from recession to recovery II: a focus on unemployment
PACEC
Contents
Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... ii X1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... ii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 National picture ................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Geography: The at-risk areas .............................................................................................12 1.5 The 1990 recession............................................................................................................13 1.6 The 1980 recession............................................................................................................15
2 2.1 2.2 2.3
1990 recession and recovery in detail.....................................................................................17 Length...............................................................................................................................17 Depth of recession.............................................................................................................20 Other measurements…………………………………………………………………………….31
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4
1980 recession and recovery in detail.....................................................................................34 Definitions .........................................................................................................................34 Length...............................................................................................................................35 Depth ................................................................................................................................36 Residual.............................................................................................................................38
3
From recession to recovery II – a focus on unemployment
A report prepared by PACEC on behalf of the Local Government Association (LGA) PACEC Public and Corporate Economic Consultants www.pacec.co.uk 49-53 Regent Street, Cambridge CB2 1AB Tel: 01223 311649 Fax: 01223 362913 504 Linen Hall, 162-168 Regent Street, London W1R 5TB Tel: 020 7734 6699 Fax: 020 7434 0357 e-mail: admin@pacec.co.uk
Recession and worklessness
PACEC
Executive Summary
Executive Summary X1
Introduction
X1.1
In a recession, some areas experience much larger rises in unemployment than others. Different areas also see very different rates of recovery in the job market. Few places actually perform at the national average.
X1.2
The main programmes for helping people into work, the national employment and training programmes, are delivered through the Department of Work and Pensions, Job Centre Plus and the Learning and Skills Council. In a recession, people’s experience of the impact on jobs will vary from place to place. During these difficult times, it is more important than ever that the decisions about employment and training are taken locally by people close to the economic reality – so that help can be effectively targeted on the needs of local people and employers.
X1.3
This report therefore underlines the importance of the steps government is taking towards devolving economic decision making to sub-regions, cities, counties and local partnerships, and the need to make those changes with greater urgency.
X1.4
This research explores the recovery from previous recessions identifying the “rock-pools” of lingering worklessness – those areas that took longest to recover in the 1980s and 1990s recessions if they have fully recovered at all.
X1.5
The key findings are: ●
Worklessness has been higher in every year since 1979 than it was in 1979. successive recessions have added to the number of people excluded permanently from the labour market;
●
Using a measure of broad worklessness, which includes both job seekers’ allowance and incapacity benefit claimants, England as a whole, and particularly the southern half of England, had not recovered to its pre-1990 levels of worklessness before the current recession began1.
●
England as a whole, and particularly the northern half of England, had not recovered to its pre-1980 levels of worklessness before the 1990 recession began.
●
After the 1980 recession, residual worklessness (the difference between unemployment going into the recession and coming out of it) was highest around Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Birmingham and Newcastle upon Tyne.
●
After the 1990 recession residual worklessness was highest in Stoke on Trent and Cornwall. In other words, taking residual unemployment as a measure of recovery from the recession, different places took longer to recover from the 1980 and 1990 recessions. Each recession has different underlying economic dynamics which mean that the length and severity of the recession is different from one functional economic area to another.
●
The areas most at risk from job losses in the 2008-10 recession are not currently experiencing high levels of worklessness.
●
The time it takes different areas to fully recover from recessions varies – depending on the economic indicator used the difference can be as much as ten years (see Figure 2.1 on recovery from the 1990 recession)
1
Using the Broad Worklessness measure, i.e., unemployed claimants plus those on incapacity benefit.
Recession and worklessness
Page ii
PACEC
Executive Summary ●
X1.6
The national impact of recessions can mask the range of local impacts – some areas will experience a much greater fall in job availability if this recession follows the pattern of previous recessions, and take longer to recover.
These findings have policy implications: ●
If the recession is not to have an unacceptable human cost, we must focus now on the groups of workers who are most at risk of joining the long-term unemployed in the recovery phase;
●
We know from previous recessions that the groups that are at most risk of joining the long-term unemployed are the middle aged and young people. Taking the three months up to November 2008 131,000 people joined the claimant count. It is particularly worrying that 55,000 of these newly unemployed people were between 18 and 24 years old - that is 42 per cent of the total. In the three months up to December, over a quarter of the new claimants were men over the age of 50. So when we talk about areas recovering from recessions, we are also talking about particular groups of people who have been hardest hit by previous recessions, the young, or middle aged, who need personalised support sensitive to local labour market conditions to recover from redundancy or unemployment to find their way back into work;
●
Performance since 1979, using the broad worklessness measure, suggests that the delivery mechanisms for back-to-work help have failed to do that and need to do better this time round;
●
In particular, the degree of local variation in labour market performance suggests that one of the major failings of the existing system is its centralised, inflexible nature, and that we must continue to develop a more personalised, localised system;
●
This means that the government’s proposed reforms aimed at the devolution of decisions, funding and accountability become more, not less, important in the current recession. The LGA is calling on government to set out a timetable and route map for the three levels of devolution set out in the recent DWP White Paper Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future.
Recession and worklessness
Page iii
PACEC
Introduction
1
Introduction
1.1
Introduction
1.1.1
This paper examines the 1980 and 1990 recessions, and the functional economic areas most at risk in the current recession. Functional economic areas are defined as reasonably self-contained sub-regional economies2.
1.1.2
The measures investigated are job availability, narrow worklessness (unemployed claimants), and broad worklessness (unemployed claimants and those on incapacity benefit).
1.1.3
Early data must be used with care because of significant data discontinuities in 1983.3
2
See Prosperous Communities II, published in January 2007 There is a discontinuity in the unemployment data in 1983. Prior to 1983 the data collected was of registrants, by JobCentre. From 1983 it was of claimants, by ward. The effect of this change is thought to have been to reduce the headline unemployment figure by about a million, by excluding those registrants who did not qualify for payments. Further smaller discontinuities have occurred since, for example, the exclusion of under-18s from claiming benefits. There is also a geographical discontinuity, because Job Centre Plus catchments do not aggregate into administrative districts. The pre-1983 registrant data is made available by best-fit approximation to pre-1996 counties. We have approximated pre-1083 claimant estimates by local authority from these figures by assuming that the trends in unemployment in local authorities within a county are the same. The data is obtained from the Office of National Statistics and the Department for Work and Pensions, but PACEC is responsible for the analysis. 3
Recession and worklessness
Page 4
PACEC
Introduction
1.2
National picture
1.2.1
Narrow worklessness had apparently almost returned to its 1979 level when the 1990 recession started; however the 1983 discontinuity in the data may mask a large rise. By the end of the 1990s it appeared to be significantly below 1979 levels. Figure 1.1
Narrow worklessness, in England England
14%
Narrow Worklessness Rate
12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1971
1981
1991
2001
England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 5
PACEC 1.2.2
Introduction
However, over the same time period there has been a tendency for the workless to move onto incapacity benefit, which means that the narrow worklessness figure is an undercount. Broad worklessness includes those on incapacity benefit. Figure 1.2
Broad worklessness, in England
4500000 4000000 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000
Incapacity Claimant UE
1500000 1000000 500000
19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 20 05 20 07
0
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC 1.2.3
Using the broad worklessness measure, worklessness at the end of the 1990s recession had not recovered to the level in 1979, or even in 1990. Because measurements since 1983 undercount unemployment compared to measurements before 1983, the gap between current levels of worklessness and 1979 levels of worklessness is larger than implied by this chart.
Recession and worklessness
Page 6
PACEC 1.2.4
Introduction
The job availability rate falls as worklessness rises. Job availability is the number of workplace jobs divided by the population of working age. Figure 1.3
Job availability in England England
86.0% 84.0%
Job availability
82.0% 80.0% 78.0% 76.0% 74.0% 72.0% 1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
England
Source: Annual Business Inquiry to 2007, Annual Population Survey to 2008, Census of Population to 2001, Midyear Population Estimates, ONS; PACEC 1.2.5
Job availability is not the same as the employment rate, because some people have more than one job.
Recession and worklessness
Page 7
PACEC
Introduction
1.3
Definitions
1.3.1
We can define various features of the two recessions using the broad worklessness rate as an illustration. Figure 1.4
Broad worklessness rate in England: Length England
16%
Broad Worklessness Rate
14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1979
1980 recession 1990 recession Ten years 1984
Nine years 1989
1994
1999
2004
England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 8
PACEC 1.3.2
Introduction
Several areas show a small temporary drop in worklessness in 1994 followed by a rise in 1995, for example Grimsby and Scunthorpe (Figure 1.5). This has not been counted as the end of the recovery; for Grimsby this is taken to be 1999, which is the final year in which worklessness fell before a rise in 2000. Figure 1.5
Broad worklessness in Grimsby and Scunthorpe Grimsby and Scunthorpe
16.0%
Broad Worklessness Rate
14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
Grimsby and Scunthorpe
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 9
PACEC 1.3.3
Introduction
Broad worklessness had not returned to its 1979 level by the time the 1990 recession began. (This effect is likely to be greater than illustrated in the chart, because of the change in definitions in 1983 which is widely considered to have masked a large rise.) Worklessness after the 1990 recession stabilised at a higher level than in 1990, but had been drifting down and had almost returned to 1990 levels before the current recession began. It had not returned to 1979 levels even discounting the change in definitions. Figure 1.6
Broad worklessness rate in England: Base depth England
16%
Broad Worklessness Rate
14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC 1.3.4
We refer to the level of worklessness going into the recession as the base depth. So for the country as a whole, base worklessness in 1979 was 6.7%; in 1990 it was 7.9% and in 2008 it was 8.2%. (Again, this glosses over the 1983 change in definitions, which probably masks a larger increase in base worklessness between 1979 and 1990.) Figure 1.7
Broad worklessness rate in England: Peak England
16%
Broad Worklessness Rate
14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 10
PACEC 1.3.5
Introduction
In the 1980s recession the peak worklessness occurred in 1986, when measured worklessness rose by 5.1%. (Again this is likely to be an underestimate of peak worklessness due to definitional changes.) In the 1990s worklessness rose by 5.7% peaking in 1993. Figure 1.8
Broad worklessness rate in England: Residual England
16%
Broad Worklessness Rate
14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC 1.3.6
We use the term residual worklessness to describe the situation where at the end of the economic recovery worklessness is still higher than at the beginning of the recession. In the 1980s national worklessness fell to 7.9% in 1990, compared with a base worklessness of 6.7%, giving a residual of 1.2%. (This will be an underestimate of the true residual due to definitional changes.) It is probable that the recovery from this recession was still under way when the 1990 recession began.
1.3.7
The 1990s recession had a base worklessness of 7.9% and a worklessness at the end of the recovery of 9.3%, giving a residual worklessness of 1.4%.
Recession and worklessness
Page 11
PACEC 1.3.8
Introduction
Figure 1.9 summarises broad worklessness over the 1990 recession in England, with a number of measures indicated. The length of the recession is the time from worklessness beginning to rise until either worklessness has fallen below its prerecession level or has ceased to fall. The depth of the recession is the difference between peak worklessness and pre-recession worklessness. The absolute depth is the absolute value of peak worklessness, without reference to the pre-recession situation. Residual worklessness is the increase in worklessness above the pre-recession level after the end of the recovery. This is the “rockpool” effect. Figure 1.9
Broad worklessness measure of 1990 recession England
16%
Length
Broad Worklessness Rate
14% 12% 10%
Depth
8%
Residual
6% 4% 2% 0% 1979
Base depth 1984
1989
Absolute depth 1994
1999
2004
England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
1.4
Geography: The at-risk areas
1.4.1
We have previously defined fifty functional economic areas, which are sub-regional economies with a degree of self-containment4.
1.4.2
We have also developed an “at-risk index” to show which areas are most at risk in the current recession, derived from their industrial structure and experience in the previous recessions (for this analysis, see From Recession to recovery: the local dimension, Local Government Association, November 2008).
4
See Prosperous Communities II, published in January 2007
Recession and worklessness
Page 12
PACEC
Introduction
1.5
The 1990 recession
1.5.1
We investigated when areas recovered their pre-recession states, using narrow worklessness, broad worklessness, and job availability. Most notably, using broad worklessness as the indicator, the southern two-thirds of the country had not returned to pre-1990-recession levels of worklessness by the time the current recession began. Figure 1.10
Map of broad worklessness recovery: 1990
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 13
PACEC 1.5.2
Introduction
The residual worklessness is the increase in worklessness between entering the recession and the end of the sustained fall on leaving the recession. It is possible for worklessness to continue to drift down after this point, but we do not class that as part of the effect of the recession-and-recovery cycle. Figure 1.11
Map of broad worklessness residual (“rockpool effect�)
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC 1.5.3
After the 1990s recession the highest levels of residual unemployment were in Truro and Penzance and Stoke and Staffordshire.
Recession and worklessness
Page 14
PACEC
Introduction
1.6
The 1980 recession
1.6.1
The 1980 recession is harder to measure for several reasons, including data discontinuity and the intervention of the 1990 recession before recovery in many places. The following map, which must be treated with extreme care for these reasons, nevertheless shows a clear trend for the South to recover more quickly than the North5. This is the opposite pattern from the 1990 recession. Figure 1.12
Map of broad worklessness recovery: 1980
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
5
The functional economic area Truro and Penzance (in yellow in Fig 1.12) entered the recession one year after other areas, so we have shown the duration of the recession, rather than the year of recovery.
Recession and worklessness
Page 15
PACEC 1.6.2
Introduction
There was also a less clear-cut trend for broad worklessness to increase more and to reach higher levels at the peak in the North than the South during this recession. The residual unemployment is concentrated in the North, with fewer deeper rockpools of lingering worklessness. Figure 1.13
Map of broad worklessness residual (“rockpool effect�), 1980
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 16
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail
2
1990 recession and recovery in detail
2.1
Length
2.1.1
We can rank areas by the year in which they had fully recovered from the effects of the 1990 recession. This shows a wide variation between areas in recovery time from the 1990s recession, and also a marked difference depending on which measurement is used. Figure 2.1
Map of job availability recovery
Source: Annual Business Inquiry to 2007, Annual Population Survey to 2008, Census of Population to 2001, Midyear Population Estimates, ONS; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 17
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail Figure 2.2
Map of narrow worklessness recovery
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 18
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail Figure 2.3
Map of broad worklessness recovery
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 19
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail
2.2
Depth of recession
2.2.1
We can rank areas by the depth of the effects of the 1990 recession. Again, different measurements produce notably different results. Job availability Figure 2.4
Map of job availability depth
Source: Annual Business Inquiry to 2007, Annual Population Survey to 2008, Census of Population to 2001, Midyear Population Estimates, ONS; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 20
PACEC 2.2.2
1990 recession and recovery in detail
The areas showing the greatest falls in the job availability rate were London, Stoke and Staffs, and Hull and the East Riding. London’s rate was and remains above the national average throughout, whereas Stoke and Hull both started below the national rate before the recession and have not made up the losses. Figure 2.5
Job availability in London
100% 95% 90%
Job availability
85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 1971
1981
1991
London FEA
2001 England
Source: Annual Business Inquiry to 2007, Annual Population Survey to 2008, Census of Population to 2001, Midyear Population Estimates, ONS; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 21
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail Figure 2.6
Job availability in Stoke and Staffs
90% 85%
Job availability
80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 1971
1981
1991
Stoke and Staffs
2001 England
Source: Annual Business Inquiry to 2007, Annual Population Survey to 2008, Census of Population to 2001, Midyear Population Estimates, ONS; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 22
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail Figure 2.7
Job availability in Hull and East Riding
90% 85%
Job availability
80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 1971
1981
1991
Hull and East Riding
2001 England
Source: Annual Business Inquiry to 2007, Annual Population Survey to 2008, Census of Population to 2001, Midyear Population Estimates, ONS; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 23
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail
Narrow worklessness 2.2.3
We can also look at the narrow worklessness statistics. Figure 2.8
Map of narrow worklessness depth
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC 2.2.4
The deepest recessions, in terms of narrow worklessness (claimant unemployment) rises, were in London and Poole and Bournemouth. These two areas had significantly different experiences.
Recession and worklessness
Page 24
PACEC 2.2.5
1990 recession and recovery in detail
Figure 2.9 shows narrow worklessness in London. The rates broadly followed national rates, tending to be a little lower, until 1990. They then spiked, peaking at over ten per cent, and although they have since fallen back they have not yet come down to the national average. Figure 2.9
Narrow worklessness in London
12%
Narrow Worklessness Rate
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0% 1971
1981
1991
London FEA
2001 England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 25
PACEC 2.2.6
1990 recession and recovery in detail
Poole and Bournemouth, on the other hand, has typically had lower claimant unemployment than the national average, and the spike in 1993 took it from a low base to the national average level. It has since fallen back below the national trend. Figure 2.10
Narrow worklessness in Poole and Bournemouth
10% 9%
Narrow Worklessness Rate
8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1971
1981
1991
Poole and Bournemouth
2001 England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; PACEC 2.2.7
The smallest rise in narrow worklessness during the 1990 recession was in Durham and Darlington.
Recession and worklessness
Page 26
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail Figure 2.11
Narrow worklessness in Durham and Darlington
10% 9%
Narrow Worklessness Rate
8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1971
1981
1991
Durham and Darlington
2001 England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 27
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail
Broad worklessness Figure 2.12
Map of broad worklessness depth
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 28
PACEC 2.2.8
1990 recession and recovery in detail
Broad worklessness also increased most in London and Poole and Bournemouth. Figure 2.13
Broad worklessness in London
16% 14%
Broad Worklessness Rate
12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1971
1981
1991
London FEA
2001 England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 29
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail Figure 2.14
Broad worklessness in Poole and Bournemouth
16% 14%
Broad Worklessness Rate
12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1971
1981
1991
2001
Poole and Bournemouth
England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 30
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail
2.3
Other measurements
2.3.1
Using the broad worklessness indicator, we see that the 1990s recession appeared deepest around Liverpool and Newcastle, notably longer on average in the south of the country than the north, and left most residual unemployment in Penzance and Truro. Figure 2.15
Map of broad worklessness absolute depth
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 31
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail Figure 2.16
Map of broad worklessness length
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 32
PACEC
1990 recession and recovery in detail Figure 2.17
Map of broad worklessness residual
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 33
PACEC
1980 recession and recovery in detail
3
1980 recession and recovery in detail
3.1
Definitions
3.1.1
Incapacity benefit figures go back to 1979, and there is a clear national start to the 1980 recession in 1979 by other measures, so we take 1979 to be the start of the 1980 recession. Figure 3.1
Broad worklessness in England England
16.0%
Broad Worklessness Rate
14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
England
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC 3.1.2
Figure 3.1 repeats the chart of broad worklessness in England. Overall, we can see that the 1980s recession began with a steep rise in worklessness from 1979. The apparent dip centred on 1984 is an artefact of the change in statistical definitions, from collecting details of “registrants” to details of “claimants”; it probably masks a significant rise in like-for-like worklessness. Even disregarding this discontinuity, though, it is clear that pre-recession levels of worklessness were not recovered by the time the 1990 recession hit. There is clearly a national rockpool effect, although its magnitude is obscured by the change of definition.
Recession and worklessness
Page 34
PACEC
1980 recession and recovery in detail
3.2
Length
3.2.1
The North of the country had not recovered from the 1980s recession before the 1990s recession hit. Figure 3.2
Map of broad worklessness length (1980)
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 35
PACEC
1980 recession and recovery in detail
3.3
Depth
3.3.1
The 1980s recession increased worklessness more in the North of the country than in the South. Figure 3.3
Map of broad worklessness depth
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 36
PACEC 3.3.2
1980 recession and recovery in detail
The areas with the highest peak worklessness in the 1980s recession were in the North of the country. Figure 3.4
Map of broad worklessness absolute depth
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC
Recession and worklessness
Page 37
PACEC
1980 recession and recovery in detail
3.4
Residual
3.4.1
The rock-pool effect of the 1980s recession was strongest in the North. Figure 3.5
Map of broad worklessness residual
Source: ONS: Claimant Unemployment; DWP; PACEC 3.4.2
The greater effect of the 1980s recession on the North of the country is clearer than any overall regional pattern to the effects of the 1990s recession.
Recession and worklessness
Page 38
For further information, please contact the Local Government Association at: Local Government House Smith Square, London SW1P 3HZ or telephone LGconnect, for all your LGA queries on 020 7664 3131 Fax 020 7664 3030 Email info@lga.gov.uk Web www.lga.gov.uk For a copy in Braille, in larger print or audio tape contact LGconnect
LGA code L09-122 ISBN ISBN 978-1-84049-6-675-8 February 2009 Published by the LGA Printed by Newman Thomson, One Jubilee Road, Victoria Industrial Estate, Burgess Hill, West Sussex RH15 9TL