Neighbourhood Plan Survey Andrew Cameron 1 March 2016 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Cottenham Parish Council

Andrew Cameron

www.enventure.co.uk

Neighbourhood Plan Survey

1 March 2016

Background

• Neighbourhood Plan - vision for Cottenham area
• ver next 15 years
• Put policies in place to help deliver vision and

influence planning permission for development

• Survey to consult with residents about issues,

priorities and ideas, as well likes and dislikes

• Findings to be used to draft initial Plan

Methodology

• Consultation open to all residents of Parish 16+
• Paper survey posted to all addresses in Parish with

pre-paid envelope

• Paper surveys available at various locations
• Online survey - promoted via posters, flyers, social

media and sent to list of contacts

• Programme of meetings with community leaders
• Donation to registered charity of choice

Respondent Profile

973 responses - 68% paper survey, 32% online

Responses came from:

Area No. %age Beach Road area 75 8% Fens & Twenty Pence Road area 30 3% High Street / Conservation area 348 36% Histon Road area 62 6% Oakington Road area 43 4% Rampton Road area 122 13% Tenison Manor 160 17% The Lanes 96 10% Outside of boundary 5 <1% No response to question 32 3%

Fens and Twenty Pence Road areas combined as numbers low

Respondent Profile

• 96% residents, 4% residents and business owners
• 54% female, 40% male, 6% no response; Census 2011

suggests more even split between genders

• 16% in one person household, 36% in two, 44% 3+
• Age:

2% 9% 17% 18% 17% 18% 14% 4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

16-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65-74 years 75+ years Prefer not to say / no reply

Census suggests 16- 24 under-represented Census suggests groups are over-represented Groups most likely to have children under 10

Interpretation of data

• Sample out of population of ~4,800 residents 16+
• Charts and tables show level of no responses for

comparison purposes

• Combined some responses i.e. “Very important” & “Fairly

important to indicate level of importance

• Comments themed for analysis
• Sub-group analysis i.e. differences between age groups,

male / female, area of village etc.

• Statistical testing – if scores are real i.e. still a difference if

everyone had participated

Key Findings – Cottenham today

High satisfaction with life in the village

• 88% very or fairly satisfied; 4% fairly or very dissatisfied
• Satisfaction highest for 25-34 and 35-44 year olds, those

with young families in household; lowest for 16-24 year olds

• People most liked amenities / facilities and sense of

community / friendliness

• People most disliked traffic (incl. HGVs) and speeding cars;

particularly in Histon Road area

“Its a very neighbourly, friendly and pretty village to live in.” Male, 25-34 “We have a large selection of shops and leisure facilities.” Female, 55-64 “The traffic is increasingly busy.” Male, 55-64

Key Findings – Future Cottenham

Description in 15 years “Safe”

• 92% want Cottenham to be

safe in 15 years

• Greatest for those aged 25-

34 & 35-44

• 97% of those with at least 1

child in household 5-10

• Most commonly chosen word

for all areas of village

“Friendly”

• 89% wanted Cottenham to

be friendly in 15 years

• Greatest for those aged 25-

34 & 35-44

• 97% of those with at least 1

child in household 5-10

• Over half also said “attractive”, “accessible”, “rural”, and “proud of

its heritage”

• Less than 5% “suburban” and “town”

Key Findings – Future Cottenham

Concerns about future development

• 84% expect more traffic; 75% pressure on medical facilities;

68% loss of village and character; 62% pressure on parking

• Only 2% had no worries
• Histon Road area respondents worried most about traffic

increase (90%)

• Older age groups worried most about pressure on medical

facilities

• People from households of 3 or more worried more about

traffic than people living alone

Key Findings – Future Cottenham

Benefits of future development

• Most people chose at least one benefit to more development,
• nly 15% said there were no benefits
• 51% said it would safeguard future of post office, particularly

high for older age groups, residents from Beach Road area and The Lanes

• Four in ten thought it would bring better pavements and

footpaths, and better public transport

• 65-74 and 75+ age groups most likely to say better public

transport was a benefit

Key Findings – Future Cottenham

Importance in 15 years’ time

91% 90% 89% 80% 79% 68% 62% 57% 51% 44% 4% 6% 5% 10% 10% 18% 23% 27% 38% 37% 2% 1% 0% 2% 5% 3% 7% 5% 4% 8% 4% 4% 5% 8% 6% 11% 8% 11% 7% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Improving medical services for all ages Preserving the character of our village and conservation area Ensuring noise and pollution levels do not increase Improving movement into, out from and around the village Improving welfare and day care facilities for older and less able residents Improving leisure and recreation facilities Keeping the primary school at its current size, serving its current catchment Improving local employment Improving number / availability of affordable homes (either to purchase

• r rent)

Improving number / availability of pre-school places Important Not important Don't know No reply

Key Findings – Future Cottenham

• Improving medical services most important for 25-34 year
• lds and those with children under 5
• Preserving character of village and Conservation area most

important for the middle age groups; Histon Road and Beach Road areas

• Ensuring noise and pollution levels do not increase more

important for 35-44 year olds and Histon Road area respondents

• Those with young families more likely to say improving

leisure / recreation facilities and improving movement around village important

Key Findings – Future Cottenham

Facilities requiring improvement

• Majority think roads,

pavements and footpaths need improving

• Six in ten think

parking, medical facilities and bus services need improvement

80% 79% 65% 64% 64% 63% 58% 56% 40% 33% 29% 28% 28% 27% 26% 23% 20% 19% 17% 16% 11% 11% 9% 9% 6% 4% 12% 12% 21% 21% 26% 20% 17% 17% 26% 21% 32% 7% 54% 23% 29% 21% 40% 26% 28% 28% 49% 27% 42% 40% 40% 30% 4% 10% 10% 11% 4% 11% 18% 30% 27% 40% 30% 58% 11% 41% 35% 47% 32% 47% 45% 47% 30% 54% 40% 42% 45% 55% 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 7% 8% 7% 7% 9% 7% 8% 9% 10% 10% 9% 9% 10% 9% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Roads Pavements and footpaths Car parking Medical facilities Pedestrian crossings Bus services Cycle paths Public toilets Village hall Sewerage / drainage Security cameras Day centre for older residents Street lights Secondary school Multi-use games area Early years / pre-school facilities Children's playgrounds Floodlit sports facilities Bridleways All weather sports pitch Primary school Rugby pitch and changing rooms Electricity supply Water supply Gas supply Public showers Require improvement Do not require improvement Don't know No reply

Key Findings – Future Cottenham

Single change to improve quality of life

Improving road safety Better public transport Better roads and paths Improving leisure & sport facilities

“Enforced speed limit (20mph) along Histon Road.” Female, 65-74 “Safer roads with less traffic for my children. Female, 35-44 “Reduce traffic, with a bypass….” Male, 65-74 “Eliminate speeding traffic.” Male, 65-74 “More pedestrian crossings.” Male, 16-24

Key Findings – New facilities & funding

What should money / land be identified for?

New medical centre 71% agree Wider range

• f shops

63% agree Swimming pool 63% agree Business centre 57% agree Day centre 57% agree New pre- school facility 39% agree

• More agreement with shops amongst older age groups, swimming pool 25-34 and

females, pre-school facilities amongst respondents with families

• Medical centre priority for all, particularly for 55+

Key Findings – New facilities & funding

Funding improvements to facilities

86% 75% 67% 45% 5% 3% 8% 20% 42% 69% 6% 10% 7% 7% 9% 5% 7% 6% 6% 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Donations and grants Sponsorship Funding from housing developments Higher local taxes (the Parish Council Tax) Do nothing - do not improve facilities Agree Disagree Don't know No reply

A fifth against housing development funding – particularly high for 35- 44 year olds General consensus at least some facilities need improving Tenison Manor & Beach Road areas more likely to agree Most popular amongst 35-44 year olds; biggest difference between agreement & disagreement Support highest for 25-34 & 35-44 year

• lds; lowest for 16-

24 & 75+

Key Findings – Additional housing

30% 20% 19% 15% 14% 13% 13% 7% 3% 1% 38% 39% 29% 33% 34% 35% 35% 27% 14% 3% 13% 19% 24% 14% 29% 18% 23% 30% 59% 76% 18% 22% 27% 39% 24% 34% 29% 37% 24% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Affordable or starter homes (1-2 bedrooms) "Growing family homes" (2-3 bedrooms) Low cost rental housing Care homes places Family housing (3-4 bedrooms) Sheltered housing Bungalows Flats Luxury homes (5+ bedrooms) Pitches for travellers Need a lot more Need a few more Do not need more Don't know / no reply

• Two-thirds think more

affordable or starter homes needed

• Six in ten think more “growing

family homes” needed

• Relatively small numbers

think more luxury homes or traveller pitches needed

Type of houses needed

Key Findings – Additional housing

• Two-thirds agreed with allowing small developments (particularly older age groups)

and two-thirds disagreed with allowing large developments (particularly ages 35-44)

• Over half agreed with allowing single plots - older age groups least likely to

disagree

Nature of developments

69% 53% 26% 21% 29% 66% 10% 17% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Small developments (bring in less money) Single plots (bring in no money) Large developments (bring in more money) Agree Disagree Don't know / no reply

Key Findings – Additional housing

• Six in ten agreed with building small estates of affordable homes on outskirts; six in

ten disagree with allowing large estates

• Large estates - highest level of agreement for Tenison Manor respondents;

disagreement highest for Oakington Road area respondents; difference between agreement and disagreement highest amongst 35-44 age group

• Small estates - High Street / Conservation area most likely to agree; people with no

children in household more likely to agree than those with children

Building affordable houses

60% 28% 31% 60% 9% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Small estates of affordable homes to be built on outskirts

• f village

Allow 200-250 houses to be built in large mixed estates which include 100 affordable homes Agree Disagree Don't know / no reply

Key Findings – Other challenges

Measures to introduce in next 15 years

More speed bumps / cushions 23% Fewer speed bumps / cushions 26% Minimise pollution from diesel engines 32% 20mph zones 46% Prevent buses standing w/ engines running 47% Changes to traffic routes to avoid certain areas 59% Prohibit HGV traffic in High Street 64%

Most important!

Conclusions

• Traffic and speeding a big issue, new development could exacerbate it;

plan needs to take improving road safety into account

• Plan needs to take improving existing facilities into account to cope with

pressure, particularly a new medical centre

• When making improvements to the village, it is necessary to be careful

to respect the heritage and character of the village

• Road, pavement and footpath surfaces in need of repair
• Funding improvements through donations, grants and sponsorship more

popular than through housing development

• Smaller developments on the outskirts more popular than larger

developments and developments within the village

• Bus services need improvement to make it easier for people to get to

and from Cambridge

Questions

Questions?