are supplemented by information from agents’ web sites to give a full picture. Take up is assessed on subsequent surveys by noting the occupation of previously vacant premises or the removal of the letting board / web information (although the latter is used with caution). Monitoring of take up (of vacant premises and implemented permissions) gives a more complete picture of the use of the stock of employment land and buildings. This is especially relevant in Mole Valley as new employment generating development comes forward principally through the redevelopment of existing sites.

Table 7 is derived from longer term monitoring than previous tables. However a comparison of Table 3 (Permissions and Vacant Premises) and Table 7 (Take-Up of Vacant Premises) indicates that:  the Leatherhead area is the main focus for office and business use premises available to let and with high levels of take up  the amount of industrial floorspace taken up is comparatively low; this reflects low vacant floorspace in the existing stock and the low amount of new industrial floorspace permitted and implemented (the premises occupied by Johnston Sweepers was for their use).  Dorking and Leatherhead experience similar rates of take up of vacant industrial space.

Table 7: Take Up of Vacant Premises and other changes of occupiers April 2006 – March 2016 (see Annex 1 for full version of this table)

LEATHERHEAD DORKING

B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 Offices Industrial Storage Offices Industrial Storage

Total :Apr 2006 – 35,268 12,367 10,335 9,484 12,727 1,131 Mar 2016 (10 yrs)

Annual Av. m2 3,527 1,237 1,033 948 1,273 113 MV TOTAL

B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 Offices Industrial Storage

Total: Apr 2006 – 45,889 24,554 11,465 Mar 2016 (10 yrs)

Annual Av. m2 4,589 2,455 1,146

Table 8a. Average Take Up - Gross Completions and Vacant Floorspace - m2

LEATHERHEAD DORKING

B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 Offices Industrial Storage Offices Industrial Storage

Annual Average Completions (from 3,310 300 500 100 1,270 20 Table 6a)

Annual Average Take Up of Vacant 3,530 1,240 1,030 950 1,270 110 Premises (Table 7 and rounded)

Total Annual 6,840 1,540 1,530 1,050 2,540 130 Average Take Up

MV TOTAL

Annual Average Completions (from 3,540 1,620 720 Table 6a)

Annual Average Take Up of Vacant 4,590 2,460 1,150 Premises (Table 7 and rounded)

Total Annual 8,130 4,080 1,870 Average Take Up

Table 8b. Average Take Up - Net Completions and Vacant Floorspace - m2

LEATHERHEAD DORKING

B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 B1U, B1a B1c-B2 B8 Offices Industrial Storage Offices Industrial Storage

Annual Average Completions (from 1,150 210 350 100 980 20 Table 6b)

Annual Average Take Up of Vacant 3,530 1,240 1,030 950 1,270 110 Premises (Table 7 and rounded)

Total Annual 4,680 1,450 1,380 1,050 2,250 130 Average Take Up

MV TOTAL

Annual Average Completions (from 1,360 1,210 540 Table 6b)

Annual Average Take Up of Vacant 4,590 2,460 1,150 Premises (Table 7 and rounded)

Total Annual 5,950 3,670 1,690 Average Take Up

The tables show the difference between gross and net take up figures and which the difference is most marked for B1 uses. PPG does not indicate whether gross or net rates should be used stating:  Analyses based on the past take-up of employment land: when examining the recent take-up of employment land, it is important to consider projections (based on past trends)….and identify occurrences where sites have been developed for specialist economic uses.  The superseded PPS4 guidance note had indicated that the gross available floorspace (in outstanding permissions and advertised vacant premises) should be used as the basis for the calculation of the additional jobs which may be generated, and not net permissions figures or changes to floorspace stock.  In Mole Valley most new development is redevelopment and the net change in floorspace is low. the use of gross floorspace may therefore overestimate future floorspace requirements.

B. Jobs In Mole Valley

6. Total Jobs and Employee Jobs in Mole Valley

The main source of data for jobs is the Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES)). The table below gives the total number of jobs and employee jobs from 2006. ONS state that figures prior to 2006 used different assumptions / data sources which make longer time series comparisons difficult. The “Nomis” web site provides much of this information. Figures are rounded and may therefore show greater difference than may be the case. The table shows total jobs and employee jobs peaked in 2012 and that more recently total jobs has matched that of pre-recession figures (ie 2013 and 2014 being the same as 2007). The figures seem to indicate that levels of unemployment were unaffected by the recession (to date) and that part time jobs have increased numerically since 2010 but not fluctuated significantly in percentage terms.

Table 9. Estimates of Total Jobs and Employee Jobs In Mole Valley Year Total Jobs Employee F/T P/T P/T Jobs Employee Employee Employee Jobs Jobs: No Jobs: % 2006 52,000 44,300 30,000 13,600 30.7

2007 50,000 41,100 29,300 11,800 28.7

2008 52,000 42,000 30,200 11,800 28.1

2009 52,000 40,900 29,700 11,200 27.4

2010 53,000 42,800 31,000 11,800 27.6

2011 52,000 43,900 31,000 12,900 29.4

2012 54,000 45,500 32,400 13,100 28.8

2013 50,000 43,000 29,700 13,300 30.9

2014 50,000 43,100 30,700 12,400 28.8

2015 n/a 44,100 31,400 12,700 28.8

Source:  Employee jobs – from BRES on “nomis” and figures rounded.  Total jobs - from “nomis” jobs density table (ONS)

7. Self Employment in Mole Valley

ONS carries out a sample survey which gives estimates of self employment. Table 10 illustrates that levels of self employment are significantly higher than for Great Britain. The figures indicate that self employment increased through to 2008-09 but has fallen sharply since then (though apparently not using the Table 9 figures)

The figures below show that the numbers in self employment have increased through to 2008-09 but since decreased. Irrespective of the differences in numbers in the two tables the percentages show a higher proportion of the workforce which is self employed than nationally. This is an indicator of the entrepreneurial nature of residents and the positive contribution the self employed make to the District’s economy.

Table 10. Estimates of Self Employed Mole Valley (MV) Year MV % MV self % GB (Apr-Mar) Self Employed employed self employed 2006-07 5,700 11.2 9.1

2007-08 9,500 16.3 9.1

2008-09 11,200 18.5 8.9 2009-10 8,900 15.4 9.0

2010-11 7,800 14.8 9.0

2011-12 6,300 11.3 9.4

2012-13 5,700 9.5 9.5

2013-14 7,000 12.5 9.8

2014-15 6,700 10.2 10.1

2015-16 8.700 16.3 10.2 Source:  Self employed from “nomis” Employment and unemployment – ONS Annual population survey  Hence numbers and % may not match figures in Table 9a

9. Employment in Mole Valley by Broad Sectors 2014 and 2015)

Note: BRES 2015 was published at the end of September 2016 and comparative figures with earlier BRES and the Experian employment forecasts are included in the table at Annex 5. The 2015 data shows an increase in employee jobs in Mole Valley of 1,000 up to 44,100 from 43,100 in 2014.The commentary at Annex 5 indicates that the “Manufacturing” figures appear anomalous (an increase of 1,000 jobs) which cannot be reconciled from local knowledge. The following tables show both the BRES 2014 and 2015 information: the main intention of the tables to show comparisons with other area and so are still fit for purpose.

Table 11 2014 BRES Employee Jobs by Broad Sector: Mole Valley, South East and GB

Broad Sector (SIC) Sector MV SE GB Mole Valley Selected sectors only Code % % %

Manufacturing C 1,500 3.5 6.2 8.4

Construction F 2,900 7.2 4.8 4.5

Retail and Wholesale G 6,500 15.1 16.9 15.8

Transport and Storage H 700 1.6 4.6 4.5

Accommodation, Food and I + R 4,000 9.3 9.8 9.5 Recreation

Business Services (those in italics J, K, L, M, 18,200 42.2 30.2 28.2 below and also see note 1) N + S

Public Services O, P, Q 8,800 20.4 25.4 27.2 (incl education and health)

Total Employee Jobs* 43,100

Information and Communications J 3,700 8.6 5.8 4.1

Financial and insurance activities K 2,100 4.9 3.2 3.7

Professional, scientific and M 7,000 16.2 9.0 8.1 technical activities

Table 12 2015 BRES Employee Jobs by Broad Sector: Mole Valley, South East and GB

Broad Sector (SIC) Sector MV SE GB Mole Valley Selected sectors only Code % % %

Manufacturing C 2,500 5.7 6.2 8.2

Construction F 2,300 2.2 4.5 4.5

Retail and Wholesale G 5,800 13.1 16.7 15.7

Transport and Storage H 600 1.4 4.4 4.6

Accommodation, Food and I + R 3,500 7.9 9.8 9.6 Recreation

Business Services (those in italics J, K, L, M, 19,100 43.3 30.1 28.5 below and also see note 1) N + S

Public Services O, P, Q 9,600 21.8 26.2 26.8 (incl education and health)

Total Employee Jobs* 44,100

Information and Communications J 4,100 9.3 6.3 4.2

Financial and insurance activities K 2,200 5.0 2.9 3.5

Professional, scientific and M 6,700 15.2 9.0 8.3 technical activities

Notes:  Business Services comprise (IT and Comms, Finance and Insurance, real estate activities. Professional and other private services are included as they are aggregated in to this grouping for by Experian for employment forecasts  BRES requires all data to be rounded to nearest 100.

The tables group several of the broad sectors into a generic “Business Services” category, being those considered equivalent for Use Class B1 offices or business use. The Manufacturing broad sector jobs are considered as Use Class B1c and B2 (light and general industry); and transport and storage equating to Use Class B8 (warehousing and storage). These are “best fit” of the Use Classes to the SIC broad sector definitions to enable changes in the number jobs, from the Experian employment forecasts to be converted into future Class B1 – B8 floorspace requirements.

The following table compares BRES 2015 with the earlier 2014 data. Some differences may be emphasised due to rounding. The table emphasises the apparent change in the Manufacturing sector.

Table 13 Comparison 2014 and 2015 BRES Employee Jobs by Broad Sector: Mole Valley

Broad Sector (SIC) Sector 2014 2015 Difference Difference Selected sectors only Code BRES BRES No %

Manufacturing C 1,500 2,500* +1,000 +66%

Construction F 2,900 2,300 -600 -21%

Retail and Wholesale G 6,500 5,800 -700 -11%

Transport and Storage H 700 600 -100 -14%

Accommodation, Food and I + R 4,000 3,500 -500 -12% Recreation

Business Services (those in italics J, K, L, below and also see note 1) M, N + 18,200 19,100 +900 +5% S

Public Services O, P, Q 8,800 9,600 +800 +9% (incl education and health)

Total Employee Jobs* 43,100 44,100 +1,000 +2%

Information and Communications J 3,700 4,100 +400 +11% Financial and insurance activities K 2,100 2,200 +100 +5%

Professional, scientific and M 7,000 6,700 -300 -4% technical activities

*”Manufacturing” is significantly higher than in previous BRES and is considered potentially anomalous. See note against subsequent tables below and commentary at Annex 5.

ONS BRES team has confirmed that this increase in Manufacturing is due to a firm now counting Wholesale jobs as manufacturing; apparently due to re-structuring. Confidentiality prevents BRES divulging which company. This also explains the fall in Retail and Wholesale jobs. ONS acknowledge that such changes can skew results at the local level.

Given this knowledge it is considered that the Experian employment projections, which are based on long tem past records of Manufacturing being in the order of 1,500 jobs, and which are projected forward are still robust.

10. Employment Concentrations

Section 7 of the Functional Economic Market Assessment (FEMA) has looked at Employment Concentrations.

11. Employment by Localities and Broad Sectors

The following tables set out jobs by broad sectors for areas in Mole Valley (aggregated wards). Dorking includes the Mickleham, Westhumble and Pixham ward as Pixham forms part of the built up area of Dorking and includes a major employer (Aviva: formerly Friends Life). The rest of this ward is predominantly rural in character. The Rural area total is derived from the District total less the LABF area (Leatherhead, Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham wards) and less the Dorking Area.

BRES data has to be rounded to the nearest 100 and where a broad sector employment s significantly less than 100 persons this is shown as “<100” and percentages left blank. Otherwise figures are rounded to the nearest 100 and percentages reflect the rounded figure. Therefore percentage figures are not directly comparable with those in the similar tables in the ELR 2013.

Table 14a 2015 BRES Employee Jobs by Broad Sector: Mole Valley Areas

Broad Sector (SIC) Sector Ashtead Ashtead Bookham Bookham Selected sectors only Code % No %

Manufacturing C <100 - <100 -

Construction F 200 4.5 200 8.7

Retail and Wholesale G 400 9.1 300 13.0

Transport and Storage H <100 - <100 -

Accommodation, Food and I + R 300 6.8 100 4.3 Recreation

Business Services ( see J, K, L, examples in italics below and also M, N + 1,900 43.2 1,100 47.8 see note 1) S

Public Services (incl education O, P, Q 1,300 29.5 700 30.4 and health)

Total Employee Jobs* 4,400 2,300

Information and Comms J 200 4.5 200 8.7

Financial and insurance K <100 - <100 -

Professional, scientific and M 1,200 27.3 300 13.0 technical activities

Table 14b 2015 BRES Employee Jobs by Broad Sector: Mole Valley Areas

Broad Sector (SIC) Sector Fetcham Fetcham Leatherhead Leatherhead Selected sectors only Code % %

Manufacturing C <100 - 1,300* 7.9

Construction F 100 6.2 1,000 6.1

Retail and Wholesale G 200 12.5 1,900 11.5

Transport and Storage H <100 - 200 1.2

Accommodation, Food and I + R 200 12.5 600 3.6 Recreation

Business Services ( see J, K, L, examples in italics below and also M, N + 600 37.5 7,800 47.3 see note 1) S

Public Services (incl education O, P, Q 300 18.7 2,900 17.6 and health)

Total Employee Jobs* 1,600 16,500

Information and J 200 12.5 2,200 13.3 Communications

Financial and insurance K <100 - 600 3.6

Professional, scientific and M 200 12.5 3,300 20.0 technical activities

*Leatherhead “manufacturing” is significantly higher than in previous BRES and is considered potentially anomalous. See note and commentary at Annex 5.

Table 14c 2015 BRES Employee Jobs by Broad Sector Mole Valley Areas

Broad Sector (SIC) Sector LABF Area LABF Area Dorking and Dorking and Selected sectors only Code % MWP MWP %

Manufacturing C 1,500* 2.9 600 5.4

Construction F 1,500 4.5 300 2.7

Retail and Wholesale G 2,800 18.1 1,800 16.4

Transport and Storage H 300 1.3 100 0.9

Accommodation, Food and I + R 1,400 4.9 800 7.3 Recreation

Business Services ( see J, K, L, examples in italics below and also M, N + 11,300 45.1 5,100 46.4 see note 1) S

Public Services (incl education O, P, Q 5,200 20.8 2,200 20.0 and health)

Total Employee Jobs* 24,800 11,000

Information and Comms J 2,900 13.5 800 7.3

Financial and insurance K 600 1.0 1,500 13.6

Professional, scientific and M 5,100 20.6 1,000 9.1 technical activities

Table 14d 2015 BRES Employee Jobs by Broad Sector: Mole Valley Areas Broad Sector (SIC) Sector Rural Rural Mole Valley Mole Valley Selected sectors only Code % %

Manufacturing C 400 4.8 2,500* 5.7*

Construction F 500 6.0 2,300 5.2

Retail and Wholesale G 1,200 14.5 5,800 13.6

Transport and Storage H 200 2.4 600 1.2

Accommodation, Food and I + R 1,100 13.3 3,500 7.9 Recreation

Business Services ( see J, K, L, examples in italics below and also M, N + 2,700 32.5 19,100 43.3 see note 1) S

Public Services (incl education O, P, Q 2,200 26.5 9,600 21.8 and health)

Total Employee Jobs* 8,300 44,100

Information and Comms J 400 4.8 4,100 9.3

Financial and insurance K 100 1.2 2,200 5.0

Professional, scientific and M 600 7.2 6,700 15.2 technical activities C. The Local Labour Force – Labour Supply

This section provides information on forecast changes to the “working” age population of Mole Valley using the latest 2014 ONS projections. The intention is to estimate the local resident labour force which is, in theory, available to fill changes in the numbers of jobs in the District.

In September 2010 the government updated the definition of working age population to reflect changes in pensionable age for both males and females. The age at which women reach State pension age is gradually increasing from 60 to 65 years and male and female pensionable ages will increase in the future. This will make it difficult to assess what the working age population will be at future points in time. Published “Nomis” data currently defines the working age population as being age 16 – 64 for both males and females.

For the purposes of this assessment the working age population is taken as 16-64 for males and females (ie as per ONS). Technically the size of the resident based local labour force could increase over time.

12. Future Labour Supply and Population Projections

The 2013 ELR used the 2008 population projections rather than the later 2010 projections and interim 2011 population projections (and which only went to 2021).

The 2016 SHMA makes use of the 2012 ONS projections. The SHMA also contains area profiles including economic activity statistics and labour demand / supply scenarios.

For the purposes of this assessment the most recent 2014 projections are used. Table 15 shows that the 2014 projections are slightly lower than those at 2012. It is entirely reasonable to use the later projections rather than the 2012 projections which were available for the SHMA.

Table 15 Comparison Total Populations 2012 and 2014 2014 2015 2016 2018 2021 2026 2031 2033 2012 based 86,600 87,100 87,600 88,700 90,600 94,400 97,300* 97,300* 2014 based 86,200 86,500 86,900 87,800 89,400 92,300 95,000 96,100

* 2012 data from “surreyi” website and which has selected published years hence figure for 2032 is nearest match.

13. Resident Population - Working Age

The projected total increase in working age population between 2014 and 2026 is only 800 persons and much of this increase is front loaded to 2021. Whilst the increase in the total working age population is low as a proportion of total population it is reducing; particularly as the overall age structure of the District becomes more elderly.

Table 16 Total and Working Age Population: Mole Valley District (ONS 2014 base) 2014 2015 2016 2018 2021 2026 2031 2033 Total 86,200 86,500 86,900 87,800 89,400 92,300 95,000 96,100 Population Working 51,100 51,100 51,300 51,300 51,700 51,900 51,700 51,700 Age 16-64 % of total 59.3 59.0 59.0 58.4 57.8 56.2 54.4 53.8 pop.

Increase in - 0 200 0 400 200 -200 0 working age between points Source: nomis website

Table 17 Male and Female Working Age Population: Mole Valley (ONS 2014 base) 2014 2015 2016 2018 2021 2026 2031 2033 Male 16-64 25,300 25,300 25,300 25,300 25,400 25,600 25,500 25,500

Female 16- 25,800 25,900 26,000 26,000 26,200 26,300 26,200 26,200 64 Total 51,100 51,100 51,300 51,300 51,700 51,900 51,700 51,700 Working Age 16-64 % female 50.5 50.7 50.7 50.7 50.7 50.7 50.7 50.7 working age Source: nomis website

The proportion of female working age population remains unchanged throughout the period 2015-2033.

Table 18 shows the proportion of the District’s population of working age is lower than the South East and national figures by 3 – 4% and this is maintained through the projections. Mole Valley has an older age profile and the ability of local residents to fill any future increases in jobs may be more limited.

Table 18: Projected Changes in Working Age Population (M/F 16 – 64) (ONS 2014 base) 2014 2015 2016 2018 2021 2026 2031 2033 MV Working age 59.3 59.0 59.0 58.4 57.8 56.2 54.4 53.8 as % of total population. South East % of 62.4 62.2 61.9 61.4 60.6 59.4 57.8 57.3 Working Age England % of 63.5 63.3 63.1 62.6 61.8 60.6 59.4 58.9 Working Age Source: nomis

14. Economically Active Population

The ONS Annual Population Survey (source: Nomis) data for Apr 2015 – March 2016 indicates 44,500 residents are economically active of which 42,700 are in employment being 88.1% of the working age population. This is higher than the GB activity rate of 77.8% and the South East rate of 80.6%. This indicates that whilst the District’s working age population is proportionally lower than nationally the activity of residents is higher. This is borne out by unemployment rates (both main benefits and Job Seekers Allowance claimants only) which are lower than the national average. At August 2016 the proportion of working age claiming Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) was 0.5% in Mole Valley compared with 1.5% for GB. For main out of work benefits the rate, at February 2016, was 4.6% for Mole Valley compared with 9% nationally. This may be evidence of a tight labour supply and may indicate difficulties filling any increases in jobs from the District’s own resident population.

Of the economically active residents 33,200 are employees and 8,700 are self-employed; some 20% of residents in employment. The ONS Annual Population Survey (APS) is a sample survey figures are subject to variation.

15. Economically Inactive

The APS Apr 2015 – March 2016 indicates 5,900 persons of working age are inactive of which 5,300, about 90%, did not want a job. Hence Mole Valley has lower rates of those of working age who are inactive but of those who are inactive few wanted a job.

The proportion of the working age population which is inactive is lower than the South East and national figures. However the proportion not wanting a job, at 90%, is substantially higher than the national figure (76%). The difference between those who are inactive (5,900) and those not wanting a job (5,300) infers only 600 persons of working age who may want a job. This is more than double the rate of those claiming JSA (250 persons).

This indicates a limited “pool” of residents who could be absorbed into the labour market. However those seeking employment would be looking for jobs across all sectors, not just within the Class B1-B8 uses.

16. Commuting Patterns

Detailed commuting information is set out at Section 5 of the Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) and is not replicated here. The FEMA shows the main commuting patterns with neighbouring local authorities and central London and identifies that Mole Valley is an area of net in-commuting.

17. Migration

Detailed migration and related information is set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for Kingston upon Thames and North East Surrey Authorities 2016 (ie the SHMA) and which includes area profile and which includes an area profile for Mole Valley.

18. Unemployment Rates

Table 19a: Trends in Unemployment rates (Job Seekers Allowance Claimants) Mole Valley South East GB No % % % 2008 - Jan 262 0.5 1.3 2.1 2009 - Jan 589 1.1 2.2 3.2 2010 - Jan 938 1.8 3.0 4.1 2011 - Jan 706 1.4 2.5 3.6 2012 - Jan 757 1.5 2.7 4.0 2013 - Jan 710 1.4 2.5 3.8 2014- Jan 510 1.0 1.8 3.0 2015 - Jan 335 0.7 1.2 2.1 2016 - Jan 275 0.5 1.1 1.8 2016 - August 245 0.5 1.1 1.8

Tables 19a and 19b give trend information on unemployment rates for Job Seekers Allowance and main out of work benefits. The District has one of the lowest sets of rates nationally and the tables indicate unemployment rates for the District are consistently below the regional and national rates.

Table 19b: Trends in Main out of work benefits Mole Valley South East GB No % % % 2008 - Feb 2,300 4.4 7.3 11.1 2010 - Feb 3,010 5.8 9.0 12.7 2012 - Feb 2,850 5.5 8.7 12.3 2014 - Feb 2,440 4.8 7.4 10.6 2015 - Feb 2,350335 4.6 6.8 9.7 2016 - Feb 2,340 4.6 6.4 9.0

20. Vacancies

Vacancy information on “Nomis” ends at 2012. Trend information between 2007 and 2012 indicated the number of vacancies had fluctuated considerably but at no time had the number of vacancies been more than those claiming JSA. The Nov 2012) data indicated 1.7 claimants were notionally “chasing” each job

Table 20: Job Centre Vacancies and Job Claimants per vacancy (source: Nomis) Mole Valley South East GB No. of Job Centre Claimants per Claimants per Claimants per vacancies vacancy vacancy vacancy 2007 - Jan 241 1.5 2.8 2.8 2008 - Jan 244 1.1 2.1 2.7 2009 - Jan 64 9.2 6.2 6.4 2010 - Jan 183 5.1 6.6 8.5 2011 - Jan 209 3.4 4.7 6.4 2012 - Jan 157 4.8 4.8 7.0 2012 - Nov 402 1.7 2.6 3.8

21. Job Density: Labour Demand

Job density is the comparison of the number of residents of working age compared against the number of jobs in the area. It is a notional measure. A job density of 1.0 would mean there is technically one job per resident of working age. The job density rate for Mole Valley (2014 based) is 0.98. This is another indicator that the District has a tight labour market. The equivalent national figure is 0.82 (and 0.85 for the South East).

22. Occupations of Mole Valley Residents

The tables below show the concentration in managerial and professional occupations of Mole Valley residents compared to the national average. The tables show the relative under representation of residents in service (groups 6 and 7) and manual occupations (groups 8 and 9).

Table 21- part 1: Occupations of Residents (2011 Census – KS 610) (MSOAs)

Notes: SOC = Standard Leatherhead Ashtead Bookham Fetcham Occupational Classifications by % Major Groups % % % Managerial (1) 13.6 15.1 16.3 16.2

Professional and technical (2 38.4 43.5 38.7 37.4 and 3)

Managerial and 52.0 58.6 55.0 53.6 Professional total

Admin and secretarial (4) 11.2 13.0 12.2 13.3

Skilled Trades (5) 10.0 7.8 9.0 9.8 Service occupations (6 and 7) 14.6 12.6 14.9 14.0

Process and machinery (8) 4.0 2.7 2.9 3.9

Elementary occupations (9) 8.1 5.2 6.0 5.3

Table 21 – part 2: Occupations of Residents (2011 Census – KS 610) (MSOAs) Notes: SOC = Standard (Leatherhead Rural areas Mole Valley England Occupational Classifications by Dorking % North) Major Groups % % % %

Managerial (1) 14.5 15.5 15.1 10.9 11.3

Professional and technical 42.3 33.0 38.0 30.3 34.2 (2 and 3)

Managerial and 56.8 48.5 53.1 40.2 45.5 Professional total

Admin and secretarial (4) 10.7 11.8 11.9 11.5 10.8

Skilled Trades (5) 9.3 13.6 10.6 11.4 11.7

Service occupations (6 and 13.6 14.7 14.1 17.7 16.9 7)

Process and machinery (8) 2.5 4.3 3.5 7.2 4.9

Elementary occupations (9) 6.5 7.2 6.6 11.1 10.2

Leatherhead North ward has been included for comparison as it is the main employment area in the District. The table shows this area has fewer managerial and professional residents than the District average, and that residents in service occupations are higher than the Mole Valley. However many jobs in North Leatherhead are on the research and business parks employing many managerial, and professional and technical workers. This would indicate a skills mismatch between residents and the needs of local employers which is currently met by commuting in from elsewhere in the District or from outside the District.

23. Qualifications

The table below with the latest information from the ONS Annual Population Survey indicates that Mole Valley residents are more highly qualified than the national averages.

Table 22: Qualifications of Residents (age 16-64) Jan – Dec 2015 (ONS APS) NVQ Level Mole Valley Mole Valley South East Great Britain % Numbers % % 4 and above 24,500 49.5 39.8 37.1 2 and above 42,500 86.0 76.8 73.6 No Qualifications # # 6.3 8.6 Notes: NVQ4= HND or Degree and higher NVQ2= 5 GCSE’s grade A-C or higher # = sample too small for reliable estimate % = percentage of residents age 16-64

D. Businesses and Firms in Mole Valley

24. Firms in Mole Valley Published information on “Nomis” is extracted from the Inter Departmental Business Register (IDBR) and is available at local or enterprise level. An enterprise is the smallest combination of legal units which has a reasonable degree of autonomy within an Enterprise Group. An individual site in an enterprise is called a local unit. This comparison exercise has used enterprises as its basis. The table shows the steady number of enterprises and that very small enterprises (0-4) employees is about 3% higher than the national rate.

Table 23: Number and Size of Firms in Mole Valley Employment MV England 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Size band % % Total 4,750 4,805 4,885 4,940 5,015 5,245 Micro (0 to 9) 4,340 4,400 4,455 4,470 4,545 4,740 90.4 88.8 0 to 4 3,790 3,865 3,905 3,900 3,980 4,170 79.5 76.6 5 to 9 550 535 550 570 565 570 Small (10 to 330 330 355 380 380 410 49) Medium-sized 55 55 55 65 65 70 (50 to 249) Large (250+) 25 25 25 20 20 20

25. Firms by sector in Mole Valley

Table 24 looks at the recent changes of firms within a selection of broad sectors including some of those considered to be within Class B1 – B8 uses. The intention of the table is to show general trends and comparisons rather than for all types of firms which may fall within these Use Classes. The table is not directly comparable with the information about the number of firms in the 2013 ELR technical appendix which was compiled on a slightly different basis.

The continued gain is the major sector covering the professional, scientific and technical sector which and forms 25% of firms in Mole Valley (compared to 18% for the UK). The information and communication sector is also more highly represented in Mole Valley than nationally.

The number of manufacturing firms in the District has decreased over the long term and the table shows this continuing trend down from 220 firms in 2010 to 200 firms in 2015..

Table 24: Firms by Sector in Mole Valley (Enterprises)

Broad sector 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No % England of % firms

Manufacturing (C ) 220 210 205 205 205 200 3.8 5.3

Retail And 12.8 710 705 695 685 670 670 15.0 Wholesale (G)

Transport and 1.7 100 90 90 85 90 90 3.4 storage (H)

Information and 11.5 460 480 520 555 565 605 8.4 communication (J)

Financial and 2.5 160 135 120 120 120 130 2.1 Insurance (K)

Professional, 25.2 scientific and 1,060 1,120 1,185 1,215 1,270 1,320 18.3 technical (M)

All firms 4,750 4,805 4,885 4,940 5,015 5,245 (Enterprises)

Major employers in the District include:

Leatherhead Area Dorking Area  Unilever  Unum  ESSO Petroleum (Exxonmobil)  Aviva (formerly Friends Life)  KBR  KUONI  CGI (formerly Logica)  Johnston Sweepers  ERA Technology

Dorking is the location of Johnston Sweepers the only major manufacturing company in the District and one of the relatively few major manufacturing companies in Surrey.

27. Major Employment Locations

The main employment locations can be identified by the total workplace population by ward. The top 7 ranked wards for employment in Mole Valley are:

Table 25: Main Employment Areas – Jobs By Ward

2011 BRES 2015 BRES 2011-15 change

No. of % of Jobs No. of % of Jobs No % Ward Jobs* in the Jobs in the District District

Leatherhead North 14,500 33.0 13,000 29.5 -1,500 -10%

Dorking North 4,750 10.8 5,000 11.3 +250

Dorking South 4,300 9.8 4,500 10.2 +200

Leatherhead South 2,850 6.4 3,500 7.9 +650 +23%

Ashtead Park 2,800 6.4 2,500 5.7 -300 -11%

Charlwood 1,950 4.5 1,750 4.0 -200 -10%

Mickleham, 1,450 3.3 1,500 3.4 +50 Westhumble & Pixham

District Total 43,900 44,100 +200 *Figures rounded and may not sum Leatherhead North ward has almost one third of all of the jobs in the District. However the figures show the number of jobs in the area has fallen over the last 4 years. It is one of the largest employment centres (wards) in the County. However there is a relatively poor match between the jobs in the ward and the skills of the local population and the ward scores relatively poorly with regard to Indices of Multiple Deprivation.

28. Knowledge Based Employment Information on Knowledge based employment is included in the FEMA. 29. Town Centre Activity The district has two main town centres; Leatherhead and Dorking. The table below indicates an increasing number of jobs Leatherhead town centre to 2008 and since then unchanged at 2011. This includes the same level of jobs in the retail and financial and business service sectors. However for Dorking jobs had increased to 2008 but have since decreased including the number of retail jobs.

Table 26: Jobs in Dorking and Leatherhead Town Centres Year Dorking Leatherhead Financial and Financial and Total Jobs Retail Total Jobs Retail Business Services Business Services (Employees) Jobs (7) (Employees) Jobs (7) Jobs (10-14) Jobs (10-14) 2008 6,500 3,000 1,400 3,300 1,300 600 2011 6,200 2,750 900 3,400 1,300 450 2015 6,750 2,800 1,200 3,750 1,300 450

Census Lower Super Output areas have been used to provide this "town centre" information: Dorking - LSOA 534,535 and 538; Leatherhead - LSOA 550 and 552. Figures for 2011 and 2015 arerounded to nearest 50. 2008 was rounded to nearest 100.

30. Jobs in Other Employment Sectors in Mole Valley

The EDNA looks mainly at jobs and the supply of land within the industrial and commercial sectors (Class B1 – B8). However other job sectors are also important and contribute to economic growth. Those seeking work (ie within the resident economically active age groups) are consequently available to all job sectors. Any examination of jobs and floorspace needs, looking at the available workforce and job forecasts for Class B1 – B8 uses, should have regard to this.

STAGE 2 – CREATING A PICTURE OF FUTURE REQUIREMENTS

This section uses resident based labour supply, employment forecasts, worker floorspace ratios and the floorspace data from Stage 1 to give a number of potential jobs and floorspace assessments for the future. These can form the basis for scenarios or options for the Local Plan.

Caveat: Advice from the now abolished SEEPB on undertaking employment and economic land assessments stated that employment forecasts (ie job demand) should be used with caution, especially at the local level. The advice commented that assessments should not look too far forward and that longer term figures should not be relied on.

31. Employment forecasts

This assessment uses the Experian Local Markets Forecast at June 2016 being the latest available at the time. The forecasts are derived from BRES data, available at the base date, and compared with a range of historic data. This information is then extrapolated forward having regard to other factors including forecast GVA growth. The forecasts use the SIC Broad Sectors of employment. These need to be matched, as best as possible, to development types and floorspace information for Class B1 – B8 uses. The data for all the broad sectors is at Annex 5.

The table below is an extract of the Experian Local Markets Forecast data and indicates the figures for those broad sectors which can be ascribed to Class B1 to B8 uses.

Table 27: Experian Job Forecasts by Use Class for Mole Valley- June 2016: employees Groupings of 2014 2014 2016 2018 2021 2026 2033 Broad Sectors BRES Exp’n Exp’n Exp’n Exp’n Exp’n Exp’n Manufacturing C 1,500 1,500 1,400 1,400 1,300 1,100 900 (B1c and B2) Transport & H 700 500 500 500 500 500 400 Storage (Class B8) Information and J 3,700 4,200 4,200 4,300 4,500 4,900 5,400 Communication (B1a and unrestricted B1) Finance & K 2,100 1,800 1,600 1,600 1,500 1,300 1,100 Insurance (B1a and unrestricted B1) Professional and L, 12,400 12,800 13,200 13,400 13,600 13,900 14,400 other Private M, Services (B1a N, and unrestricted S B1) Total B1a and 18,200 18,800 19,000 19,300 19,600 20,100 20,900 unrestricted B1 Total B1 – B8 20,400 20,800 20,900 21,200 21,400 21,700 22,200 Total All Sectors 43,100 43,800 44,400 44,900 45,600 46,800 48,300 B1-B8 as % of all 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 46% 46% jobs

Using the 2014 BRES the proportion of jobs in the equivalent B1 – B8 classes are:

 B1c – B2: Manufacturing: 1,500 jobs = 3.5% of all jobs  B8: Storage: 700 jobs = 1.6% of all jobs  B1a and unrestricted B1: Offices = 18,200 = 42.2% of all jobs

Non market services include public administration, health, education and other services have been excluded from being categorised as Class B1a, notwithstanding some of these uses may occupy office space. This matches the CLG / Valuation Office definitions where these uses are classified as non- commercial offices.

The table compares the 2014 BRES figures as the base date with the 2014 Experian figures and then shows the forecasts by incremental years to 2033, being the notional end date for a new local plan

The table shows there are differences between the BRES and Experian figures at the base date with the Experian forecasts being higher figure for total B1a and unrestricted B1 jobs. Whilst these differences are noted it is the relative change in jobs over time which is important.

32. Worker Floorspace Ratios

Worker floorspace ratios are an estimate of the floorspace used by an employee and refer to the average floorspace per full-time equivalent member of staff. The ratios can be used to calculate the number of jobs that could be generated by the occupation of vacant floorspace or newly completed development schemes. Alternatively they can be used to assess the amount of floorspace required for a given amount of employment growth (ie, to accommodate a forecast increased number of employees).

The 2008 ELR used DCLG indicative worker floorspace ratios based on work by Roger Tym, Arup and DTZ Pieda2 (1997-2004). Surrey County Council data, which has been used by local planning authorities in Surrey to assess infrastructure contributions from new commercial development, was used for the 2013 ELR (and notwithstanding that the data came from surveys from the late 1990’s).

The Experian forecasts aggregates data to “office” and unrestricted B1 jobs rather than separate offices and “High Tech” and unrestricted Class B1 premises are just as likely to be occupied by office uses; however the County Council research had indicated that “high tech” uses could have low w/f ratios compared to offices.

The most recent set of worker / floorspace ratios are those published by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA): Employment Density Guide 3rd edition Nov 2015. The following table compares the latest figures with the nearest Surrey CC ratios used in the 2013 ELR. The HCA employment density matrix data (page 29 of the HCA guide) gives different ratios for sub sectors (eg corporate and professional services offices) and where appropriate these have been averaged. The HCA figures are also a mix of gross and net internal figures and in the case of storage gross external (GEA). In comparison floorspace quoted in planning applications is now more generally gross internal (GIA); and advertised vacant floorspace is net internal (NIA). This means that any use of figures is subject to a degree of variation and discrepancy. Indeed the HCA guide indicates that for offices, for example, the difference between gross internal and net internal can be in the range of 15-20%. Consequently the amount of floorspace required to accommodate a forecast increase in jobs; or the number of jobs which could potentially be filled from existing vacant premises (and / or the implementation of planning permissions) should be treated with some caution.

Table 28 Worker Floorspace Ratios

Floorspace per worker m2 HCA 2015 Figures Surrey County Council

Offices (average) 12.0 (NIA) 17.6 ] 26 - 36 ] 42.3 High Tech / R&D space 40 – 60 (NIA) 67.0

Industrial (light) 47 (NIA) 37.5 ] 42.0 ] 35.3 Manufacturing 36 (GIA) 33.1

Storage 70 46.2

Making use of the latest HCA guide indicates far tighter office w/f ratios than previously used. However this would reflect the trends in changing working practices including the principles of “smart growth” and the more flexible use of office space (eg hot desking, shared space and working from home for example).

2 DTZ Pieda – for SEERA. Use of Business Space and Changing Working Practices in the South East (May 2004). Assessment 1: Employment Growth Based on Increases in Floorspace a) Employment Growth Based on Past Trends of Net Changes in Floorspace

This assessment uses recent net changes in floorspace to derive future net floorspace change and jobs changes which may occur if trends continue. The 2013 ELR assessment had no regard to policy interventions or changing economic circumstances and assessed trends over the period 2000 to 2012. This assessment takes a later baseline (2008) but includes data up to 2016. It therefore has regard to a reasonably long term for trend information but also has regard to the impact of the conversion of offices to residential over the last 3 years; and which has now been made permanent. Trends have reversed from net gains in offices /B1 and net losses in Industrial/warehousing floorspace in the 2013 ELR to one of net losses in office accommodation and gains in industrial/warehousing floorspace. It should be noted that gains in industrial floorspace can be attributed principally to one development at the Johnston Sweepers factory in Dorking. This could be considered an anomaly and thus trend based floorspace / employment forecasts in this sector should be treated with caution.

The following table looks at changes from the present to a notional end date for a new local plan (assuming adoption in 2018 and for a period of 15 years to 2033) using 5 year cohorts and then a longer period 2026 -2033 where there is even greater uncertainty about trends. Predicted office floorspace losses would include those prior approvals for conversion of offices to residential which have approval but not yet commenced.

Table 29: Net future floorspace – District wide

Total Offices / Industry / Warehousing / 2 2 2 B1 m B1c -B2 m B8 m

Net change in floorspace 2008- -11,871 2,347 1,397 2016 (8 years) – see Table 5b

Annual average: -1,484 293 175

a) 2016 - 2021 (5 years) -7,419 1,465 875

b) 2021 - 2026 (5 years) -7,419 1,465 875

c) 2016 -2026 (10 years) (a+b) -14,838 2,930 1,750

d) 2026 - 2033 (7 years) -10,388 2,051 1,225

Net changes in floorspace can be converted into jobs by using the worker floorspace ratios. However in this case the figures reflect notional net losses of jobs.

Table 30a: District wide Employment change 2016 – 2021 (5 years)

Total Offices / Industry / Warehousing / Total Jobs B1 m2 B1c -B2 m2 B8 m2 a) 2016 - 2021 -7,419 1,455 875

 Worker / floorspace ratio 12.0 42.0 70.0

Total jobs -618 35 13 -570

Table 30b: District wide Employment change 2021 – 2026 (5 years)

Total Offices / Industry / Warehousing / Total Jobs B1 m2 B1c -B2 m2 B8 m2 a) 2021 - 2026 -7,419 1,455 875  Worker / floorspace ratio 12.0 42.0 70.0

Total jobs -618 35 13 -570

Table 30c: District wide Employment change 2016 – 2026 (10 years)

Total Offices / Industry / Warehousing / Total Jobs B1 m2 B1c -B2 m2 B8 m2 a) 2016 - 2026 -14,838 2,930 1,750

 Worker / floorspace ratio 12.0 42.0 70.0

Total jobs -1,237 70 25 -1,142

Table 30d: District wide Employment change 2026 - 2033 (8 years)

Total Offices / Industry / Warehousing / Total Jobs B1 m2 B1c -B2 m2 B8 m2 a) 2026 - 2033 -10,388 2,051 1,225

 Worker / floorspace ratio 12.0 42.0 70.0

Total jobs -866 49 -18 -799

Table 30e: District wide Employment change 2016 – 2033 (17 years)

Total Offices / Industry / Warehousing / Total Jobs B1 m2 B1c -B2 m2 B8 m2 a) 2016 - 2033 -25,226 4,981 2,975

 Worker / floorspace ratio 12.0 42.0 70.0

Total jobs -2,102 119 43 -1,940

These tables indicate a loss of floorspace in Class B1 office use, small gains in industrial / warehousing floorspace and the possible influence that this will have on jobs. This does not however reflect what has happened in the past; losses in jobs have not materialised where there have been changes to floorspace (see Table 9 albeit this is for all sectors). This indicates this method is not reliable and indicates, in principle, the difficulty in projecting forward jobs and floorspace requirements. b) Employment Growth Based On Implementation of Planning Permissions and Occupancy of Vacant Premises

An alternative is to calculate the total number of jobs that could be generated if deliverable floorspace in outstanding planning permissions and vacant premises is implemented. The following table uses the data at December 2012 from Table 3 (which combines industry and storage). Outstanding permissions include floorspace under construction or completed but vacant as this is available for occupation as additional jobs. For the purpose of this exercise the industrial average w/f ratio of 1:42m2 is used as a proxy for industrial and storage / warehousing.

Table 31: Employment Generated from Existing Available Floorspace at March 2016

Offices and Industrial and Business Storage (B1c, Total Floorspace B2 and B8) (B1a)

Outstanding permissions and 2 2 2 30,298m 10,723m 41,021m vacant floorspace (Table 3a) ÷ ÷ Worker floorspace ratios 12.0 42.0 - Total Jobs 2,525 255 2,780

Table 31 indicates that the implementation of all available floorspace, at March 2016, could generate 2,780 jobs of which 2,525 are in the office and business sector. This available floorspace does not include those offices which have prior approval for conversion to residential (as at March 2016).

Assessment 2: Labour Supply Forecasts

This assessment asks what additional floorspace would be required for the future working population of the area; together with any assumptions for in commuting if appropriate. It provides an estimate of the total additional jobs which may be required resulting from any increases in the working age population of residents and the net additional floorspace required to accommodate them. The ONS 2014 based population projections are the latest at local authority level with age group cohorts.

The 2011 Census indicates that Mole Valley is now an area of net in-commuting with almost 4,100 more persons commuting in to the District than commute out. “Nomis” Labour Market reports indicate that, at 2014, Mole Valley had a jobs density of 0.99; this is a notional concept that compares the number of jobs in an area with the resident working age population. In this case there is effectively one job for every Mole Valley resident age 16-64. Additionally of the 5,900 persons of working age in Mole Valley who are economically inactive 5,300 do not want a job (ONS annual population survey Apr 2015 - Mar 2016): the inference that nly 600 persons may consider employment. This also reflects low levels of residents claiming job seekers allowance at 245 persons (Aug 2016).

The conclusion is that it would be difficult for any significant increase in jobs in the District to be met from the local population; that increases in jobs (across all sectors of employment) would result in additional in- commuting.

Working age population age groups have now been revised and female working age population now matches that of male working age population (ie 16-64 for males and females; previously 16-59 for females). Additionally increases in the state pension age will, in principle, increase the number of persons considered of “economically active” age. However this cannot reasonably be estimated but given that the District has an increasingly elderly population and few persons who are actively seeking work this may not affect the “pool” of persons seeking work.

The following assessments reflect the working age population age 16-64 male and female.

The table below replicates Table 16 and shows the limited increases in working age population through to 2033. It also shows that much of the projected increase is frontloaded to 2021 and that the increase from 2014 to 2021 of 600 persons matches that inferred to be potentially available or seeking work. This re- iterates the possible difficulty of any additional jobs created being filled by Mole Valley residents.

Table 32 Total and Working Age Population: Mole Valley District (ONS 2014 base) 2014 2015 2016 2018 2021 2026 2031 2033 Total 86,200 86,500 86,900 87,800 89,400 92,300 95,000 96,100 Population Working Age 51,100 51,100 51,300 51,300 51,700 51,900 51,700 51,700 16-64 Increase in - 0 200 0 400 200 -200 0 working age between points

The following tables set out the potential increases in working age population and the floorspace required to fill the potential jobs ascribed to each sector. After 2026 the working age population remains static and then declines and hence no calculation is made beyond this time.

Table 33: Estimated Jobs in Class B1 – B8 Arising From Increases In Working Age Population Total Change Assuming Jobs in Jobs in Jobs in in Working Age 47.3%* new B1c B8 B1a population jobs in Class and B2 (1.6% of total) (42.2% of total) B1 – B8 (3.5% of total) 2016-2021 400 189 169 14 6 2021-2026 200 95 84 7 3 Total 2016 600 284 253 21 9 - 2026

These additional jobs can be converted into the floorspace required to occupy them by the use of worker floorspace ratios.

Table 34: Estimated Requirements for Class B1 – B8 Floorspace Arising From Increases In Working Age Population (derived from table above) Floorspace Floorspace Floorspace in Jobs in Jobs in in B1a from in B1c- B2 Jobs in B8 from w/f B1c B1a w/f ratio of from w/f ratio B8 ratio of 70.0:1 and B2 12.0:1 of 42.0:1 2016-2021 169 2,028m2 14 588m2 6 420m2 2011-2026 84 1,008m2 7 294m2 3 210m2 Total 2016 - 253 3,036m2 21 882m2 9 630m2 2026

At March 2016 there was 30,298m2 of available floorspace for B1a and B1 use (see Table 3b). This is 27,262m2 (ie: 30,298 – 3,036) more than required to meet employment growth in these sectors from changes in resident working age population to 2026. There is also sufficient available industrial floorspace at 7,231m2 against a notional requirement for only 882m2; and for storage a need for 630m2 against an available 3,492m2.

This assessment method does not indicate a need for additional floorspace, above that already available to meet forecast changes in the District’s working age population in these employment sectors. However this needs to be considered and compared against demand (ie trend based) changes in forecast jobs.

Assessment 3: Labour Demand - Trend Based Growth in Employment

This assessment uses employment forecasts from Experian at June 2016 being the latest available at the time of preparing this report. The employment changes for the commercial broad sectors need to be converted to floorspace requirements by land use class. The appropriate SIC broad sectors can, by proxy, be allocated to a Use Class. The following table takes the information in Table 31 and allocates the data to a Use Class as follows:

Table 35: Experian Job Forecasts by Use Class for Mole Valley- June 2016: employees Use Class and Groups 2016 2021 2026 2033 Groupings of Exp’n Exp’n Exp’n Exp’n Broad Sectors B1a and unrestricted J, K, 19,000 19,600 20,100 20,900 B1 (Information and L,M,N,S Comms, Finance & Insurance, Professional and other Private Services) B1c and B2 C 1,400 1,300 1,100 900 (Manufacturing) Class B8 (Transport & H 500 500 500 400 Storage) Total B1 – B8 20,900 21,400 21,700 22,200

The table shows that, on the continuation of trends an increase in office jobs (ie Class B1) and the decline in manufacturing / industrial jobs (B1c – B2). Storage jobs remain unchanged until after 2026.

The floorspace requirements of the demand-led forecasts can be assessed by calculating the employment growth between time periods and deriving the floorspace needed for these additional jobs using the worker / floorspace ratios. These are assessed using 2016 as the baseline and then by 5 year increments to 2026. The longer term to 2033 is also considered but is caveated by the concern at using local employment forecasts over extended time periods. The use of the latest HCA w/f ratios offsets the impacts that changing working practices may have on influencing floorspace requirements (eg hot desking and job share; working from home etc).

Table 36: Converting jobs to floorspace - Class B1a / Unrestricted B1 2016 - 21 2021 - 26 2016-2026 2026 - 33 2016 – 2033 Total Total Forecast Change 600 500 1,100 800 1,900 in B1a / B1 jobs x W/F ratio 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 = Total B1a / B1 7,200m2 6,000m2 13,200m2 9,600m2 22,800m2 floorspace requirement Available 30,298m2 30,298m2 30,298m2 30,298m2 floorspace at March 2016 (Table 3b) Surplus +23,098m2 +17,098m2 +7,498m2

Core Strategy Policy CS12 and the NPPF support the provision of a flexible supply of employment land. Planning permissions can be granted which allow flexibility in the use of premises (eg the Axis Centre, Leatherhead allows the flexible use of small units) and permitted development rights also allow changes of use within Use Classes particularly with regard to smaller industrial and commercial units. Table 39 shows that trend based increases in “office” jobs can be met from the existing available vacant premises and outstanding permissions. Technically this floorspace is sufficient to meet needs to 2033.

The following tables carry out the same assessments for industrial and storage uses. In this instance trend based job losses infers a reduction in the amount of floorspace required and which when added to available vacant and permitted floorspace gives a figure for “surplus” stock. This “surplus” applies to industrial across the full period to 2033 and for storage to at least 2026. This tends to go against the current, and past, position of a tight availability of available vacant industrial and storage floorspace and units which is normally readily re-let.

Table 37: Converting jobs to floorspace - Class B1c - B2 2016 - 21 2021 - 26 2016-2026 2026 - 33 2016 – 2033 Total Total Forecast B1c–B2 jobs -100 -200 -300 -200 -500 x W/F ratio 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 = Total B1c–B2 -4,200m2 -8,400m2 -12,600m2 -8,400m2 -21,000m2 floorspace requirement Available floorspace 7,231m2 7,231m2 7,231m2 7,231m2 at March 2016 (Table 3b) Surplus +11,431m2 +19,831m2 +28,231m2

Table 38: Converting jobs to floorspace - Class B8 2016 - 21 2021 - 26 2016-2026 2026 - 33 2016 – 2033 Total Total Forecast increase in 0 0 0 -100 -100 B8 jobs x W/F ratio 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 = Total B8 floorspace 0 0 0 -7,000m2 -7,000m2 requirement Available floorspace 3,492m2 3,492m2 3,492m2 3,492m2 at March 2016 (Table 3b) Surplus / deficit +3,492m2 +3,492m2 +10,492m2

The tables indicate that with regard to floorspace in all B class uses that there is a “surplus” throughout the plan period and that trend based demand led employment change can be met in existing floorspace. Summary of the Assessments

Assessment 1a: Employment Change Based on Past Trends of Changes in Floorspace

The following tables indicate the cumulative incremental loss of floorspace based on past trends and then the, in principle, loss of jobs which would theoretically also occur as a consequence.

Table 39: District wide Floorspace change

Offices / B1 Industry / Warehousing / Total m2 m2 B1c -B2 m2 B8 m2 a) 2016 - 2021 -7,419 1,465 875 -5,079 b) 2021 - 2026 -7,419 1,465 875 -5,079 c) 2026 - 2033 -10,388 2,051 1,225 -7,112 d) Total 2016 - 2033 -25,226 4,981 2,975 -17,270

Table 40: District wide Employment change

Industry / Warehousing / Total Jobs Offices / B1 2 B1c -B2 B8 Jobs Jobs Jobs a) 2016 - 2021 -618 35 13 -570 b) 2021 - 2026 -618 35 13 -570 c) 2026 - 2033 -866 49 18 -799 d) Total 2016 - 2033 -2,102 119 43 -1,940

This assessment indicates a potential loss of floorspace and jobs in the office sector with small increases in the industrial and warehouse sectors.

This does not, however, reflect the reality of what has happened in the past. The correlation of floorspace losses with job losses is not strongly evidenced and thus the reliability of this method must be questioned. It shows in principle the difficulty in projecting forward jobs and floorspace requirements using trend based information and with no consideration of local context. To date there is no information whether the very recent losses of offices to residential is having an adverse effect on total jobs within the overall office sector. It may be that BRES data for 2016 will provide an answer but this information will not be available until late 2017.

Assessment 1b: Employment Growth Based On Implementation of Planning Permissions and Occupancy of Vacant Premises

This assessment has indicated that take up of the existing vacant floorspace and outstanding permissions at March 2016 could generate the following number of jobs:

 Offices and Business Floorspace (B1a) =2,525 jobs  Industrial and Storage floorspace (B1c, B2 and B8) =255 jobs  Total available floorspace = 2,780 jobs

This available floorspace does not include those offices which have prior approval for conversion to residential (as at March 2016). The labour supply forecasts (see Assessment 2) seem to indicate there is little scope for Mole Valley residents to take up these opportunities given negligible net change in working age population and the low number of people who say they want a job. The inference being that an approach which is based on jobs growth would result in further in-commuting in to the District; unless those currently in employment outside the District have the opportunity to work locally.

Assessment 2: Labour Supply Forecasts

At March 2016 there was 30,298m2 of available floorspace for B1a and B1 use. This is 27,262m2 more than required to meet employment growth in these sectors from changes in resident working age population to 2026. There is also sufficient available industrial floorspace at 7,231m2 against a notional requirement for only 882m2; and for storage a need for 630m2 against an available 3,492m2.

This assessment does not indicate a need for additional floorspace, above that already available to meet forecast changes in the District’s working age population in these employment sectors. Indeed it indicates there is more than sufficient floorspace to meet the employment needs of Mole Valley residents; the implication being that the surplus floorspace could be lost to other uses or could be used to provide for additional employment.

However this needs to be considered and compared against demand (ie trend based) changes in forecast jobs (ie the employment growth scenario).

Assessment 3: Labour Demand - Trend Based Change in Employment

The Experian employment forecasts do not indicate significant trend based employment growth such that there is likely to be surplus floorspace (based on current levels of vacant space) even if all the trend employment growth occurs. The tables indicate that with regard to floorspace in all B class uses there is a “surplus” throughout the plan period to 2033 and that trend based demand led employment change can be met.

Summary

 No growth in the Mole Valley resident based population.  Employment forecasts do not indicate trend growth in jobs ascribed to B1 – B8 uses.  There appears to be surplus employment land to meet current needs ignoring implications and scenarios.

Implications and scenarios

These assessments could:

 Enable Mole Valley residents, who currently commute out, to work in the District; providing the employment opportunities become available (ie currently surplus floorspace is taken up).  Provide significantly more jobs than are indicated to occur from the employment forecasts.  Encourage further in-commuting should employment opportunities become available.  Allow the District to absorb employment growth from neighbouring authorities, including as part of the duty to co-operate, without having to allocate additional land.  Allow “surplus” employment land to be used for other purposes.

STAGE 3 - ASSESSING A FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTABLE SUPPLY OF LAND

Stage 3 is to undertake a review of the existing portfolio of the main employment sites available to meet planning objectives. Core Strategy Policy CS12 indicates that accessible and well located industrial and commercial sites will be safeguarded. Large sites are identified on the Proposals Map. There are no extant employment land allocations instead new employment land and buildings come forward as a result of the granting of planning permissions for the redevelopment of existing sites and through vacant premises and it is on this basis that the assessment whether there is sufficient employment floorspace available, or in the pipeline is considered.

As well as establishing how much land is required to meet employment needs, it needs to be assessed whether employment land (ie, sites with planning permissions and vacant sites) is genuinely deliverable. Assessments could otherwise be made for employment land needs against a range of strategy against an unrealistic expectation as to the development opportunities available to absorb additional jobs.

The EDNA updates the assessment of the main employment sites and areas which were identified in the 2013 ELR and the Dorking Industrial and Commercial Review. Annex 4 of this technical appendix is an assessment all of the sites with planning permission or which are vacant, to assess whether they are genuinely deliverable or available. It lists all outstanding planning permissions and vacant premises in Classes B1- B8 at March 2016.

With the exception of one major headquarters permission of 7,652m2, where it is not known if the building will be constructed, it is considered that the outstanding permissions and vacant premises are deliverable. The major headquarters permission is part of a site on which two out of three permitted buildings have been constructed. Permission for the third building will not lapse. As delivery is uncertain it has been excluded from the floorspace with permission figures

Annex 1 ANNEXES: October 2016

Table 7. Take Up of Vacant floorspace and occupation of completed developments (planning permissions) and other changes of occupier: Apr 2006 - March 2016

LEATHERHEAD (m2) DORKING (m2)

Offices Industry Storage Offices Industry Storage (B1U, B1a) (B1c-B2) (B8) (B1U, B1a) (B1c-B2) (B8)

June 2015 – 5,379 2,211 505 1,415 418 - Mar 2016 July 2014- 2,806 1,988 534 1,786 744 310 May 2015 Jan 2013 - 7,916 3,868 1,284 1,698 8,856* 425 June 2014 April 2012 – - 120 - - - - Dec 2012 April 2011 – 650 587 - - - - March 2012 April 2010- 1,651 540 1,968 - 828 - March 2011 April 2009- 4,245 352 1,472 1,146 - 396 March 2010

April 2008- 707 - 1,559 371 575 - March 2009

April 2007 - 3,159 365 3,013 2,497 918 - March 2008

April 2006 - 8,755 2,336 - 571 388 - March 2007

Total :Apr 2006 – Mar 35,268 12,367 10,335 9,484 12,727 1,131 2016 (10 yrs)

Annual 2 3,527 1,237 1,033 948 1,273 113 Average m

TOTAL (m2)

Offices Industry Storage (B1U, B1a) (B1c-B2) (B8) June 2015 – Mar 2016 6,794 2,629 505 July 2014- 4,592 2,732 844 May 2015 Jan 2013 - 9,614 12,724 1,709 June 2014 April 2012 – - 120 - Dec 2012 April 2011 – 650 587 - March 2012 April 2010- 1,658 1,386 1,967 March 2011 Apr 2009 - 5,390 352 1,868 March 2010

Apr 2008-Mar 1,078 575 1,559 2009

April 2007 - 5,656 1,282 3,013 March 2008

April 2006 - 9,326 2,167 - March 2007

Total: Apr 45,889 24,554 11,465 2006 – Mar 2016 (10 yrs)

Annual 2 4,589 2,455 1,146 Average m

Data from April 2006 being the baseline of the Core Strategy. * Figure mainly from new Johnston Sweepers factory. Annex 2 OUTSTANDING COMMERCIAL PERMISSIONS

At: 31st March 2016

Figures in Square Metres (m2) Gross Internal from planning application form (TP1)

DEVELOPMENT LEATHERHEAD DORKING RURAL TOTAL m2 m2 m2 m2

B1-Unrestricted N/S 0 0 60 60 B1-Unrestricted U/C 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 0 60 60

B1a-N/S 4,721 1,324 204 6,248 B1a-U/C 0 0 0

TOTAL 4,721 1,324 204 6,248

B1b-N/S 0 0 0 0 B1b-U/C 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 0 0 0

B1c-N/S 0 0 309 309 B1c-U/C 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 0 309 309

B2-N/S 0 2,683 0 2,683 B2-U/C 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 2,683 0 2,683

B8-N/S 110 0 1,213 1,323 B8-U/C 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 110 0 1,213 1,323

* Note: Permission for 7,950m2 of B1a floorspace for KBR, Leatherhead remains “live” (see (MO/1998/1542). This is for their 3rd unit; the other two units have been built. This floorspace is excluded from the above table as delivery is uncertain. This figure had been included in older versions of the table; hence any trend data should be checked and, if necessary, adjusted to be consistent.

Annex 3

NET VACANT FLOORSPACE AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL TO OUTSTANDING PLANNING PERMISSIONS: end of March 2016

LEATHERHEAD: March 2016 No. of Units Ft2 (m2) 9 N/A Retail (town centre) (Class A1–A5) 23 175,959ft2 (16,346m2) Offices and Unrestricted B1 7 31,733ft2 (2,948m2) Industry (B1b and B1c, B2) 1 16,062ft2 (1,492m2) Storage (B8)

2 2 DORKING: March 2016 No. of Units Ft (m ) 13 N/A Retail (Class A1-A5) 10 82,283ft2 (7,644m2) Offices (B1a and Unrestricted B1) 4 11,213ft2 (1,042m2) Industry (B1b, B1c, B2) 1 7,285ft2 (677m2) Storage

Bookham: No. of Units Ft2 (m2)

Retail (Class A1–A5) 1 = In village centre 2 = In parades

Offices and Unrestricted B1 - -

Industry (B1b and B1c, B2) 1 2,684 ft2 (249 m2) - Storage (B8) -

The schedules identify premises known to be available from site surveys and agents web sites. F for monitoring purposes the Council is interested in the available vacant floorspace in secondhand premises. Consequently the above information is subject to the following caveats:

a) Premises advertised but still occupied are excluded from the figures above. New and under construction premises are included in the schedule for information but the floorspace figures are not included above. See outstanding permissions floorspace table.

b) Some individual figures in the schedules may be an over-estimate where a building has been part re-let but only the original advertised floorspace is known. However not all floorspace figures are known. The figures are therefore best estimates of the available floorspace.

c) The figures are for Leatherhead and Dorking being the main commercial centres. Figures are also given for Bookham as there are commercial units at Bookham Industrial Park.

d) Some premises may be available for industrial and /or warehouse use. Whether a unit is counted as industrial or warehouse generally reflects the wording of the advertisement.

Annex 4

CLASS B1-B8 PLANNING PERMISSIONS AND VACANT PREMISES: at End March 2016 (*SLEL = suitably located employment land)

LEATHERHEAD: PLANNING PERMISSIONS (floorspace converted to Gross internal) Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m 1998/1542 KBR, Springfield Third building as part Core B1 7652 NS ? N 2 of the 3 permitted units built and Drive, Leatherhead of Headquarters Strategy occupied by KBR. The permission for development for Policy CS12; the 3rd unit will not lapse. However it is Halliburton (now KBR) MVLP Policy unknown if KBR intend to construct this E2 - SLEL* unit. Uncertain regarding deliverability and excluded from the Technical Appendix data. 2014/1182 Denny’s Uniforms, Extension to Policy CS12 B8 110 NS Y Y 128 Kingston Rd, warehouse. and Policy Leatherhead E2 - SLEL 2014/1272 North Building, PIRA Extension to existing Policy CS12 B1a 83 NS and Policy Y Y off Cleeve Rd building E2 - SLEL 2015/0024 Kelvin House, Refurbishment and Policy CS12 B1a 4,221 UC Known as One Springfield Drive. and Policy Y Y Springfield Drive extension of building Completion by end of 2016? E2 - SLEL 2015/0243 Leatherhead Depot, Modular offices for - B1a 417 NS Y Y By Pass Rd Connect Plus – M25 contractors

LEATHERHEAD: VACANT PREMISES Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m Industry / Storage - 5-6 Bridge Works, off Industrial / Policy CS12 B2/B8 289 Vacant Industrial / warehouse units and Policy Y Y Kingston Rd Warehouse Premises E2 - SLEL - Unit 2, Argosy Works, Car repair workshop Policy CS12 B2 433 ? and Policy Y Y Kingston Road E2 - SLEL - Unit A, Imperial Park, Industrial / Policy CS12 B8 11,312 ? and Policy Y Y Randalls Way Warehouse E2 - SLEL - Unit 2 Ryebrook, Modern light Policy CS12 B1c 243 Vacant and Policy Y Y LEATHERHEAD: VACANT PREMISES Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m Bay Tree Ave, industrial unit E2 - SLEL Kingston Rd - Unit 16, Mole Modern light Policy CS12 B1c 360 Vacant and Policy Y Y Business Park industrial use E2 - SLEL - 12 Bridge Works, off Industrial / Policy CS12 B2/B8 130 Vacant Industrial / warehouse unit and Policy Y Y Kingston Rd Warehouse Premises E2 - SLEL - 1A Bridge Works, off Industrial / Policy CS12 B2/B8 180 Vacant Industrial / warehouse unit and Policy Y Y Kingston Rd Warehouse Premises E2 - SLEL - Grey clad Unit, Axis Modern industrial / Policy CS12 B1c/B8 1,492 Vacant On agent’s website. May be occupied and Policy Y Y Centre, off Cleeve Rd warehouse unit so not counted as vacant floorspace. E2 - SLEL Offices / Business Use - Westminster House, Modern office Policy CS12 B1a 901 Vacant Advertised to let. and Policy Y Y Randalls Way / building E2 - SLEL Cleeve Road, - Manor House, The Office suites Policy E7 - B1a 400 Vacant Y Y Advertised to let. Crescent, Town Centre - Stocks House, North Part of office building Policy E7 - B1a 403 Vacant Y Y Advertised to let. Now also has prior Street Town Centre approval for conversion to residential. (MO/2011/1190) The Square, Randalls 3 business use Policy CS12 B1 4,745 Vacant Refurbishment of 4 business use and Policy Y Y Way buildings E2 - SLEL units to provide Grade A offices. 1 let at March 2016 - Kings Court, Kingston Part of office building Policy CS12 B1a 450 Vacant Advertised to let. and Policy Y Y Rd E2 - SLEL - Leatherhead House, offices in modern Policy CS12 B1a 598 Vacant Advertised to let and Policy Y Y Mole Business Park, building E2 - SLEL Station Rd - 119 Kingston Rd Small office building Policy CS12 B1a 190 Vacant For sale / let and Policy Y Y E2 - SLEL - 24 The Crescent s/c office building - B1a 92 Vacant Y Y - Bluebird House, Unit Refurbished high Policy CS12 B1a 2,328 Vacant and Policy Y Y 22 Mole Business quality offices E2 - SLEL Park LEATHERHEAD: VACANT PREMISES Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m - Dorset House, Part of building only. Policy CS12 B1a 790 Vacant Advertised to let. Part of Regus and Policy Y Y Regent Park, 299 serviced offices building. E2 - SLEL Kingston Road - Cassini Court,, Modern Policy CS12 B1a 655 Vacant Advertised to let. and Policy Y Y Randalls Way business/office unit E2 - SLEL - Pascal Place, Modern Policy CS12 B1a 993 Vacant Advertised to let. and Policy Y Y Randalls Way business/office unit E2 - SLEL - Grove House, Refurbished Grade A Policy E7 - B1a 1,006 Vacant Town Centre Y Y Guildford Rd building - Suite 3, Blenheim Small business/office Policy CS12 B1a 104 Vacant and Policy Y Y Court, Brook Way, off unit E2 - SLEL Kingston Rd - Suite 4B, Blenheim Small business/office Policy CS12 B1a 46 Vacant and Policy Y Y Court, Brook Way, off suite E2 - SLEL Kingston Rd - 26 Bridge Street, 2nd floor in Town Policy E7 - B1a 118 Vacant Y Y Leatherhead centre office building Town Centre - Claire / James Office premises Policy E7 - B1a 1,602 Vacant Y Y Advertised short term lets. Also has House, Emlyn Lane, Town Centre approval for conversion to residential Leatherhead - 2 Bridge St Office suites Policy E7 - B1a 104 Vacant Y Y Advertised to let Town Centre - Wesley House, Bull Part of serviced Policy E7 - B1a 465 Vacant Y Y Advertised to let Hill offices centre Town Centre - 25-29 High Street, Office suites Policy E7 - B1a 116 Vacant Y Y Advertised to let. Leatherhead Town Centre - 33 Bridge Street, Town centre offices Policy E7 - B1a 242 Vacant Y Y Advertised to let. Leatherhead Town Centre

DORKING: PLANNING PERMISSIONS Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m DORKING: PLANNING PERMISSIONS Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m 2010/1282 Land west of Curtis Smaller of 2 factory Policy CS12 B2 1,500 NS Y Y Main factory built so this permission Road, Dorking buildings for Johnston and DT11 - won’t lapse. Site has a temporary Sweepers SLEL building and used for open storage. 2014/0783 The Atrium, Curtis Additional offices by Policy CS12 B1a 745 NS Y Y Serviced offices centre Rd creating a mezzanine and DT11 - SLEL 2014/0980 Parsonage Mills, Redev of premises Policy CS12 B2 1,183 NS Y Y Buildings demolished Station Rd including 2 industrial and DT11 - units SLEL 2015/0626 Meadowbank Redevelopment of - B1a 550 NS Y Y Offices for Surrey County FA football ground including offices 2015/1781 134 High St Minor extensions to TownCentre B1a 29 NS Y Y existing offices

DORKING: VACANT PREMISES Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m Industry / Storage - Unit 3, Dorking Industrial unit DTAAP B1c 144 - Y Y Basic industrial unit. Short term let Foundry, North St Policy DT2 - Unit 1b, Dorking Industrial unit DTAAP B1c 87 - Y Y Basic industrial unit. Short term let Foundry, North St Policy DT2 - Unit 1 Tillingbourne Small industrial unit Policy CS12 B1c 257 Vacant Y Y Advertised to let. Court, Dorking and DT11 - Business Park SLEL - Old Waterworks Small industrial unit Policy CS12 B1c 236 Vacant Y Y Ex City Motorcycles: Premises empty but Yard, Curtis Rd and DT11 - no agent board SLEL - Glebeland Centre, Storage unit Policy CS12 B8 677 Vacant Y Y Advertised on agents website Vincent Lane and DT11 - SLEL DORKING: VACANT PREMISES Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m Offices / Business Use - Brockham House, Large office building Policy CS12 B1 2897 Vacant Y Y Advertised to let. Being refurbished to Dorking Business and DT11 - Grade A. Park, Station Road, SLEL - Glasswork 2, Large modern office Policy CS12 B1 1566 Vacant Y Y Advertised to let. Recently refurbished Dorking Business building and DT11 - and part let Park, Station Road, SLEL - Park Lodge, London s/c office building Policy CS12 B1a 277 Vacant Y Y Gr Floor to let. Rd and DT11 - SLEL (Let at July 2016) - St Martins House, St Town centre offices – DTAAP B1a 617 Vacant Policy DT2 Y Y Martins Walk, High Street - Five / Holmbury, Large modern office Policy CS12 B1 677 Vacant Y Y To be refurbished? Dorking Business building and DT11 - Park, Station Road, SLEL - 97 South St Small first floor offices DTAAP B1a - Vacant Policy DT2 Y Y - 215 High St First floor premises DTAAP B1a 102 Vacant Policy DT2 Y Y - Paper Mews 290 Office suites DTAAP B1a 94 Vacant Advertised on agent’s website. Policy DT2 Y Y High St - Kuoni Lodge, Office building on - B1a 689 Vacant Y Y Advertised on agent’s website. Deepdene Ave (A24) edge of town. - Biwater House, Part of office building Policy CS12 B1a 447 Vacant y Y Dorking Station and DT11 - SLEL

RURAL: PLANNING PERMISSIONS Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m 2008/1628 Laundry Way, Capel New unit. Permitted as Village B1c 147 NS Y N Dwellings completed but commercial unit part of residential not yet erected. RURAL: PLANNING PERMISSIONS Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m scheme which has been implemented. 2012/1480 Home Farm, Jayes Convert agric Rural B8 / B1 839 NS Y Y Park, Ockley buildings to 4 B8/B1 units 2013/1503 Vallance Byways, Replacement Rural B1c 160 NS Y Y Lowfield Heath Rd, industrial building Charlwood 2014/1037 Denshott Farm Prior approval change Rural B8 500 NS Y ? Flanchford Rd, Leigh of use of building to B8 use 2014/1653 64 The Street, Conversion of former Village B1a 78 NS Y Y Charlwood PH / restaurant to offices 2015/0385 Normandie, Boxhill Extensions to Village B1a 60 NS Y Y premises to include 2 ground floor offices.

RURAL: Vacant Premises Floorspace Location 1 2 3 Applic. No. Address Description Use Class Available Status Deliverable Available Commentary Type 2 m No recent surveys done See Major Employers and Firms on Industrial estates in Mole Valley for schedule of Rural sites which may have vacant units.

1 Status: NS = Not Started; UC = Under Construction; CV = Completed and Vacant

2 Deliverable = Can the planning permission be implemented? Are vacant premises genuinely available?

3 Available = Can the premises be occupied? ie, is the site under construction or completed and vacant? Are the premises advertised ‘to let’. Experian Jobs Forecasts: Mole Valley 2016 Annex 5 Experian forecasts use the 2007 SIC broad sectors. These need to be matched, as best as possible, to the equivalent Class B1 – B8 uses classes so that floorspace needs to match jobs in the sectors can be derived. The current BRES figures are at 2014 and the Experian 2014 figures are reproduced to see if there are any significant baseline anomalies. The BRES figures have had to be rounded to nearest 100 whilst Experian forecasts are already rounded; this rounding may account for some element of differences and also that figures may not sum.

Important Note: BRES 2015 was published at the end of September 2016 and showed an increase in employee jobs in Mole Valley of 1,000 up to 44,100 from 43,100 in 2014. Several sectors have shown up or down changes. Of those sectors most relevant to the EDNA (those comprising equivalent Class B1 – B8 uses) “Manufacturing” (ie Class B1c and B2 uses) had seen a significant jump from 1,500 employees in 2014 to 2,500 employees in 2015, an increase of 66%. Looking at the BRES 2015 at ward level most of this change is in Leatherhead but, from local knowledge and monitoring, there has been no significant manufacturing employment changes in this locality and the figure must be considered anomalous until the underlying IDBR information is available to see if such changes can be identified. In previous years the IDBR has miscoded firms to Mole Valley (address errors) or identified all employees of a company as based at a Mole Valley location even though the premises in the District cannot accommodate the stated number of employees. ONS has subsequently commented that the change arises from a company changing job codes from wholesale to manufacturing but will not indicate which company this is.

Therefore the new figure of 2,500 “Manufacturing” jobs is totally against the trend of BRES data of previous years and totally “out of kilter” with the Experian projections. The Experian projections are therefore used without adjustment.

Experian Jobs Broad Sectors SIC 2014 2016 2018 2021 2026 2031 2033 2007 2014 2015 Experian Experian Experian Experian Experian Experian Experian Groupings Broad BRES BRES Of Broad Sectors Sectors Agriculture etc A 100 200 300 300 400 300 300 300 300 Mining & Quarrying B 100 100 ------Manufacturing (Class C 1,500 1,400 1,400 1,300 1,100 1,000 900 B1c + B2) 1,500 2,500 Utilities (Electricity, Gas & D and E 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Water) 300 300 Construction F 2,900 2,300 2,600 3,100 3,300 3,400 3,700 3,800 3,800 Retail and Wholesale G 6,500 5,800 7,000 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 7,000 7,000 Transport & Storage H 500 500 500 500 500 400 400 (Class B8) 700 600 Accommodation, Food I and R 3,700 3,800 3,900 4,000 4,100 4,200 4,300 Services and Recreation 4,000 3,500 Information & J 4,200 4,200 4,300 4,500 4,900 5,300 5,400 Communication (Class B1a and unrestricted B1) 3,700 4,100 Finance & Insurance K 1,800 1,600 1,600 1,500 1,300 1,200 1,100 (Class B1a and unrestricted B1) 2,100 2,200 Professional & other L,M,N + 12,800 13,200 13,400 13,600 13,900 14,200 14,400 Private Services S (Class B1a and unrestricted B1) 12,400 12,800 Public Services (incl. O, P and 9,200 9,100 9,100 9,400 9,900 10,400 10,500 Health and Education) Q 8,800 9,600

Total 43,100 44,100 43,800 44,400 44,900 45,600 46,800 48,000 48,300

This is up to date Experian Jobs B1 – B8 use class equivalents SIC 2007 2014 2015 2014 2016 2018 2021 2026 2031 2033 Groupings Broad BRES BRES Experian Experian Experian Experian Experian Experia Experian Of Broad Sectors Sectors n

Manufacturing (Class C 2,500 1,500 1,400 1,400 1,300 1,100 1,000 900 B1c + B2) 1,500

Transport & Storage H 600 500 500 500 500 500 400 400 (Class B8) 700

Information & J 4,100 4,200 4,200 4,300 4,500 4,900 5,300 5,400 Communication (Class B1a and unrestricted B1) 3,700 Finance & Insurance K 2,200 1,800 1,600 1,600 1,500 1,300 1,200 1,100 (Class B1a and unrestricted B1) 2,100 Professional & other L,M,N 12,800 12,800 13,200 13,400 13,600 13,900 14,200 14,400 Private Services and S (Class B1a and unrestricted B1) 12,400

Total B1a and 19,100 18,800 19,000 19,300 19,600 20,100 20,700 20,900 unrestricted B1 18,200

Total B1 – B8 Uses 20,400 22,200 20,800 20,900 21,200 21,400 21,700 22,100 22,200 Annex 6

RURAL AREAS - This schedule identifies the commercial premises and estates in villages and other rural locations. However they are not routinely surveyed for vacant premises. The last know agent is included. Please contact the agents with regard to current availability of premises.

FT2 Site Type / Total Units Agent (m2) Comments Beare Green Area

Philpotts Yard, Horsham Huggins Edwards Industrial Estate 6 or 7 Road, Beare Green and Sharp units

Swires Farm, Henfold Lane, Converted agricultural Beare Green buildings

Boxhill / Mickleham / Westhumble

Warren Farm Barns, All units occupied by Headley Road, Boxhill National Trust

Norbury Park, Mickleham

Brockham / Betchworth / Buckland Area

Tanners Court, Middle Robinsons / Martin Industrial Estate - 9 small Street, Strood Green. Brown units

Stoneycroft Farm, Reigate White and Sons Converted agricultural Road, Brockham buildings

Moat House Farm, Converted agricultural Brockham buildings

Sunnybanks Farm, White and Sons Converted agricultural Betchworth Roundabout buildings

Reigate Road, Buckland White and Sons Commercial premises (Tapwood Pit)

Capel

Laundry Way Robinsons / Martin Planning permission for . Brown one small B1 unit.

Laundry Way, Capel White and Sons Industrial Estate – 5 Units

Charlwood Area

Vallance Byways, Lowfield FTD Johns Converted agricultural Heath Road, Charlwood buildings

Unit 2, Betchworth Works, FTD Johns Industrial Estate 9-10 Ifield Road, Charlwood small units

Gatwick Business Park Sapcotes Commercial premises (former AHED depot), FTD Johns Hookwood

Bluebird House, Povey Dedman Properties Commercial premises Cross Road, Hookwood

Charlwood Place, Converted agricultural Charlwood buildings

Edolphs Farm, Charlwood White and Sons Converted agricultural buildings

FT2 Site Type / Total Units Agent (m2) Comments Holmwoods Area

Lodge Farm, Lodge Lane, Converted agricultural South Holmwood buildings

Leatherhead Area – Outside Built up Areas

Brook Willow Farm, Huggins Edwards Converted agricultural Woodlands Road, and Sharp buildings Leatherhead

Barracks Farm, Cobham Converted agricultural Road, Fetcham buildings

Leigh Area

Little Shellwood Farm, . Converted agricultural Leigh buildings

Newdigate Area

Sturtwood Farm, Partridge White and Sons Converted agricultural Lane, Newdigate buildings

Brocus House/The Yard, Robinsons / Martin Parkgate Road, Newdigate Brown

Barn Studios, Gaterounds White and Sons Converted agricultural Farm, Parkgate Road, buildings Newdigate

Dean House Farm, Church Converted agricultural Lane, Newdigate buildings

Greens Farm, Rusper Converted agricultural Road, Newdigate buildings

Ockley Area

Jayes Park Courtyard, Savills 14 small units in Home Farm, Ockley Robinsons / Martin converted agricultural Brown buildings

Ockley Court Farm, Coles Robinsons / Martin Converted agricultural Lane, Ockley Brown buildings

Hale House Farm, Stane Converted agricultural Street, Ockley buildings

Westcott / Wotton Area

Surrey Hills Business Park, White and Sons Converted agricultural Coast Hill Farm, buildings Sheephouse Lane, Wotton

Chapel Lane Works, Hurst Warne Industrial Estate 4-5 Westcott small industrial units

49 Annex 7 MAIN OFFICE PREMISES IN LEATHERHEAD NOT ON THE BUSINESS PARKS

At August 2016 (sites subject to prior approval for conversion to residential but which are still in office use are included in this schedule (see final column)

Address Floor Occupier/comments Data Prior approval space Source For residential m2 A) Town Centre (ie Business Area of Mole Valley Local Plan Policy E7) a) High Street 25 – 29 High Street 450 In suites VOA The Institute 225 In suites VOA b) North Street Stocks House, 9 North 710 VOA Yes Street The Granary, 18a 200 Kingsland surveyors VOA North Street c) Bridge Street 1 Bridge Street 170 VOA 15 -17 Bridge Street 135 VOA 27 Bridge Street 275 VOA 19 - 31 Bridge Street 1,110 VOA Stonebridge House nk - 28- 32 Bridge St 36 Bridge Street 310 VOA Claire House 900 VOA Yes d) Emlyn Lane James House 620 VOA Yes e) The Crescent Ashcombe House 1,640 VOA IBA House, 7 The 550 IBA Crescent 15 – 17 The Crescent 350 VOA 19 - 21 The Crescent 350 VOA f) Church Street Manor House (and 1 1,190 About 12 small units VOA The Crescent) 31 Church Street 190 VOA PP for residential Cameron House, 33 300 VOA Church Street Devonshire House, 66 320 Serviced office suites VOA PP for residential Church Street (13?) The Mansion 700 VOA g) Station Road Hazeldean Court 390 VOA h) Bull Hill Fairmount House 2,865 Occupied by Surrey VOA County Council Wesley House 950 Serviced offices (8 VOA units?) i) Guildford Road Cedar Court 2,030 VOA Riverside Court 1,685 Mercer - actuaries VOA Riversway 290 VOA Riverbridge House 1,945 Serviced offices (30+ PLA suites) Total (* at least this 20,850* figure as it excludes smaller premises and units above shops)

B) Outside the Town Centre / Business Area ii) Guildford Road

50 (Fetcham) Cisilion House 780 Cisilion VOA United Technologies 1,370 Toshiba VOA House j) Reigate Road The Chapel of Ideas 660 Serviced offices VOA Yes k) Randalls Road Wates House, Station 3,595 Wates Group HQ offices VOA Apporach Police Federation, 2,065 HQ and associated uses PLA Highbury Drive l) Church Road The White House 205 VOA m) Kingston Road Kings Court, 41-51 2,834 i) Vestas Technology VOA Kingston Road (3,400m2 ii) NCC gross) Opus 1, Bay Tree Ave 2,185 Babcock 4S VOA Opus 2, Bay Tree Ave 1,870 Vacant – being upgraded VOA Connect 1,035 Serviced offices VOA Yes House/Trident House 115-121 Kingston 750 VOA Road n) Oak Road o) Thorncroft Drive Thorncroft Manor 1,390 Serviced offices (29+ VOA suites) The Manser Building 1,890 Dermalogica VOA p) Barnett Wood Lane Prime House, 1,000 Western Digital VOA Yes Challenge Court Thornetts House, 770 Taylor wimpey VOA Challenge Court

Data Source: VOA – Valuation Office Agency data – 2010 ratings list PLA – Planning Application Form / monitoring data VAC – Vacant/Advertised Property Data

51 Conversion of Offices to Residential: Annex 8 Not started at end of March 2016 (and additional approvals to end Aug 2016)

Appln No Address No of Office Office Notes Dwelling space status* - s lost m2 Vacant / Occupied Approvals 2013/1099 119 -123 High St, 4 280 Vacant Dorking 2013/1403 1 Paper Mews, 290- 6 80 Part Vacant Had been 2 suites 294 High St, Dorking advertised but this is less floorspace than proposed for conversion 2014/1048 253-255 High St, 1 45 Not known First Floor Dorking 2015/0177 Vine Court, Chalkpit 20 1039 Occupied DTAAP allocated site. Lane, Dorking Planning application for redevelopment for housing MO/2016/0478 2014/1479 296 High St, Dorking 2 79 Vacant Suites 2 and 3 vacant (1st and 2nd Floor) for about 2 years. Suite 4 is in use 2015/2069 286-288 High St, 3 140 Occupied Dorking

2016/0650 Regent House, Station 27 1979 Part App, Dorking Occupied 2016/0734 Kuoni House and 83 3936 Occupied Deepdene Lodge, Dorking 2016/0642 Haybarn House, South 10 577 Part Serviced offices St, Dorking Occupied Dorking 8,155 Total

Leatherhead

2013/0809 The Chapel, Reigate 4 660 Occupied? Serviced offices.. Rd, Leatherhead 2015/1359 Prime House, 24 1090 Occupied Occupier has Challenge Court, subsequently moved to Barnett Wood Lane, more modern premises Leatherhead in Leatherhead. 2014/0912 First Floor, Trident 9 412 Part Vacant Serviced offices with House, Kingston Rd, high vacancy rate. Also Leatherhead PNJ for ground floor – see below. 2015/0598 Ground Floor, Trident 9 412 Floorspace not known House, Kingston Rd, so use same as for 1st Leatherhead floor. 2014/0074 3 North St, 4 157 Occupied Leatherhead 2014/1461 43 Bridge St, 3 214 Vacant Leatherhead 2015/0657 30-32 The Crescent 2 62 ? Ground floor 2015/0600 34-42 The Crescent, 2 ? Vacant Ground floor offices: Leatherhead small premises.

2014/1918 Emlyn House and 25 1580 Part 1st to third floor to be Claire House, Bridge Occupied? converted and with St. ground floor retained as offices. Since April 2016 the offices have

52 been advertised to let: short term.

2015/1030 26 Bridge St, 9 555 Occupied Occupied when Leatherhead application submitted but then vacated. Now occupied again as offices part by Mount Green HA and part advertised as offices to let. 2016/1074-6 Stocks House, North 14 1064 Occupied Applications for each St, L’head floor Applications at 1 Sept 2016 2016/1249 36 Bridge St, L’head 5 308 Occupied 2016/1085 Fairfield Works, Upper 5 499 Occupied Fairfield Rd, L’head Leatherhead 7,013 Total

Other Areas 2014/0708 39A High St, Bookham 1 24 Vacant? Small office suite to 1 bed flat. Advertised as offices to let at April 2016. 2016/0196 Photo Me offices, 19 814 Occupied HQ offices by Bookham Church Rd, Bookham station. Requires HRA mitigation to be agreed before conversion can take place. 2014/1745 Barrington House, 2 70 n/k Gr floor office: Guildford Rd, Westcott floorspace from VOA. 2014/1573 Holmwood Farm 1 42 n/k Grange, North Holmwood 2015/1461 Burley Corner, 1 100 Occupied Floorspace estimated. Moorhurst Lane, Beare Green Other Areas 1,050 Total

Mole Valley 16,218 Total

*Office status = at time the prior notification application was submitted.

53 APPENDIX 3

SHOPPER SURVEY AREA BOUNDARIES MV Shopper Survey Area Boundaries

APPENDIX 4

MVDC Retail Floorspace Capacity Assessment Table 1: Study Area Convenience Floorspace Expenditure

Exp Exp Exp Exp Exp Exp Exp Exp ph 2017 ph 2021 ph 2026 ph 2033 Population 2017 (£m) Population 2021 (£m) Population 2026 (£m) Population 2033 (£m) Zone 2017 2021 2026 2033*

1 15,385 1,959 30.1 15,400 1,924 29.6 15,432 1,909 29.5 16,067 1909 30.7

2 19,464 1,803 35.1 19,482 1,771 34.5 19,524 1,757 34.3 20,328 1757 35.7

3 12,352 1,803 22.3 12,364 1,771 21.9 12,390 1,757 21.8 12,900 1757 22.7

4 20,897 1,797 37.5 20,917 1,765 36.9 20,961 1,751 36.7 21,824 1751 38.2

5 23,004 1,787 41.1 23,025 1,755 40.4 23,074 1,741 40.2 24,024 1741 41.8

6 23,361 1,791 41.9 23,383 1,759 41.1 23,432 1,745 40.9 24,397 1745 42.6

7 25,216 1,827 46.1 25,240 1,795 45.3 25,293 1,780 45.0 26,334 1780 46.9

8 34,900 1,717 59.9 34,933 1,686 58.9 35,007 1,673 58.6 36,448 1673 61.0

Totals 174,579 314.0 174,744 308.7 175,113 306.9 182,322 319.5

Notes: 1. Population as RTP and SP Reports * EDNA Technical Appendix Table 16 identifies % increase in MV population as 4.117% over period 2026-33. Same % applied to study area 2026 populations to derive 2033 populations.

2. Expenditure per head starting point is the RTP Study Appendix 5 Table 8 2007 figure grown using Experian retail planner briefing note 14 November 2016)

3. Convenience Growth Rates taken from Briefing Note 14 Figure 6 Ex SFT adjusted for sales via stores and earlier years from Figure 1b.

4. 2007 Prices

Table 2: Study Area Comparison Floorspace Expenditure

Exp Exp Exp Exp Exp Exp Exp Exp ph 2017 ph 2021 ph 2026 ph 2033 Population 2017 (£m) Population 2021 (£m) Population 2026 (£m) Population 2033 (£m) Zone 2017 2021 2026 2026 2033

1 15,385 5,490 84.47 15,400 5,890 90.70 15,432 6,874 106.08 16,067 8545 137.30

2 19,464 4,869 94.77 19,482 5,223 101.76 19,524 6,097 119.03 20,328 7578 154.05

3 12,352 4,844 59.83 12,364 5,196 64.24 12,390 6,065 75.14 12,900 7539 97.25

4 20,897 4,837 101.07 20,917 5,189 108.53 20,961 6,056 126.94 21,824 7528 164.29

5 23,004 4,797 110.36 23,025 5,146 118.49 23,074 6,007 138.60 24,024 7467 179.38

6 23,361 4,797 112.07 23,383 5,146 120.33 23,432 6,007 140.75 24,397 7467 182.16

7 25,216 4,925 124.19 25,240 5,283 133.34 25,293 6,166 155.96 26,334 7665 201.85

8 34,900 4,569 159.46 34,933 4,901 171.22 35,007 5,710 199.88 36,448 7097 258.69

Totals 174,579 846.23 174,744 908.62 175,113 1,062.37 182,322 1,374.96

Notes:

1. Population forecasts to 2026 as RTP and SP Reports 2. Technical Appendix Table 16 gives % increase in MV population as 4.117% over period 2026 – 2033 thus same % increase applied to study area population 3. Expenditure per head starting point SP App5 Table 2. 2012 figure grown using Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 14 (Nov. 2016) Comparison Growth Rate from Fig 6 Ex SFT adjusted for sales via stores Table 3: Comparison Goods Capacity Assessment – Current Market Share (16%) Replicating SP Appendix 5 Table 6 using latest expenditure growth data from Retail Planner Briefing Note 14, Nov. 2016 Revised Comparison Goods Capacity Assessment - MVDC Market Share 16%

2017 2021 2026 2033 Step 1: Total Existing Floorspace in MVDC (m2 net) 24,426 24,426 24,426 24,426 (Note 2)

Total Available Comparison Goods Exp. Step 2: (£m) in Study Area (Zones 1 - 8) 846.23 908.62 1062.37 1374.96

Step 3: Total forecast 'Potential' Turnover (£m) Market Share (Zones 1 - 8) 16% 16% 16% 16% Total Potential t/o from study area (£m) 135.40 145.38 169.98 219.99 Assumed inflow from outside study area (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% Total Potential Turnover /Available A expenditure(£m) 142.17 152.65 178.48 230.99

Average Sales Density 5,820 6,249 7,307 9,457 Estimated Benchmark Turnover (£m) Step 4 MVDC Benchmark turnover 142.17 142.17 142.17 142.17 Floorspace productivity growth (£m) (Note 3) 10.22 24.02 45.48 Total Benchmark Turnover (£m) B 152.39 166.19 187.65 Average Sales Density (£ psm) 0 6239 6804 7682

Allowance for increase in Special Forms of Step 5 Trading: C Uplift in SFT £(m) 6.11 7.14 9.24 % Uplift for SFT at the forecast year (%) 4% 4% 4%

Step 6 Total Forecast Residual Expenditure - 5.84 5.15 34.11 A minus B minus C

Forecast capacity for new comparison Step 7 floorspace Estimated Av Sales Density (£ psm) (Note 4) 5458 6572 6572 Net Floorspace Capacity - 1,071 784 5,190 Assumed Net/Gross Floorspace ratio 65% 65% 65% Gross Floorspace Capacity (m2) - 1,647 1,206 7,984

1. Assumes equilibrium at 2017 2. Floorspace total comprises SP* total plus 1,339 sqm latterly provided in Waitrose, Lidl and Atlees permissions 3. Floorspace productivity growth of 1.75% pa applied. This is slightly below the expected 2% longer term density growth rate identified in Retail Planner Briefing Note 14 however reflects the physical constraints of many listed properties in the district's market towns and is also in line with that applied by neighbouring Elmbridge Borough Council in its Retail Assessment of April 2016. 4. Estimated average sales density of new floorspace from Retail Planner 14, Fig 4b rebased to 2007 prices using Appendix 4b. 5. 2007 Prices

Table 4: Comparison Goods Capacity Assessment - Market Share of MV Centres rising from 16 to 17% Replicating SP Appendix 5 Table 6 using latest expenditure data from Retail Planner Briefing Note 14, Nov. 2016

Revised Comparison Goods Capacity Assessment - MVDC Market Share 17%

2017 2021 2026 2033

Step 1: Total Existing Floorspace in MVDC (m2 net)* 24,426 24,426 24,426 24,426 Step 2: Total Available Comparison Goods Exp. (£m) in Study Area (Zones 1 - 8) 846.23 908.62 1062.37 1374.96 Step 3: Total forecast 'Potential' Turnover (£m) Market Share (Zones 1 - 8) 17% 17% 17% 17% Total Potential t/o from study area (£m) 143.86 154.47 180.60 233.74 Assumed inflow from outside study area (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% A Total Potential Turnover /Available expenditure(£m) 151.05 162.19 189.63 245.43

Average Sales Density 6,184 6,640 7,764 10,048 Step 4 Estimated Benchmark Turnover (£m)

MVDC Benchmark turnover 151.05 151.05 151.05 151.05 Floorspace productivity growth (£m) 10.85 25.53 48.33

B Total Benchmark Turnover (£m) 161.90 176.58 199.3821 Average Sales Density (£ psm) 0 6628 7229 8163 Step 5 Allowance for increase in Special Forms of Trading C Uplift in SFT £(m) 6.49 7.59 9.82 % Uplift for SFT at the forecast year (%) 4% 4% 4%

Step 6 Total Forecast Residual Expenditure - 6.20 5.47 36.23 (A minus B minus C) Step 7 Forecast capacity for new comparison floorspace Estimated Av Sales Density (£ psm) 5458 6572 6572

Net Floorspace Capacity - 1,136 832 5,513 Assumed Net/Gross Floorspace ratio 65% 65% 65% Gross Floorspace Capacity (m2) - 1,748 1,279 8,481

1. Assumes equilibrium at 2017

2. Floorspace total comprises SP total plus 1,339 sqm latterly provided in Waitrose, Lidl and Atlees permissions 3. Floorspace productivity growth of 1.75% pa applied. This is slightly below the expected 2% longer term density growth rate identified in Retail Planner Briefing Note 14 however reflects the physical constraints of many listed properties in the district's market towns and is also in line with that applied by neighbouring Elmbridge Borough Council in its Retail Assessment of April 2016. 4. Estimated average sales density of new floorspace from Retail Planner 14, Fig 4b rebased to 2007 prices using Appendix 4b. 5. 2007 Prices

* SP = Strategic Perspectives Retail Study 2010

APPENDIX 5

List of Participants responding to Mole Valley Business Survey plus Questionnaire NAMES OF PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES

4Titude Ltd Accounting 4 Contractors Ltd Alder Ltd T/A The Creative Team Anthony Wakefield & Co Ltd Argyll Shipping Assist Home Care Atelier Interiors ATS Euromaster Auto Attractions Automated Blinds Barkers Printing Bay Engraving Ltd Brandon Hire Bullimores LLP Buzz Production Ltd Bytes Software Services C&D King Ltd Cake Decorating Supplies Cane Adam Ltd Choice Vehicle Rentals Cobham PLC Columbus Twenty Five Ltd CP Kelco Ltd DCS Ltd Dedman Proprties Ltd Denbies Wine Estate Ltd Dental Direct UK Osstem UK Ltd Dorking Electrical Tool Repairs Downs Solicitors LLP EDIF ERA European Technology Development Ltd Farrer & Fenwick Removals Ferox Construction Ltd Fetcham Park Ltd Field Systems Design Ltd First Hand Recruitment Ltd GA Telesis (UK) Ltd Geo Communication Arts Ltd Grafton Group (UK) Plc Hanne & Co Solicitors Hart Scales & Hodges

HJP IFA Ltd Howell Jones Solicitors Hurley Partners Ltd Hurst Warne Ltd Icon Business Media Industraheat Infoworks Integrity Wealth Planning Ltd Interpet Ltd Intertek Testing and Certification Ltd Jag & Land Surrey Jellybean Creative Solutions Ltd Jones’ Creative Services Ltd Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd Kendall Van Hire Kew Electrical Leaders Bespoke Ltd Leatherhead Youth Project Lektron LME Investments Ltd T/A Caremark Mid-Surrey Marble Shine Ltd Mars Capital MasterTec Mole Valley District Council Mole Valley Private Wealth Ltd Mount Green Housing Association MRF Precision Ltd Newdigate Farms Ltd Nick Geard Furniture Ltd Optima Recruitment Paragon Software Systems Plc PG Vallance Ltd Plumb and Parts Center Poddymeter Ltd Poollock Ltd Primal Lifestyle Pullen Marketing Services Ltd Rawlinson & Hunter RBLI Roband Electronics Plc Robert Wynter & Partners Sabre Insurance Sell Electrical Servelec Technologies Silverlake Care Skyline Bookbinders Ltd Specialist Group International Ltd Sports Coach Simulator Ltd Squiggle Ltd Squire Energy Ltd Stonegate Homes Surrey Country FA Ltd SVL (Sussex) Ltd T/A Sussex Vanline Telecare/Dial-a-Ride TEN Audio Visual Tenon Engineering Ltd Teoco Air Com International Ltd The Food Masters Ltd Timkon Services Ltd TOA Corp UK Ltd Trentham Invest Ltd Unbeatable Hire Ltd Venhill Engineering Ltd Vincent Press Viscount Agencies Ltd VKHP Consulting Ltd W Songhurst Ltd Wates Group WCN Publishing Ltd

Mole Valley Business Survey 2017

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Mole Valley District Council is in the process of updating its Local Plan which will shape development in the District over the next 15 years. It is looking to optimise the use of land available and maximise the ability of local businesses to expand or adapt their activities within the District.*

To achieve this objective we need your help in understanding the constraints and issues faced by local businesses associated with the use and demand for business floorspace. We need to ensure as far as possible that the supply chain of floorspace matches occupier demand. The findings from this survey will be used by MVDC in shaping its Economic Development Needs Assessment, Economic Development Strategy and in the updating of the Local Plan.

Your responses will not be attributed and will be treated in strictest confidence.

Company Details:

Company Name:

Industry Sector:

Address:

Nature of Activity on Site:

Contact Name:

Contact Email/Telephone:

Position:

1. What are the key reasons for your company being based in and continuing to operate within Mole Valley?

2. What change in circumstances would drive your company out of the area?

3. What difficulties, if any, does your company experience related to accessibility or transport congestion and what adverse effects do these have on your business?

4. How satisfied are you with your existing business property in terms of the following: (Please select your answer on a five-point scale, 1 = very satisfied and 5 = very dissatisfied)

1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Very Fairly Neither Fairly Very Satisfied Satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied

Road Access

Access to Public Transport

Location

Local facilities i.e. open space, retail

Security

Parking Facilities

The image your property projects about your business

Its suitability for purpose

Value for money

5. Relocation:

Are you considering relocating from this site / these premises in the next 5 – 10 years? Y/N

i) Which alternative locations are you considering:

Elsewhere locally Elsewhere in Elsewhere in the Outside the South in Mole Valley* Surrey (please South East (please East (please specify specify preferred specify preferred preferred area) area) area)

6. Expansion:

i) Are you considering expanding on your current site? Y/N

ii) If you are planning to expand within Mole Valley but not on your existing site, please specify which of the following location options would be your first choice and which your second:

Location 1st Choice 2nd Choice (please tick) (please tick)

Town centre

Business / industrial parks close to the town centre

Stand alone office / industrial premises

Out of town business parks

Out of town industrial estate

Rural Area

iii) What type and quantity of land / floorspace are you seeking? (please quantify net additional floorspace (m2) if possible):

iv) Do you perceive there to be adequate supply / choice of land / premises for such a relocation? Y/N

v) Do you envisage the floorspace needs of your business contracting over the next 5 – 10 years? Y/N

7. Do you envisage employee numbers increasing or decreasing over the next 5 – 10 years? Increasing/Decreasing

8. Does your company have a policy of encouraging staff to work from home for part of the week? Y/N

9. What do you perceive to be the three greatest difficulties experienced by your business (i.e Staff recruitment, lack of suitable local accommodation, congestion, parking, broadband, uncertainty associated with Brexit etc.)

1. 2.

10. What do you perceive as the three greatest positives of your company’s location in Mole Valley:

11. Which of the following measures do you consider would assist your company in maximising its potential (Please tick):

Help on relocation or expansion Advice on business growth and of your operations development

Support on recruitment and skills Networking opportunities development

12. Finally, could we please check the following details about your company’s activities?

No. of employees at this location?

No. of employees within Mole Valley (if different):

No. of current vacancies:

Site Tenure: Freeholder / Leaseholder

If leaseholder, approximate length of lease remaining:

Please tick this box if you would be interested in attending a workshop inviting views on the Economic Prosperity Strategy for Mole Valley: A

THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING TO OUR QUESTIONNAIRE.

Please return to: Planning Policy, Mole Valley District Council, Pippbrook, Dorking RH4 1SJ

Email: [email protected]

Closing date: 24 February 2017

Should you prefer to complete this survey online please go to:

http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=33523

*Map showing administrative boundary of Mole Valley District Council.