SREA Report Summary

BACKGROUND

The South London Economic Assessment was commissioned by South London Partnership on behalf of the London boroughs of Wandsworth, Kingston upon Thames, Richmond upon Thames, Merton, Sutton, Croydon and Bromley.

The economic assessment sets out the current state of development within the South London Partnership area. It describes the economic geography of the sub region, situating it within the wider city-region, and where necessary it alludes to specific site issues and development capacity. It is intended to illustrate the development situation of the sub region, not specific boroughs. The Local Economic Assessments will provide this borough level detail.

The data gathered for this sub regional economic assessment consists of both quantitative and qualitative information, and is presented here to define the current circumstances of the sub region and its potential development capacity. It is derived from key borough documents, independent official data sets, regional strategies and reviews, local business network data sets and practitioner commentary.

The assessment is undertaken within a changing climate of understanding regarding the economic position of, not just this area but, the outer London sub regions in general, illustrated by the Outer London Commissions report and contemporary studies of outer London.

The data is presented with a critical perspective on the notion of what can be considered sustainable development, set against the context of traditional forms of centralised development patterns and the need to redefine the functional operations of the city-region. Future social and environmental concerns mean that a status quo approach to centralised growth patterns, of an ever expanding city-region, requires consideration of alternative approaches based on more localised polycentric development patterns. This critical view provides a frame of reference with which we can understand and explore the potential capacity of the sub region.

In addition to the sustainable context, which allows a holistic interpretation of the areas’ development capacity, the assessment also interrogates the vulnerability of the area both in terms of its existing assets and its potential for future growth based on its competitive capacity. This is undertaken because the data and narratives reveal the area has many contradictory characteristics, not just because there are clear tensions between its strengths and weaknesses, but also because there are potentially contrasting interpretations of what these actually are.

INTRODUCTION

The south London sub region has a population of 1,693,000. The economic activity rate is relatively high (81.4% of the working age population) and was still growing up to the end of 2009.

According to the latest Annual Business Inquiry (2008) there are 629,224 employed within the sub region, with the largest percentages employed within Health, Business Administration & Support Services, Retail and Public Administration (Table 1).

Table 1: Broad Employment Sectors within South London

Employment 2008South

LondonSouth

London London OMA England

  Number % % % %Agriculture, forestry & fishing NA NA 0.0 0.4 0.7Mining, quarrying & utilities 3,902 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9Manufacturing 18,872 3.0 2.9 7.3 9.4Construction 29,567 4.7 3.4 5.5 4.9Motor trades 8,860 1.4 0.9 2.1 1.8Wholesale 21,697 3.4 3.6 5.6 4.4Retail 76,023 12.1 9.0 11.1 10.5Transport & storage 24,939 4.0 5.7 5.1 4.8Accommodation & food services 40,859 6.5 7.3 6.2 6.7Information & communication 30,079 4.8 7.1 5.8 4.0Finance & insurance 22,427 3.6 8.0 3.4 4.1Property 9,336 1.5 1.9 1.3 1.4Professional, scientific & technical 48,897 7.8 11.3 8.6 7.1Business administration & support services 80,483 12.8 10.8 9.1 8.4

Education 58,697 9.3 7.5 9.2 9.5 Health 81,315 12.9 9.3 9.7 11.7Public admin & other 73,271 11.6 10.6 8.5 9.8Column Total 629,224        

Source: Annual Business Inquiry

For each of these dominant sectors the sub region tends to follow either the pattern across London or the Outer Metropolitan Area. For example, the sub region is closer to the profile of the OMA in terms of retail employment, but closer to London in terms of Business Administration. However, in general these dominant sectors are disproportionally represented in the sub region, in comparison to surrounding areas.

Specifically employment in the area is concentrated in a range of employment activities which are considered to be mostly low productivity and low income, with some notable exceptions (Table 2).

Table 2: Specific Employment Sectors within South London

Key Employment Sectors in South London 2008 Number %

Hospital activities 33,487 5.3Primary education 26,412 4.2Retail sale in non-specialised stores with food, beverages or tobacco predominating 24,182 3.8

Restaurants and mobile food service activities 20,682 3.3General cleaning of buildings 20,215 3.2General public administration activities 17,911 2.8Temporary employment agency activities 15,325 2.4Activities of employment placement agencies 13,860 2.2General secondary education 12,332 2Retail sale of clothing in specialised stores 12,882 2Business and other management consultancy activities 12,112 1.9Other social work activities without accommodation n.e.c. 10,332 1.6Private security activities 10,250 1.6Beverage serving activities 9,366 1.5Computer consultancy activities 8,879 1.4Other monetary intermediation 7,665 1.2Public order and safety activities 7,057 1.1Other business support service activities n.e.c. 6,786 1.1Engineering activities and related technical consultancy 6,906 1.1Other retail sale in non-specialised stores 7,204 1.1

Source: Annual Business Inquiry

This contrasts with the typical descriptive narrative of the sub-region as a very affluent, generally suburban, low density, well qualified set of communities that reside around a set of ex county towns, with a long tradition of radial commuting patterns and access to an above average quality of life. These employment figures also illustrate the tensions that exist within the area: high living costs within a low productivity economy, associated with a mismatch of employment premises and prioritisation of residential development.

This is reflected in the most recent Gross Value Added figures (ONS, 2007) which demonstrate that, whilst economic activity is high, the productivity of the area is so limited that it is ranked 14th out of the 19 sub regions in the wider South East in terms of GVA per head (Table 3).

Table 3: GVA by Sub region in the Wider South East

Gross Value Added 2007  

 £ per head

West Inner London 101 182East Inner London 31 451Berkshire 30 970Milton Keynes 29 112Oxfordshire 24 193Surrey 24 103Buckinghamshire CC 22 289West and North West Outer London 22 258Southampton 21 423

Portsmouth 21 154Brighton and Hove 20 562West Sussex 20 382Hampshire CC 20 025South Outer London 18 143Kent CC 16 573East Sussex CC 14 678East and North East Outer London 13 841Medway 13 501Isle of Wight 13 054

Source: ONS

There is also associated with a vast amount of outward commuting from the sub region. Overall the sub region exports approximately 250,000 people per day into nine central London boroughs and over 120,000 per day to Westminster and the City of London.

The types of employment sectors that residents of the sub region tend to occupy (and commute to) are predominantly in the Banking, finance and insurance sectors, (more so than London or the OMA), and almost as equally Public Administrations, Education and Health (Table 4).

Table 4: Employment Sectors Occupied by South London Residents

Employment Sectors for South London Residents 2010          South London London OMA England  % % % %Agriculture and fishing 1.0 0.5 1.1 1.4Energy and water 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9Manufacturing 5.5 5.6 8.8 10.7Construction 6.7 6.2 8.2 7.5Distribution, hotels and restaurants 14.3 16.0 17.0 18.6Transport and communications 5.8 7.1 7.9 6.5Banking, finance and insurance 29.7 27.3 23.4 17.9Public admin. education and health 28.8 27.5 26.3 29.6Other services 7.3 8.6 5.9 6.4

Source: Annual Business Inquiry

The resulting impacts of the high (and long distance) commuting patterns, high levels of low income employment and low productivity are demonstrated through isolated pockets of deprivation and severe social exclusion. This is exacerbated by poor localised transport networks, a significant reliance on public sector employment, potentially declining centres, extreme affordability issues and an unsustainable travel to work pattern based on an inadequate infrastructure.

Yet at the same time there are clear opportunities and the capacity of the area is very much based around its strengths and a vision of what can be achieved if it were possible to strategically exploit its potential. Exploiting this potential relies upon pulling together a range of critical elements which will facilitate development and foster a more diverse, sustainable and competitive localised economy.

ECONOMIC STRENGTHS

The area already has some competitive strengths in terms of:

A WELL QUALIFIED LABOUR FORCE

Table 5: Qualifications in South London

Percentage of workforce with qualification type 2009          South London OMA London EnglandDegree or equivalent and above 40.6 26.7 39.9 25.0Higher education below degree level 7.8 9.1 6.9 9.0GCE A level or equivalent 17.3 22.9 15.3 22.7GCSE grades A-C or equivalent 15.9 22.8 14.5 22.8Other qualifications 12.7 11.7 15.9 12.6No qualifications 5.7 6.8 7.4 7.9

Source: Annual Population Survey

Of the sub regions only central London has a higher percentage of well qualified staff and this further confirms the distinct nature of the south London sub region with regards its residential workforce set against its surrounding sub regions and regions (Table 5).

It emphasises the particularly highly skilled/qualified nature of these communities and the potential they offer for developing local economies and businesses within the sub region, rather than servicing development elsewhere within the Capital or even within the rest of the South East region.

A HIGH LEVEL OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

As already stated the level of economic activity within the south London sub region is significantly higher than other parts of the Capital and other surrounding areas, Table 6 clearly shows the sub region still displays a higher rate than other comparative areas.

Table 6: Economic Activity and Employment Rates in South London

Apr 2009-Mar 2010 Economic activity rate - aged 16-64

Employment rate - aged 16-64

England 76.6 70.5London 74.9 68.0South London Partnership 80.2 74.6Outer Metropolitan Area 79.7 74.5

Source: Annual Population Survey

Therefore in terms of activity rate the SLP area shows clear signs of surpassing its surrounding areas, with the continued potential for high levels of participation from its workforce. However, this should not be confused with a highly productive sub regional economy as the GVA figures demonstrate that, whilst activity is high and growing, the area itself is constrained by low productivity sectors and a vast amount of outward commuting to high productivity sectors in other (mostly) central locations.

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IN SPECIFIC GROWTH SECTORS (KNOWLEDGE INDUSTRIES)The main report details a complete breakdown of the industrial structure of the sub region set against its surrounding areas, and from this it shows that the quotient scores are above 2 for Creative, Arts and Entertainment Activities and for Insurance, Reinsurance and Pension Funding.1.

This means that they are represented twice as much in the sub region as would be expected in comparison to other areas, and whilst these are not key employers, only employing just over 3300 and 4900 respectively, they do reflect the uniqueness of the SLP economy set against other peripheral economies within the London City Region.

Other knowledge based activities that define the sub region are Publishing and Motion Picture/Video/Media related activities, Architectural and Engineering Activities; Technical Testing and Analysis, and Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities. These also have high concentrations within the area in comparison to surrounding locations.

A STABLE LIGHT INDUSTRY BASE

Possibly the most significant areas that define the sub region within the City Region are its manufacturing industries, with quotients of 1.8 – 1.9 (depending on the sector), and whilst they may be low scale employers they are uniquely different to the rest of the City Region irrespective of which general areas are used for comparison.

The specific sectors represented are: Manufacture of Electrical Equipment, Manufacture of Chemicals and Chemical Products, Manufacture of Computer, Electronic and Optical 1 The quotient technique is based upon a calculated ratio between the local economy and the economy of a reference unit. It is used to determine whether or not the local economy has a greater share of each industry than expected when compared to the reference economy. In this case the South London economy compared to London and the Outer Metropolitan Area.

Products, Manufacture of Wearing Apparel, Manufacture of Basic Pharmaceutical Products and Pharmaceutical Preparations, Manufacture of Textiles and Manufacture of Rubber and Plastic Products.

Whilst this collection does not represent significant employment numbers, it does represent a stable and diverse economy, where light industries form a unique dimension to its economic base.

It is also significant that from 1998 to 2009 London lost over 28% of its manufacturing industries, compared to a 23% loss in the sub region, but at the same time the sub region lost a higher percentage of its manufacturing jobs, 44% compared to 38%. This reflects the fact the industries in the area adapted to decline and become far leaner than the rest of the region whilst still maintaining a base. An interpretation that is also supported by the South London Business surveys.

HIGH VISITOR AND POTENTIALLY LARGE TOURISM BASE

Figure 1: Tourist Attractions in the South West of the City Region

Source: Centre for Economic Research and Intelligence, Kingston University

The above map represents the massive concentration of tourist attractions that are within the catchment area of the sub region in terms of potentially linking into visitor numbers, from a local, national and international base.

Within the South West quadrant of the City Region there are three of Europe’s biggest theme parks, run by the world’s second largest entertainment company (behind Disney) with a combined annual attendance of close to 4.5 million.

And if the top attractions for the South City Region are combined, they represent an annual visitor population of close to 20 million. It must also be noted this does not include business tourism, event tourism (Twickenham, Wimbledon, Sandown, Kempton, Epsom, Ascot, Boat Race) and general leisure activities/visits to the River Thames, smaller parks/open spaces and smaller attractions.

This represents a massive potential that needs to be coordinated through managed sustainable growth (which is presently absent) to allow coordinated and sensitive exploitation of this resource.

KEY RETAIL AND TOWN CENTRES

Importance of retail (consumer services) throughout sub region is and always has been significant, particularly represented by the key metropolitan centres of Kingston, Croydon, and Bromley and their associated network of smaller district and local centres (Table 7).

Table 7: Retail Centres in London

Ranking of Retail Centres in London - GLA/Experian 2009

Centre Name Classification

Comparison Floorspce sq.m

Estimated Turnover £m

West End International 858,396 4,179

CroydonMetropolitan 180,531 636

KingstonMetropolitan 169,489 646

Knightsbridge International 148,518 842

IlfordMetropolitan 127,546 365

BromleyMetropolitan 108,222 444

RomfordMetropolitan 103,730 355

SuttonMetropolitan 95,782 325

Croydon - Purley Way Additional 91,481 289Kings Road East Major 80,045 338

Source: GLA/Experian

From the ranking of all London centres it is very obvious that, collectively, the sub region has the most significant retail network outside of the CAZ.

Overall, these very historic centres have grown up over a long period of time and become part of the wider London geography; however their catchment areas also reveal their long term relationship with the communities in Surrey and Kent.

The main problem, however, is that growth in these areas is predicted to stop and in many cases the centres will start to lose their rankings, due to increased competition from development within London and the South East, and a change in consumer behaviour. This is of course, if development to maintain their positions is not encouraged and delivered.

Diversion from Greater London to the South East is already a major sales driver for centres such as Bluewater and Lakeside and, to a lesser degree, town centres such as Reading and Guildford.

Therefore, whilst the sub region has the track record and retail appeal, if development is not maintained the position is potentially very vulnerable. Being exposed to high levels of competition, irrespective of changing shopping mode patterns, reflecting a stagnant growth area with falling rankings, will impact on a wide and, in many cases, lower income labour market.

SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT SITES

Across the sub region there a vast array of potential development sites, presenting opportunities across the range of Previously Development Land, from existing sites in use to large scale sites that have been vacant for a long period of time.

This assessment was not tasked with auditing all these sites, however there are several that require comment and the general issue of what these sites have to offer in terms of development capacity needs outlining.

Without doubt the single most strategically positioned development site in the sub-region is Battersea Power Station (within the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area). Whilst this has been standing empty and derelict for many years, it is strategic in that, if successfully developed it will both add significant capacity and, if there is significant retail offer, impact not only on the other centres in Wandsworth but across neighbouring boroughs. Described as potentially ‘another Canarf Warf’ scale of development, it is estimated this area has the potential to deliver 20, 000 jobs.

Among the most important of the other identified sites in terms of their potential within the sub region are:

Stag Brewery (Richmond) and Ram Brewery (Wandsworth – development permission refused in 2010). These two brewery sites are large-scale and undoubtedly offer the potential to provide significant residential and commercial opportunities. When completed they will also have impacts on neighbouring boroughs. The Richmond site is particularly important as a ‘defensive’ development to help the borough continue to compete against other inner London developments, such as Westfield.

Richmond/Twickenham Station; Bromley South and Bromley North stations (Bromley); Clapham Station (Wandsworth); Wimbledon Station (Wandsworth) Tolworth Station (Kingston). One of the key factors coming forward in the analysis of core policies is the potential that is now identified in and around transport nodes, primarily railway stations. The identification of significant opportunities for mixed-use and in some case also civic developments underlines the potential to combine infrastructure improvements with realisation of development potential.

Star and Garter (Richmond); Old Downs Hospital (Richmond); Surbiton Hospital (Kingston); Atkinson Morley Hospital (Wandsworth). Redundant or outmoded and under-utilised hospital and care facilities have been identified as significant development sites; however all the three listed above are likely to present challenges in terms of ecology and biodiversity; additionally Old Downs is in a conservation area and the Star and Garter, is grade 1 listed so redevelopment is not an option, only appropriate and sympathetic re-use and extension of existing buildings.

Metropolitan or Green Belt Open Land: sites have been identified in Kingston, Sutton and Wandsworth which are PDL but sit in designated open space land. Whilst they offer significant potential, they are challenging sites due to conservation and flooding issues.

Town Centre Schemes: most of the SLP boroughs have identified significant floor space potential within their CBDs for either or both retail and offices. These range from a planned extension to the Glades in Bromley to large scale plans including an ‘Innoversity’ scheme in Croydon, a variety of sites in Sutton and a complete redesign of Kingston town centre.

In addition to these there are many existing sites that have been discussed for a very long time such as Cane Hill, Park Place, Ruskin Square, Crane Valley and some very new areas that have been recently been designated: Biggin Hill as a key outer London development centre.

However, many (if not all) of these sites depend upon realising a vision which involves bringing together a wide range of additional components, such as transport (ELL extension, Airtrack Development, Tram extensions), developers, local communities, businesses and support networks. They are long term visions that require sub regional political will to bring to fruition, but they have the collective capacity to maintain not just the national but the international competitive nature of the area.

AN ATTRACTIVE QUALITY OF LIFE AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The South London Prospectus details the attractiveness of the sub region and clearly acknowledges that South London is an attractive, green sub-region, with 25% of the Capital’s strategic network of open spaces, many high profile parks and a truly fantastic resource in the River Thames. The area contains three of London’s ten proposed Low Carbon Zones and three of the boroughs are within the lowest four boroughs in London in terms of carbon emissions.

South London is home to some of London’s largest green spaces, including Richmond Park, Wimbledon Common and Bushy Park; to high profile parks and gardens such as Kew Gardens and Battersea Park; and to a large amount of Metropolitan Greenbelt land. A number of strategic green projects have been delivered in recent years, including London’s Arcadia: a £3.3 million Heritage Lottery Funded project to implement the Thames Landscape Strategy between Radnor Gardens and Richmond Lock. Others are in the pipeline, including the establishment of the Wandle Valley Regional Park which links together a chain of green spaces along the River Wandle.

From the business surveys conducted in the area by South London business, the quality of life and the physical environment are key issues mentioned that attract the business owners and managers to set up in the area and stay in the area.

However, the quality of life in the sub region comes at a price and is certainly one of the double edged swords which define the area, resulting in the highest housing prices in any outer London area and even greater than many inner London areas. This applies pressure on employment land for conversion and has seriously restricted the supply of affordable housing.

STRATEGICALLY POSITIONED NEXT TO KEY CITY REGION INTERNATIONAL NODES

According to South London Business international corporations often establish their logistical operations in South-West London due to the choice of two major airports, Gatwick and Heathrow, reachable in half an hour to one hour drive, and the ports of Dover, Felixstowe, Southampton and Tilbury easily accessible in one to three hours whilst the City of London and its large consumer base is only is close by.

Eurostar travellers have a choice of either St Pancras (20 minutes from London Bridge by public transport), Ebbsfleet (15 minute drive from Bexley) or Ashford International stations (1 hour drive from Bexley).

The outer London Commission realised that access to international transport links is an important factor in businesses’ locational decisions, and airports will remain an important economic driver in outer London (particularly south London).

However, development potential of the sub region continues to be hampered by the paucity of cross- regional infrastructure and by other transport issues, as identified in TfL’s 2010 analysis. For example, although Heathrow airport is close to the region and Gatwick lies just to the South, rail transport to Heathrow is poor and necessitates travel via Central London and although Gatwick has good links to Croydon, direct links by rail to other parts of the sub-region are very limited.

The proposed Airtrack link will provide accessibility and possibly occupational and investment demand within Richmond, thus providing enhanced viability of the key development sites within this part of the sub region, but unless cross region links are improved the benefits are likely to be localised. This also applies to the congestion issue within the sub region which is hampering development; as it is displayed as the most congested outside of central London.

ACCESS TO A DIVERSE RANGE OF SKILLS ACROSS THE CITY REGION INTO THE OMA

The commuting patterns from the sub region indicate a very high rate of people moving from the sub region into surrounding areas and particularly into central London boroughs.

As it stands, the total number of people travelling from the sub region to the rest of London is 295, 725 on a daily basis.

This means that, with the through journeys, around 400 000 people a day are travelling across the sub region (with journeys in excess of 10km), over 100 000 are travelling within the sub region from one SLP borough to another, and 320 000 are travelling within their own borough.

In total this means that on average 820 000 people a day are using the sub regional infrastructure, which does not take into account casual, school runs, shopping and leisure trips of any kind.

The people travelling the furthest distances in excess of 10km tend to be those from the higher educated groups with a significant skill base. In effect the sub region is exporting its higher skill base out of the area to support the wider regional economy.

In addition, to this over 96,000 people are travelling from outside the sub region into central London across the area. The bulk are commuting from north Surrey and Kent districts, and these also tend to be the higher educated skill base.

The greatest proportion of those travelling tend to be professionals, senior managers, executives and technical occupations and rather than exporting the skill base of the sub region to other areas, or witnessing the higher skill base of the OMA travel through the area, developing the business base of the sub region may capture more of this commuter community.

This is an alternative to the unsustainable centralised development processes that dominate the city region (and continue to through centralised policy directives), but directly aligns with the need for future sustainable polycentric development.

A SAFE AND SECURE ENVIRONMENT

Whether it is measured as total notifiable offences or crimes per head of population the boroughs in the sub region are on average, and have been for some time, the safest in London. In 2010 the latest figures from the Met clearly indicated that of the top five safest boroughs in London, four were based in the sub region, with the others ranked close behind.

However, as with many of the positives within south London there is always an associated negative and because the area is deemed to be safe, it not only attracts demand into the area for its quality of life from those that can afford it, it also isolates certain disadvantaged communities due to resulting social exclusion. In addition, due to the low crime levels people have a heightened awareness of occurrences and together with an aging population this has created areas with a very high fear of crime factor.

From the business community point of view, crime issues are always on the agenda, however from the surveys conducted in south London this was not the top issue affecting business movement or retention and where it was mentioned it was a very localised issue in a limited number of locations.

A STRONG CULTURE OF ENTERPRISE AND SELF EMPLOYMENT During the period 1998 to 2008 the percentage growth rate of SMEs in the sub region outstripped that of the OMA and the London region, with firms up to 50 employees.

Table 8: Change in Firm Numbers by Size band and Comparative Location

Size band 1-10 1998 2008 changenumber number number %cha

London 295,298 350,969 55,671 18.9SLP 55,622 68,062 12,440 22.4

OMA 218,633 264,069 45,436 20.8

Size band 11-49 1998 2008 changenumber number number %cha

London 35,771 37,504 1,733 4.8SLP 6,076 6,448 372 6.1OMA 28,087 29,623 1,536 5.5

Source: Annual Business Inquiry

This firm growth was predominantly based on three sectors that make a significant contribution to the sub regional economy.

Construction Banking, finance and insurance Public administration, education & health

In addition to this slightly higher growth rate, the survival rates for SMEs within the sub region are on average much better than surrounding areas, with up to 48% survival rate after 5 years compared to the London average of 39% and an outer London average of 40%. And on average 11.4% of people in the sub region are registered as self employed, compared to a 10% across London and 11% in the OMA.

Whilst this strength of the region is clear, the reverse is true for medium to larger firms and for traditional sectors of the micro firm community. Larger firms have been in decline and the traditional retail and wholesale proprietors that define the town centre network have also seen a significant reduction in numbers.

BARRIERS TO ECONOMIC GROWTH

Whilst the above development factors can be clearly defined, they are not being pulled together in any coherent manner and key barriers to development are continuing to dominate:

there is still a vast amount of (long distance) inward commuting to central London areas for many people, particularly from the most ‘resilient’ boroughs

localised labour markets are fragmented and disjointed, they are heavily reliant upon polarised travel to work patterns

infrastructure is overloaded with a through put of people travelling across the area from the OMA,

a mismatch of sites that do not offer ‘suitable’ employment premises, particularly office accommodation and flexible workspace

developers are caught in a ‘catch 22’ situation with housing dominating return on investment and office space struggling to achieve viable rents

local labour markets are dominated by low productivity/low income employment, with an overreliance on part time employment

high levels of exclusion due to a lack of affordable and integrated housing a hard core of persistent long term unemployed and/or economically inactive declining viability of localised retail and town centres

These dominating factors, together with the centralist development policies that are embedded within the city region, have meant that the potential of the sub region has been (and still is) restricted. The dominating growth patterns of the wider city region, which are reliant upon servicing a centralised growth agglomeration, have traditionally been the priority of public sector intervention and have locked the trajectory of the sub region into a much wider set of unsustainable development patterns.

Therefore there is a need to break with traditionalist centralised development patterns, which in the medium and long term are: contrary to environmental and social sustainable objectives, set against the need to deal with climate change and incapable of dealing with increasingly polarised communities by, promoting diverse but inclusive communities around more localised economies.

THE FUTURE OF THE SUB REGION – WHAT WE KNOW?

The constituent elements for a successful sub region are present and the potential of its future fits with the long term success of the wider regional economy, if a more dynamic development model is initiated based upon a polycentric approach. However, this will require not just strategic organisation and political will, but a shift in understanding of how the city region can meet the challenges of the future.

With the agreement of South London Partnership, it was decided, that the purpose of this assessment was not to make recommendations regarding the potential decisions that should be made to facilitate success, rather it should be viewed as a collective knowledge base that should be used to initiate and inform the decision making process. Ultimately, this is a very fine line and whilst the report does present a critical interpretation of the existing economic climate and associated factors of development, including potential capacity, it does not specifically detail what actions need to be taken. The assessment is predominantly about setting the context for future development, outlining challenges and describing current assets.

It is also important that this assessment does not predict or forecast any potential level of development or change, as this would assume a political bias in interpreting what the area could or could not achieve. Therefore the report stops short of creating any new specific predictions, but does refer to existing expectations already highlighted in other documents. In addition, this report needs to be considered in conjunction with other contemporary work undertaken on the sub region: The Work and Skills Plan, The Transport Strategy and the Oxford Economics Employment Forecasts.

Finally, apart from the assessment revealing the extent of our knowledge about the sub region and a clear understanding of the challenges it faces along with the wider city region, it also reveals how little we know about the activities of business within the region. There are a great many assumptions about the economic linkages between business inside and outside the sub region, but little hard quantifiable evidence on the supply chains that operate throughout the area or the untraded interdependencies that facilitate growth and innovation.

The same applies to our detailed knowledge regarding what would happen to specific communities within the sub region (and the city region) if the existing development trajectory remains unchallenged. This type of detail and knowledge would require actual primary research to reveal clusters, linkages and the potential impact of long term centralised

development on existing communities. However, this does not mean that we have to be ignorant of how unsustainable existing city region approaches to development are, or blind to the negative impacts on the sub region by adhering to a highly centralised development model.