We Asked, You Said, We Did

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

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.

We Asked

For thoughts and opinions about emerging Urban Design Framework (UDF) and early (concept) ideas for the Sport & Leisure Centre Building.

You Said

A total of 253 people attended the three manned exhibition events at the Guildhall and Sports Stadium between Friday 21st July and Tuesday 25th July.


Phase 2 generated 389 completed questionnaires.

Detailed feedback from the Phase 1 engagement was presented on the exhibition boards and hard copies given to event attendees to read at their leisure. 82% of respondents felt that the feedback summary helpful. Phase 2 generated similar local development impact concerns resulting from the development as was cited in Phase 1.

The questionnaire sought feedback as the degree to which respondents use other sporting facilities. Just under half of the respondents (of which there were 357) visit other sport and leisure centres. Their reasons for using other centres included the range of facilities (64%), the quality of facilities (41%) and ease of access (34%). The three principle activities which respondents undertake at these destinations are swimming (58%), Gym (26%) and sports hall uses (24%).

Without exception, there was an overwhelming positive reaction from respondents to each of the 22 proposed Urban Design Framework suggestions or strategies.

The three UDF components which generated the highest approval rating (by adding the “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” percentages) were:

a. Investigating pedestrian and cycle connections to the existing St Catherine’s Park and Ride site (87%)

b. Encouragement for the existing Park and Ride Bus Service to serve the Sport & Leisure Park (87%)

c. Amendments to the local road network resulting in safe pedestrian and cycle connections between the site and the National Cycle Route 23 to the west (85%).

The strategy which generated the highest “Strongly Agree” response was the encouragement to utilise the existing Park and Ride and Bus Service 4 to serve the Sport & Leisure Park (50%). This is a WCC / Public Transport operator management issue, though would need to be accommodated by means new bus stopping points either within or adjacent to the site. This could require collaborative working with the County Council as Highways Authority.

The three UDF components which generated the highest disapproval rating (by adding the “Strongly disagree” and “disagree” percentages) were:

a. The Garrison Ground being the most suitable location for the proposed Sport & Leisure Centre (23%).

(By way of comparison, this generated an approval rating of 61%).

b. The WSLP forming an appropriate gateway to the South Downs Way (15%).

(By way of comparison, this also generated an approval rating of 61%).

c. An outdoor gym / activity area being an asset (11%).

(By way of comparison, this generated an approval rating of 70%).

Note: two other components also generated a similar reaction: the main entrance into the site being from Bar End (9%), and the northern access from Milland Road being restricted to emergency and maintenance vehicles only (9%).

The majority of UDF components generated a disapproval rating of between just 3% and 8%.

Open ended responses

The use of open ended questions under each of the main topics in the questionnaire generated the following comments:

The Sports & Leisure Park (195)

Issues raised included: the importance of balancing the needs of the community with the perception that the Park could become a Sporting Centre of excellence (for elite athletes/swimmers); support for the retention of the King George V Playing fields as grassed pitches and a pavilion to serve their use; the importance of making a natural, direct, footpath connection between the two halves of the Park (over land currently controlled by HCC) and support for an external natural trim trail around the periphery of the site (linked to a strengthening of the landscape boundary).
 

Access and Movement strategy (122)

Issues raised included: Parking demand and adequate provision within the Park, relationship to (and capacity of) the nearby Park and Ride Sites, support for pedestrian and cycling facilities and safer connecting routes into the Park, residents parking permit scheme revisions in the adjacent areas. Concerns were raised by some over the relative accessibility of the Park at Bar End over the existing River Park Leisure Centre.
 

The relationship between the Sport & Leisure Park and the South Downs National Park (80)

Issues raised included: Opinion was divided as to the relevance of connecting the Park with the South Downs Way. Many considered that those accessing the South Downs National Park (SNDP) would not wish to participate in Leisure Centre activities as part of a dual trip: others suggesting that if the connection was encouraged, South Downs Way walkers would use the on-site Leisure Centre parking spaces to the detriment of users. This appeared to be a marginal issue for many.

The relationship between the Sport and Leisure Park and adjacent uses (78)

Issues raised included: A concern was raised by some that the absence of a formal proposal for the Depot Site results in an inability to fully understand the “end state” impact of the urban design framework. The absence of technical assessments to demonstrate how the development will impact upon residents was cited as a concern by those who are live immediately adjacent or close to the site. As with Phase 1, a well organised but small interest group supported the idea of an Ice Rink on the adjacent Depot Site.

Environmental and Landscape (76)

Issues raised included: The natural qualities of the area remain important to many respondents, with numerous references supporting the retention of, or creation of new, “unkempt areas” as a way of increasing biodiversity gains. Many respondents supported the initiative to provide for peripheral routes for running / training / walking, though support was not as strong for the creation of an “outdoor gym

We Did

In response to feedback from the public engagement sessions in June and July 2017 the vision for the Sport & Leisure Park has evolved and a concept design for the Sport & Leisure Centre and the Urban Design Framework for Bar End has been developed.

A third Phase of engagement ran between Friday 8 December 2017 – Sunday 21 January 2018  which offered an opportunity for the public to comment on these initial concept designs.  The designs are still available to view on the Council’s website http://www.winchester.gov.uk/projects/consultation.

We Asked

How Winchester City Council should distribute the government grant for the discretionary business rates relief scheme to support businesses affected by the revaluation of rateable values.


The consultation information and questionnaire were published on Citizen Space between 30 June – 17 July 2017.


In order to inform businesses about the consultation we notified the Winchester BID, Chamber of Commerce, Hampshire County Council, Police & Crime Commissioner and Hampshire Fire & Rescue Authority. We also issued a press release on the Council’s website via the homepage and the Business Rates web pages.
 

You Said

We received 26 responses, of which:

  • 92% agreed that the property should be in the 2017 valuation list as at 1st April 2017
     
  • 85% agreed that the Council should restrict relief to those hereditaments where the increase in rates is greater than £500
     
  • 92% agreed all hereditaments must be occupied
     
  • We asked if the relief should be limited to hereditaments with a rateable value below a certain level as the higher the cap the smaller the share of relief per business:
    • 81% said the rate should be capped at £200,000
    • 4% said it should be capped at £300,000
    • 4% said it should be capped at £400,000
    • 11% said that there should be on cap at all
       
  • 81% agreed that national businesses with multiple hereditaments in the Winchester District should be excluded from the scheme
     
  • The breakdown for the preferred way for the Council to spread the relief available over the four year transition period, if the government were to allow it, is as follows:
    • 65% wanted to spread the total relief evenly over four years
    • 27% wanted to front load the relief so that a larger percentage of the total is paid early, and decreases each year
    • 8% wanted to back load the relief so that a larger percentage of the total is paid later, and increases each year
       
  • 77% agreed that, in order to ensure that everyone receives an equitable proportion of relief, the same percentage of the increase in business rates (in cash terms) is awarded to all ‘qualifying hereditaments’.

We Did

Except for the criteria detailed about the 'preferred way for the Council to spread the relief', the Council designed the scheme that followed the majority response in all cases. In respect of the above mention point, the government did not allow Councils’ in the end to spread the relief that was allocated to them via a grant. If the relief was not awarded in the year that the government allocated the grant the Council would be required to fund any overpayment of the relief.

We Asked

We asked our tenants who had been allocated a home in our new council house developments in New Queen's gate, Stanmore to complete our survey, which would provide feedback on the internal and external features of their homes as well as questions about their neighbourhood and level of service WCC provided as their landlord.

You Said

Of the 21 households that were sent a questionnaire, 17 returned a completed questionnaire, giving a response rate of 81%.

The Key messages that have emerged from the consultation are:

  • Overall satisfaction with the quality of their home scored very highly with 94% of the respondents stating they were either ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Very satisfied’ with the quality of their home.
  •  Internal features were generally well received, with only one or two people reporting levels of dissatisfaction.  The issue of greatest concern was clothes drying space but it was not sufficient to warrant further investigation at this time.
  • The external areas caused more concern so this will be factored into the design process for future schemes.The biggest area of concern was ‘Maintenance of outside areas (33% satisfaction), with front gardens (42%) also scoring lower than most.
  • The majority of respondents were happy with Winchester City Council as a landlord. They were less happy with the follow up visit they received and there was one tenant who was unhappy with many aspects of their home, so this will be taken up individually with that person.
  • Overall 16 out of the 17 respondents were either ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Very satisfied’ with their neighbourhood as a place to live.

The results will be aggregated with similar feedback from other new schemes to help identify any recurring themes to further inform our future programme of work. 

We Did

Actions undertaken

  • The design process for future schemes should give greater weight to the extent, quality and maintenance of outside areas. Specific elements are being added to the Employer’s Requirements (ERs) and/or design process as appropriate.
  • The design process for future schemes will involve other Housing teams at the earliest possible stage to ensure a fully joined-up approach from the outset. Design meetings have been established to formalise the agreement and sign-off of schemes by relevant teams and will form part of the highlight reporting.

  • Officers from Housing Management contacted the dissatisfied tenant and discovered there were wider issues to be resolved. The tenant never actually wanted to live in Winchester and has since relocated to another area.

  • The new Housing Project Managers – New Homes and Neighbourhoods are reviewing the effectiveness of the whole regime of follow-up visits.

  • Officers from the New Homes Team contacted the tenant about the issue with soil which wasn’t adequately addressed. The tenant has resolved the issue through their own actions since the survey and is now happy with their garden.

We Asked

Your preferred methods of engagement and communication in relation to planning policy issues and for planning applications.

You Said

A total of 159 responses were received (157 on line and 2 by paper).

When asked how you would like to be informed of new planning policies, new planning applications and how to be made aware of decisions on applications, the majority of people expressed a preference for being notified by email.

In responses to the questions on how best to participate in planning policy issues and how developers should consult with communities regarding their proposals, a variety of responses were received.

Further analysis of this survey is being undertaken which will provide more detail on the range of answers to each question.  The written comments provided in response to a number of the questions are also being collated and considered/assessed

We Did

The results of this survey are helping to inform the current update of the SCI.  Public consultation will be undertaken on the refreshed SCI when the draft is published later this year.  Further  information from the survey will be included as part of this process.

We Asked

If you supported the council's proposals for the following 5 outcomes.

  1. Delivering Quality Housing Options
  2. Winchester will be a premier business location
  3. Delivering an Entrepreneurial approach to efficient public services
  4. Improving the health and happiness of our community
  5. Improving the quality of the district’s environment

You Said

For each of the 5 outcomes there was positive support for the Council policy.

 

Yes

No

No Answer

Housing

76%

15%

9%

Business

69%

20%

12%

Public Services

65%

24%

10%

Community

82%

9%

8%

Environment

81%

14%

5%

 

We Did

There were over 1,200 comments from the 404 respondents and we are now analysing this information in more detail. A full report will be presented to the Council Cabinet and made available to the public.

We Asked

We asked for your comments and views on the initial proposals for The Valley, Stanmore. 

You Said

Thank you for your feedback. You can view the consultation responses on the related documents section of this page and on our website here

We Did

After the first consultation we incorporated feedback where possible and presented detailed drawings to the public on 01 November 2016. 

The planning application has now been made. To view and comment, please click here

We Asked

An online survey via citizen space was created with a deadline March 21, and ‘calling’ cards were printed and handed out to those attending the exhibition with details of the website and how to respond, together with the dedicated email address for follow up/specific queries creativecentre@winchester.gov.uk

Provision was made during the exhibition for those visiting to complete the online survey, or to complete a paper version. In addition, a record of those artists interested in occupying workspace in the Old Goods Shed was compiled.

You Said

http://www.winchester.gov.uk/planning/major-sites/creative-enterprise-centre/

Please find attached the web link for the Creative Enterprise internet site, at the bottom of the site you can download the consultation report. The report summarises the consultation undertaken to inform the submission of a planning application for the various components of the Creative Enterprise Centre. 

This includes the summary of comments from the Citizen Space survey and the responses to the comments from Winchester City Council.

We Did

http://www.winchester.gov.uk/planning/major-sites/creative-enterprise-centre/

Please find attached the web link for the Creative Enterprise internet site, at the bottom of the site you can download the consultation report. The report summarises the consultation undertaken to inform the submission of a planning application for the various components of the Creative Enterprise Centre. 

This includes the summary of comments from the Citizen Space survey and the responses to the comments from Winchester City Council.

We Asked

We asked our tenants who had been allocated a home in our new council house developments in Itchen Abbas & Otterbourne to complete our survey, which would provide feedback on the internal and external features of their homes as well as questions about their neighbourhood and level of service WCC provided as their landlord.

You Said

Of the 8 households that were sent a questionnaire, 6 returned a completed questionnaire, giving a response rate of 75%.

The Key messages that have emerged from the consultation are:

  • 5 out of 6 households (83.33%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall quality of their home and all 6 (100%) with their neighbourhood as a place to live.
  • The internal design and features that households had the least satisfaction with was:
    • Storage (3xNeither Satisfied or Dissatisfied + 1xDissatisfied)
    • Doors & Windows (1xNeither Satisfied or Dissatisfied + 2xDissatisfied
    • Ventilation (1xVery Dissatisfied)
  • The external design and features that households had the least satisfaction with was:
    • Parking (2xVery dissatisfied)
    • Maintenance of outside areas (2xNeither Satisfied or Dissatisfied + 1xDissatisfied)
    • Provision of Bin Store/Recycling (1xNeither Satisfied or Dissatisfied + 1xDissatisfied)
  • 83% of the households had been allocated a property in their preferred area of choice

For more detailed results please visit the results section on the website

We Did

Allocation of parking spaces for subsequent developments have been considered carefully and more discussion with the ‘Allocations Team’ has taken place to avoid similar occurrences from happening in the future.

The New Homes Team will also implement a ‘Design Review Panel’ at key stages of the design process that can consider the practical implications of design decisions or choices being made.

We Asked

We asked:

Existing users of the current leisure centre were sent a link to an online survey asking for their views about the option of moving the leisure centre to Bar End. This asked users the following questions:

  1. Is there anything else that you think would need to be improved?
  2. Is there anything else that you think might be of concern?
  3. What would encourage more use of leisure centre facilities?
  4. What facilities would you like to see in a new leisure centre?

You Said

You Said:

722 responses were received in total.

Question 1: Improvements (318 responses)

  • Improvements to Car Parking – ensuring there is sufficient parking available and that this is free or reasonably priced for leisure centre users.
  • The current bus service to the leisure centre would be inadequate, the frequency and accessibility should be improved, including more buses in the early mornings and later in the evenings.
  • There were comments suggesting that moving the leisure centre to Bar End could make traffic congestion worse, however a small number felt this could ease congestion in the city centre.
  • There were comments asking for improved walking and cycling routes, cycle storage, improved crossings and street lighting round the proposed new centre.

Question 2: Concerns (224 comments)

  • Respondents noted concern with the accessibility of the proposed site, suggesting it would no longer be accessible to those living near River Park and that users would no longer be able to walk to the city centre from the leisure centre. Some respondents noted concern around the impact of traffic driving through the city centre to reach Bar End, whilst others thought access would be improved by the close proximity to the motorway junction.
  • There were comments relating to road safety around the site, both for vehicles and pedestrians. The site was perceived as more remote, and there was concern for personal safety, especially in darker mornings/evenings.
  • There was strong opposition for using the current leisure centre site for housing development, and support for retaining leisure/recreational use.

Question 3: Encouraging use (546 comments)

Suggestions for encouraging greater use of the leisure centre are listed below in order of popularity:

  • Pool (131)
  • Free/More parking (113)
  • Retain River Park location (86)
  • Improved changing rooms (72)
  • More classes (44)
  • Café/Bar/Lounge (42)
  • Pricing (30)
  • Larger gym (27)
  • Cleaning (26)
  • Public Transport (23)
  • Access (22)
  • Staff (20)
  • Walking/cycle (15)
  • Crèche/soft play (15)
  • Improve website (15)

Question 4: Facilities (342 comments)

Suggestions for facilities in order of popularity:

  • Pool 50m (55)
  • Climbing wall (44)
  • Pool Other (33)
  • Steam/Spa (30)
  • Gym facilities (29)
  • Pool diving (19)
  • Crèche (17)
  • Spin / Pilates (15)
  • Indoor Athletics (14)
  • Outdoor running (13)
  • Restaurant / café (12)
  • Parking (11)
  • Improved changing rooms(10)
  • Tennis courts (10)

We Did

This consultation is part of an ongoing process to agree the future for our leisure facilities, and we wanted to understand the view of leisure centre users at an early stage of the development of this preferred option.

The concept designs being worked on now will be made available later this year. The City Council’s Cabinet will be provided with an update in March and in November the full council will be asked to make a decision on the preferred option of a new leisure centre at Bar End or the fall back option of refurbishing the existing leisure centre.

 

 

 

 

 

We Asked

We asked communities around Bar End, including Highcliffe and St Giles Hill for your views on issues of concern and opportunities for the local community if a new leisure centre was to be built at Bar End.

You Said

85 responses were received online or in hard copy.

The facilities that ranked highest in terms of ‘facilities that would best serve the local community’ were: (in order of priority)

  • Café
  • Improved children’s play area located near to the residential area
  • Function rooms for hire and a small shop

There was support for improved outdoor activity facilities such as an outdoor gym and trim trail. The responses indicated a high proportion of the local community use the existing leisure centre and would use a pool and gym on a weekly basis.

The improvements required if a new leisure centre were built that ranked highest were:

  • Improved pedestrian access
  • Including a crossing on Bar End Road
  • Cycle routes and access by public transport

Other suggestions raised were improved connectivity with local footpaths and improved access routes to the playing fields.

The issues of concern that ranked highest were:

  • Increased traffic
  • Impact of surface water flooding on the lower playing fields and on Chilcomb Lane

There was also concern about the impact on landscape views, light pollution and noise.

We Did

 This consultation is part of an ongoing process to agree the future for our leisure facilities, and we wanted to understand the view of local people living and working in the Bar End area to bring forward ideas and deal with potential issues at an early stage of the development of this preferred option. A summary of the survey responses, comments from consultation events and responses from potential partners has been discussed by our project team and provided to the architects to inform concept designs. 

In response to key concerns raised in relation to providing enough parking on site and traffic impact on the local road network a full transport assessment (TA) has been commissioned. This is a piece of work that would normally be done at the planning application stage of the process, however doing it at this early stage  will ensure that the Council’s decision making can take into account these sorts of issues and possible solutions.

The concept designs being worked on now will be made available later this year. The City Council’s Cabinet will be provided with an update in March and in November the full council will be asked to make a decision on the preferred option of a new leisure centre at Bar End or the fall back option of refurbishing the existing leisure centre.

 

 

We Asked

We asked businesses around Bar End for your views on issues of concern and opportunities, if a new leisure center was to be built at Bar End.

You Said

4 responses were received online. 

The facilities that ranked high in terms of ‘best serving the local community’ were function rooms for hire and a café.

The highest ranking improvement was pedestrian access and secondly cycle routes.

The issues of concern that ranked high were parking and traffic.

We Did

This consultation is part of an ongoing process to agree the future for our leisure facilities, and we wanted to understand the view of local people living and working in the Bar End area to bring forward ideas and deal with potential issues at an early stage of the development of this preferred option. A summary of the survey responses, comments from consultation events and responses from potential partners has been discussed by our project team and provided to the architects to inform concept designs. 

In response to key concerns raised in relation to providing enough parking on site and traffic impact on the local road network a full transport assessment (TA) has been commissioned. This is a piece of work that would normally be done at the planning application stage of the process, however doing it at this early stage  will ensure that the Council’s decision making can take into account these sorts of issues and possible solutions.

The concept designs being worked on now will be made available later this year. The City Council’s Cabinet will be provided with an update in March and in November the full council will be asked to make a decision on the preferred option of a new leisure centre at Bar End or the fall back option of refurbishing the existing leisure centre.

We Asked

For information about what made an area good to live in and what needed improving in your area.

You Said

Issues that ranked high as both what 'made an area good live in' and also 'needed improvement' were "The levels of traffic congestion", "the provision of affordable housing" and "the provision of public transport".

We Did

The Council constantly reviews its services and will use these results to help determine its priorities. Where we are not directly responsible for a particular service we will use these results to lobby for improvements.