Consultation Report - Solutions March 2009

nottingham

Meadow’s Survey Analysis Report - March 2009 Background and Objectives

This report presents the findings of a Consultation on the Meadow’s Neighbourhood Plan conducted by Nottingham City Council (NCC). The principle objective of the survey is to provide the authority with robust data, which accurately represents the views of the citizens on Regeneration.

Sampling and Fieldwork

NCC interviewed a total of 390 people aged over 16 years across the Meadow’s Neighbourhood Plan Area. Fieldwork was conducted, face-to-face and in-home and at particular locations across the Meadows Area, between 26th February and 31st March 2009. The number of survey respondents (sample) gives us a confidence interval of ± 5% applicable to all results from the whole survey. Any further breakdowns of the respondents (i.e. by age) will increase the confidence interval. Due to the same sample size, and associated confidence limits, has not been possible throughout this survey to identify significant differences between sub groups of respondents.

RespondentsThere were 390 respondents;

95% lived within the Meadows: 26% lived in Old Meadows 74% lived in New Meadows (figure 1)

Generally the survey seemed to have a broad age distribution of respondents but did lean towards the older population. The Meadow’s Mosaic1 profile (figure 2 and 3) shows 6% of the population fell into the Older people living in social housing with high care needs Group, whereas 20% of the survey respondents were from this group. Alternatively only 14% of survey respondents were from the Educated, young, single people living in areas of transient populations but 24% of the Meadow’s Population are from this group.

1 Mosaic is a geodemographic dataset produced by Nottingham-based Experian describing the UK population in terms of their typical demographics and their social, economic, cultural and lifestyle behaviour. Mosaic was developed from over 400 data items at varying levels of geography, from area based data through to information about each individual. The population is classified into 61 ‘Types’ that identify groups of individuals or households that are as similar as possible to each other and as different as possible from any other group. These ‘Types’ group together hierarchically into 11 ‘Groups’.

nottingham

Meadow’s Survey Analysis Report

Age breakdown of respondents

Approximately a third of respondents were Nottingham City Homes (NCH) tenants, a third were not NCH tenants and a third declined to answer that question. Respondents were mainly residents.

Headline Results The majority of people (85%) support the overall vision for the Meadows and only 2% actually disagree with the vision.

Improvements within the Meadows seem generally welcome and people do not seem apposed to change, but invite the opportunity for new investment in their neighbourhood

Age Group Total %Under 16 32 816-17 20 518-24 25 625-44 106 2745-59 48 1260-64 19 565-74 41 1175+ 50 13Not disclosed 49 13

Total 390 100

Key

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of theController of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crowncopyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 100019317. 2009Map Produced on: 16/04/2009 by: GIS Team. s:\projects\0164\surveyresults.mxd\respondantspread.pdf

Meadow's NeighbourhoodPlan Consultation

1:10,000Scale:

Survey Respondants1 - 2

3 - 4

5 - 7

8 - 9

10 - 13

Old Meadows

Meadows Neighbourhood Plan Area

Mosaic Public Sector Group ProfileYour area or file: Target Meadows Survey RespondantsDate:Comparison area or file: Base Meadows Neighbourhood Plan PClient: Client Name

Your contact: Account Manager Name

Mosaic Public Sector Groups Your area/file % Comp. % Pen. % Index

A Career professionals living in sought after locations 1 0.26 0 0.00 0.00 0

B Younger families living in newer homes 0 0.00 4 0.05 0.00 0

C 000.000.0040.14aibrubus ni gnivil seilimaf redlO

D Close-knit, inner city and manufacturing town communities 59 15.28 1,357 17.24 4.35 89

E Educated, young, single people living in areas of transient populations 54 13.99 1,878 23.86 2.88 59

F People living in social housing with uncertain employment in deprived areas 172 44.56 3,642 46.27 4.72 96

G Low income families living in estate based social housing 18 4.66 520 6.61 3.46 71

H Upwardly mobile families living in homes bought from social landlords 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0

I Older people living in social housing with high care needs 77 19.95 471 5.98 16.35 333

J Independent older people with relatively active lifestyles 1 0.26 0 0.00 0.00 0

K People living in rural areas far from urbanisation 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0

7001683latoT ,872 100 4.90 100

elif/aera ruoYspuorG ciasoM deknaR % Comp. % Pen. % Index

Group I 77 19.95 471 5.98 16.35 333Group F 172 44.56 3,642 46.27 4.72 96Group D 59 15.28 1,357 17.24 4.35 89Group G 18 4.66 520 6.61 3.46 71Group E 54 13.99 1,878 23.86 2.88 59Group A 1 0.26 0 0.00 0.00 0Group B 0 0.00 4 0.05 0.00 0Group C 4 1.04 0 0.00 0.00 0Group H 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0Group J 1 0.26 0 0.00 0.00 0Group K 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0

00109.4001278,7001683latoT

sector list:9626

Tel: 0115 968 5027 Email: [email protected] Or visit: www.business-strategies.co.uk/publicsector

23/04/2009

0

0

0

89

59

96

71

0

0

0

0 50 100 150 200 250

96

89

71

59

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 50 100 150 200 250

Your Area/File vs Comparison Area/File By Mosaic Public Sector Groups

01020304050

A B C D E F G H I J KMosaic Group

PercentageYour area/file

ComparisonArea/File

Mosaic Public Sector classifies all citizens in the United Kingdom by allocating them to one of 61 Types and 11 Groups. The Groups and Types in these profiles paint a rich picture of UK citizens in terms of their socio-economic and socio-cultural behaviour.

nottingham

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controllerof Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead toprosecution or civil proceedings. 100019317. 2009. Map Produced on: 23/04/09 Map Produced by: mj gis Team.s\communitysafety\projects\0164MeadowsRegenerationSurvey\MosaicHHgroups

Title: Meadows Neighbourhood Plan Mosaic Groups at Household Level

Key

1:10,000Scale:

A Symbols of Success

B Happy Families

C Suburban Comfort

D Ties of Community

E Urban Intelligence

F Welfare Borderline

G Municipal Dependency

H Blue Collar Enterprise

I Twilight Subsistence

J Grey Perspectives

K Rural Isolation

City Boundary

Meadows Area

nottingham

Meadow’s Survey Analysis Report Breaking Down the Barriers

Nine in ten respondents agreed that New Meadows should be re-designed to change the current Radburn layout. This response did not vary significantlyregardless of age, whether residents currently lived in Old or New Meadows or whether they were Nottingham City Homes (NCH) tenants or not. Respondents also tend to agree that it would be beneficial to open up Arkwright Walk to local and bus traffic. This opinion varies slightly between New and Old Meadows respondents (figure 4) but this was not a significant difference due to small sample size. To really identify if there are differences in opinion between those living in Old and New Meadows a greater number of people would need to be surveyed.

Total Agree Disagree NeitherNew Meadows 275 73% 21% 6%OldMeadows 96 67% 29% 4%NotMeadows 19 79% 16% 5%

TOTAL 390 89% 6% 5%

% Agree/Strongly Agree % Disagree / Strongly Disagree

89% 6%

Q1A: Do you agree that re-designing parts of the New Meadows so that it is no longer in a Radburn Layout would be beneficial?

23%72%Q1B: Do you think that opening up Arkwright Walk to local and bus traffic would be beneficial?

85% 11%

Q1C: Do you think that making better links in and out of the Meadows (for both cars, pedestrians and cyclists) would be beneficial?

Figure 4

nottingham


Building on Sense of Place

The majority of people felt they would like to have new facilities in the form of new district centres, community centres, leisure centres etc. However when asked if they would like the Bridgeway Centre relocated respondents were not so sure. A large number (35%) did not agree or were not sure about with it being moved. This may require further consultation with residents or an awareness campaign to ensure residents are consulted in a new location. There was no significance differences in opinion in different ages bands, i.e. the older population (who were perceived to potentially be against the movement of the Bridgeway Centre were not significantly different to that of others). However a larger number of respondents may help to analyse differences of opinion across age ranges.


65% 26%

Q2A: Do you agree that relocating the current Bridgeway Centre would be agood idea?

89% 7%

Q2B: Do you think you would use a new District Centre where lots of services are in the same place?

90% 7%Q2C: Do you agree with the idea of creating a ‘leisure hub’ in the Embankment area, including for example playgrounds, waterparks, a new leisure centre etc?

84% 9%Q2D: Should we explore the possibility of a new modern community centre to replace existing facilities?

nottingham


Create a Great Housing Choice

Generally respondents seemed to agree with replacing some of the current housing and amending current provision. However this did not correspond with the results of Question 3C (Would you like the current New Meadows to be left as it is?). One in five people wanted the New Meadows to be left as it is. This seems in contrast to responses of other questions and the validity of this question is bought into question. It is the only question which is asked in a way that a positive response is equivalent to no change and this may have confused some people.


87% 9%Q3A: Should we replace some of the unpopular flats and maisonettes with new family houses and accommodation for older people?

88% 9%Q3B: Do you think the idea of turning homes around in parts of the New Meadows to create better and safer routes and car parking is a good one?

18% 75%Q3C: Would you like the current New Meadows to be left as it is?

nottingham


Creating an ‘Eco-Neighbourhood’

Again responses to questions around creating an eco-neighbourhood are positive. Less people seemed sure about incorporating energy creation methods into their own homes but questions were not asked about reasons for these reservations. It may be the case that cost is a barrier and could be overcome with grants or other incentives, and better information to residents.


88% 7%Q4A: If public transport, cycle lanes and pathways were improved would you use them more often?

89% 5%Q4B: Should we aspire to ensuring that all renovation / refurbishment works in the Meadows are to a high eco-standard?

91% 4%Q4C: Should we aspire to ensuring that new houses / buildings in the Meadows are to a high eco-standard?

83% 10%Q4D: Would you consider incorporating energy creation measures (e.g. solar panels) within your home / business?

nottingham


A Pro-active Community

Improvements within the Meadows seem welcome and people do not seem averse to change and this is again reflected in the questions around building a pro-active community.


93% 3%Q5A: Would the Meadows benefit from more training / educational opportunities so thatpeople have better access to jobs?

94% 2%Q5B: Would you support proposals to provide afterschool / youth facilities?

87% 7%Q5C: Do you think you / your family would benefit from improved health facilities (i.e. medical centres / doctors surgeries)?

91% 5%Q5D: Would you support the idea of improving and enhancing leisure facilities on the embankment?

Consultation Report - Solutions March 2009

Documents

Transcript of Consultation Report - Solutions March 2009