We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We Asked

If you supported the five priorities set out in Winchester City Council’s proposed Plan for 2020 -2025. The five priorities are:

  1. Tackling the climate emergency and creating a greener district
  2. Homes for all
  3. Vibrant local economy
  4. Living well
  5. Your services. Your voice

You Said

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%

We Did

The Council received over 550 comments from the 126 respondents and took these into consideration before recommneding 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.

Climate emergency

Homes for all

Vibrant local economy

Living well

Your services. Your voice

We Asked

We asked tenants and leaseholders questions to better understand their perspective in relation to fire safety in their homes.

You Said

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.

 

We Did

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.

We Asked

About the service you, WCC tenants, are receiving from PH Jones.

The questions asked were split into three different categories;

  • Questions about the heating system in place.
  • Your PH Jones appointment
  • Your experience working with PH Jones

     

You Said

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%

 

We Did

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;

  • Work is underway to address the issue of the branding of specialist contractors.
  • Since the survey was carried out PH Jones have increased the engineer resource by 50% for gas works and have recruited more office / administration staff. As a result of this increase and an engineer briefing any follow-on visits should be booked at the time of the initial visit. PH Jones are also confident there will be a reduction in the amount of unfinished repairs and an improvement in call answering. 
  • Van stocks have been reviewed to ensure they are carrying more of the parts used regularly.
  •  Engineers are being reminded to complete and leave the relevant customer checklist forms with the tenant on every visit. 

There were a number of responses complaining about unfinished work. These are being investigated further and where appropriate the tenants have been contacted directly.

We Asked

Winchester City Council are reviewing the Mutual Exchange policy that allows council tenants to complete a mutual exchange to a property with one bedroom more than their assessed bedroom need. We wanted to get tenant’s views on the current policy and the proposed change. 

The questions asked were split into different categories;

  • The Policy, how you as tenants feel about the current policy and the possible change.
  • Your Mutual Exchange experience, were you kept up-to-date and how you felt about the process.
  • The HomeSwapper service, are you aware of the service, have you used it, did you find it useful?

You Said

We had 357 completed responses representing a wide selection of all tenants.                

Age breakdown of respondents.

16 - 34

15%

35 - 44

15%

45 - 54

19%

55 - 64

22%

65 - 74

20%

75+

8%

Prefer not to say

0.6%

Below is a summary of some of the responses.

The Policy

Do you think it’s fair that you can complete a mutual exchange to a property which has more bedrooms than the tenant needs, when applicants on the Council’s housing register don’t?

Yes

47%

No

52%

Not Answered

1%

Do you agree with the council taking away the option of mutual exchanging to a property with more bedrooms than are needed?

Strongly Agree

23%

Agree

17%

Neither Agree nor Disagree

20%

Disagree

16%

Strongly Disagree

24%

Not Answered

0.60%

It is clear from the questions relating to the policy that tenants opinion is divided evenly.

39% either agree or strongly agree to the proposed policy change, whereas 40% either disagree or strongly disagree.

There were 142 responses in the free text box. Again, these responses were very mixed. A lot of the comments said that it depends on individual circumstances, for example; family taking on caring responsibilities for other family members, someone with a disability needing the room for equipment, medical supplies or a carer to stay, a family planning for their future need for more children. While the opposing view made it clear that the shortage of social housing should be a factor and that there are families who need the extra bedroom immediately.

Your Mutual Exchange Experience

Were you kept up to date during the exchange process?

Yes

84%

No

14%

Not Answered

2%

Would it have been useful to be able to track the progress of your application from start to finish online?

Yes

90%

No

8%

Not Answered

3%

The majority of tenants who have completed a mutual exchange felt they were kept up to date during the process. But the majority would have found it useful to be able to track the progress online. This is not currently something that is available.

Some of the comments that were given in the free text box suggest that the process took longer than anticipated. Comments also suggested that the rights of the incoming tenant when alterations have been made to the property by the previous tenant needs to be made much clearer.

 

HomeSwapper Service


If you answered yes to having used the HomeSwapper service, did you find your exchange partner and move by using the HomeSwapper service?

Yes

32%

No

66%

Not Answered

3%

If you answered yes to having used the HomeSwapper service how would you rate it?

Highly Satisfied

12%

Satisfied

34%

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

27%

Dissatisfied

17%

Very Dissatisfied

9%

Not Answered

0.70%

While 66% of respondents did not find their exchange partner through the HomeSwapper service, when it is used 46% of people were either satisfied or highly satisfied with the service compared with 26% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

We Did

As stated above there has not been a clear view one way or another to the questions regarding the policy and potential change. The current policy is still being reviewed and the results of this consultation will be taken to the Housing Cabinet for further discussion.

The possibility of being able to track your mutual exchange online throughout the process is being looked into.  

Further consultation will take place in the New Year to discuss process mapping. This will all go towards making the whole process smoother and clearer for tenants.  

A meeting has been planned with a representative from the HomeSwapper Service to discuss the results from this consultation.

When analysing the responses, if a tenant has made a comment that requires further investigation, they are being contacted via the email address supplied in the survey.

We Asked

We asked for the opinions of Winchester City Council Tenants on using online surveys as another way of collecting tenant views, and whether receiving an incentive would increase engagement.

You Said

Would you be interested in receiving short online surveys?

  • 67% of respondents said ‘yes’
  • 16% said ‘no’
  • 16% wanted to know more first
  • (the question was not answered by 0.7% of respondents).

Would you be more likely to return a survey if you received a reward?

  • 43% of all respondents said ‘yes’
  • 38% said ‘no’
  • 19% said they wanted to know more first
  • (the question was not answered by 0.7% of respondents).

We looked at the age demographics for the questions above. Of particular note is the difference in responses between the Under 55 and Over 55 age groups.

  •  Under 55 age group
    • 60% Yes
    • 22% No
    • 18% Want to know more first
    • (the question was not answered by 0.5% of respondents)
  • Over 55 age group
    • 29% Yes
    • 52% No
    • 18% Want to know more first
    • (the question as not answered by 0.8% of respondents)

We Did

68 of the respondents received a further email responding to their request for more information regarding being an Involved Tenant.

A focus group to investigate the possibility of a reward scheme is being organised.

Future online consultations with tenants are in the pipe line.

We Asked

We asked for your opinions on the play area at Taplings Road. We also spoke to the school council at Weeke Primary School and attendees at the Weeke Weekend event.

You Said

Full details of the feedback we received can be viewed here:

Taplings Road Feedback

We Did

All the information provided will be used to draw up a quotation brief which will be sent to play companies in September for them to produce a design idea for the new play area.  Once we have the designs a public consultation event will be arranged around October time so that residents have the opportunity to see the options and chose which one they would like installed. 

We Asked

Purpose of Consultation - To consult with local people on confirming parish council arrangements to better serve the new housing the West of Waterlooville Major Development Area. 

Scope and Methodology  - This consultation was undertaken in line with the legal framework of Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.   To engage local residents, the key issues were presented in a information letter that was delivered to all households in the proposed parish council area. Two information events were also held in two venues in the local area and attendance made at the West of Waterlooville Advisory Group.

The consultation information and questionnaire were published online on WCC’s CitizenSpace portal.  The consultation was open to the public from 5th March to 22nd  April 2018.

You Said

The consultation received 32 online responses from members of the public.

 

What style should the new Council take?

Total

Percent

Parish Council

28

87.5%

Town Council

2

6.25%

Community Council

2

6.25%

Neighbourhood Council

0

0

Total

32

100%

 

 

 

What should the new Council be called?

Total

Percent

Newlands

11

34.4%

Westwood

6

18.8%

Oakwood

3

9.4%

Eastmead

1

3.1%

Southmead

1

3.1%

Wellingswood

1

3.1%

Other

6

18.8%

Not answered

3

9.4%

Total

32

100%

 

 

  • There were seven votes for Berewood from those who choose ‘other’ or did not answer.
  • There was a vote for Berewood and Wellington Parish Council
  • A suggestion of Eastwick
  • A request for a name to unite the whole of the MDA, rather than naming it after phases of building homes on the development
  • A comment ‘anything but Newlands’

 

 

How should we vote for members of the new Council?

Total

Percent

From a single list of candidates for the whole parish

22

68.8%

Don’t know/ no opinion

7

21.9%

From each of the three polling districts within the parish

3

9.4%

Total

32

100%

 

 

Seven people attended the consultation events.

We Did

The results of the consultations including the detailed comments will be reported to the Licensing and Regulation Committee on 14th June 2018.  This page will be updated with the recommended actions.

We Asked

To inform the preparation of the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) we asked local landowners and agents within Winchester District to submit land that is suitable and available for development.

You Said

Over 200 sites were submitted to the call for sites.

We Did

We are currently assessing the sites that were submitted and aim to publish the updated SHELAA later this year.

We Asked

In March 2018 Winchester City Council launched the public engagement and consultation process for the Station Approach development by organising a series of drop-in events to give everyone the opportunity to see what progress has been made and offer feedback on the masterplan for the project.

You Said

Over 250 people came along to look at the exhibition and talk to the architects and project team members in person.

All feedback from this first round of public engagement is currently being analysed and will be used to help guide the design process. Further details will be published in due course.

We Did

In July 2018 the Cabinet (Station Approach) Committee will meet to discuss the scheme and approve the concept designs in preparation for a planning application to be submitted later on in 2018.

We Asked

The Publication (Pre-Submission) Traveller Development Plan Document consultation focussed on specific ‘tests’ that the local authority must meet to ensure that the document can be found ‘sound’ by a planning inspector in due course.

You Said

15 representations were recieved to this consultation. They have been published on our website.

We Did

The Council has made some suggested modifications to the Planning Inspector appointed to hold the examination of the Traveller Plan  to be held later in the year.

We Asked

Purpose of Consultation - To consult with local people on options to change current parish council arrangements in Denmead and Southwick & Widley. This will aim to better serve the new housing the West of Waterlooville Major Development Area.

Scope and Methodology - This consultation was undertaken in line with the legal framework of Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. To best ensure the engagement of local residents, the options for change were presented in a information and questionnaire leaflet that was delivered to all households in the two parish council areas. Two information events were also held in two venues in the local area. The consultation information and questionnaire were also published online on Winchester City Council’s CitizenSpace portal.

The consultation was open to the public from 18th January to 5th February 2018.

You Said

The consultation prompted 604 responses from members of the public (283 online, 321 by post/ in person).

 

Options

Online

Other

Total

% of responses

1. No change

22

30

52

8.6%

2. New Council formed

207

241

448

74.2%

3. Move MDA into Southwick & Widley PC

45

37

82

13.6%

4. Move MDA into Denmead PC

9

13

22

3.6%

 

There were also responses supporting Option 2 from Denmead PC, Southwick & Widley PC and the West of Waterlooville Advisory Group.

25 people attended the consultation events.

       

 

We Did

In view of the overwhelmingly majority in favour of Option 2, the report to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee recommends this is developed into a draft proposal for a consultation in March 2018.

We Asked

Purpose of Consultation – The Central Winchester Regeneration area’s draft Supplementary Planning document (SPD) was approved for formal consultation by Winchester City Council’s Cabinet at its meeting on Wednesday 6th December 2017. The formal consultation was launched on Monday 11th December 2017.

Scope and Methodology – The formal consultation on the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) ran from 11th December 2017 to noon on Monday 5th February 2018. There was an online consultation on Citizen Space as well as planned events across the district where residents and visitors could see the details of the SPD and meet and talk with the officers from the council.

A week-long touring exhibition was held between 10 – 15 January 2018 which enabled people to see the latest materials and meet the architects JTP and Council staff in a range of locations including Alresford, Bishops Waltham and Winchester. The exhibition display was also available to view in The Brooks Shopping Centre from 12 December until 8 January 2018.

The draft SPD were also available to be viewed at local libraries in Winchester, New Alresford, Bishop’s Waltham, Waterlooville, Eastleigh, Chandler’s Ford, Fareham and Romsey from 11th December 2017.

You Said

The consultation prompted 210 responses from members of the public, local businesses and statutory stakeholder groups.

All submitted responses are available to view here on the Winchester City Council website.

We Did

We are continuing to review the feedback and incorporate it into the final SPD where relevant. Proposed amendments will be presented at a public IPG meeting on 14 May ahead of a Cabinet meeting to agree to adopt the SPD in June.

We Asked

Purpose of Consultation – Winchester City Council invited residents to view proposals for a tree planting programme for 2017/2018.

Scope and Methodology – A downloadable document was published online on Winchester City Council’s Citizen Space portal where residents were asked to comment by contacting the Tree Team by phone or via email.

The consultation was open to the public from 6th January to 2nd February 2018.

You Said

Winchester City Council should aim to plant more trees within the City/District.

We Did

Comments from the public will be considered during planning for the tree planting programme for next season and we are aiming to increase our planting numbers over the coming years. The planting process has to be carefully planned by our Tree Officers in order to ensure we’re diversifying our tree stock and not planting in inappropriate places.

 

We Asked

Purpose of Engagement – To invite comments on the initial concept designs for the new Sport & Leisure Centre and the Urban Design Framework for Bar End.

Scope and Methodology – Several opportunities were arranged for members of the public to meet the Winchester Sport & Leisure Park project team at River Park Leisure Centre, the Guildhall Winchester and Winchester Sports Stadium. Two further information events were held in venues in the South of the District in Bishops Waltham and Whiteley. An unmanned exhibition at River Park Leisure Centre was also available to view during the whole engagement period. The engagement information and questionnaire were also published online on Winchester City Council’s CitizenSpace portal.

The engagement was open to the public from 8th December 2017 to 21 January 2018.

You Said

Number of Responses Received

100 responses were received.

Part 1: The Urban Design Framework

In relation to the emerging Urban Design Centre, the results are as follows:

 

Yes

No

Don't know

Not Answered

Do you agree with the main features of the Urban Design Framework?

62%

23%

9%

6%

Respondents were asked to rank their first, second and third choice of UDF facilities to be delivered in subsequent phases(s) of the UDF following the completion of the Sport & Leisure Centre. In order of preference, the results are presented below. The rank score presents the comparable degree of support for each element.

 

1st

A new pedestrian link to the South Downs Way

2nd

A new circular walk around the perimeter of the grassed playing pitches across the Garrison Ground and KGV Playing Fields

3rd

A new or refurbished pavilion within the KGV playing fields

4th

A floodlit all terrain pitch

5th

A “wild” (natural) play area or equipment

6th

Improvements to the playground / skateboard park and mini multi-use games area

7th

A trim trail

8th

Spectator seating for the athletics track

9th

A designated area for archery

 

Part 2: Open Ended Comments (Urban Design Framework)

A total of 71 respondents provided additional commentary in relation to the UDF as part of the Open Ended Question. A small number of these specifically dealt with design observations about the Sport & Leisure Centre. These comments have been analysed under the Design Questions below.

A total of 47 "grouped" issues were raised across the 71 responses. The most frequently raised issues included:

1. Walking and Cycling measures (21)

2. Connectivity and Integration across the UDF area and with wider area (8)

3. Parking Provision and Management (8)

4. Pitch provision and distribution (7)

5. Traffic, Junction design and traffic pollution (5)

6. All Terrain Pitch support (4)

7. Public Transport provision (4)

8. Community Pavilion (4)

9. Play Area (4)

In addition to the above, 15 issues were raised more than once, but not more than 3 times and 24 issues were raised just once. Comments included, but were not limited to, the objective of the Council’s Vision, support for spectator seating, energy performance requirements, facilities mix (including Tennis, Netball, Ice Rink, outdoor gym and parkrun), the perceived requirement for a larger sports hall, ecological management, drainage, the arrival experience, residents permits and concerns over organised sporting groups potentially dominating the survey results. In relation to the last issue, the range of activities (sporting and passive recreation in nature) were balanced, with no strong organised lobby of any particular sporting facility.

There were a number of references to community use of the area, pavilions and play areas. These responses continue to demonstrate the importance the community place on ongoing local engagement to deliver facilities and interventions.

A small number of respondents referred to the continued uncertainty over the depot site. Some had expected to see development proposals presented for review. The absence of development concepts for the Depot caused some to think that the site had been excluded from the UDF. This is not the case: the Depot site remains within the UDF boundary. In response to these, and similar comments, the UDF now presents a greater degree of clarity as to the maximum heights of new buildings anticipated in this location. A "no build zone" has also be included along the northern edge of the site which seeks to ensure appropriate separation distances to properties along Milland Road.

References were also made that Hampshire County Council are encouraged to work with the City Council to deliver a direct east –west connection across the UDF area linking the Garrison Ground with the King George V Playing fields.

Walking and cycling comments tended to refer to safety concerns, greater emphasis on shared routes and crossing points, and avoid a car-centric arrival taking the form of a large car park. The use of adjacent Park and Ride sites to accommodate parking was cited, as was a notable number of respondents who argued that parking was vital for the Sport & Leisure Centre to be successful. Direct public transport connections and more frequent services was also supported.

Part 3: The Sport & Leisure Centre

In relation to the design and layout of the Sport & Leisure Centre, the statistical results are as follows.

Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statements:

 

Yes

No

Not Answered

Overall, do you like the concept designs for the Sport & Leisure Centre?

66%

23%

11%

 

 

 

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Not Answered

I like the fact that the new Sports & Leisure Centre is situated within a “green” and informal parkland setting

74%

11%

12%

3%

I like the simple and unfussy design of the building

54%

30%

13%

3%

I like the fact that the design looks out to connect the sports hall and the stadium which provides a link between the dry sports and those outside

55%

22%

20%

3%

I like the way that the Sports Hall, swimming pool, fitness suite and café look out onto the park and the surrounding landscape

71%

14%

11%

4%

 

Part 4: Open Ended Comments (The Sport & Leisure Centre)

A total of 69 respondents provided additional commentary in relation to the Sport & Leisure Centre as part of the Open Ended Question. A small number of these specifically dealt with UDF issues, and the relationship between the Sport & Leisure Centre and surrounding uses. For the purposes of this exercise, we have retained these comments within the Sport & Leisure Centre analysis.

A total of 28 "grouped" issues were raised across the 69 responses. Issues relating to detailed design comments as to the Sport & Leisure Centre are grouped as one issue.

The most frequently raised issues included:

1. Detailed Design Comments (27 comments covering 18 issues)

2. Facilities Mix and the range of uses proposed within the building (23)

3. General accessibility / connectivity issues (10)

4. Parking and Management (7)

5. The Sports Hall being considered too small (7)

6. Cycling and Walking facilities (7)

7. Green Energy / Environmental Performance / Carbon Footprint (6)

8. The general appearance of the building (no detailed design comment) (5)

9. Public Transport (5)

10. Relationship between the Sport & Leisure Centre and the Stadium (4)

11. The efficiency of the internal layout (4)

12. Landscape design and impact (3)

13. General support (3)

In addition to the comments raised above, 2 issues were raised twice and 9 issues were raised just once. Comments included, but not limited to, concerns over the future population and use projection of the Centre, the relationship with the wider Vision for the area, the landscape impact of the building, air quality, playing pitch provision, the ability for local schools to access and use the facilities, hours of operation and light pollution.

Detailed Design Comments

The 18 detailed design comments provided in the open ended responses included:

  •  The location and role of internal divisions between uses (4)
  •  Glazing (3)
  •  Café size and/or position (3)
  •  The absence of a shared Office for local Community Groups (2)
  •  Crèche (2)
  •  The design of the western elevation
  •  Inclusive design principles
  •  Roof Profile
  •  Roof cross beams
  •  Storage
  •  Office / First Aid location
  •  Changing provision
  •  Kitchen size and location
  •  The need for a second lift
  •  Retractable seating
  •  Sports Hall Spectator facilities
  •  Drinking fountains
  •      Toilet provision

The most frequent general issues of concern to respondents in relation to the Sport & Leisure Centre covers transport, access and movement: the ability to secure a safe means of access and egress, with a desire for stronger support for sustainable travel modes. The wider environmental performance of the building is highlighted as a particular issues, with comments supporting more evidence as to the carbon footprint of the building and the encouragement for renewable energy sources.

Isolated comments of note included whether the future of the RPLC could include facilities not being provided at the WSLC, project budget, financial modelling of options, the ability of a local school to gain access to the site from the proposed (restricted) Milland Road entrance and a concern over the failure to integrate a spectator seating stand with the main Sports Hall.

Part 5: Statistical Conclusions

There remains a notable degree of support for the way in which the general layout enables views over the wider landscape setting. A large gap exists between the general approval and disapproval rating in favour of the emerging design. The importance of the Parkland setting continues to resonate with the public.

Part 5: General conclusions

The open ended responses included a vast array of issues, from general observations as to the relationship between the Sport & Leisure Centre, the UDF and the wider area, to detailed comments relating to internal roof beams and the maintenance of soap dispensers in the showers.

The most frequently cited responses in relation to the both the UDF and the Sport & Leisure Centre tended to not relate to the design of the building, but the accessibility profile of the site – the ability to arrive, move through and depart in a safe manner where cyclists, pedestrians and car users will be sharing spaces. The ease of visiting RPLC was noted by a number of respondents in general terms.

The integrated Planning Design and Access Statement will therefore focus on presenting clear access and movement strategy diagrams, supplemented by detailed hard and soft landscaping plans. Strategies will include reference to public transport provision and service frequency, residential permit scheme revisions and internal pathways through the application site. These are intended to connect to longer term provision over KGV and to the South Downs Way.

The relationship between the Sport & Leisure Centre and the Stadium was referred across both elements of the survey, as was the relationship between the Sport & Leisure Centre and the Depot site, where uncertainty over development proposals remained for some residents. The environmental performance of the Sport & Leisure Centre and Park facilities (and greater clarity) are issues close to respondent hearts.

Detailed design responses suggest that there are many issues and objectives which respondents are looking towards the Sport & Leisure Centre to address. While respondents were generally positive towards the design and design objectives of the Sport & Leisure Centre, the areas of greatest support from respondents appear to be the relationship between the Sport & Leisure Centre building and the landscaped setting in which the building will sit. As demonstrated through the three rounds of public engagement, the phase 3 respondents place importance on the landscape qualities of the Sport & Leisure Park and that this should inform the sympathetic design of the Sport & Leisure Centre Building.

We Did

Working with architects, the Council have now developed an overall vision for the Sport and Leisure Park at Bar End, along with concept designs for the new Leisure Centre.  The designs are now being further developed and we are aiming to start the planning permission process later this year.

A process is underway to select a contractor to build the new Leisure Centre and we are starting to consider the procurement process for the operator of the Centre.

The next meeting of the Cabinet (Leisure Centre) Committee will be held on Monday 26 March 2018 at Winchester Guildhall.  The report that will be discussed at that meeting can be viewed here.

The next phase of engagement will be held in conjunction with the submission of a Planning Application later in 2018.

Planning permission will be sought and a formal full business case will be prepared that assesses the crucial issue of funding alongside elements such as land ownership, transport and commissioning building designs.

We Asked

Purpose of Consultation -

A Framework was prepared collaboratively by strategic partners in the Winchester District to offer guidance and support for all organisations across the District for the next five years.

Feedback was requested from organisations involved in the delivery of activities and facilities relating to sport and physical activity.

The consultation was open to the public from 6th December 2017 to 12th January 2018.

You Said

The consultation prompted 18 responses from organisations involved directly in Sport & Physical Activity from the Winchester District.

We Did

Feedback received during the consultation was considered and a revised draft presented to the Sport and Physical Activity Alliance Partners. A final Strategic Framework document has now been published and can be viewed at: http://winchester.gov.uk/sport/winchester-district-spaa

We Asked

Purpose of Consultation - To consult with people who book Council owned sports pitches to get their views on the process of making bookings on behalf of their participants and to learn how best to improve the service.

Scope and Methodology- This consultation was targeted at the 22 most frequent persons / organisations using the booking systems to understand any current issues with booking pitches and to learn if users would welcome and prefer to use an online booking system.

The consultation information and questionnaire were published on Citizen Space. Phone contact was also made with the most frequent users of the pitches.  The consultation was open from 17th November 2017 to 8th December 2017.

You Said

The consultation received 19 responses - 14 online and 5 by phone.

 

Online

Phone

Total

%

Current system works well

8

5

13

68%

Would like online booking

14

5

19

100%

 

We Did

In view of the clear support for an online booking system the Council have engaged with a software supplier and are creating the system ready to go live later in 2018.

We Asked

Purpose of Consultation - To consult with residents and businesses who are parking permit holders to understand what is important to them as a customer of the Parking Service and to learn how best to improve the service.

Scope and Methodology - This consultation was undertaken to understand any current issues with parking permits and to learn what changes users would like to see made to the current permit system.

The consultation information and questionnaire were published on Citizen Space and paper versions were available to customers who visited the parking service in the City Council offices.  The consultation was open from 1st November 2017 to 30th November 2017, and was the 2nd top post on Facebook in November, reaching a total of 2.9k people.

You Said

The consultation prompted 88 responses.  61 online and 27 paper forms completed. The questions and the top three responses were:

What has been your experience so far of the permit/season ticket application process?

Total

%

There is nothing wrong with the current process.

37

42%

The current process is too long/bureaucratic/old fashioned.

19

22%

The current cost is too expensive.

8

9%

 

What would you like to change about the current permit/season ticket application system?

Total

%

I would like an online permit application/renewal system.

40

45%

I would like a more for the money I pay or a reduction in the cost of permits/scratch cards

14

16%

Nothing, the current service is fine.

11

13%

 

We Did

In view of the support for an online permit system the Council are looking to engaged with a software supplier and are in the process of creating a permit application system.

We Asked

Purpose of Consultation – Winchester City Council requested residents’ views and opinions on the proposed installation of a BMX track and youth shelter at Stanmore Recreation Ground.

Scope and Methodology – An offline consultation was run in the primary and secondary schools in Stanmore and letters were sent to the houses adjacent the site as well.  

The consultation information and questionnaire were published online on Winchester City Council’s Citizen Space portal. The consultation was publicised on the Councils website and links to the online survey were tweeted by the Communications team.

The consultation was open to the public from 20th September to 8th October 2017.

You Said

A total of 181 responses were received, details as set out below:

 

Options

Online

Other

Total

% of responses

Shelter 1

5

38

43

23.8%

Shelter 2

6

42

48

26.5%

Shelter 3

0

37

37

20.4%

Shelter 4

3

20

23

12.7%

Shelter 5

10

19

29

16.0%

Not answered

0

1

1

0.6%

Total

24

156

181

100.0%

75% of respondents said that they would like to see the BMX track installed.

66% of respondents said that they would use the BMX track if it was installed.

We Did

Local residents’ have been instrumental in the decision making process for improvement programme for the Stanmore Recreation Ground.

A new shelter has been installed. The final stage of the improvement programme is the installation of a BMX tack. The track has been laid out and the ramps will be installed soon.

For more details please visit the Winchester City Council website.

We Asked

Purpose of Consultation -

Winchester City Council aims to continually improve its annual cycle event, the Winchester Criterium & CycleFest, by increasing cycling participation and improving sustained active travel and road safety across the district.

Feedback was requested to inform us of the areas that worked well and those that did not in both the Criterium race and family focused CycleFest elements of the 2017 event.

The consultation was open to the public from 25th August to 30th September 2017.

You Said

The consultation prompted 59 responses from members of the public including people who have attended previous events as well as some who have never experienced the Winchester Criterium & CycleFest.

We Did

Feedback received during the consultation assisted in the provision of new activities and stalls at the event as well as further ideas of how the event can interact with the community. More information can be found at the event website: www.winchestercriterium.org

 

We Asked

Purpose of Consultation – Winchester City Council’s Landscape and Open Spaces team invited the residents to choose an official name for the open space at Hillier Way.

The 6th Winchester Scouts were asked to suggest names for the site as their new scout hut housed on the land, these were shortlisted for the public vote.

Scope and Methodology - The consultation information and questionnaire were published online on Winchester City Council’s Citizen Space portal.

The consultation was open to the public from 9th September to 22nd September 2017.

You Said

The consultation received 94 responses from Winchester residents.

 

Options

Total

% of responses

Badger’s Patch

28

29.8%

Hillier’s Haven

31

33.0%

Hyde & Creek Woodland Park

16

17.0%

Nun’s Wood

19

20.2%

Total

94

100%

 

We Did

The new area was named Hillier’s Haven, as suggested by local resident and Winchester Cub Scout Tom Duxbury, after he won a third of the public vote to name the site.

For more details please visit the Winchester City Council website.