Leatherhead AHEAD
Moving our town forward together
P.O. Box 240, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 8YQ Phone: 01372 378604
email: leatherheadahead@aol.com

4th July 2002

Prof. J. Whitelegg BA, PhD, FCIT, FILT, FRSA
ecologic@gn.apc.org

Dear Professor Whitelegg

The Way Forward for Leatherhead Town Centre

The Leatherhead AHEAD group has now received and reviewed the above document and would like to make the following observations:-

1. Your recognition of Leatherhead AHEAD as being an “energetic and dynamic group’ with a positive role to play in assisting in efforts to regenerate the town of Leatherhead is appreciated.

2. The summary document does accurately reflect the concerns which have motivated our campaign against the current Phase II works. Leatherhead’s parking and accessibility problems - which we believe have contributed substantially to the retail decline of the town - are still not being addressed. Additionally the proposed “water feature” would restrict High Street visibility, and close down options for future traffic movements in the “crossroads” area.

3. Your record of the meetings with various representative groups and individuals confirms that our views and concerns are shared by many, viz:

PARKING. Recognised as being a problem by the Leatherhead Society, The Leatherhead & District Countryside Protection Society, the Leatherhead Community Association, the Bookham Residents’ Association and Churches Together in Leatherhead.

WATER FEATURE. Opposed by all the groups you consulted.

ACCESS. Two other groups supported the proposals to make the Leret Way access to the Town more attractive, and one (the Community Association) supported our proposals for a Church Street/North Street link and the introduction of 2-way traffic flow on Bull Hill.

4. Whilst you have recorded the fact that the Burns & Nice Consultant made a presentation explaining the principles and objectives of environmental improvements and the thinking behind future works, discussions we have held since confirm that the presentation failed to meet its objective. The poor presentation meant that its contents were simply not understood.

5. The mood of the meeting is accurately reflected in your summary of the “Question and Answer Session”. (The issue of the height of the water feature will be addressed later in this response.)

6. The observations you have made under the heading “Parking and Retail Vitality” leads us to the conclusion, disappointingly, that you have not fully understood Leatherhead’s problems.

We are fully aware that there have been fundamental changes in retailing which have changed people’s shopping patterns and behaviour. Supermarkets both in and out of town and the impact of new shopping centres like the Swan Centre have taken their toll on retail outlets all over the country, not least in Leatherhead. Here other factors must be at work because statistical evidence demonstrates that the town has THE WORST RETAIL VACANCY RATE when compared with the position in other towns in the Mole Valley and in the whole of Surrey. The detailed survey taken in December 1995 (which is enclosed with this letter) demonstrates the point, and the situation in the town has worsened rather than improved since that time. We, and other study groups who have investigated this problem, remain convinced that the prime reasons for this excessive decline in retail outlets are poor access and parking.

Whilst the Swan Centre may have taken some business from the old High Street, one needs to stress that the new Centre has hardly been a “roaring success” either. Currently there are 5 vacant units there out of a total of 18. One of these has been vacant for nine years and the others for many months.

Leatherhead is a relatively small town with no huge tourist attractions like YORK, no special festivals like LANCASTER. It is a little town at the crossroads which people want to access in as direct as way as possible, and be able to have short-term parking for the shops. The town has to compete against the Dorkings, Fetchams, Bookhams, Ashteads, Eshers and Cobhams of this world, all of which have through traffic flows, ample (often free) parking, and therefore booming shops. Unless we can compete, the town’s decline, which is well documented, will continue.

We fully support the view that “a successful town centre in Leatherhead depends on increasing access and footfall”. We also agree that shared responsibility and partnership will be required if this objective is to be achieved. However we disagree strongly with your view that improved parking and vehicle access have no part to play in this recovery programme.

7. We fully support the observations you have made regarding the consultation process. It has been flawed - that is why there is such strong opposition to the Phase II works from Leatherhead residents - and we hope that the Councils will take up the recommendations you have made to rectify deficiencies in the areas of CONSULTATION and CO-ORDINATION.

8. We agree with your recommendation that the Councils should look at proposals made in previously undertaken studies for regenerating the town, either urgently acting on them or rejecting them with suitable explanations. Some excellent studies were commissioned and presented, and detailed plans for action laid out. For the most part the Councils took no action at all. The Phase II works, essentially cosmetic in nature and costing over £700,000, ignores nearly all the proposals made in previous studies. “Distrust and Alarm” have certainly been created as a result.

9. The short-term parking problem can indeed be partly addressed by making better use of existing spaces, and perhaps reducing the time limits in other places. We strongly believe however that additional short- and long-term parking spaces need to be created, and hope that our proposals to the Councils in that regard will be investigated and not ignored. Whether ‘park and ride’ is a realistic way of improving footfall in a small town like Leatherhead, where much of the shopping can be accomplished in a short time period, remains to be seen. We hope the Councils will at least investigate the option.

10. We support your view that shopkeepers and the various stakeholder groups need to do everything possible to promote the town, but the prime impetus for this must come from action taken by the Councils. Twenty-six weeks (or more) of town centre cosmetic changes, including the erection of a thoroughly disliked and unsupported water barrier) with all the disruption that implies, motivates neither shoppers to come to town, nor shopkeepers to open longer hours or hold special events and displays.

11. Finally, the ‘water feature’. It’s not wanted, mainly because other attempts have been made to put a ‘focal point feature’ in this part of the Town with disastrous results (e.g. a vandalised and dismantled clock tower). There are very real fears that this too will be vandalised, and it will certainly restrict the ability to re-introduce traffic “flexibility at the crossroads in future years. It will also restrict the visibility of the High Street from the Bridge Street end of the town. There are of course two 3 ft. walls in this construction, and the ground slopes up from Bridge Street to the High Street. When asked at a meeting at the Council Offices in Pippbrook how high the topmost wall would be above ground level from the Bridge Street end, the answer was given as “2.4 metres” (hence the 8ft. comment).

The water feature should never have been proposed, and Leatherhead AHEAD still find it difficult to accept that its construction could not have been excluded from the Phase II project without having to make substantial financial payments. It would be interesting to see any exchange of letters between the Councils and the contractors refuting this opinion.

Leatherhead AHEAD is indeed an “energetic and dynamic group” who will continue to work in the interests of the residents of Leatherhead to regenerate their town. In this effort we know we have the support of other stakeholder groups and residents. We can only hope that we will eventually get the support of the Councils as well.

Yours sincerely
Paula Sabine

Paula Sabine
Chairman
Leatherhead AHEAD

Attached: FACTFILE LEATHERHEAD COMPARISON

Copies to: CEO, Mole Valley District Council
CEO, Surrey County Council
Councillor David Gollin,
Chairman Local Committee (Transportation)
Leatherhead Advertiser
Surrey Advertiser

 

PROFESSOR WHITELEGG REPLIED AS FOLLOWS [17 July 2002]:

"Many thanks for these observations on my report. I found them very helpful and positive and I do think the discussion is moving towards a much more collective approach to solving Leatherhead's problems.

We agree entirely on the need to increase accessibility so that more people will visit, enjoy and spend money in Leatherhead and support traditional High St shops. I want to see a strategy that does this in a balanced way by improving walking, cycling and public transport.

I am not yet convinced that there is a shortage of shopper parking in Leatherhead. The Swan Centre car park appears to be under-utilised. I am convinced that the town should strongly discourage parking for commuter purposes (in line with national transport policy) and make those spaces available to short stay purposes.

I do want to see something concrete and specific that will attract more people to the shops, cafes etc in Leatherhead. I may be wrong but I don't see anything positive and creative currently in place (festivals, loyalty card schemes, evening opening of shops, car free days).

I do think we can "borrow" good ideas from other places whilst at the same time being intelligent about how we apply them in Leatherhead. This is why the Chamber of Commerce showed a video about York and I support their thinking in wanting to learn from York.

I do want to see a very high quality environment in and around the pedestrianised streets of Leatherhead. This is the best guarantee of an improved retailing spend and this means keeping cars out (whilst improving accessibility and footfall).

I am concerned about the overall traffic situation in Leatherhead. Rat running is endemic in Surrey and any changes to the traffic/circulation system in this town could have dire consequences for attracting thousands of extra vehicles that contribute nothing to retail spend but contribute a great deal to pollution, noise and traffic danger. A dirty, polluted and dangerous town centre will kill Leatherhead.

Above all else I would want to work with your organisation in a constructive and friendly way to achieve our agreed objectives. If I can help in any way I will.

With very best wishes to all of you and for the success of Leatherhead.

                                                         Professor John Whitelegg
17th July 2002”