Consultation Hub

This website will help you to find and participate in consultations that interest you. You can also subscribe to our RSS feed.

To submit general comments on issues not currently being consulted upon, please use one of our comments, compliments and complaints options.

We Asked, You Said, We Did

Here are some of the issues we have consulted on and their outcomes. See all outcomes

We Asked

We consulted on our proposal to apply a three year extension to existing Public Spaces Protection Orders in relation to three elements of dog control in the city from 1 December 2019 - 2022.

  1. Dog fouling
  2. Dogs on leads
  3. Dog exclusion areas.

We asked the public and stakeholders if they were opposed to the proposal and provided an opportunity to leave feedback.

You Said

Summary of consultation responses:

Do you have any objections to this Public Space Protection Order for Dog Control being extended for a further three years? - Objection Fouling

Yes - 8

No - 55

 

Do you have any objections to this Public Space Protection Order for Dog Control being extended for a further three years? - Objection dogs on leads

Yes – 10

No - 53

 

Do you have any objections to this Public Space Protection Order for Dog Control being extended for a further three years? - Objection Dog Exclusion

Yes - 13

No - 50

 

A total of 90.4% of all responses were from public and 9.6% from stakeholders.

We Did

Based on the consultation results and the evidence of need held by Leicester City Council on customer reports and complaints of dog control issues and enforcement action undertaken since the implementation of the PSPO orders for Dog Control on 1 December 2016, we propose to seek approval from the City Mayor to extend the PSPO Orders for a further three years.

We Asked

We consulted on a proposal to end the funding that Adult Social Care (ASC) provides to two supported housing providers and develop a new Community Living Network (CLN) provided by the council’s Enablement Team in its place.

The funding is used to provide support services to 82 people living in 13 non-council supported housing schemes. These services support service users who have a learning difficulty and/or a mental health difficulty, who, in most cases, do not meet the council’s threshold for care and support.

As part of the consultation the council wanted to gauge the support for the proposal to end the funding to the support providers and the impact on service users and stakeholders on developing a new CLN in its place.

You Said

Council officers ensured that the service users had every opportunity to present their views via seven meetings with support workers or an advocate, completing an online survey on their own or with support and welcoming comments from their carers and anyone connected with their support.

The support providers had four meetings with the council and the five Landlords each had an individual meeting, so their views could be gauged.  The meetings were well attended, and we believe that the vast majority of affected service users put forward their views.

We received 72 responses to the survey:

  • 63% were from service users living in the schemes or were completed on their behalf
  • 23% were from the support provider staff
  • 11% were from members of the public

Over half of the respondents were people with disabilities, with 58% identifying as having a mental health difficulty.

86% of respondents disagreed with the proposals. Most people were worried about the detrimental impact that the proposals might have on the service users’ mental health. There was some support for reducing the support hours and looking at other ways of funding the service. A petition was set up on change.org to stop the changes and representations were received from an Elected Member, the local MP and NHS professionals.

Towards the end of the consultation the two support providers offered an alternative proposal to the council. They suggested reducing the number of properties within the schemes and a reduction in the hours of support they provided. They agreed to reduce the communal charges levied on service users in some schemes and to consider the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies for all service users.

We Did

The council met with the support providers and considered their new proposals. It was agreed that they were viable. A decision to implement the alternative model of support proposed by the support providers was agreed by the Assistant City Mayor – Adult Social Care and Wellbeing on 8 March 2019, effective from 1 of April 2019

The council will monitor the efficacy of the new proposals through the contract monitoring process.

We Asked

We asked for your views on the proposed 20mph zone for the Montrose School area.

You Said

We received six responses to the online consultation from outside the consultation area. Three responses were for both the proposed 20mph speed limit and the proposed traffic calming and three responses were both against the proposed 20mph speed limit and the proposed traffic calming.

A paper consultation was also delivered directly to local residents. We had 600 responses to this, representing a 25% response rate. Of these responses, 443 people (74%) were in favour of the 20mph speed limit and 340 (57%) were in favour of the proposed traffic calming.

We Did

As a result of the support for the proposal, the city mayor has approved implementation of the scheme which is scheduled to come into force in late spring 2019.