Closes 6 February 2020
Closes 7 February 2020
Closes 2 March 2020
Closed 13 January 2020
Closed 3 January 2020
Closed 19 December 2019
Closed 6 December 2019
Closed 3 December 2019
Here are some of the issues we have consulted on and their outcomes. See all outcomes
If you supported the five priorities set out in Winchester City Council’s proposed Plan for 2020 -2025. The five priorities are:
For each of the five priorities there was positive support for the Council Plan.
|
|
Yes |
No |
Not Answered |
|
Tackling the climate emergency and creating a greener district |
91.3% |
7.9% |
0.8% |
|
Home for all |
83.3% |
13.5% |
3.2% |
|
Vibrant local economy |
88.9% |
7.1% |
1.6% |
|
Living well |
86.5% |
7.9% |
5.6% |
|
Your services. Your voice |
87.3% |
11.1% |
1.6% |
The Council received over 550 comments from the 126 respondents and took these into consideration before recommending the final version of the Council Plan for adoption.
The updated Council Plan will be presented to the Cabinet on 23 December and Full Council on 15 January 2020 for adoption.
Below are full lists of the comments received for each priority.
We asked tenants and leaseholders questions to better understand their perspective in relation to fire safety in their homes.
In total we had 458 responses.
For general needs tenants as a whole group, the location of exit routes (26%) and number of exits routes (15%) are by far the areas of most concern when it comes to what makes tenants feel unsafe in their homes. This is mirrored for sheltered tenants with the location of exit routes and number of exits routes both getting 24%. Leaseholders’ area of greatest concern is residents’ personal belongings being left on landing or communal spaces (22%).
A large number of respondents selected that they felt neither satisfied nor unsatisfied with the information provided by Winchester City Council. When looking at the free text responses following this question 49 stated they did not recall ever receiving any information. While this is not a definitive reason for the ‘neither’ responses it may explain to some extent.
For all tenant and leaseholder groups the preferred methods of receiving advice is either via a housing e-newsletter or postal.
This survey is just one part of what is a very large project looking into fire safety procedures for all of the Council’s housing. The project is ongoing and will eventually result in an updated Fire Safety Strategy, a Fire Safety Engagement Strategy for residents and clearer information and advice on how to stay safe.
It may be a while before you see any changes, but rest assured that a lot of work is going on.
The consultation stage is moving on and we will soon be holding tenant focus groups to look into specific aspects of fire safety, If you ticked you would like to take part in a focus group keep an eye out for emails asking for your availability.
A major part of this project is looking into what, if any, information is provided to tenants and leaseholders. We are reviewing all fire safety publications and how these are communicated to tenants and leaseholders. We have taken onboard that the majority of you would like to receive information either via the housing e-newsletter or postal and are looking into how this will be managed.
A large number of you said the location of exit routes and numbers of exit routes are a concern. This will be considered by a Project Group. Fire signage in all blocks is also in the process of being looked at.
Housing officers will be making residents aware of the importance of fire safety procedures, for example, keeping hall ways clear.
The free text responses of the survey are still be analysed and where appropriate the information provided has been forwarded on to relevant managers for further investigation.
About the service you, WCC tenants, are receiving from PH Jones.
The questions asked were split into three different categories;
We had 369 completed responses representing a wide selection of all tenants.
Age breakdown of respondents.
| 16 - 34 | 13.28% |
| 35 - 44 | 13.82% |
| 45 - 54 | 18.97% |
| 55 - 64 | 19.51% |
| 65 - 74 | 20.87% |
| 75+ | 12.74% |
Below is a summary of some of the responses. All responses can be viewed in the full report by following the link on the PH Jones 'closed consultation' page.
Different Heating Systems
| Type of heating appliance? | |
| Gas central heating | 92% |
| Biomass | 1% |
| Air source heat pump | 2% |
| Oil | 0% |
| LPG (liquid petroleum/bottled gas) | 0% |
| Storage heaters/Quantum heaters | 5% |
| Solid fuel (coal/log burner) | 1% |
Your PH Jones appointment
| Did you have to ask the engineer to produce his Photo ID or did the engineer freely offer it to you? | |
| The engineer freely offered it (i.e. without having to be asked) | 93% |
| I had to ask the engineer to produce it | 7% |
While it is positive that 93% of the time the PH Jones engineer freely offered their ID this does leave 7% whereby the tenant has had to ask for the engineer to produce it. There are a number of reasons for members of staff wearing their ID, not least to display they are who they say they are. There are occasions when another specialist contractor, not from PH Jones, may have to attend an appointment. From some of the responses in this survey it has become clear that tenants are not always aware when it will be a different contractor attending. On these occasions it would be even more important to be displaying appropriate ID.
| If the engineer had to make a second visit to repair the fault (e.g. had to order parts and return to fit them at a later date) when was the return appointment agreed with you? | |
| During the first visit with the original engineer (i.e. while he was still on site) | 48% |
| Not during the first visit (i.e. someone else contacted you to agree the next appointment) | 52% |
If there is to be a second visit and this is known during the first visit, it should be arranged with the tenant there and then. The results here show that 52%, a small majority, of respondents have in fact said the second appointment was made at a later date.
Your experience of working with PH Jones
| How would you rate the engineer`s conduct and behaviour? | |
| Good | 78% |
| Satisfactory | 16% |
| Poor | 7% |
| How would you rate PH Jones overall? | |
| Good | 62% |
| Satisfactory | 22% |
| Poor | 15% |
It is clear the experience of working with PH Jones is a mixed bag. While there are a number of positive experiences, it isn’t acceptable that 15% of tenants rate the service as being poor.
Here is a brief overview of some of the free text responses when asked, what improvements would you like to see in the service provided by PH Jones?
| Appointments / reliability | 37% |
| Communication / being kept informed | 10% |
| Job left unfinished | 22% |
| Narrower time slots | 11% |
| Smoke alarms not testes / batteries charged | 6% |
| Tradesman competency | 8% |
| Tradesman conduct | 7% |
These results have been shared with PH Jones and further consultation between WCC and PH Jones will be taking place. As a result of these initial conversations the following actions have been put into place;
There were a number of responses complaining about unfinished work. These are being investigated further and where appropriate the tenants have been contacted directly.