Meadow’s Survey Analysis Report - March 2009 Background and Objectives This report presents the findings of a Consultation on the Meadow’s Neighbourhood Plan conducted by Nottingham City Council (NCC). The principle objective of the survey is to provide the authority with robust data, which accurately represents the views of the citizens on Regeneration. Sampling and Fieldwork NCC interviewed a total of 390 people aged over 16 years across the Meadow’s Neighbourhood Plan Area. Fieldwork was conducted, face-to-face and in-home and at particular locations across the Meadows Area, between 26th February and 31st March 2009. The number of survey respondents (sample) gives us a confidence interval of ± 5% applicable to all results from the whole survey. Any further breakdowns of the respondents (i.e. by age) will increase the confidence interval. Due to the same sample size, and associated confidence limits, has not been possible throughout this survey to identify significant differences between sub groups of respondents. Respondents There were 390 respondents; 95% lived within the Meadows: 26% lived in Old Meadows 74% lived in New Meadows (figure 1) Generally the survey seemed to have a broad age distribution of respondents but did lean towards the older population. The Meadow’s Mosaic1 profile (figure 2 and 3) shows 6% of the population fell into the Older people living in social housing with high care needs Group, whereas 20% of the survey respondents were from this group. Alternatively only 14% of survey respondents were from the Educated, young, single people living in areas of transient populations but 24% of the Meadow’s Population are from this group.
1
Mosaic is a geodemographic dataset produced by Nottingham-based Experian describing the UK population in terms of their typical demographics and their social, economic, cultural and lifestyle behaviour. Mosaic was developed from over 400 data items at varying levels of geography, from area based data through to information about each individual. The population is classified into 61 ‘Types’ that identify groups of individuals or households that are as similar as possible to each other and as different as possible from any other group. These ‘Types’ group together hierarchically into 11 ‘Groups’.
nottingham
Meadow’s Survey Analysis Report Age breakdown of respondents
Age Group Under 16 16-17 18-24 25-44 45-59 60-64 65-74 75+ Not disclosed Total
Total 32 20 25 106 48 19 41 50 49 390
% 8 5 6 27 12 5 11 13 13 100
Approximately a third of respondents were Nottingham City Homes (NCH) tenants, a third were not NCH tenants and a third declined to answer that question. Respondents were mainly residents. Headline Results The majority of people (85%) support the overall vision for the Meadows and only 2% actually disagree with the vision. Improvements within the Meadows seem generally welcome and people do not seem apposed to change, but invite the opportunity for new investment in their neighbourhood
nottingham
Meadow's Neighbourhood Plan Consultation
Key
Survey Respondants 1-2
Old Meadows Meadows Neighbourhood Plan Area
3-4 5-7 8-9 10 - 13 Scale: 1:10,000 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Š Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 100019317. 2009 Map Produced on: 16/04/2009 by: GIS Team. s:\projects\0164\surveyresults.mxd\respondantspread.pdf
Mosaic Public Sector Group Profile Your area or file: Comparison area or file:
Target Meadows Survey RespondantsDate: Base Meadows Neighbourhood Plan PClient: Your contact:
23/04/2009 Client Name Account Manager Name
Mosaic Public Sector classifies all citizens in the United Kingdom by allocating them to one of 61 Types and 11 Groups. The Groups and Types in these profiles paint a rich picture of UK citizens in terms of their socio-economic and socio-cultural behaviour. Mosaic Public Sector Groups
Your area/file
%
Comp.
%
Pen. %
Index 0
Career professionals living in sought after A locations
1
0.26
0
0.00
0.00
0
B Younger families living in newer homes
0
0.00
4
0.05
0.00
0
C Older families living in suburbia
4
1.04
0
0.00
0.00
0
59
15.28
1,357
17.24
4.35
89
E
Educated, young, single people living in areas of transient populations
54
13.99
1,878
23.86
2.88
59
F
People living in social housing with uncertain employment in deprived areas
172
44.56
3,642
46.27
4.72
96
G
Low income families living in estate based social housing
18
4.66
520
6.61
3.46
71
H
Upwardly mobile families living in homes bought from social landlords
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0
I
Older people living in social housing with high care needs
77
19.95
471
5.98
16.35
333
1
0.26
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
386
100
7,872
100
4.90
100
People living in rural areas far from urbanisation
Total
150
200
250
0
Close-knit, inner city and manufacturing town communities
K
100
0
D
Independent older people with relatively J active lifestyles
50
0
89
59
96
71
0
Your Area/File vs Comparison Area/File By Mosaic Public Sector Groups
Percentage
50 40 30 20 10 0
Your area/file Comparison Area/File
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Mosaic Group
Ranked Mosaic Groups
Your area/file
%
Comp.
%
Pen. %
Index
77 172 59 18 54 1 0 4 0 1 0
19.95 44.56 15.28 4.66 13.99 0.26 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.26 0.00
471 3,642 1,357 520 1,878 0 4 0 0 0 0
5.98 46.27 17.24 6.61 23.86 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
16.35 4.72 4.35 3.46 2.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
333 96 89 71 59 0 0 0 0 0 0
386
100
7,872
100
4.90
100
0
Group I Group F Group D Group G Group E Group A Group B Group C Group H Group J Group K Total
50
100
150
200
250
96 89 71 59 0 0 0 0 0 0
sector list:9626
Tel: 0115 968 5027
Email: public.sector@uk.experian.com Or visit: www.business-strategies.co.uk/publicsector
nottingham
Title: Meadows Neighbourhood Plan Mosaic Groups at Household Level Key
A Symbols of Success
F Welfare Borderline
City Boundary
B Happy Families
G Municipal Dependency
Meadows Area
C Suburban Comfort
H Blue Collar Enterprise
D Ties of Community
I Twilight Subsistence
E Urban Intelligence
J Grey Perspectives
Scale: 1:10,000
K Rural Isolation
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Š Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 100019317. 2009. Map Produced on: 23/04/09 Map Produced by: mj gis Team. s\communitysafety\projects\0164MeadowsRegenerationSurvey\MosaicHHgroups
Meadow’s Survey Analysis Report Breaking Down the Barriers Nine in ten respondents agreed that New Meadows should be re-designed to change the current Radburn layout. This response did not vary significantly regardless of age, whether residents currently lived in Old or New Meadows or whether they were Nottingham City Homes (NCH) tenants or not. Respondents also tend to agree that it would be beneficial to open up Arkwright Walk to local and bus traffic. This opinion varies slightly between New and Old Meadows respondents (figure 4) but this was not a significant difference due to small sample size. To really identify if there are differences in opinion between those living in Old and New Meadows a greater number of people would need to be surveyed.
New Meadows Old Meadows Not Meadows TOTAL
Total
Agree
Disagree
Neither
275
73%
21%
6%
96
67%
29%
4%
19
79%
16%
5%
390
89%
6%
5%
Figure 4
% Agree/Strongly Agree
89%
% Disagree / Strongly Disagree
6%
72%
85%
Q1A: Do you agree that re-designing parts of the New Meadows so that it is no longer in a Radburn Layout would be beneficial?
23%
11%
Q1B: Do you think that opening up Arkwright Walk to local and bus traffic would be beneficial?
Q1C: Do you think that making better links in and out of the Meadows (for both cars, pedestrians and cyclists) would be beneficial?
nottingham
Meadow’s Survey Analysis Report
Building on Sense of Place The majority of people felt they would like to have new facilities in the form of new district centres, community centres, leisure centres etc. However when asked if they would like the Bridgeway Centre relocated respondents were not so sure. A large number (35%) did not agree or were not sure about with it being moved. This may require further consultation with residents or an awareness campaign to ensure residents are consulted in a new location. There was no significance differences in opinion in different ages bands, i.e. the older population (who were perceived to potentially be against the movement of the Bridgeway Centre were not significantly different to that of others). However a larger number of respondents may help to analyse differences of opinion across age ranges. % Agree/Strongly Agree
% Disagree / Strongly Disagree
65%
26%
Q2A: Do you agree that relocating the current Bridgeway Centre would be a good idea?
7%
Q2B: Do you think you would use a new District Centre where lots of services are in the same place?
90%
7%
Q2C: Do you agree with the idea of creating a ‘leisure hub’ in the Embankment area, including for example playgrounds, waterparks, a new leisure centre etc?
84%
9%
89%
Q2D: Should we explore the possibility of a new modern community centre to replace existing facilities?
nottingham
Meadow’s Survey Analysis Report
Create a Great Housing Choice Generally respondents seemed to agree with replacing some of the current housing and amending current provision. However this did not correspond with the results of Question 3C (Would you like the current New Meadows to be left as it is?). One in five people wanted the New Meadows to be left as it is. This seems in contrast to responses of other questions and the validity of this question is bought into question. It is the only question which is asked in a way that a positive response is equivalent to no change and this may have confused some people. % Agree/Strongly Agree
% Disagree / Strongly Disagree
87%
88%
Q3C: Would you like the current New Meadows to be left as it is?
18%
9%
Q3A: Should we replace some of the unpopular flats and maisonettes with new family houses and accommodation for older people?
9%
Q3B: Do you think the idea of turning homes around in parts of the New Meadows to create better and safer routes and car parking is a good one?
75%
nottingham
Meadow’s Survey Analysis Report Creating an ‘Eco-Neighbourhood’ Again responses to questions around creating an eco-neighbourhood are positive. Less people seemed sure about incorporating energy creation methods into their own homes but questions were not asked about reasons for these reservations. It may be the case that cost is a barrier and could be overcome with grants or other incentives, and better information to residents. % Agree/Strongly Agree
88%
89%
91%
83%
% Disagree / Strongly Disagree
7%
5%
4%
10%
Q4A: If public transport, cycle lanes and pathways were improved would you use them more often?
Q4B: Should we aspire to ensuring that all renovation / refurbishment works in the Meadows are to a high eco-standard?
Q4C: Should we aspire to ensuring that new houses / buildings in the Meadows are to a high eco-standard?
Q4D: Would you consider incorporating energy creation measures (e.g. solar panels) within your home / business?
nottingham
Meadow’s Survey Analysis Report A Pro-active Community Improvements within the Meadows seem welcome and people do not seem averse to change and this is again reflected in the questions around building a pro-active community. % Agree/Strongly Agree
% Disagree / Strongly Disagree
93%
3%
94%
2%
Q5A: Would the Meadows benefit from more training / educational opportunities so that people have better access to jobs?
Q5B: Would you support proposals to provide afterschool / youth facilities?
87%
7%
Q5C: Do you think you / your family would benefit from improved health facilities (i.e. medical centres / doctors surgeries)?
91%
5%
Q5D: Would you support the idea of improving and enhancing leisure facilities on the embankment?
nottingham